The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025/05/07 - Regular City Council Meeting Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT “Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.” Page 1 Mayor L. Dennis Michael Mayor Pro Tem Lynne B. Kennedy Members of the City Council: Ryan A. Hutchison Kristine D. Scott Ashley Stickler CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 7, 2025 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCIL HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY- SUCCESSOR AGENCY – PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY CLOSED SESSION REGULAR MEETINGS TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:30 P.M. 7:00 P.M. The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive. It is the intent to conclude the meeting by 10:00 p.m. unless extended by the concurrence of the City Council. Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can be found at https://www.cityofrc.us/your-government/city-council-agendas or by contacting the City Clerk Services Department at 909-774-2023. Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV-3). For City Council Rules of Decorum refer to Resolution No. 2023-086. Any documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after distribution of the agenda packet will be made available in the City Clerk Services Department during normal business hours at City Hall located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. In addition, such documents will be posted on the City’s website at https://www.cityofrc.us/your-government/city-council-agendas. CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M. TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Stickler A.ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) B.PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) C.CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT “Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.” Page 2 D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION D1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ROBERT NEIUBER, SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR, PETER CASTRO, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, JEVIN KAYE, FINANCE DIRECTOR AND EMILY NIELSEN, SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES BUSINESS PARTNER, PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES ASSOCIATION, RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274 AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932. (CITY) D2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER 0229-012-08-0000 COMMONLY KNOWN AS ADDRESS 8434 ROCHESTER AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATING PARTIES MATT MARQUEZ, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND RICHARD LEE, REPRESENTING CBRE GROUP, INC., REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY) D3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER 0227-121-56-0000 COMMONLY KNOWN AS ADDRESS 7089 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; AND PARCEL NUMBER 0227- 121-55-0000 COMMONLY KNOWN AS ADDRESS 7092 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND RICHARD HAMM, REPRESENTING PELICAN COMMUNITIES, REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY) D4. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER 0209-272-27-0000 COMMONLY KNOWN AS ADDRESS 9070 MILLIKEN AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATING PARTIES MATT MARQUEZ, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND CHRIS HYUN, REPRESENTING JRC REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CORP, REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY) E. RECESS CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT “Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.” Page 3 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Stickler A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA B. ANNOUNCEMENTS / PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to the Etiwanda Girls Basketball Team for Winning the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) Championships. B2. Presentation of a Proclamation to the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Designating the Month of May 2025 as Business Appreciation Month. C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits us from addressing any issue not on the Agenda. Testimony may be received and referred to staff or scheduled for a future meeting. Comments are to be limited to three (3) minutes per individual. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, disorderly or boisterous conduct that disturbs, disrupts, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting. For more information, refer to the City Council Rules of Decorum and Order (Resolution No. 2023-086) located in the back of the Council Chambers. The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT “Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.” Page 4 CONSENT CALENDARS: The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion. Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion with the City Council consent calendar. D.CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Consideration to Approve the Minutes of the Regular and Special Meetings of April 16, 2025. D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $2,272,289.17 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $8,448,632.60 Dated April 07, 2025, Through April 28, 2025. (CITY/FIRE) D3. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $27,090.17 Dated April 07, 2025, Through April 28, 2025. (CITY/FIRE) D4. Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of March 31, 2025 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (CITY/FIRE) D5. Consideration to Cancel and Reschedule the September 17, 2025 Regular Meetings of the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority, and City Council to September 16, 2025. (CITY/FIRE) D6. Consideration to Declare Surplus for Retired VHF Mobile Radio That Have Been Deemed No Longer Needed, Obsolete or Unusable as Surplus. (FIRE) D7. Consideration for the Transfer of Title for One (1) 2025 Honda Pioneer 1000 Side-by-Side, Procured from Huntington Beach Honda, to Facilitate the Vehicles' Use by the County of San Bernardino for Police Department Services. (CITY) D8. Consideration of a Contract with Mukai Construction for the Quakes Stadium Bowl Emergency Waterproofing in the Amount of $427,220. (CITY) D9. Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement With Z&K Consultants, Inc. in the Amount of $409,400, Plus 10% Contingency for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Project. (CITY) D10. Consideration of Amendment No. 15 to the Agreement with Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. (CO19-085) in the Amount of $295,000 for High Voltage Electrical Support and Related Infrastructure. (CITY) D11. Consideration of an Approval of Amendment No. 5 to the Agreement with Henkels & McCoy, Inc. (CO19-148) and Amendment No. 16 to the Agreement with Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. (CO19-085) in the Amount of $780,600, Plus a 10% Contingency and an Authorization to Appropriate $858,660 for the Municipal Utility Connector Replacement Project. (CITY) D12. Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Allocating Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Program Funds for Fiscal Year 2025/26. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-012) (CITY) 7 16 41 43 118 119 121 123 125 129 131 133 CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT “Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.” Page 5 D13. Consideration of Resolutions Declaring Portions of City-Owned Properties Located North of Foothill Boulevard Approximately 725 Feet East of Grove Avenue, Exempt Surplus Land and Not Necessary for the City’s Use Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B), Finding that Such Declaration is Exempt from Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Making Related Findings. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-015 AND RESOLUTION NO. 2025-016) (CITY) E.CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) - SECOND READING/ADOPTION E1. Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1038 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 3.80 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR FIRE IMPACTS OF RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.68 TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO QUIMBY ACT IN LIEU FEES, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT E2. Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1039 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.84 TO TITLE 10 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING THE USE OF BICYCLES AND E-CONVEYANCES IN PUBLIC AREAS F.ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) F1. Consideration of Introduction and First Reading by Title Only of Ordinance No. 1040, an Ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Amending Section 5.08.100 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Amend the Limitation on Total Value of Prizes Awarded During the Conduct of Bingo Games. This Action is Not Considered a Project Under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and is Therefore Exempt from Further Environmental Review. (ORDINANCE NO. 1040) (CITY) F2. Consideration of a Resolution to Create a Residential Permit Parking District on Salerno Place, Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10.50. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-013) (CITY) G.ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1. Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2025-014, A Resolution of the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Approving a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study for the Transportation Impact Fee, Adopting a Capital Improvement Program as Part of the Nexus Study, Establishing the Fee Amount, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under CEQA. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-014) (CITY) H.CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) 138 154 165 173 177 186 CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT “Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.” Page 6 I.COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. Consideration to Approve the City Council's Mission, Vision, Values, and 2025 Goals. (CITY) I2. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) I3. INTERAGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J.CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K.IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L.ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California and on the City's website. LINDA A. TROYAN, MMC CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk Services Department at (909) 774-2023. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. 322 *DRAFT* April 16, 2025 | City Council Special Meeting Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 1 of 1 April 16, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES The City Council held a Special Meeting on Wednesday, April 16, 2025 in the Tri-Communities Conference Room, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor L. Dennis Michael called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Present were Council Members Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Ashley Stickler, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Elisa Cox, Assistant City Manager; Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager of Community Development; Neil Plummer, Public Works Services Director; Daniel Akers, Parks & Landscape Superintendent; Jennifer Camacho-Curtis, Community Affairs Officer; Annette Mumolo, Community Affairs Senior Coordinator; Steve Shirrel and Ivan Velazquez, BMLA Consultants; Andrew McGuire, Aquatic Design Group; Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney and Patricia Bravo-Valdez, MMC, Deputy Director of City Clerk Services . Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy led the Pledge of Allegiance. A. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS No public communications were made. B. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION B1. City Council Study Session and Discussion on Park Improvements. (Verbal Report) (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Neil Plummer, Public Services Director and Jennifer Camacho-Curtis, Community Affairs Officer who provided a presentation on the Red Hill Community Park South Beautification Project and shared community engagement results. City Council and staff reviewed project timeline, improvement concept for the park water feature, and potential future phases of improvements dependent on funding for the project. Council consensus to move forward on staff’s proposal for the water feature improvements. C. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Michael adjourned the meeting at 3:57 p.m. Approved: Linda A. Troyan, MMC City Clerk Services Director Page 7 *DRAFT* April 16, 2025 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 1 of 8 April 16, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS MINUTES The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a Closed Session on Wednesday, April 16, 2025, in the Tapia Conference Room at the Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Ashley Stickler, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Elisa Cox, Assistant City Manager; Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager of Community Development/Planning, Julie Sowles, Deputy City Manager of Community Programs and Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager of Administrative Services. A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) No public communications were made. C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION D1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ROBERT NEIUBER, SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR, PETER CASTRO, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JEVIN KAYE, FINANCE DIRECTOR; PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES ASSOCIATION, RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274 AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932. (CITY) E. RECESS The closed session recessed at 5:55 p.m. Page 8 *DRAFT* April 16, 2025 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 2 of 8 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER – COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Regular meetings of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council were held on April 16, 2025, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Ashley Stickler, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; and Patricia Bravo- Valdez, MMC, Deputy Director of City Clerk Services. Council Member Scott led the Pledge of Allegiance. A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA None. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS / PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to Rancho Cucamonga’s 2024 Volunteers and Proclamation Declaring the Week of April 20-26, 2025 as National Volunteer Week. Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council presented Certificates of Recognition to Rancho Cucamonga’s 2024 Volunteers and thanked them for their dedication and commitment to the community. A Proclamation was presented to Ryan Samples, Community Services Supervisor, declaring the Week of April 20-26, 2025 as National Volunteer Week. B2. Presentation of a Proclamation to San Bernardino County Children’s Network Declaring April 2025 as Child Abuse Prevention Month. Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council recognized the month of April 2025 as Child Abuse Prevention Month and presented a Proclamation to Hillary Steenson-Ray from San Bernardino County Children’s Network. B3. Recognition of Rancho Cucamonga Edison Scholar David Kwon from Los Osos High School who was Awarded a $50,000 College Scholarship from Southern California Edison (SCE). Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council recognized Edison Sc holar David Kwon from Los Osos High School who was awarded a $50,000 college scholarship from Southern California Edison (SCE). Page 9 *DRAFT* April 16, 2025 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 3 of 8 C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Ellen Miller, Rancho Cucamonga Christian Center, spoke about the history of National Day of Prayer and invited the community, Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council to attend the upcoming National Day of Prayer event on May 1, 2025 at City Hall. Six (6) speakers: Sharon Ziese, Paula Rode, Ted Danciart, Sandie Dubois, Geri Gilbert and Rick Gordon spoke in opposition to a proposed trash disposal change by Burrtec at Alta Laguna Mobile Home Park. Speakers shared their opposition of Burrtec proposing to assign three (3) individual trash bins per household to replace the current shared large dumpsters designed for multiple households. Topics of concern included: hardship/inconvenience of moving bins to curb for disabled and senior residents, safety/ADA accessibility, narrow carports and streets, limited parking and wildlife accessing bins. David Dykstra, spoke about a recent ‘Hands Off’ anti-Trump protest event. Anne Turner, Executive Director and Dean of Novel Programs at Claremont Lincoln University, thanked City Manager Gillison and congratulated the group of city employees who worked on PathwaysRC as part of the Lincoln Vibrant Communities Team Program. She informed the program is designed for leaders to address public sector challenges, and that the City developed PathwaysRC to create pathways to public service. Lee Kane spoke in support of item H2 and recognized the efforts of the Rancho Cucamonga team in developing PathwaysRC to create pathways to public service. In response to public comment regarding refuse containers, City Manager Gillison thanked the speakers for voicing their concerns and referred speakers to Matt Marquez, Director of Economic Development for further assistance. D. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Scott announced that she will abstain on item D3, due to a potential conflict of interest as her employer is Southern California Gas Company. Staff provided an updated staff report for item D9 of the Consent Calendar and one (1) letter was received by Wesley Wright form Wright Construction Engineering Corporation . Copies of the updated staff report and letter were provided to the City Council and were available for the public to review and on the City’s website. D1. Consideration to Approve the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of April 2, 2025 and Special Meeting of April 8, 2025. D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $2,290,220.99 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $7,300,824.37 Dated March 26, 2025, Through April 6, 2025. (CITY/FIRE) D3. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $37,750.31 Dated March 26, 2025, Through April 6, 2025. (CITY/FIRE) D4. Consideration to Declare Surplus for Vehicle, Retired Computer, Monitors, Laptops, iPhones, and iPads, Deemed No Longer Needed, Obsolete or Unusable as Surplus. (CITY) Page 10 *DRAFT* April 16, 2025 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 4 of 8 D5. Consideration to Schedule a Public Hearing for Placement of Liens and Delinquent Solid Waste Accounts. (CITY) D6. Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. for the Creation of Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Suggested Routes Maps in the Amount of $159,000, Including a 5% Contingency. (CITY) D7. Consideration of an Appropriation from Fund 174 (Gas Tax R&T7360) in the Amount of $360,000, Award of a Professional Services Agreement with Roadway Asset Services in the Amount of $195,190 for Consulting Services for Preparation of a Pavement Management Plan, and Authorization for the City Engineer to Approve the Use of an Additional $164,780 for Optional Services and Contingency as Deemed Necessary. This Project is Exempt From the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Government Code Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. (CITY) D8. Consideration of a Contract with UPSCO for Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) Maintenance Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $20,000 in FY24/25 and $220,000 Over Seven Years. (CITY) D9. Consideration to Award a Contract with CT&T Concrete Paving Inc., in the Amount of $1,655,100, Plus a 15% Contingency for the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Project. Consideration to Accept Award in the Amount of $750,000 from San Bernardino County through the County Board Discretionary Fund Priorities Program, and to Authorize an Appropriation in the Amount of $750,000. This Project is Exempt From the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Government Code Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. (CITY) D10. Consideration of a Contract with American Asphalt South, Inc. in the Amount of $349,400 Plus a 10% Contingency for Construction and Construction Management and Inspection Services, for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Local Slurry Seal Pavement Rehabilitation Project. This Project is Exempt from the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Government Code Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. (CITY) D11. Consideration to Accept All Improvements as Complete, File the Notice of Completion and Authorize Release of Retention for the RCMU Electric Vehicle Charging Station Hub. This Project is Exempt from All Appropriate National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review as Required by the Department of Energy and CEQA Guidelines. (CITY) MOTION: Moved by Council Member Stickler, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, to approve Consent Calendar items D1 through D11, with Council Member/Board Member Scott abstaining on item D3. Motion carried 5-0. E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) - SECOND READING/ADOPTION None. Page 11 *DRAFT* April 16, 2025 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 5 of 8 F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) F1. Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1039, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Adding Chapter 10.84 to Title 10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Regulating the Use of Bicycles and E-Conveyances in Public Areas. (ORDINANCE NO. 1039) (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Erika Lewis-Huntley, Management Analyst III, who gave a staff report along with a PowerPoint presentation for item F1. Management Analyst Lewis-Huntley informed a minor update was applied to Ordinance No. 1039, copies of the amended Ordinance were provided to the City Council at the dais and were made available for the public to review on the City’s website. Mayor Michael opened the Administrative Hearing. Navya Kaka, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance, shared public safety concerns and requested the City expand community outreach and education for e-bikes to promote safe riding practices. Mayor Michael closed the Administrative Hearing. In response to public comment, Council Member Scott thanked the speaker for her advocacy efforts and concerns on the topic. Council Member Scott shared public safety concerns, spoke of recent e-bike accidents involving youth and thanked City staff and the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department for their community outreach efforts and support. Council Member Hutchison shared his concern for lack of training requirements for e -bikes and encouraged all residents riding e-bikes to wear a helmet and respect vehicles. Mayor Michael shared pedestrian safety concerns of e-bikes on trails and commended staff for a well written report and informational presentation. MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to approve staff’s recommendation and introduce the First Reading of Ordinance No. 103 9 as amended by title only, and waive further reading. Patricia Bravo-Valdez, MMC, Deputy Director of City Clerk Services, read the title of Ordinance No. 1039 by title only. ORDINANCE NO. 1039 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.84 TO TITLE 10 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING THE USE OF BICYCLES AND E-CONVEYANCES IN PUBLIC AREAS VOTES NOW CAST ON MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to approve staff’s recommendation and introduce the First Reading of Ordinance No. 103 9 as amended by title only, and waive further reading. Motion carried 5-0. Page 12 *DRAFT* April 16, 2025 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 6 of 8 G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1. Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2025-010, A Resolution of the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Approving the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study for the Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee, Park Impact Fees and Fire Impact Fee , Adopting Capital Improvement Programs as Part of the Nexus Study, Updating and Establishing the Fee Amounts for Such Development Impact Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1038, to Be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, An Ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Adding Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Establishing a Development Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of Residential and Business Development, Amending Chapter 3.68 to Remove References to Quimby Act in Lieu Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption from the CEQA. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-010) (ORDINANCE NO. 1038) (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Zack Neighbors, Director of Building & Safety Services, Jason Welday, Engineering Services Director, and Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager of Community Development/Planning, who gave a staff report along with a PowerPoint presentation for item G1. Director of Building and Safety Neighbors informed staff provided an updated staff report and one (1) letter was received by Robert Meserve from New Bridge Homes. Copies of the updated staff report and correspondence received were provided to the City Council and were available for the public to review and on the City’s website. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing. Gerald Hammer, thanked staff for their work and spoke in favor of staff’s recommendation. Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing pertaining to the Non-Transportation Development Impact Fees and Nexus Study. He noted that the Public Hearing for Transportation Development Impact Fees and Nexus Study was continued to the Regular Meeting of May 7, 2025, at 7:00 p.m., in council chambers. Council Member Scott thanked staff and noted that she appreciates the collaborative work between City staff, the Building Industry Association (BIA) and shareholders to ensure implementation is fair and reasonable. Council Member Hutchison thanked New Bridge Homes, the Building Industry Association (BIA), the Desert Valleys Builders Association (DVBA) and all shareholders for their shared industry knowledge and for their dedicated time and energy in working with City staff. Mayor Michael thanked staff, the Building Industry Association (BIA) and shareholders for their hard work and an effective compromise on Non-Transportation Development Impact Fees. He asked if the new development impact fees and rates go into effect on July 1, 2026. City Attorney Ghirelli, confirmed proceeding forward under the old development impact fee program will be permitted so long as entitlements are received and building permits are pulled prior to July 1, 2026 and affirmed the new development impact fees and rates go into effect on July 1, 2026. MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Stickler, to approve staff’s recommendation, approve Resolution No. 2025-010 as amended and introduce the First Reading of Ordinance No. 1038 by title only, and waive further reading. Patricia Bravo-Valdez, MMC, Deputy Director of City Clerk Services, read the title of Ordinance No. 1038 by title only. Page 13 *DRAFT* April 16, 2025 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 7 of 8 ORDINANCE NO. 1038 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ADDING CHAPTER 3.80 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR FIRE IMPACTS OF RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.68 TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO QUIMBY ACT IN LIEU FEES, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT VOTES NOW CAST ON MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Stickler, to approve staff’s recommendation and approve Resolution No. 2025-010 as amended and introduce the First Reading of Ordinance No. 1038 by title only, and waive further reading. Motion carried 5-0. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) H1. Presentation on the California Cross Connection Control Policy Handbook and Implications for Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems. (Verbal Report) (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Rick Snawder, Battalion Chief, and Shane Adams, Fire Prevention Supervisor who gave a staff report along with a PowerPoint presentation for item H1. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy asked if only residents who have fire protection sprinkler systems in their homes or their buildings would be affected, the scope of work that would be required to comply and who would be responsible to enforce cross connection control requirements. In response, Fire Prevention Supervisor Adams confirmed that only residents/business owners with sprinklers would be affected, but that the backflow prevention device costs and scope of work is narrow. He noted that the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) is responsible for enforcing cross connection control requirements and that the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District is acting in a supportive role. City Manager Gillison informed that the cross connection control requirements are mandated by the State and noted that some of the work will require the City to issue permits and requires a level of cooperation from all agencies. He affirmed that the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) is the lead agency responsible for enforcement and that the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District is supporting CVWD’s efforts. Mayor Michael asked if there was a record of every residence/business with a sprinkler system. In response, Fire Prevention Supervisor Adams informed that there are records of approximately 1,500 systems and that all Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) customers would be notified about cross connection control requirements. H2. PathwaysRC – A Plan to Develop Pathways to Public Service. (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Rick Snawder, Battalion Chief, Nathan Hunt, Deputy Director of Community Services, Marlena Perez, Principal Engineer, Jenifer Phillips, Director of Organizational Development and Matt Marquez, Director of Economic Development who gave a staff report along with a PowerPoint presentation for item H2. Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council shared their excitement for the opportunities that PathwaysRC will bring to future generations and commended staff for a well written report and informational presentation. Page 14 *DRAFT* April 16, 2025 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 8 of 8 H3. Consideration of a Contract With Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc., in the Amount of $7,647,890, Plus a 10% Contingency for the Advanced Traffic Management System Phase II Project and Authorization of an Appropriation in the Amount of $831,930. This Project is Exempt From the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Government Code Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Krystal Lai, Associate Engineer, and Alberto Felix, Traffic Engineer who gave a staff report along with a PowerPoint presentation for item H3. Council Member Hutchison thanked staff and expressed his excitement for the project noting that residents would benefit from the Advanced Traffic Management System Phase II Project. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Scott, seconded by Council Member Stickler, to approve a contract with Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc., in the amount of $7,647,890, plus a 10% contingency for the Advanced Traffic Management System Phase II Project and authorization of an appropriation in the amount of $831,930 and related actions. Motion carried 5-0. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS None. I2. INTERAGENCY UPDATES None. J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS City Attorney Ghirelli noted that there was no reportable action taken during Closed Session held earlier that evening. K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING None. L. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Michael adjourned the Council Meeting at 9:13 p.m. Approved: Linda A. Troyan, MMC City Clerk Services Director Page 15 DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Jevin Kaye, Finance Director Veronica Lopez, Accounts Payable Supervisor SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $2,272,289.17 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $8,448,632.60 Dated April 07, 2025, Through April 28, 2025. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment of demands as presented. Bi-weekly payroll is $1,307,135.46 and $965,153.71 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. Weekly check register amounts are $8,250,500.47 and $198,132.13 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALYSIS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Weekly Check Register Page 16 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 1 of 24 Company: City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Payment Date On or After: 04/07/2025 Payment Date On or Before: 04/28/2025 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: O S T S Inc: 04/08/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451308 04/08/2025 O S T S Inc 675.00 0 675.00 Supplier Payment: C V W D: 04/08/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451307 04/08/2025 C V W D 3,970.15 0 3,970.15 Supplier Payment: Bordin Semmer Llp: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451462 04/10/2025 Bordin Semmer Llp 755.00 0 755.00 Supplier Payment: Southern California Edison: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451463 04/10/2025 Southern California Edison 262.21 0 262.21 Supplier Payment: Stephanie Contreras: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Stephanie Contreras 958.32 0 958.32 Supplier Payment: Willdan Group: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451420 04/10/2025 Willdan Group 5,619.24 0 5,619.24 Supplier Payment: Boot Barn Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451324 04/10/2025 Boot Barn Inc 486.64 0 486.64 Supplier Payment: Graves & King Llp: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Graves & King Llp 8,803.12 0 8,803.12 Supplier Payment: Sycamore Villa Mobile Home Park: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451408 04/10/2025 Sycamore Villa Mobile Home Park 200.00 0 200.00 Supplier Payment: Casa Volante Estates: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451328 04/10/2025 Casa Volante Estates 400.00 0 400.00 Supplier Payment: Intelesys: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451366 04/10/2025 Intelesys 2,189.00 0 2,189.00 Supplier Payment: Maria Elena Alvarez: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451380 04/10/2025 Maria Elena Alvarez 729.00 0 729.00 Supplier Payment: Itron Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451368 04/10/2025 Itron Inc 11,712.00 0 11,712.00 Supplier Payment: Auto & Rv Specialists Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451321 04/10/2025 Auto & Rv Specialists Inc 153.19 0 153.19 Supplier Payment: Holliday Rock Co Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451356 04/10/2025 Holliday Rock Co Inc 1,264.98 0 1,264.98 Supplier Payment: Commercial Transportation Svcs Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451337 04/10/2025 Commercial Transportation Svcs Inc 35,765.92 0 35,765.92 Supplier Payment: Northtown Housing Development Corp: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451388 04/10/2025 Northtown Housing Development Corp 8,980.88 0 8,980.88 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 17 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 2 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Brightview Landscape Services Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Brightview Landscape Services Inc 25,984.55 0 25,984.55 Supplier Payment: Mcmaster-Carr Supply Company: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451381 04/10/2025 Mcmaster-Carr Supply Company 531.34 0 531.34 Supplier Payment: Music Tree: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Music Tree 1,134.00 0 1,134.00 Supplier Payment: Odp Business Solutions Llc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451390 04/10/2025 Odp Business Solutions Llc 4,263.56 0 4,263.56 Supplier Payment: Inyo Networks Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451367 04/10/2025 Inyo Networks Inc 11,119.50 0 11,119.50 Supplier Payment: Vulcan Materials Company: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451416 04/10/2025 Vulcan Materials Company 358.84 0 358.84 Supplier Payment: Dog Waste Depot: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451343 04/10/2025 Dog Waste Depot 280.11 0 280.11 Supplier Payment: Gentry Brothers Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Gentry Brothers Inc 330,392.00 0 330,392.00 Supplier Payment: Champion Fire Systems Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Champion Fire Systems Inc 8,778.46 0 8,778.46 Supplier Payment: Verizon Business: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451413 04/10/2025 Verizon Business 41.51 0 41.51 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino County: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 San Bernardino County 20.00 0 20.00 Supplier Payment: Dell Marketing Lp: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Dell Marketing Lp 669.02 0 669.02 Supplier Payment: Babcock Laboratories Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451322 04/10/2025 Babcock Laboratories Inc 397.56 0 397.56 Supplier Payment: Rapid Diesel Repair Llc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451397 04/10/2025 Rapid Diesel Repair Llc 2,235.08 0 2,235.08 Supplier Payment: Consolidated Electrical Distr Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Consolidated Electrical Distr Inc 2,025.78 0 2,025.78 Supplier Payment: Pmw Associates: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451394 04/10/2025 Pmw Associates 525.00 0 525.00 Supplier Payment: Backflow Parts Usa: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451323 04/10/2025 Backflow Parts Usa 108.49 0 108.49 Supplier Payment: Kimberly Duran: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451374 04/10/2025 Kimberly Duran 750.00 0 750.00 Supplier Payment: Charter Communications: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451330 04/10/2025 Charter Communications 8,445.34 0 8,445.34 Supplier Payment: Polaris Education Foundation: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Polaris Education Foundation 550.80 0 550.80 Supplier Payment: Zumar Industries Inc.: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451422 04/10/2025 Zumar Industries Inc.297.07 0 297.07 Page 18 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 3 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Kingdom Calibrations Inc: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451376 04/10/2025 Kingdom Calibrations Inc 0 340.00 340.00 Supplier Payment: Mdg Associates Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Mdg Associates Inc 48,108.00 0 48,108.00 Supplier Payment: Alta Vista Mobile Home Park: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451315 04/10/2025 Alta Vista Mobile Home Park 288.60 0 288.60 Supplier Payment: Allied Universal Security Services: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451312 04/10/2025 Allied Universal Security Services 6,806.55 0 6,806.55 Supplier Payment: Vista Paint: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451415 04/10/2025 Vista Paint 77.76 0 77.76 Supplier Payment: Amazon Web Services Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Amazon Web Services Inc 3,324.32 0 3,324.32 Supplier Payment: South Coast Aqmd: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451405 04/10/2025 South Coast Aqmd 0 715.30 715.30 Supplier Payment: Graphics Factory Printing Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451352 04/10/2025 Graphics Factory Printing Inc 1,396.99 0 1,396.99 Supplier Payment: Hampton Living: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Hampton Living 720.00 0 720.00 Supplier Payment: Globalstar Usa: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451350 04/10/2025 Globalstar Usa 184.06 0 184.06 Supplier Payment: Shred Pros: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451401 04/10/2025 Shred Pros 129.00 0 129.00 Supplier Payment: Pacific Utility Installation Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Pacific Utility Installation Inc 24,660.00 0 24,660.00 Supplier Payment: Brandon Carn: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451326 04/10/2025 Brandon Carn 750.00 0 750.00 Supplier Payment: Nextera Energy Marketing Llc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451387 04/10/2025 Nextera Energy Marketing Llc 91,000.00 0 91,000.00 Supplier Payment: Alta Laguna Mobile Home Park - Ca Llc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451313 04/10/2025 Alta Laguna Mobile Home Park - Ca Llc 400.00 0 400.00 Supplier Payment: Shoeteria Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Shoeteria Inc 230.14 0 230.14 Supplier Payment: Dawn Triche Bisek: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Dawn Triche Bisek 381.00 0 381.00 Supplier Payment: Little Bear Productions: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451378 04/10/2025 Little Bear Productions 6,395.00 0 6,395.00 Supplier Payment: Roadline Products Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451399 04/10/2025 Roadline Products Inc 461.69 0 461.69 Supplier Payment: Jade Michael Anne Sigurdson: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451369 04/10/2025 Jade Michael Anne Sigurdson 660.00 0 660.00 Page 19 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 4 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Pumpman Llc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451395 04/10/2025 Pumpman Llc 1,624.00 0 1,624.00 Supplier Payment: Ida Tyus: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Ida Tyus 1,275.00 0 1,275.00 Supplier Payment: Hill'S Pet Nutrition Sales Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451355 04/10/2025 Hill'S Pet Nutrition Sales Inc 4,308.74 0 4,308.74 Supplier Payment: Siteone Landscape Supply Llc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451402 04/10/2025 Siteone Landscape Supply Llc 1,225.82 0 1,225.82 Supplier Payment: Stabilizer Solutions Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451406 04/10/2025 Stabilizer Solutions Inc 1,494.76 0 1,494.76 Supplier Payment: G/M Business Interiors: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 G/M Business Interiors 717.50 0 717.50 Supplier Payment: California Public Policy Group, Inc.: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451327 04/10/2025 California Public Policy Group, Inc. 19,000.00 0 19,000.00 Supplier Payment: ADP, Inc.: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451311 04/10/2025 ADP, Inc.217.50 0 217.50 Supplier Payment: Richards Watson & Gershon: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Richards Watson & Gershon 13,106.83 0 13,106.83 Supplier Payment: D & K Concrete Company: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451340 04/10/2025 D & K Concrete Company 1,762.80 0 1,762.80 Supplier Payment: Midwest Veterinary Supply Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451382 04/10/2025 Midwest Veterinary Supply Inc 3,953.13 0 3,953.13 Supplier Payment: Haulaway Storage Containers Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451353 04/10/2025 Haulaway Storage Containers Inc 511.84 0 511.84 Supplier Payment: Mariposa Landscapes Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Mariposa Landscapes Inc 80,440.40 0 80,440.40 Supplier Payment: Inland Empire Property Service Inc: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451361 04/10/2025 Inland Empire Property Service Inc 0 12,942.00 12,942.00 Supplier Payment: Covetrus North America: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451339 04/10/2025 Covetrus North America 1,709.90 0 1,709.90 Supplier Payment: Mwi Animal Health: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451531 04/10/2025 Mwi Animal Health 1,001.94 0 1,001.94 Supplier Payment: Hometown America - Ramona Villa Mhp: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451357 04/10/2025 Hometown America - Ramona Villa Mhp 300.00 0 300.00 Supplier Payment: Pacific Mh Construction Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451392 04/10/2025 Pacific Mh Construction Inc 29,362.50 0 29,362.50 Supplier Payment: All City Management Services Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 All City Management Services Inc 37,327.38 0 37,327.38 Supplier Payment: Jorry Keith: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Jorry Keith 582.00 0 582.00 Page 20 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 5 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Idexx Distribution Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451360 04/10/2025 Idexx Distribution Inc 5,330.70 0 5,330.70 Supplier Payment: Robert Morales: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451400 04/10/2025 Robert Morales 695.80 0 695.80 Supplier Payment: 4 Imprint Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451309 04/10/2025 4 Imprint Inc 3,802.28 0 3,802.28 Supplier Payment: South Bay Foundry Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451404 04/10/2025 South Bay Foundry Inc 431.00 0 431.00 Supplier Payment: Hr Green Pacific Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451359 04/10/2025 Hr Green Pacific Inc 30,757.13 0 30,757.13 Supplier Payment: Abound Food Care: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451310 04/10/2025 Abound Food Care 2,900.11 0 2,900.11 Supplier Payment: Gbs Linens: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451349 04/10/2025 Gbs Linens 2,377.78 0 2,377.78 Supplier Payment: Ferguson Enterprises Llc #1350: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451347 04/10/2025 Ferguson Enterprises Llc #1350 476.85 0 476.85 Supplier Payment: City Rentals: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451334 04/10/2025 City Rentals 266.51 0 266.51 Supplier Payment: Onward Engineering: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451391 04/10/2025 Onward Engineering 4,680.00 0 4,680.00 Supplier Payment: J J Keller & Associates Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451371 04/10/2025 J J Keller & Associates Inc 1,755.55 0 1,755.55 Supplier Payment: Ccs Orange County Janitorial Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451329 04/10/2025 Ccs Orange County Janitorial Inc 73,652.03 0 73,652.03 Supplier Payment: Diamond Environmental Services: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Diamond Environmental Services 215.40 0 215.40 Supplier Payment: Wilson Fiallos: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451532 04/10/2025 Wilson Fiallos 1,344.00 0 1,344.00 Supplier Payment: Collins & Collins Llp: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451336 04/10/2025 Collins & Collins Llp 1,905.50 0 1,905.50 Supplier Payment: Midwest Tape Llc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Midwest Tape Llc 6,685.82 0 6,685.82 Supplier Payment: Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451375 04/10/2025 Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc 13,630.50 0 13,630.50 Supplier Payment: Private Brand Mfg: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Private Brand Mfg 4,642.96 0 4,642.96 Supplier Payment: Rancho West Animal Hospital: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451396 04/10/2025 Rancho West Animal Hospital 400.00 0 400.00 Supplier Payment: Elecnor Belco Electric Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Elecnor Belco Electric Inc 38,110.88 0 38,110.88 Supplier Payment: Arrow Lift of California: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451318 04/10/2025 Arrow Lift of California 1,100.00 0 1,100.00 Page 21 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 6 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Verizon Wireless - La: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451414 04/10/2025 Verizon Wireless - La 0 8,079.52 8,079.52 Supplier Payment: Carol Jean Bourland: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Carol Jean Bourland 300.00 0 300.00 Supplier Payment: Data Ticket Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Data Ticket Inc 270.00 0 270.00 Supplier Payment: Constellation Energy Generation Llc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Constellation Energy Generation Llc 627,200.80 0 627,200.80 Supplier Payment: The Sullivan Group of Court Reporters Inc.: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451410 04/10/2025 The Sullivan Group of Court Reporters Inc. 1,040.50 0 1,040.50 Supplier Payment: Superior Pavement Markings Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451407 04/10/2025 Superior Pavement Markings Inc 14,780.80 0 14,780.80 Supplier Payment: Socal Gas - Remit-To: Yard - Socal Gas: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451403 04/10/2025 Socal Gas 1,690.65 0 1,690.65 Supplier Payment: Bordin Semmer Llp: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451325 04/10/2025 Bordin Semmer Llp 1,317.50 0 1,317.50 Supplier Payment: Rbm Lock & Key Service: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451398 04/10/2025 Rbm Lock & Key Service 58.45 0 58.45 Supplier Payment: The Groves On Foothill: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451409 04/10/2025 The Groves On Foothill 200.00 0 200.00 Supplier Payment: National Utility Locators Llc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 National Utility Locators Llc 2,775.00 0 2,775.00 Supplier Payment: Atlassian US LLC: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451319 04/10/2025 Atlassian US LLC 5,075.00 0 5,075.00 Supplier Payment: Motive Energy Llc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451385 04/10/2025 Motive Energy Llc 64.50 0 64.50 Supplier Payment: Westbound Communications Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451418 04/10/2025 Westbound Communications Inc 7,202.50 0 7,202.50 Supplier Payment: Liebert Cassidy Whitmore: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451377 04/10/2025 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 21,059.63 0 21,059.63 Supplier Payment: Ginger Dollarhide: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Ginger Dollarhide 330.00 0 330.00 Supplier Payment: Maira Rios: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451379 04/10/2025 Maira Rios 2,600.00 0 2,600.00 Supplier Payment: Inland Valley Dance Academy: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451364 04/10/2025 Inland Valley Dance Academy 630.00 0 630.00 Supplier Payment: Inland Presort & Mailing Services: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451363 04/10/2025 Inland Presort & Mailing Services 785.24 0 785.24 Supplier Payment: Daisyeco Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Daisyeco Inc 1,831.85 0 1,831.85 Page 22 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 7 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Graybar Electric Company Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Graybar Electric Company Inc 1,840.23 0 1,840.23 Supplier Payment: Mmasc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451383 04/10/2025 Mmasc 125.00 0 125.00 Supplier Payment: Dance Terrific: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451341 04/10/2025 Dance Terrific 739.20 0 739.20 Supplier Payment: Hose-Man Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451358 04/10/2025 Hose-Man Inc 501.80 0 501.80 Supplier Payment: Brendon Fung: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Brendon Fung 11,602.50 0 11,602.50 Supplier Payment: Ups: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Ups 137.23 0 137.23 Supplier Payment: Odp Business Solutions Llc: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451389 04/10/2025 Odp Business Solutions Llc 0 179.31 179.31 Supplier Payment: Coast Fitness Repair Shop: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451335 04/10/2025 Coast Fitness Repair Shop 325.24 0 325.24 Supplier Payment: Dell Marketing Lp: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451342 04/10/2025 Dell Marketing Lp 244.66 0 244.66 Supplier Payment: Chino Mower & Equipment: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451331 04/10/2025 Chino Mower & Equipment 2,316.57 0 2,316.57 Supplier Payment: Chaffey Joint Union High School District: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Chaffey Joint Union High School District 550.56 0 550.56 Supplier Payment: EN Engineering, LLC: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451344 04/10/2025 EN Engineering, LLC 10,278.34 0 10,278.34 Supplier Payment: Alta Rancho Pet & Bird Hospital: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451314 04/10/2025 Alta Rancho Pet & Bird Hospital 100.00 0 100.00 Supplier Payment: Heritage Wellness Collective: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451354 04/10/2025 Heritage Wellness Collective 1,340.00 0 1,340.00 Supplier Payment: Federal Express Corp: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451346 04/10/2025 Federal Express Corp 88.18 0 88.18 Supplier Payment: Inland Valley Hope Partners: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451365 04/10/2025 Inland Valley Hope Partners 2,458.50 0 2,458.50 Supplier Payment: City Of Ontario: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451333 04/10/2025 City Of Ontario 0 25,000.00 25,000.00 Supplier Payment: Cintas Corporation: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451332 04/10/2025 Cintas Corporation 0 174.89 174.89 Supplier Payment: West End Material Supply: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451419 04/10/2025 West End Material Supply 68.12 0 68.12 Page 23 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 8 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Patton Sales Corp: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451393 04/10/2025 Patton Sales Corp 405.34 0 405.34 Supplier Payment: Absolute Security International Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Absolute Security International Inc 25,333.40 0 25,333.40 Supplier Payment: Daisyeco Inc: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/10/2025 Daisyeco Inc 0 279.98 279.98 Supplier Payment: Ninyo & Moore: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Ninyo & Moore 2,938.00 0 2,938.00 Supplier Payment: Best Outdoor Power Inland Llc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Best Outdoor Power Inland Llc 94.05 0 94.05 Supplier Payment: Jessica Anne Tan: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451370 04/10/2025 Jessica Anne Tan 1,050.00 0 1,050.00 Supplier Payment: G/M Business Interiors: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/10/2025 G/M Business Interiors 0 2,557.09 2,557.09 Supplier Payment: Apx Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451317 04/10/2025 Apx Inc 5,736.27 0 5,736.27 Supplier Payment: Montgomery Hardware Co: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451384 04/10/2025 Montgomery Hardware Co 428.63 0 428.63 Supplier Payment: Julio C. Jimenez: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451372 04/10/2025 Julio C. Jimenez 850.00 0 850.00 Supplier Payment: Us Postal Service: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451412 04/10/2025 Us Postal Service 10,000.00 0 10,000.00 Supplier Payment: Aufbau Corporation: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Aufbau Corporation 56,526.25 0 56,526.25 Supplier Payment: Inland Fair Housing & Mediation Board: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451362 04/10/2025 Inland Fair Housing & Mediation Board 13,110.94 0 13,110.94 Supplier Payment: Psa Print Group: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Psa Print Group 448.59 0 448.59 Supplier Payment: Triden Group Corp: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Triden Group Corp 11,985.00 0 11,985.00 Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary Supply: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451417 04/10/2025 Waxie Sanitary Supply 152.53 0 152.53 Supplier Payment: Grainger: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451351 04/10/2025 Grainger 3,798.55 0 3,798.55 Supplier Payment: Anne Marie Dunn: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 Anne Marie Dunn 264.00 0 264.00 Supplier Payment: Universal Fleet Supply: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451411 04/10/2025 Universal Fleet Supply 0 1,042.29 1,042.29 Page 24 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 9 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Ninyo & Moore: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/10/2025 Ninyo & Moore 0 709.50 709.50 Supplier Payment: The Kepler Group Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/10/2025 The Kepler Group Inc 4,522.36 0 4,522.36 Supplier Payment: Atlas Technical Consultants Llc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451320 04/10/2025 Atlas Technical Consultants Llc 7,117.79 0 7,117.79 Supplier Payment: Karen Clark: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451373 04/10/2025 Karen Clark 1,104.00 0 1,104.00 Supplier Payment: Conor Consulting Llc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451338 04/10/2025 Conor Consulting Llc 831.25 0 831.25 Supplier Payment: Fire Apparatus Solutions: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451348 04/10/2025 Fire Apparatus Solutions 0 692.78 692.78 Supplier Payment: Factory Motor Parts: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451345 04/10/2025 Factory Motor Parts 0 1,223.41 1,223.41 Supplier Payment: Anixter Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451316 04/10/2025 Anixter Inc 165,611.76 0 165,611.76 Supplier Payment: Mesa Energy Systems Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451428 04/10/2025 Mesa Energy Systems Inc 42,583.05 0 42,583.05 Supplier Payment: Lowes Companies Inc: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451427 04/10/2025 Lowes Companies Inc 0 3,186.49 3,186.49 Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451425 04/10/2025 Frontier Comm 0 971.13 971.13 Supplier Payment: C V W D: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451423 04/10/2025 C V W D 0 4,515.69 4,515.69 Supplier Payment: Lowes Companies Inc: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451426 04/10/2025 Lowes Companies Inc 13,035.70 0 13,035.70 Supplier Payment: Southern California Edison: 04/10/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451430 04/10/2025 Southern California Edison 0 2,983.66 2,983.66 Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451424 04/10/2025 Frontier Comm 4,788.14 0 4,788.14 Supplier Payment: Southern California Edison: 04/10/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451429 04/10/2025 Southern California Edison 11,941.88 0 11,941.88 Supplier Payment: C V W D: 04/15/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451464 04/15/2025 C V W D 26,997.99 0 26,997.99 Page 25 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 10 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Verizon Wireless - La: 04/17/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451515 04/17/2025 Verizon Wireless - La 0 4,143.67 4,143.67 Supplier Payment: Odp Business Solutions Llc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451499 04/17/2025 Odp Business Solutions Llc 98.55 0 98.55 Supplier Payment: Costar Realty Information Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451477 04/17/2025 Costar Realty Information Inc 1,915.80 0 1,915.80 Supplier Payment: Inland Overhead Door Company: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451492 04/17/2025 Inland Overhead Door Company 398.00 0 398.00 Supplier Payment: Four Points By Sheraton: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451483 04/17/2025 Four Points By Sheraton 480.36 0 480.36 Supplier Payment: Brodart Co: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451472 04/17/2025 Brodart Co 37,633.31 0 37,633.31 Supplier Payment: CSG Consultants, Inc.: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451479 04/17/2025 CSG Consultants, Inc.20,350.00 0 20,350.00 Supplier Payment: Ups: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 Ups 71.18 0 71.18 Supplier Payment: William Vasta Photography: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451519 04/17/2025 William Vasta Photography 2,000.00 0 2,000.00 Supplier Payment: Knight Leadership Solutions: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451495 04/17/2025 Knight Leadership Solutions 4,420.00 0 4,420.00 Supplier Payment: Fuel Serv: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451486 04/17/2025 Fuel Serv 4,932.93 0 4,932.93 Supplier Payment: Generator Services Co Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 Generator Services Co Inc 905.01 0 905.01 Supplier Payment: Monet Construction, Inc.: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451498 04/17/2025 Monet Construction, Inc.421,231.93 0 421,231.93 Supplier Payment: Valverde Stage Productions Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 Valverde Stage Productions Inc 65,783.00 0 65,783.00 Supplier Payment: Little Bear Productions: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451497 04/17/2025 Little Bear Productions 800.00 0 800.00 Supplier Payment: Verizon Wireless - La: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451514 04/17/2025 Verizon Wireless - La 3,231.32 0 3,231.32 Supplier Payment: Safechecks: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451502 04/17/2025 Safechecks 2,741.49 0 2,741.49 Supplier Payment: Golden State Risk Management Authority: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 Golden State Risk Management Authority 143,484.00 0 143,484.00 Supplier Payment: Bishop Company: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451470 04/17/2025 Bishop Company 130.34 0 130.34 Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451485 04/17/2025 Frontier Comm 1,329.58 0 1,329.58 Supplier Payment: Napa Auto Parts: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 Napa Auto Parts 385.91 0 385.91 Page 26 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 11 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Hotsy Of Southern California: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 Hotsy Of Southern California 536.95 0 536.95 Supplier Payment: Directv: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451481 04/17/2025 Directv 593.99 0 593.99 Supplier Payment: Department Of Justice: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451480 04/17/2025 Department Of Justice 1,557.00 0 1,557.00 Supplier Payment: Bmla Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451471 04/17/2025 Bmla Inc 950.00 0 950.00 Supplier Payment: Antelope Expansion 3B Llc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451467 04/17/2025 Antelope Expansion 3B Llc 13,840.29 0 13,840.29 Supplier Payment: Southern California News Group: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451506 04/17/2025 Southern California News Group 6,180.92 0 6,180.92 Supplier Payment: Anderson'S Playschool: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 Anderson'S Playschool 1,650.00 0 1,650.00 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino Co Auditor Cont: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451503 04/17/2025 San Bernardino Co Auditor Cont 10,798.61 0 10,798.61 Supplier Payment: Vision Service Plan Ca: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451517 04/17/2025 Vision Service Plan Ca 11,261.67 0 11,261.67 Supplier Payment: Huntington Beach Honda: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451490 04/17/2025 Huntington Beach Honda 28,381.27 0 28,381.27 Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm: 04/17/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451484 04/17/2025 Frontier Comm 0 992.08 992.08 Supplier Payment: Dudek: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451482 04/17/2025 Dudek 5,565.00 0 5,565.00 Supplier Payment: Lilburn Corporation: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451496 04/17/2025 Lilburn Corporation 61.50 0 61.50 Supplier Payment: Tirehub Llc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451511 04/17/2025 Tirehub Llc 296.85 0 296.85 Supplier Payment: Victoria Animal Hospital: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451516 04/17/2025 Victoria Animal Hospital 100.00 0 100.00 Supplier Payment: Standard Insurance Company: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451508 04/17/2025 Standard Insurance Company 58,731.14 0 58,731.14 Supplier Payment: Calif Underground Fac Safe Excavation Board: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451474 04/17/2025 Calif Underground Fac Safe Excavation Board 56.32 0 56.32 Supplier Payment: Thomson Reuters - West: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451510 04/17/2025 Thomson Reuters - West 398.00 0 398.00 Supplier Payment: Ccs Orange County Janitorial Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451475 04/17/2025 Ccs Orange County Janitorial Inc 211.76 0 211.76 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino County: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 San Bernardino County 29.00 0 29.00 Page 27 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 12 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Midwest Tape Llc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 Midwest Tape Llc 359.66 0 359.66 Supplier Payment: Rhino Staging, LLC: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451501 04/17/2025 Rhino Staging, LLC 8,805.00 0 8,805.00 Supplier Payment: Covetrus North America: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451478 04/17/2025 Covetrus North America 162.92 0 162.92 Supplier Payment: Ascent Environmental Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451468 04/17/2025 Ascent Environmental Inc 11,367.79 0 11,367.79 Supplier Payment: Illuminate Event Services: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451491 04/17/2025 Illuminate Event Services 5,610.00 0 5,610.00 Supplier Payment: Mdg Associates Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 Mdg Associates Inc 74,487.50 0 74,487.50 Supplier Payment: United Site Services: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451512 04/17/2025 United Site Services 305.29 0 305.29 Supplier Payment: Helix Environmental Planning Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451487 04/17/2025 Helix Environmental Planning Inc 1,119.78 0 1,119.78 Supplier Payment: Jl Group Llc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451493 04/17/2025 Jl Group Llc 9,835.79 0 9,835.79 Supplier Payment: Pro Sales Group Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451500 04/17/2025 Pro Sales Group Inc 434.59 0 434.59 Supplier Payment: Herc Rentals Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 Herc Rentals Inc 2,415.67 0 2,415.67 Supplier Payment: Aflac: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451465 04/17/2025 Aflac 4,438.80 0 4,438.80 Supplier Payment: Humane Society Of San Bernardino Valley: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451489 04/17/2025 Humane Society Of San Bernardino Valley 484.00 0 484.00 Supplier Payment: Fehr & Peers: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 Fehr & Peers 4,550.00 0 4,550.00 Supplier Payment: Climatec Llc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451476 04/17/2025 Climatec Llc 711.58 0 711.58 Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary Supply: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451518 04/17/2025 Waxie Sanitary Supply 284.73 0 284.73 Supplier Payment: The Kindred Corporation: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451509 04/17/2025 The Kindred Corporation 23,260.31 0 23,260.31 Supplier Payment: Stabilizer Solutions Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451507 04/17/2025 Stabilizer Solutions Inc 2,718.10 0 2,718.10 Supplier Payment: Mariposa Landscapes Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 Mariposa Landscapes Inc 4,815.99 0 4,815.99 Supplier Payment: Shred Pros: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451505 04/17/2025 Shred Pros 225.00 0 225.00 Page 28 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 13 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Bruce E Mihelich Inc: 04/17/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451473 04/17/2025 Bruce E Mihelich Inc 0 12,062.25 12,062.25 Supplier Payment: Us Postal Service: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451513 04/17/2025 Us Postal Service 350.00 0 350.00 Supplier Payment: All City Management Services Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 All City Management Services Inc 7,184.55 0 7,184.55 Supplier Payment: Alma Arocho: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451466 04/17/2025 Alma Arocho 1,569.60 0 1,569.60 Supplier Payment: Scott Mcleod Plumbing Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451504 04/17/2025 Scott Mcleod Plumbing Inc 8,899.32 0 8,899.32 Supplier Payment: Katie Wellins: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451494 04/17/2025 Katie Wellins 1,350.00 0 1,350.00 Supplier Payment: Hose-Man Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451488 04/17/2025 Hose-Man Inc 89.78 0 89.78 Supplier Payment: Dlr Group Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 Dlr Group Inc 21,000.00 0 21,000.00 Supplier Payment: Beacon Athletics Llc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451469 04/17/2025 Beacon Athletics Llc 1,837.15 0 1,837.15 Supplier Payment: C V W D: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451521 04/17/2025 C V W D 5,201.48 0 5,201.48 Supplier Payment: Southern California Edison: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451524 04/17/2025 Southern California Edison 137,200.62 0 137,200.62 Supplier Payment: C V W D: 04/17/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451520 04/17/2025 C V W D 0 699.87 699.87 Supplier Payment: Merrimac Petroleum Inc: 04/17/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/17/2025 Merrimac Petroleum Inc 37,284.20 0 37,284.20 Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm: 04/17/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451522 04/17/2025 Frontier Comm 0 689.09 689.09 Supplier Payment: Jorry Keith: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Jorry Keith 150.00 0 150.00 Supplier Payment: Dennis M Costello: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Dennis M Costello 0 2,331.10 2,331.10 Supplier Payment: Demco Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451554 04/24/2025 Demco Inc 149.02 0 149.02 Supplier Payment: Motive Energy Llc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451576 04/24/2025 Motive Energy Llc 187.18 0 187.18 Page 29 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 14 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: David W Larkin: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 David W Larkin 0 768.52 768.52 Supplier Payment: Jay Davenport: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Jay Davenport 0 3,077.83 3,077.83 Supplier Payment: Icma: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451566 04/24/2025 Icma 1,200.00 0 1,200.00 Supplier Payment: Country Estate Fence Co Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451550 04/24/2025 Country Estate Fence Co Inc 2,728.88 0 2,728.88 Supplier Payment: Airgas Usa Llc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451535 04/24/2025 Airgas Usa Llc 6,073.14 0 6,073.14 Supplier Payment: Philip Loncar: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Philip Loncar 0 2,331.10 2,331.10 Supplier Payment: Graphics Factory Printing Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451562 04/24/2025 Graphics Factory Printing Inc 890.01 0 890.01 Supplier Payment: Dependable Break Room Solutions Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451555 04/24/2025 Dependable Break Room Solutions Inc 42.74 0 42.74 Supplier Payment: L. Dennis Michael: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 L. Dennis Michael 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Richard Clabby: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Richard Clabby 0 817.12 817.12 Supplier Payment: Us Department Of Energy: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Us Department Of Energy 10,400.49 0 10,400.49 Supplier Payment: Level 3 Communications Llc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451575 04/24/2025 Level 3 Communications Llc 4,030.66 0 4,030.66 Supplier Payment: Postal Perfect: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451585 04/24/2025 Postal Perfect 360.00 0 360.00 Supplier Payment: Mary Jane Nelson: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Mary Jane Nelson 0 185.08 185.08 Supplier Payment: West End Material Supply: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451610 04/24/2025 West End Material Supply 240.51 0 240.51 Supplier Payment: West Coast Arborists Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451609 04/24/2025 West Coast Arborists Inc 480,628.94 0 480,628.94 Supplier Payment: Velocity Truck Centers: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451603 04/24/2025 Velocity Truck Centers 162.69 0 162.69 Supplier Payment: Covetrus North America: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451551 04/24/2025 Covetrus North America 104.70 0 104.70 Page 30 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 15 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Hi-Line Electric Company: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451565 04/24/2025 Hi-Line Electric Company 909.69 0 909.69 Supplier Payment: Kevin Walton: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Kevin Walton 0 658.62 658.62 Supplier Payment: John D Fritchey: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 John D Fritchey 0 658.62 658.62 Supplier Payment: Nbs: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451578 04/24/2025 Nbs 5,992.50 0 5,992.50 Supplier Payment: Verizon: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451604 04/24/2025 Verizon 34.32 0 34.32 Supplier Payment: Steven Taylor: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Steven Taylor 0 2,369.46 2,369.46 Supplier Payment: First Aid 2000: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451559 04/24/2025 First Aid 2000 1,052.18 0 1,052.18 Supplier Payment: Terry Tuley: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Terry Tuley 0 2,369.46 2,369.46 Supplier Payment: Danni Designs & Event Co.: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451553 04/24/2025 Danni Designs & Event Co.247.41 0 247.41 Supplier Payment: Cost Recovery Systems Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451549 04/24/2025 Cost Recovery Systems Inc 11,500.00 0 11,500.00 Supplier Payment: Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451572 04/24/2025 Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc 224.89 0 224.89 Supplier Payment: Napa Auto Parts: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Napa Auto Parts 779.84 0 779.84 Supplier Payment: Odp Business Solutions Llc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451581 04/24/2025 Odp Business Solutions Llc 3,192.25 0 3,192.25 Supplier Payment: Kingdom Calibrations Inc: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451573 04/24/2025 Kingdom Calibrations Inc 0 1,000.00 1,000.00 Supplier Payment: Ferguson Enterprises Llc #1350: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451558 04/24/2025 Ferguson Enterprises Llc #1350 380.55 0 380.55 Supplier Payment: Tim Fejeran: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Tim Fejeran 0 2,250.95 2,250.95 Supplier Payment: Susan De Antonio: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Susan De Antonio 0 1,105.73 1,105.73 Page 31 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 16 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Ron Mayfield: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Ron Mayfield 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Francis Vanderkallen: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Francis Vanderkallen 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Charlene Dominick: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451544 04/24/2025 Charlene Dominick 0 426.70 426.70 Supplier Payment: Boot Barn Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451542 04/24/2025 Boot Barn Inc 1,595.68 0 1,595.68 Supplier Payment: Pacific Mh Construction Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451582 04/24/2025 Pacific Mh Construction Inc 10,075.50 0 10,075.50 Supplier Payment: Shred Pros: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451592 04/24/2025 Shred Pros 65.00 0 65.00 Supplier Payment: Paul E Lenze: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Paul E Lenze 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Inland Empire Magazine: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451568 04/24/2025 Inland Empire Magazine 1,995.00 0 1,995.00 Supplier Payment: Rosalyn Interlicchia: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Rosalyn Interlicchia 0 426.70 426.70 Supplier Payment: Inland Empire Property Service Inc: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451569 04/24/2025 Inland Empire Property Service Inc 0 12,595.00 12,595.00 Supplier Payment: Victor Rodriguez: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451606 04/24/2025 Victor Rodriguez 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Steven Campbell: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Steven Campbell 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Zumar Industries Inc.: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451612 04/24/2025 Zumar Industries Inc.9,797.89 0 9,797.89 Supplier Payment: Merrimac Petroleum Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Merrimac Petroleum Inc 31,838.67 0 31,838.67 Supplier Payment: Beverly Mackall: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Beverly Mackall 0 185.08 185.08 Supplier Payment: Brinks Incorporated: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Brinks Incorporated 2,736.95 0 2,736.95 Supplier Payment: Michael Redmond: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Michael Redmond 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Page 32 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 17 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Robert Wollenzier: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451589 04/24/2025 Robert Wollenzier 2,300.00 0 2,300.00 Supplier Payment: Jeffrey Roeder: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Jeffrey Roeder 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Ronald Smith: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Ronald Smith 0 528.16 528.16 Supplier Payment: Peter Magnuson: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Peter Magnuson 0 1,685.46 1,685.46 Supplier Payment: William Lane: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 William Lane 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Kenneth Walker: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451571 04/24/2025 Kenneth Walker 0 426.70 426.70 Supplier Payment: Sovic Creative: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Sovic Creative 1,500.00 0 1,500.00 Supplier Payment: Brent Roberts: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Brent Roberts 0 1,086.55 1,086.55 Supplier Payment: The Counseling Team International: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451598 04/24/2025 The Counseling Team International 0 3,720.00 3,720.00 Supplier Payment: Patrick Proulx: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Patrick Proulx 0 1,690.43 1,690.43 Supplier Payment: National Utility Locators Llc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 National Utility Locators Llc 2,250.00 0 2,250.00 Supplier Payment: Animal Blood Resources International: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451537 04/24/2025 Animal Blood Resources International 519.36 0 519.36 Supplier Payment: Verizon Wireless - La: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451605 04/24/2025 Verizon Wireless - La 5,733.27 0 5,733.27 Supplier Payment: Diane Carty: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451556 04/24/2025 Diane Carty 576.00 0 576.00 Supplier Payment: Dennis Myskow: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Dennis Myskow 0 1,695.04 1,695.04 Supplier Payment: Corodata Media Storage Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451548 04/24/2025 Corodata Media Storage Inc 90.10 0 90.10 Supplier Payment: Patrick Jerkins: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Patrick Jerkins 0 1,695.04 1,695.04 Page 33 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 18 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Promotions Tees & More: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Promotions Tees & More 548.90 0 548.90 Supplier Payment: Viola Spagnolo: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451607 04/24/2025 Viola Spagnolo 0 329.56 329.56 Supplier Payment: Armada Towing Service: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451538 04/24/2025 Armada Towing Service 250.00 0 250.00 Supplier Payment: Helm, LLC: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451563 04/24/2025 Helm, LLC 3,350.00 0 3,350.00 Supplier Payment: Occupational Health Centers Of Ca: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451579 04/24/2025 Occupational Health Centers Of Ca 1,012.00 0 1,012.00 Supplier Payment: Barbara'S Answering Service: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451539 04/24/2025 Barbara'S Answering Service 552.00 0 552.00 Supplier Payment: Genuine General Contractor: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451561 04/24/2025 Genuine General Contractor 13,500.00 0 13,500.00 Supplier Payment: James Curatalo: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 James Curatalo 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Polaris Education Foundation: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Polaris Education Foundation 1,591.20 0 1,591.20 Supplier Payment: Michael R Post: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Michael R Post 0 2,331.10 2,331.10 Supplier Payment: Johnny Allen Tennis Academy: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Johnny Allen Tennis Academy 1,295.40 0 1,295.40 Supplier Payment: Prime Glass: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451586 04/24/2025 Prime Glass 401.38 0 401.38 Supplier Payment: Ups: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Ups 47.57 0 47.57 Supplier Payment: Alexander R Ahumada: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Alexander R Ahumada 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: South Coast Aqmd: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451596 04/24/2025 South Coast Aqmd 0 875.22 875.22 Supplier Payment: City Of Riverside: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 City Of Riverside 6,909.00 0 6,909.00 Supplier Payment: Tryfytt: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451601 04/24/2025 Tryfytt 1,278.60 0 1,278.60 Supplier Payment: Siteone Landscape Supply Llc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451593 04/24/2025 Siteone Landscape Supply Llc 7,368.29 0 7,368.29 Page 34 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 19 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Pinnacle Ems Conference: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451584 04/24/2025 Pinnacle Ems Conference 0 450.00 450.00 Supplier Payment: Tom O'Brien: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Tom O'Brien 0 2,369.46 2,369.46 Supplier Payment: David Berry: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 David Berry 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Air Exchange Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Air Exchange Inc 5,351.65 0 5,351.65 Supplier Payment: Mariposa Landscapes Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Mariposa Landscapes Inc 6,974.54 0 6,974.54 Supplier Payment: Michael J Ploung: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Michael J Ploung 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: California Department Of Technology: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451543 04/24/2025 California Department Of Technology 362,513.56 0 362,513.56 Supplier Payment: Richard Toll: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Richard Toll 0 3,127.70 3,127.70 Supplier Payment: Parkhouse Tire Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451583 04/24/2025 Parkhouse Tire Inc 4,949.57 0 4,949.57 Supplier Payment: Anthony Varney: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Anthony Varney 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Joe Longo: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Joe Longo 0 185.08 185.08 Supplier Payment: Advanced Chemical Transport Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451534 04/24/2025 Advanced Chemical Transport Inc 1,254.50 0 1,254.50 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino County: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451591 04/24/2025 San Bernardino County 15,835.84 0 15,835.84 Supplier Payment: Kenneth Carnes: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Kenneth Carnes 0 185.08 185.08 Supplier Payment: Citrus Motors Ontario Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451546 04/24/2025 Citrus Motors Ontario Inc 2,066.33 0 2,066.33 Supplier Payment: Ivan M Rojer: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Ivan M Rojer 0 2,250.95 2,250.95 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino County Sheriff'S Dept: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 San Bernardino County Sheriff'S Dept 3,546,702.20 0 3,546,702.20 Page 35 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 20 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Donald Heyde: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Donald Heyde 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Thomas Salisbury: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Thomas Salisbury 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: G/M Business Interiors: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 G/M Business Interiors 106.11 0 106.11 Supplier Payment: Dell Marketing Lp: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Dell Marketing Lp 145.35 0 145.35 Supplier Payment: Westrux International Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451611 04/24/2025 Westrux International Inc 517.20 0 517.20 Supplier Payment: Mdg Associates Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Mdg Associates Inc 13,424.00 0 13,424.00 Supplier Payment: Wilbur Crossland: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Wilbur Crossland 0 528.16 528.16 Supplier Payment: Richards Watson & Gershon: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Richards Watson & Gershon 6,065.00 0 6,065.00 Supplier Payment: Eric Noreen: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Eric Noreen 0 3,127.70 3,127.70 Supplier Payment: Beacon Athletics Llc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451540 04/24/2025 Beacon Athletics Llc 591.57 0 591.57 Supplier Payment: James Dague: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 James Dague 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino Co Auditor Cont: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451590 04/24/2025 San Bernardino Co Auditor Cont 13,673.80 0 13,673.80 Supplier Payment: Full Traffic Control Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451560 04/24/2025 Full Traffic Control Inc 5,652.29 0 5,652.29 Supplier Payment: Danny G Holt: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Danny G Holt 0 1,730.68 1,730.68 Supplier Payment: Robin Brock: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Robin Brock 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Kenneth Mcneil: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Kenneth Mcneil 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Ecs Imaging Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451557 04/24/2025 Ecs Imaging Inc 30,394.00 0 30,394.00 Page 36 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 21 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Bishop Company: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451541 04/24/2025 Bishop Company 86.18 0 86.18 Supplier Payment: Rancho Smog Center: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451588 04/24/2025 Rancho Smog Center 199.80 0 199.80 Supplier Payment: Scott D Sorensen: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Scott D Sorensen 0 1,671.25 1,671.25 Supplier Payment: Cheryl L Roberts: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Cheryl L Roberts 0 3,077.83 3,077.83 Supplier Payment: Stephen Kilmer: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Stephen Kilmer 0 1,695.04 1,695.04 Supplier Payment: Shoeteria Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Shoeteria Inc 166.38 0 166.38 Supplier Payment: Inland Presort & Mailing Services: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451570 04/24/2025 Inland Presort & Mailing Services 297.99 0 297.99 Supplier Payment: Darrell Luttrull: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Darrell Luttrull 0 528.16 528.16 Supplier Payment: Circlepoint: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451545 04/24/2025 Circlepoint 1,540.00 0 1,540.00 Supplier Payment: Byron Morgan: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Byron Morgan 0 515.44 515.44 Supplier Payment: Gerald Campbell: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Gerald Campbell 0 528.16 528.16 Supplier Payment: John Mckee: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 John Mckee 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Robert Eggers: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Robert Eggers 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Michael Nauman: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Michael Nauman 0 528.16 528.16 Supplier Payment: Abc Locksmiths Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Abc Locksmiths Inc 1,026.27 0 1,026.27 Supplier Payment: Stephanie Contreras: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Stephanie Contreras 479.16 0 479.16 Supplier Payment: Robert Anthony Corcoran: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Robert Anthony Corcoran 0 1,105.73 1,105.73 Page 37 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 22 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Victoria Bantau: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Victoria Bantau 0 658.62 658.62 Supplier Payment: Virtual Project Manager Llc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451608 04/24/2025 Virtual Project Manager Llc 500.00 0 500.00 Supplier Payment: Anderson'S Playschool: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Anderson'S Playschool 4,162.20 0 4,162.20 Supplier Payment: William Spain: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 William Spain 0 528.16 528.16 Supplier Payment: Susan Bazal: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Susan Bazal 0 426.70 426.70 Supplier Payment: Lance Soll & Lunghard: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451574 04/24/2025 Lance Soll & Lunghard 13,640.00 0 13,640.00 Supplier Payment: Daisyeco Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Daisyeco Inc 299.47 0 299.47 Supplier Payment: Dlr Group Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Dlr Group Inc 41,977.50 0 41,977.50 Supplier Payment: Idexx Distribution Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451567 04/24/2025 Idexx Distribution Inc 2,361.39 0 2,361.39 Supplier Payment: Mwi Animal Health: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451577 04/24/2025 Mwi Animal Health 825.11 0 825.11 Supplier Payment: Oclc Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451580 04/24/2025 Oclc Inc 14,070.44 0 14,070.44 Supplier Payment: Thomas A Flamino: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451599 04/24/2025 Thomas A Flamino 700.00 0 700.00 Supplier Payment: William M Kirkpatrick: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 William M Kirkpatrick 0 907.46 907.46 Supplier Payment: Michael Eagleson: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Michael Eagleson 0 2,331.10 2,331.10 Supplier Payment: D & K Concrete Company: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451552 04/24/2025 D & K Concrete Company 1,300.55 0 1,300.55 Supplier Payment: Karl Cox: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Karl Cox 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Action Awards Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451533 04/24/2025 Action Awards Inc 731.94 0 731.94 Supplier Payment: Allan J Lee: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Allan J Lee 0 426.70 426.70 Page 38 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 23 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Collins & Collins Llp: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451547 04/24/2025 Collins & Collins Llp 6,590.00 0 6,590.00 Supplier Payment: US Builders & Consultants: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451602 04/24/2025 US Builders & Consultants 27,431.64 0 27,431.64 Supplier Payment: Lloyd Almand: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Lloyd Almand 0 426.70 426.70 Supplier Payment: Timothy A Yowell: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Timothy A Yowell 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Psa Print Group: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Psa Print Group 215.76 0 215.76 Supplier Payment: Heritage Wellness Collective: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451564 04/24/2025 Heritage Wellness Collective 1,279.00 0 1,279.00 Supplier Payment: Jackie Deans: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Jackie Deans 0 426.70 426.70 Supplier Payment: James Sullivan: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 James Sullivan 0 528.16 528.16 Supplier Payment: Iland Internet Solutions: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Iland Internet Solutions 1,290.63 0 1,290.63 Supplier Payment: Donald R Cloughesy: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Donald R Cloughesy 0 2,369.46 2,369.46 Supplier Payment: Triden Group Corp: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Triden Group Corp 60.00 0 60.00 Supplier Payment: Toro Towing: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451600 04/24/2025 Toro Towing 200.00 0 200.00 Supplier Payment: Ameron Pole Products Llc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451536 04/24/2025 Ameron Pole Products Llc 27,794.78 0 27,794.78 Supplier Payment: Michael L Bell: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Michael L Bell 0 1,690.43 1,690.43 Supplier Payment: Ralph Crane: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 04/24/2025 Ralph Crane 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Supplier Payment: Southern California Edison - Remit-To: RCMU: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451597 04/24/2025 Southern California Edison 3,086.69 0 3,086.69 Supplier Payment: Quadient Finance Usa Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451587 04/24/2025 Quadient Finance Usa Inc 5,072.56 0 5,072.56 Page 39 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 09:05 AM 04/29/2025 Page 24 of 24 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Cintas Corporation: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451614 04/24/2025 Cintas Corporation 0 2,531.88 2,531.88 Supplier Payment: Southern California Edison: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451619 04/24/2025 Southern California Edison 0 3,201.55 3,201.55 Supplier Payment: Cintas Corporation: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451613 04/24/2025 Cintas Corporation 4,465.26 0 4,465.26 Supplier Payment: Graphics Factory Printing Inc: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451616 04/24/2025 Graphics Factory Printing Inc 478.41 0 478.41 Supplier Payment: C V W D: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451615 04/24/2025 C V W D 1,966.42 0 1,966.42 Supplier Payment: Southern California Edison: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451618 04/24/2025 Southern California Edison 576.87 0 576.87 Supplier Payment: Diamond Environmental Services: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 04/24/2025 Diamond Environmental Services 215.40 0 215.40 8,250,500.47 198,132.13 8,448,632.60 Page 40 DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Jevin Kaye, Finance Director Veronica Lopez, Accounts Payable Supervisor SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $27,090.17 Dated April 07, 2025, Through April 28, 2025. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment of demands as presented. Weekly check register amounts are $24,544.42 and $2,545.75 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALYSIS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Weekly Check Register Page 41 Council Meeting Check Register - SoCal Gas 09:19 AM 04/29/2025 Page 1 of 1 Company: City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Payment Date On or After: 04/07/2025 Payment Date On or Before: 04/28/2025 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Socal Gas: 04/17/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451523 04/17/2025 Socal Gas 0 275.00 275.00 Supplier Payment: Socal Gas: 04/24/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 451595 04/24/2025 Socal Gas 0 2,270.75 2,270.75 Supplier Payment: Socal Gas: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451594 04/24/2025 Socal Gas 38.72 0 38.72 Supplier Payment: Socal Gas: 04/24/2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 451617 04/24/2025 Socal Gas 24,505.70 0 24,505.70 24,544.42 2,545.75 27,090.17 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 42 DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Jevin Kaye, Finance Director Rick Flinchum, Finance Manager SUBJECT:Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of March 31, 2025 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District receive and file the attached current investment schedules for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (District) as of March 31, 2025. BACKGROUND: The attached investment schedules as of March 31, 2025, reflect cash and investments managed by the Finance Department/Revenue Management Division and are in conformity with the requirements of California Government Code Section 53601 and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District’s adopted Investment Policies as approved on June 27, 2024. ANALYSIS: The City’s and District’s Treasurers are each required to submit a quarterly investment report to the City Council and the Fire Board, respectively, in accordance with California Government Code Section 53646. The quarterly investment report is required to be submitted within 30 days following the end of the quarter covered by the report. However, the City and District Treasurers have each elected to provide this report on a monthly basis. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The monthly investment schedule supports the City Council’s core value of providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all by demonstrating the active, prudent fiscal management of the City’s investment portfolio to ensure that financial resources are available to support the various services the city provides to all Rancho Cucamonga stakeholders. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Investment Schedules as of March 31, 2025 (City) Attachment 2 – Investment Schedules as of March 31, 2025 (Fire) Page 43 Page 44 Customer Service PO Box 11813 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1813 ACCOUNT STATEMENT For the Month Ending March 31, 2025CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Client Management Team Contents Cover/DisclosuresRichard Babbe, CCM Senior Managing Consultant Summary Statement Individual Accounts Accounts included in Statement CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Meredith LaBuda Sullivan Senior Portfolio Manager Rachael Miller Client Consultant CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 Online Access https://www.pfmam.com Customer Service 1-717-232-2723 Page 45 Account Statement Important Disclosures For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 Important Disclosures This statement is for general information purposes only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations. PFM Asset Management ("PFMAM") is a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. ("USBAM"), a SEC-registered investment adviser. USBAM is direct subsidiary of U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank") and an indirect subsidiary of U.S. Bancorp. U.S. Bank is not responsible for and does not guarantee the products, services or performance of PFMAM. PFMAM maintains a written disclosure statement of our background and business experience. If you would like to receive a copy of our current disclosure statement, please contact Service Operations at the address below. Tax Reporting Cost data and realized gains / losses are provided for informational 365 and dividing the result by 7. The yields quoted should not be considered a purposes only. Please review for accuracy and consult your tax advisor to determine representation of the yield of the fund in the future, since the yield is not fixed. the tax consequences of your security transactions. PFMAM does not report such information to the IRS or other taxing authorities and is not responsible for the accuracy of such information that may be required to be reported to federal, state or other taxing authorities. Average maturity represents the average maturity of all securities and investments of a portfolio, determined by multiplying the par or principal value of each security or investment by its maturity (days or years), summing the products, and dividing the sum by the total principal value of the portfolio. The Financial Situation In order to better serve you, PFMAM should be promptly notified stated maturity date of mortgage backed or callable securities are used in this of any material change in your investment objective or financial situation. Callable Securities Securities subject to redemption prior to maturity may be statement. However the actual maturity of these securities could vary depending on the level or prepayments on the underlying mortgages or whether a callable Proxy Voting PFMAM does not normally receive proxies to vote on behalf of its clients. However, it does on occasion receive consent requests. In the event a consent request is received the portfolio manager contacts the client and then proceeds according to their instructions. PFMAM’s Proxy Voting Policy is available upon request by contacting Service Operations at the address below. Questions About an Account PFMAM’s monthly statement is intended to detail our investment advisory activity as well as the activity of any accounts held by clients in pools that are managed by PFMAM. The custodian bank maintains the control of assets and executes (i.e., settles) all investment transactions. The custodian statement is the official record of security and cash holdings and transactions. PFMAM recognizes that clients may use these reports to facilitate record keeping and that the custodian bank statement and the PFMAM statement should be reconciled and differences resolved. Many custodians use a settlement date basis which may result in the need to reconcile due to a timing difference. Account Control PFMAM does not have the authority to withdraw funds from or deposit funds to the custodian outside the scope of services provided by PFMAM. Our clients retain responsibility for their internal accounting policies; implementing and enforcing internal controls and generating ledger entries or otherwise recording transactions. Market Value Generally, PFMAM’s market prices are derived from closing bid prices as of the last business day of the month as supplied by ICE Data Services. There may be differences in the values shown for investments due to accrued but uncollected income and the use of differing valuation sources and methods. Non-negotiable FDIC-insured bank certificates of deposit are priced at par. Although PFMAM believes the prices to be reliable, the values of the securities may not represent the prices at which the securities could have been bought or sold. Explanation of the valuation methods for a registered investment company or local government investment program is contained in the appropriate fund offering documentation or information statement. Amortized Cost The original cost of the principal of the security is adjusted for the amount of the periodic reduction of any discount or premium from the purchase date until the date of the report. Discount or premium with respect to short term securities (those with less than one year to maturity at time of issuance) is amortized on a straightline basis. Such discount or premium with respect to longer term securities is amortized using the constant yield basis. redeemed in whole or in part before maturity, which could affect the yield represented. security has or is still able to be called. Portfolio The securities in this portfolio, including shares of mutual funds, are not guaranteed or otherwise protected by PFMAM, the FDIC (except for certain non-negotiable certificates of deposit) or any government agency. Investment in securities involves risks, including the possible loss of the amount invested. Actual settlement values, accrued interest, and amortized cost amounts may vary for securities subject to an adjustable interest rate or subject to principal paydowns. Any changes to the values shown may be reflected within the next monthly statement’s beginning values. Monthly distribution yield represents the net change in the value of one share (normally $1.00 per share) resulting from all dividends declared during the month by a fund expressed as a percentage of the value of one share at the beginning of the month. This resulting net change is then annualized by multiplying it by 365 and dividing it by the number of calendar days in the month. YTM at Cost The yield to maturity at cost is the expected rate of return, based on the original cost, the annual interest receipts, maturity value and the time period from purchase date to maturity, stated as a percentage, on an annualized Rating Information provided for ratings is based upon a good faith inquiry of selected basis. YTM at Market The yield to maturity at market is the rate of return, based on thesources, but its accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed. Shares of some local government investment programs and TERM funds are distributed by representatives of USBAM's affiliate, U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. which is registered with the SEC as a broker/dealer and is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”). You may reach the FINRA by calling the FINRA Hotline at 1-800-289-9999 or at the FINRA website address current market value, the annual interest receipts, maturity value and the time period remaining until maturity, stated as a percentage, on an annualized basis. Managed Account A portfolio of investments managed discretely by PFMAM according to the client’s specific investment policy and requirements. The investments are directly owned by the client and held by the client’s custodian. Unsettled Trade A trade which has been executed however the final https://www.finra.org/investors/investor-contacts. A brochure describing the FINRA Regulation Public Disclosure Program is also available from FINRA upon request. Key Terms and Definitions consummation of the security transaction and payment has not yet taken place. Please review the detail pages of this statement carefully. If you think your Dividends on local government investment program funds consist of interest earned, statement is wrong, missing account information, or if you need more information plus any discount ratably amortized to the date of maturity, plus all realized gains and about a transaction, please contact PFMAM within 60 days of receipt. If you have other concerns or questions regarding your account, or to request an updatedlosses on the sale of securities prior to maturity, less ratable amortization of any premium and all accrued expenses to the fund. Dividends are accrued daily and may copy of PFMAM's current disclosure statement, please contact a member of your be paid either monthly or quarterly. The monthly earnings on this statement represent client management team at PFMAM Service Operations at the address below. PFM Asset Management Attn: Service Operations 213 Market Street the estimated dividend accrued for the month for any program that distributes earnings on a quarterly basis. There is no guarantee that the estimated amount will be paid on the actual distribution date. Current Yield is the net change, exclusive of capital changes and income other than investment income, in the value of a hypothetical fund account with a balance of one share over the seven-day base period including the statement date, expressed as a percentage of the value of one share (normally $1.00 per share) at the beginning of the seven-day period. This resulting net change in account value is then annualized by multiplying it by Harrisburg, PA 17101 NOT FDIC INSURED ꢀ ꢀ NO BANK GUARANTEE ꢀ ꢀ MAY LOSE VALUE Page 46 Account Statement Consolidated Summary Statement For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Portfolio Summary Investment Allocation Cash Dividends and Income Closing Market Value Investment Type Closing Market Value PercentPortfolio Holdings PFMAM Managed Account CAMP Pool 1,296,759.93 0.00 393,616,594.93 90,353,942.89 775,164.64 Asset-Backed Security Corporate Note Bank Note Certificate of Deposit Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Sec Corporate Note U.S. Treasury Bond / Note CAMP Pool Local Agency Investment Fund Passbook/Checking Accounts 45,806,155.82 76,451,600.92 4,738,210.67 6,949,356.61 49,594,004.09 3,616,536.88 206,460,729.94 90,353,942.89 775,164.64 9.26 15.46 0.96 1.40 10.03 0.73 41.73 18.27 0.16 Local Agency Investment Fund Passbook/Checking Accounts 0.00 0.00 9,887,131.39 Total $1,296,759.93 $494,632,833.85 9,887,131.39 2.00 Total $494,632,833.85 100.00% Maturity Distribution (Fixed Income Holdings) Portfolio Holdings Sector Allocation ABS 9.26% Corporate Note 15.46% Closing Market Value Percent Passbook/Checking AccountsUnder 30 days 31 to 60 days 61 to 90 days 91 to 180 days 181 days to 1 year 1 to 2 years 101,016,238.92 0.00 20.42 0.00 2.00% Local Agency Investment Fund 0.16% 0.00 0.00 Bank Note 0.96% Cert of Deposit 1.40% Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security 483,940.41 2,647,769.00 113,913,144.00 68,481,058.32 123,895,775.92 84,194,907.28 0.00 0.10 CAMP Pool 18.27%0.54 23.03 13.84 25.05 17.02 0.00 2 to 3 years 3 to 4 years 4 to 5 years 10.03% Priv Placement Bond Over 5 years Total $494,632,833.85 100.00%US TSY Bond / Note 41.73% 0.73% Weighted Average Days to Maturity 848 PFM Asset Management Summary Page 1 Page 47 Managed Account Summary Statement For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Transaction Summary - Managed Account Cash Transactions Summary - Managed Account Opening Market Value $391,498,155.54 Maturities/Calls Sale Proceeds Coupon/Interest/Dividend Income Principal Payments Security Purchases Net Cash Contribution 0.00 18,573,842.03 1,123,517.48 342,794.94 (20,263,281.82) (0.02) Maturities/Calls (342,794.94) (18,451,370.29) 20,191,837.66 0.00 Principal Dispositions Principal Acquisitions Unsettled Trades C_h_a_n_g_e__i n_C_u_r_r_en_t_V_a_l_u_e_____________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Reconciling Transactions 720,766.96 0.00 Closing Market Value $393,616,594.93 Earnings Reconciliation (Cash Basis) - Managed Account Cash Balance Interest/Dividends/Coupons Received Less Purchased Interest Related to Interest/Coupons Plus Net Realized Gains/Losses 1,245,989.22 (71,444.16) 122,214.87 Closing Cash Balance $123,308.25 Total Cash Basis Earnings $1,296,759.93 TotalEarnings Reconciliation (Accrual Basis) Ending Amortized Value of Securities Ending Accrued Interest 392,884,673.10 2,276,772.47 Plus Proceeds from Sales 18,573,842.03 342,794.94 1,123,517.48 (20,263,281.82) (391,415,139.93) (2,362,213.03) Plus Proceeds of Maturities/Calls/Principal Payments Plus Coupons/Dividends Received Less Cost of New Purchases Less Beginning Amortized Value of Securities Less Beginning Accrued Interest Total Accrual Basis Earnings $1,160,965.24 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account Page 1 Page 48 Portfolio Summary and Statistics For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Account Summary Sector Allocation Description Par Value Market Value Percent ABS 11.64% Bank Note 1.20% Cert of Deposit 1.77% U.S. Treasury Bond / Note Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security Corporate Note Certificate of Deposit Bank Note Asset-Backed Security Managed Account Sub-Total Accrued Interest 213,485,000.00 49,155,920.18 206,460,729.94 49,594,004.09 52.45 12.60 80,585,000.00 6,890,000.00 4,675,000.00 80,068,137.80 6,949,356.61 4,738,210.67 45,806,155.82 20.34 1.77 1.20 Corporate Note 19.42% 45,591,831.81 400,382,751.99 11.64 393,616,594.93 100.00% 2,276,772.47 395,893,367.40 Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security 12.60% Priv Placement Bond Total Portfolio 400,382,751.99 0.00Unsettled Trades 0.00 US TSY Bond / Note 52.45% 0.92% Maturity Distribution Characteristics Yield to Maturity at Cost 4.11% 4.16% 1065 31.48% 28.94%Yield to Maturity at Market Weighted Average Days to Maturity21.39% 17.40% 0.67%0.12%0.00% Over 5 Years0 - 6 Months 6 - 12 Months 1 - 2 Years 2 - 3 Years 3 - 4 Years 4 - 5 Years PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account Page 2 Page 49 Managed Account Issuer Summary For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Issuer Summary Credit Quality (S&P Ratings) Market Value Issuer Adobe Inc American Express Co AstraZeneca PLC BA Credit Card Trust Bank of America Corp Bayerische Motoren Werke AG BMW Vehicle Lease Trust Capital One Financial Corp CarMax Inc of Holdings 2,858,619.79 6,857,528.27 1,618,199.08 6,570,857.35 3,066,764.00 2,722,485.60 1,837,852.53 2,720,916.64 79,391.26 Percent 0.73 1.74 0.41 1.67 0.78 0.69 0.47 0.69 0.02 0.54 0.49 0.06 0.42 1.20 0.52 0.58 0.79 0.69 0.85 11.79 0.82 0.72 0.27 0.58 0.85 1.12 0.49 1.47 0.69 0.38 1.05 0.14 A NR 3.47% BBB+ 0.88% AAA 8.65% AA- 1.82% 5.30% A+ 8.26% A- 6.31% A-1 0.25% Caterpillar Inc 2,127,647.56 1,929,064.00 241,962.24 Charles Schwab Corp Chippewa Valley Agency Ltd Cisco Systems Inc Citigroup Inc Comcast Corp Cooperatieve Rabobank UA Credit Agricole Group Deere & Co Discover Card Execution Note Trust Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp Federal National Mortgage Association Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receiv Goldman Sachs Group Inc Groupe BPCE 1,647,297.00 4,715,246.80 2,049,674.00 2,277,807.75 3,116,674.90 2,729,499.20 3,327,774.76 46,367,497.49 3,226,506.60 2,841,511.99 1,059,237.71 2,277,165.60 3,348,741.30 4,423,596.80 1,946,954.00 5,803,872.24 2,725,645.60 1,502,095.37 4,143,736.93 560,745.36 AA+ 65.06% Hershey Co Home Depot Inc Honda Auto Receivables Owner Trust Honda Motor Co Ltd Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust International Business Machines Corp Johnson & Johnson PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account Page 3 Page 50 Managed Account Issuer Summary For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Market Value Issuer of Holdings 3,488,129.78 2,133,784.80 894,051.28 Percent 0.89 0.54 0.23 0.06 0.40 0.77 0.64 1.02 0.76 0.42 0.17 0.40 0.62 0.64 0.57 0.38 0.86 0.94 52.46 0.45 0.71 0.60 1.20 0.44 0.12 JPMorgan Chase & Co Kubota Credit Owner Trust Mars Inc Medallion Financial Corp Mercedes-Benz Auto Receivables Trust Merck & Co Inc 241,978.17 1,568,278.15 3,041,582.00 2,528,355.00 4,020,121.90 2,975,220.00 1,669,216.54 657,171.45 1,586,171.68 2,433,800.00 2,527,667.50 2,227,586.80 1,486,758.70 3,374,036.85 3,703,903.20 206,460,729.94 1,778,146.20 2,790,871.88 2,359,247.19 4,738,210.67 1,748,696.25 460,309.28 Meta Platforms Inc Morgan Stanley National Australia Bank Ltd National Rural Utilities Cooperative Fi Nissan Auto Receivables Owner Trust Northern Trust Corp PNC Financial Services Group Inc State Street Corp Texas Instruments Inc Toyota Auto Receivables Owner Trust Toyota Motor Corp Truist Financial Corp United States Treasury UnitedHealth Group Inc Verizon Master Trust Volkswagen Auto Loan Enhanced Trust Wells Fargo & Co WF Card Issuance Trust World Omni Auto Trust Total $393,616,594.93 100.00% PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account Page 4 Page 51 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Date Original Cost YTM at Cost Accrued Interest Amortized Cost Market ValueDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/15/2023 4.625% 03/15/2026 91282CGR6 91282CGV7 9128286S4 912828R36 91282CCF6 91282CCF6 91282CCP4 91282CCP4 91282CCP4 9128282A7 91282CCZ2 91282CCZ2 91282CDG3 91282CDG3 1,600,000.00 AA+ 2,600,000.00 AA+ 3,950,000.00 AA+ 3,525,000.00 AA+ 3,000,000.00 AA+ 6,100,000.00 AA+ 2,000,000.00 AA+ 3,000,000.00 AA+ 3,000,000.00 AA+ 4,525,000.00 AA+ 1,000,000.00 AA+ 3,900,000.00 AA+ 400,000.00 AA+ Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa 03/04/24 04/01/24 08/14/23 03/03/22 02/16/22 06/02/21 08/06/21 08/02/21 09/03/24 04/21/22 10/28/22 05/18/23 11/17/21 11/01/24 03/06/24 04/03/24 08/17/23 03/07/22 02/17/22 06/04/21 08/09/21 08/03/21 09/05/24 04/22/22 10/31/22 05/22/23 11/18/21 11/05/24 1,600,875.00 4.60 2,551,859.38 4.72 3,719,789.06 4.69 3,504,758.79 1.77 2,854,687.50 1.93 6,086,656.25 0.79 1,986,015.63 0.77 2,992,031.25 0.68 2,818,359.38 3.96 4,249,081.05 3.02 878,867.19 4.27 3,542,144.53 3.81 397,578.13 1.25 1,884,687.50 4.18 3,418.48 45,000.00 39,390.88 21,678.26 7,541.21 15,333.79 2,071.82 3,107.73 3,107.73 8,437.50 23.91 1,600,412.04 2,575,410.65 3,858,102.22 3,519,589.11 2,960,512.91 6,096,887.43 1,996,259.55 2,997,875.58 2,871,230.82 4,437,287.19 953,664.58 1,608,000.00 2,591,794.40 3,880,535.30 3,432,193.80 2,888,673.00 5,873,635.10 1,913,126.00 2,869,689.00 2,869,689.00 4,375,285.85 955,352.00 US TREASURY N/B DTD 04/17/2023 3.750% 04/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 04/30/2019 2.375% 04/30/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/16/2016 1.625% 05/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/01/2021 0.750% 05/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/01/2021 0.750% 05/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/02/2021 0.625% 07/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/02/2021 0.625% 07/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/02/2021 0.625% 07/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/15/2016 1.500% 08/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2021 0.875% 09/30/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2021 0.875% 09/30/2026 93.24 3,740,467.04 399,225.75 3,725,872.80 382,687.60US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/01/2021 1.125% 10/31/2026 1,889.50 9,447.51US TREASURY N/B 2,000,000.00 AA+1,907,533.79 1,913,438.00 DTD 11/01/2021 1.125% 10/31/2026 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account Page 5 Page 52 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Date Original Cost YTM at Cost Accrued Interest Amortized Cost Market ValueDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/01/2021 1.125% 10/31/2026 91282CDG3 912828U24 912828U24 91282CDK4 91282CDK4 91282CDQ1 912828YX2 912828Z78 912828V98 912828V98 912828V98 912828ZB9 912828ZB9 91282CKE0 3,000,000.00 AA+ 3,000,000.00 AA+ 4,000,000.00 AA+ 1,400,000.00 AA+ 2,895,000.00 AA+ 1,625,000.00 AA+ 3,520,000.00 AA+ 2,150,000.00 AA+ 645,000.00 AA+ Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa 05/20/22 06/08/22 10/28/24 11/07/24 12/01/21 01/03/22 11/08/23 01/03/24 06/02/22 08/01/22 07/05/22 08/01/24 09/05/23 02/04/25 05/23/22 06/09/22 10/31/24 11/08/24 12/03/21 01/05/22 11/10/23 01/05/24 06/06/22 08/03/22 07/07/22 08/02/24 09/08/23 02/05/25 2,789,648.44 2.82 2,870,390.63 3.05 3,836,250.00 4.11 1,318,734.38 4.22 2,903,255.27 1.19 1,616,684.57 1.36 3,223,412.50 4.67 1,989,589.84 4.11 625,398.05 2.95 1,911,152.34 2.72 3,313,671.88 2.84 2,647,271.48 4.06 4,010,097.66 4.54 2,199,054.69 4.27 14,171.27 22,707.18 30,276.24 5,865.38 12,128.78 5,106.18 15,485.08 5,345.30 1,804.04 5,454.07 9,509.67 2,788.04 4,402.17 4,319.29 2,925,041.18 2,952,556.57 3,868,839.87 1,333,818.06 2,897,753.27 1,622,082.06 3,354,769.47 2,054,211.40 637,170.65 2,870,157.00 2,908,125.00 3,877,500.00 1,339,570.40 2,770,040.22 1,551,558.13 3,390,337.28 2,057,954.20 625,448.76 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/15/2016 2.000% 11/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/15/2016 2.000% 11/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/30/2021 1.250% 11/30/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/30/2021 1.250% 11/30/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2021 1.250% 12/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2019 1.750% 12/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2020 1.500% 01/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2017 2.250% 02/15/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2017 2.250% 02/15/2027 1,950,000.00 AA+ 3,400,000.00 AA+ 2,850,000.00 AA+ 4,500,000.00 AA+ 2,200,000.00 AA+ 1,933,940.47 3,364,884.35 2,697,634.41 4,230,534.41 2,199,122.51 1,890,891.60 3,296,939.20 2,703,604.05 4,268,848.50 2,212,975.60 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2017 2.250% 02/15/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/02/2020 1.125% 02/28/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/02/2020 1.125% 02/28/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/15/2024 4.250% 03/15/2027 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account Page 6 Page 53 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Date Original Cost YTM at Cost Accrued Interest Amortized Cost Market ValueDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/15/2017 2.375% 05/15/2027 912828X88 91282CFB2 91282CAH4 91282CAH4 91282CAH4 91282CFM8 91282CAU5 91282CAU5 91282CLX7 9128283F5 91282CGC9 91282CGC9 91282CBJ9 91282CGH8 3,300,000.00 AA+ 1,600,000.00 AA+ 1,200,000.00 AA+ 1,700,000.00 AA+ 2,700,000.00 AA+ 3,000,000.00 AA+ 2,000,000.00 AA+ 3,050,000.00 AA+ 800,000.00 AA+ Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa 08/22/22 01/04/23 09/04/24 09/03/24 12/07/22 05/03/23 12/02/24 01/04/23 12/26/24 01/25/23 03/06/23 06/03/24 11/03/23 01/03/24 08/24/22 01/06/23 09/05/24 09/05/24 12/09/22 05/08/23 12/05/24 01/06/23 12/31/24 01/30/23 03/08/23 06/05/24 11/06/23 01/05/24 3,179,214.84 3.22 1,522,000.00 3.93 1,093,781.25 3.66 1,543,414.06 3.79 2,327,484.38 3.71 3,081,093.75 3.46 1,800,937.50 4.18 2,597,503.91 3.91 795,031.25 4.36 3,013,625.00 3.58 2,459,667.97 4.25 2,446,093.75 4.54 2,637,785.16 4.67 4,459,355.47 4.04 29,661.26 7,292.82 521.74 3,245,804.22 1,560,181.16 1,113,306.67 1,572,153.95 2,509,641.50 3,046,050.75 1,821,935.35 2,807,416.82 795,442.43 3,196,102.80 1,558,563.20 1,106,250.00 1,567,187.50 2,489,062.50 3,015,702.00 1,833,516.00 2,796,111.90 804,093.60 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/01/2022 2.750% 07/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/31/2020 0.500% 08/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/31/2020 0.500% 08/31/2027 739.13 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/31/2020 0.500% 08/31/2027 1,173.91 338.11US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 4.125% 09/30/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/02/2020 0.500% 10/31/2027 4,198.90 6,403.31 12,488.95 27,248.62 24,352.56 24,352.56 3,853.59 26,395.03 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/02/2020 0.500% 10/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/15/2024 4.125% 11/15/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/15/2017 2.250% 11/15/2027 3,200,000.00 AA+ 2,500,000.00 AA+ 2,500,000.00 AA+ 3,100,000.00 AA+ 4,550,000.00 AA+ 3,097,973.00 2,476,979.33 2,457,745.98 2,790,761.24 4,486,908.48 3,067,750.40 2,497,755.00 2,497,755.00 2,839,407.80 4,499,344.85 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/03/2023 3.875% 12/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/03/2023 3.875% 12/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/01/2021 0.750% 01/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2023 3.500% 01/31/2028 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account Page 7 Page 54 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Date Original Cost YTM at Cost Accrued Interest Amortized Cost Market ValueDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2018 2.750% 02/15/2028 9128283W8 9128283W8 9128283W8 91282CBS9 91282CBS9 91282CGT2 91282CBZ3 91282CCE9 91282CCH2 91282CJA0 91282CJF9 9128285M8 91282CJR3 91282CDW8 2,000,000.00 AA+ 3,000,000.00 AA+ 3,375,000.00 AA+ 1,700,000.00 AA+ 2,625,000.00 AA+ 2,950,000.00 AA+ 3,900,000.00 AA+ 325,000.00 AA+ Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa 03/06/23 04/05/23 11/09/23 07/05/23 10/02/23 03/03/25 06/01/23 07/07/23 11/03/23 12/04/23 04/01/24 03/04/24 07/01/24 06/03/24 03/08/23 04/06/23 11/10/23 07/07/23 10/04/23 03/05/25 06/05/23 07/11/23 11/06/23 12/05/23 04/03/24 03/06/24 07/02/24 06/05/24 1,869,296.88 4.23 2,921,015.63 3.34 3,137,299.80 4.59 1,482,984.38 4.26 2,257,089.84 4.75 2,916,812.50 4.02 3,463,687.50 3.77 281,010.74 4.35 2,898,676.76 4.66 6,093,046.88 4.26 7,143,828.13 4.37 7,621,562.50 4.25 4,660,875.00 4.47 1,864,324.22 4.45 6,837.02 10,255.52 11,537.47 58.06 1,923,967.71 2,953,303.16 3,214,804.10 1,562,560.95 2,379,352.67 2,917,567.88 3,625,934.36 296,527.67 1,937,344.00 2,906,016.00 3,269,268.00 1,573,231.00 2,429,253.75 2,926,376.40 3,600,795.90 299,380.90 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2018 2.750% 02/15/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2018 2.750% 02/15/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2021 1.250% 03/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2021 1.250% 03/31/2028 89.65 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2023 3.625% 03/31/2028 292.18 US TREASURY N/B DTD 04/30/2021 1.250% 04/30/2028 20,469.61 1,361.61 10,605.15 758.20 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/01/2021 1.250% 05/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2021 1.250% 06/30/2028 3,375,000.00 AA+ 6,000,000.00 AA+ 7,000,000.00 AA+ 8,000,000.00 AA+ 4,800,000.00 AA+ 2,100,000.00 AA+ 3,042,303.08 6,069,394.78 7,114,945.26 7,707,841.84 4,682,145.41 1,902,424.04 3,102,100.88 6,134,766.00 7,216,566.00 7,780,312.00 4,767,374.40 1,937,495.70 US TREASURY N/B DTD 10/02/2023 4.625% 09/30/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 10/31/2023 4.875% 10/31/2028 143,287.29 94,613.26 45,248.62 6,091.16 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/15/2018 3.125% 11/15/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/02/2024 3.750% 12/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2022 1.750% 01/31/2029 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account Page 8 Page 55 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Date Original Cost YTM at Cost Accrued Interest Amortized Cost Market ValueDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2022 1.750% 01/31/2029 91282CDW8 9128286B1 91282CEE7 91282CEM9 91282CEM9 91282CEV9 91282CEV9 91282CFC0 91282CFC0 91282CFL0 91282CFL0 91282CFT3 91282CMD0 91282CMD0 4,500,000.00 AA+ 5,725,000.00 AA+ 6,300,000.00 AA+ 2,750,000.00 AA+ 4,000,000.00 AA+ 2,200,000.00 AA+ 5,000,000.00 AA+ 1,000,000.00 AA+ 1,100,000.00 AA+ 1,100,000.00 AA+ 2,000,000.00 AA+ 2,725,000.00 AA+ 2,000,000.00 AA+ 2,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa 02/01/24 05/02/24 06/03/24 08/01/24 08/01/24 09/03/24 09/04/24 11/04/24 10/01/24 11/01/24 10/28/24 12/02/24 02/03/25 01/02/25 02/05/24 05/06/24 06/05/24 08/02/24 08/02/24 09/05/24 09/05/24 11/05/24 10/03/24 11/05/24 10/31/24 12/05/24 02/06/25 01/07/25 4,080,585.94 3.82 5,240,611.33 4.62 5,742,105.47 4.44 2,632,050.78 3.87 3,827,031.25 3.88 2,150,929.69 3.76 4,916,796.88 3.63 935,156.25 4.15 1,057,074.22 3.51 1,084,789.06 4.19 1,977,968.75 4.12 2,707,968.75 4.14 2,004,531.25 4.32 2,501,757.81 4.36 13,052.49 18,681.37 408.81 4,177,497.75 5,324,141.03 5,829,044.30 2,647,300.05 3,849,389.38 2,156,289.38 4,925,909.37 940,188.53 4,151,776.50 5,455,747.52 5,935,532.40 2,639,356.50 3,839,064.00 2,139,242.60 4,861,915.00 947,305.00 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2019 2.625% 02/15/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2022 2.375% 03/31/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/02/2022 2.875% 04/30/2029 33,197.51 48,287.29 17,973.76 40,849.45 4,350.83 4,785.91 116.46 US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/02/2022 2.875% 04/30/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2022 3.250% 06/30/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2022 3.250% 06/30/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/01/2022 2.625% 07/31/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/01/2022 2.625% 07/31/2029 1,061,129.82 1,085,930.68 1,979,674.59 2,708,997.73 2,004,412.11 2,501,688.09 1,042,035.50 1,095,660.50 1,992,110.00 2,727,981.15 2,033,906.00 2,542,382.50 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 3.875% 09/30/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 3.875% 09/30/2029 211.75 US TREASURY N/B DTD 10/31/2022 4.000% 10/31/2029 45,767.96 21,995.86 27,494.82 US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2024 4.375% 12/31/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2024 4.375% 12/31/2029 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account Page 9 Page 56 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Date Original Cost YTM at Cost Accrued Interest Amortized Cost Market ValueDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B 91282CGJ4 6,500,000.00 AA+Aaa 03/03/25 03/05/25 6,336,484.38 4.07 37,707.18 6,338,755.24 6,363,909.50 DTD 01/31/2023 3.500% 01/31/2030 Security Type Sub-Total 213,485,000.00 203,086,343.23 3.75 1,135,310.99 206,692,539.18 206,460,729.94 Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security FHMS K062 A2 DTD 02/01/2017 3.413% 12/01/2026 3137BUX60 3137FAWS3 3137HACX2 3137HAD45 3136BQDE6 3137HAQ74 3137HAMH6 3137HAST4 3137HAMS2 3137HB3D4 3137HB3G7 3137HBLV4 1,710,000.00 AA+ 1,960,000.00 AA+ 3,150,000.00 AA+ 3,173,222.36 AA+ 3,247,697.83 AA+ 3,000,000.00 AA+ 3,475,000.00 AA+ 2,330,000.00 AA+ 3,000,000.00 AA+ 1,130,000.00 AA+ 1,720,000.00 AA+ 1,790,000.00 AA+ Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa 08/17/23 08/17/23 07/27/23 07/19/23 08/17/23 10/11/23 09/07/23 10/25/23 10/17/23 11/14/23 11/28/23 02/01/24 08/22/23 08/22/23 08/01/23 07/27/23 08/22/23 10/19/23 09/14/23 10/31/23 10/20/23 11/21/23 12/07/23 02/08/24 1,624,500.00 5.03 1,835,739.06 4.97 3,152,707.03 4.80 3,173,143.03 4.78 3,126,670.34 5.04 2,934,192.00 5.25 3,423,594.33 4.99 2,255,712.61 5.60 2,909,648.43 5.50 1,126,733.17 5.14 1,715,058.44 4.93 1,807,898.21 4.34 4,863.53 5,216.87 12,649.88 12,632.07 11,317.06 11,850.00 13,465.63 9,417.08 12,000.00 4,773.31 6,966.00 6,819.90 1,665,650.87 1,886,657.02 3,151,786.27 3,173,170.13 3,166,193.70 2,952,082.71 3,438,281.35 2,274,247.04 2,933,600.18 1,127,552.69 1,716,272.34 1,804,043.59 1,684,026.81 1,914,253.60 3,192,468.30 3,192,486.99 3,226,506.60 3,035,529.00 3,506,445.28 2,365,478.91 3,041,400.00 1,154,784.29 1,746,687.52 1,801,663.64 FHMS K067 A2 DTD 09/01/2017 3.194% 07/01/2027 FHMS K505 A2 DTD 07/01/2023 4.819% 06/01/2028 FHMS KJ46 A1 DTD 07/01/2023 4.777% 06/01/2028 FNA 2023-M6 A2 DTD 07/01/2023 4.182% 07/01/2028 FHMS K508 A2 DTD 10/01/2023 4.740% 08/01/2028 FHMS K506 A2 DTD 09/01/2023 4.650% 08/01/2028 FHMS K509 A2 DTD 10/01/2023 4.850% 09/01/2028 FHMS K507 A2 DTD 09/01/2023 4.800% 09/01/2028 FHMS K510 A2 DTD 11/01/2023 5.069% 10/01/2028 FHMS K511 A2 DTD 12/01/2023 4.860% 10/01/2028 FHMS K514 A2 DTD 02/01/2024 4.572% 12/01/2028 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account Page 10 Page 57 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Date Original Cost YTM at Cost Accrued Interest Amortized Cost Market ValueDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security FHMS K520 A2 DTD 04/01/2024 5.180% 03/01/2029 3137HCKV3 3137HFNZ4 3137HFF59 3137HDXL9 3137HH6C0 3137HHJL6 3137HKPF5 4,000,000.00 AA+ 1,305,000.00 AA+ 2,650,000.00 AA+ 3,345,000.00 AA+ 2,355,000.00 AA+ 3,730,000.00 AA+ 2,085,000.00 AA+ Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa 07/01/24 09/04/24 08/13/24 08/07/24 10/08/24 11/19/24 03/11/25 07/05/24 09/12/24 08/22/24 08/15/24 10/16/24 11/27/24 03/20/25 4,038,281.25 4.95 1,331,073.90 4.06 2,696,306.10 4.23 3,376,289.13 4.33 2,402,069.39 4.34 3,749,422.11 4.67 2,084,977.07 4.43 17,266.67 4,902.45 10,198.08 12,663.61 9,402.34 14,895.13 7,697.13 4,032,887.10 1,328,378.05 2,691,120.43 3,372,693.86 2,398,132.65 3,748,467.22 2,084,981.61 4,111,864.00 1,311,200.06 2,673,698.95 3,365,357.67 2,392,522.22 3,789,750.87 2,087,879.38 FHMS K528 A2 DTD 09/01/2024 4.508% 07/01/2029 FHMS K527 A2 DTD 08/01/2024 4.618% 07/01/2029 FHMS K526 A2 DTD 08/01/2024 4.543% 07/01/2029 FHMS K529 A2 DTD 10/01/2024 4.791% 09/01/2029 FHMS K530 A2 DTD 11/01/2024 4.792% 09/01/2029 FHMS K537 A2 DTD 03/01/2025 4.430% 02/01/2030 Security Type Sub-Total Corporate Note 49,155,920.18 48,764,015.60 4.83 188,996.74 48,946,198.81 49,594,004.09 IBM CORP DTD 05/15/2019 3.300% 05/15/2026 459200JZ5 04636NAA1 89236TJK2 61761J3R8 61761J3R8 1,675,000.00 A- 1,675,000.00 A+ 1,105,000.00 A+ 1,000,000.00 A- 1,000,000.00 A- A3 A1 A1 A1 A1 09/01/21 09/01/21 09/08/21 11/01/21 07/05/23 09/03/21 09/03/21 09/13/21 11/03/21 07/07/23 1,844,861.75 1.08 1,684,095.25 1.08 1,102,546.90 1.17 1,062,320.00 1.75 936,280.00 5.41 20,881.67 6,867.50 3,556.72 5,555.56 5,555.56 1,715,558.01 1,677,224.47 1,104,374.92 1,017,408.64 972,426.62 1,656,626.93 1,618,199.08 1,063,728.25 982,499.00 ASTRAZENECA FINANCE LLC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/28/2021 1.200% 05/28/2026 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP DTD 06/18/2021 1.125% 06/18/2026 MORGAN STANLEY DTD 07/25/2016 3.125% 07/27/2026 MORGAN STANLEY 982,499.00 DTD 07/25/2016 3.125% 07/27/2026 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 11 Page 58 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Date Original Cost YTM at Cost Accrued Interest Amortized Cost Market ValueDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Corporate Note STATE STREET CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 08/03/2023 5.272% 08/03/2026 857477CD3 02665WDZ1 14913R2Q9 46625HRV4 172967KY6 63743HFK3 24422EWA3 06051GLE7 38141GWB6 89788MAD4 808513BY0 437076CN0 61772BAB9 665859AW4 2,500,000.00 A Aa3 A3 08/01/23 12/01/21 12/01/21 11/01/21 08/07/23 10/30/23 01/11/22 07/05/23 09/02/22 03/24/22 04/27/22 05/06/22 06/08/22 05/10/22 08/03/23 12/03/21 12/03/21 11/03/21 08/10/23 11/02/23 01/13/22 07/07/23 09/07/22 03/28/22 04/29/22 05/10/22 06/10/22 05/12/22 2,501,400.00 5.25 1,970,740.00 1.62 1,967,640.00 1.50 1,057,540.00 1.72 1,124,628.00 5.36 769,730.50 5.61 1,988,720.00 1.82 1,968,420.00 5.58 2,228,539.00 4.64 1,949,808.00 2.83 1,898,200.00 3.60 1,936,100.00 3.59 452,825.00 3.72 1,610,407.70 3.79 21,234.44 1,588.89 1,086.11 14,750.00 17,066.67 16,529.33 7,555.56 20,037.78 15,988.19 2,143.34 3,811.11 26,513.89 3,252.38 24,988.33 2,500,602.67 1,991,167.43 1,990,166.02 1,017,574.43 1,163,329.00 769,850.96 2,527,667.50 1,912,808.00 1,913,276.00 980,014.00 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE DTD 09/09/2021 1.300% 09/09/2026 2,000,000.00 A- CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE DTD 09/14/2021 1.150% 09/14/2026 2,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 A A A2 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) DTD 07/21/2016 2.950% 10/01/2026 A1 CITIGROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 10/21/2016 3.200% 10/21/2026 1,200,000.00 BBB+ 770,000.00 A- A3 1,176,078.00 784,020.16NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP (CALLABLE) DTD 11/02/2023 5.600% 11/13/2026 A2 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP DTD 01/10/2022 1.700% 01/11/2027 2,000,000.00 A A1 1,995,984.87 1,983,899.90 2,270,356.58 2,041,497.93 1,959,606.88 1,973,576.00 479,862.37 1,913,972.00 2,006,826.00 2,277,165.60 2,035,580.40 1,929,064.00 1,946,954.00 484,116.00 BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 01/20/2023 5.080% 01/20/2027 2,000,000.00 A- 2,300,000.00 BBB+ 2,100,000.00 A- 2,000,000.00 A- A1 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 01/26/2017 3.850% 01/26/2027 A2 TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 03/02/2021 1.267% 03/02/2027 Baa1 A2CHARLES SCHWAB CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 03/03/2022 2.450% 03/03/2027 HOME DEPOT INC (CALLABLE) DTD 03/28/2022 2.875% 04/15/2027 2,000,000.00 A A2 MORGAN STANLEY (CALLABLE) DTD 04/22/2021 1.593% 05/04/2027 500,000.00 A-A1 NORTHERN TRUST CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 05/10/2022 4.000% 05/10/2027 1,595,000.00 A+A2 1,601,353.06 1,586,171.68 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 12 Page 59 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Date Original Cost YTM at Cost Accrued Interest Amortized Cost Market ValueDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Corporate Note UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/20/2022 3.700% 05/15/2027 91324PEG3 91324PEG3 693475AT2 63254ABE7 06051GJS9 459200KT7 89788MAC6 89788MAC6 89236TKJ3 882508BC7 20030NEA5 478160DH4 61747YFP5 46647PEE2 400,000.00 A+ 1,400,000.00 A+ 2,500,000.00 A- 3,000,000.00 AA- 1,100,000.00 A- 2,500,000.00 A- 300,000.00 A- A2 A2 05/17/22 06/02/22 08/04/22 06/09/22 08/07/23 08/01/22 08/22/22 10/27/22 10/04/22 12/07/22 01/25/23 02/18/25 05/02/24 05/02/24 05/20/22 06/06/22 08/08/22 06/13/22 08/10/23 08/03/22 08/24/22 10/31/22 10/06/22 12/09/22 01/30/23 02/20/25 05/06/24 05/06/24 399,784.00 3.71 1,412,488.00 3.50 2,461,500.00 3.50 2,973,990.00 4.10 986,150.00 4.63 2,561,055.00 3.61 260,685.00 4.08 1,226,295.00 5.54 2,275,459.00 4.79 2,158,734.00 4.30 2,085,520.00 4.35 554,678.10 4.57 1,548,100.40 5.50 1,078,128.25 5.49 5,591.11 19,568.89 28,875.00 36,446.67 3,655.85 18,444.44 543.75 399,908.06 1,405,240.82 2,482,819.29 2,988,588.04 1,033,467.40 2,527,897.01 281,392.23 395,143.60 1,383,002.60 2,433,800.00 2,975,220.00 1,059,938.00 2,487,110.00 278,053.80 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/20/2022 3.700% 05/15/2027 PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES (CALLABLE) DTD 05/19/2017 3.150% 05/19/2027 A3 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BK/NY DTD 06/09/2022 3.905% 06/09/2027 Aa2 A1BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 04/22/2021 1.734% 07/22/2027 IBM CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 07/27/2022 4.150% 07/27/2027 A3 TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 08/03/2020 1.125% 08/03/2027 Baa1 Baa1 A1 TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 08/03/2020 1.125% 08/03/2027 1,500,000.00 A- 2,300,000.00 A+ 2,300,000.00 A+ 2,000,000.00 A- 555,000.00 AAA 1,540,000.00 A- 2,718.75 3,197.64 27,421.11 40,422.22 2,875.98 40,619.04 26,450.64 1,365,385.74 2,287,770.77 2,225,362.86 2,046,115.21 554,689.73 1,390,269.00 2,310,308.60 2,227,586.80 2,049,674.00 560,745.36 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP DTD 09/20/2022 4.550% 09/20/2027 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 11/03/2017 2.900% 11/03/2027 Aa3 A3COMCAST CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 11/07/2022 5.350% 11/15/2027 JOHNSON & JOHNSON (CALLABLE) DTD 02/20/2025 4.550% 03/01/2028 Aaa A1MORGAN STANLEY (CALLABLE) DTD 04/19/2024 5.652% 04/13/2028 1,545,746.20 1,077,226.75 1,571,007.90 1,096,092.58JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) DTD 04/22/2024 5.571% 04/22/2028 1,075,000.00 A A1 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 13 Page 60 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Date Original Cost YTM at Cost Accrued Interest Amortized Cost Market ValueDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Corporate Note HERSHEY COMPANY (CALLABLE) DTD 05/04/2023 4.250% 05/04/2028 427866BH0 30303M8L9 58933YBH7 02665WEM9 24422EXB0 05565ECE3 17325FBB3 21688ABC5 46647PEU6 17275RBR2 14913UAQ3 00724PAJ8 63743HFX5 427866BL1 2,400,000.00 A A1 Aa3 Aa3 A3 05/04/23 06/01/23 05/18/23 07/07/23 08/07/23 08/14/23 10/02/23 01/10/24 01/16/25 02/21/24 08/12/24 01/14/25 02/04/25 02/24/25 05/08/23 06/05/23 05/22/23 07/11/23 08/10/23 08/17/23 10/04/23 01/12/24 01/24/25 02/26/24 08/16/24 01/17/25 02/07/25 02/25/25 2,423,880.00 4.03 2,504,650.00 4.56 3,027,826.50 4.21 796,384.00 5.23 805,360.00 4.79 2,669,598.00 5.31 3,383,136.00 5.92 2,253,150.00 4.77 1,400,000.00 4.92 1,619,433.00 4.86 214,417.35 4.44 2,790,723.65 4.98 873,661.25 4.98 2,006,140.00 4.68 41,650.00 43,444.44 45,978.75 9,566.67 8,470.00 18,937.50 1,096.12 24,600.00 12,806.31 7,638.75 1,175.78 28,439.13 6,496.88 9,763.89 2,414,644.42 2,502,936.29 3,036,090.61 797,632.28 2,401,816.80 2,528,355.00 3,041,582.00 812,837.60 META PLATFORMS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/03/2023 4.600% 05/15/2028 2,500,000.00 AA- 3,050,000.00 A+ 800,000.00 A- MERCK & CO INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/17/2023 4.050% 05/17/2028 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE DTD 07/07/2023 5.125% 07/07/2028 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP DTD 07/14/2023 4.950% 07/14/2028 800,000.00 A A A1 803,574.34 815,527.20 BMW US CAPITAL LLC (CALLABLE) DTD 08/11/2023 5.050% 08/11/2028 2,700,000.00 A2 2,679,494.75 3,387,681.26 2,252,450.55 1,400,000.00 1,619,550.06 214,483.74 2,722,485.60 3,539,168.80 2,277,807.75 1,412,023.20 1,647,297.00 214,371.56 CITIBANK NA (CALLABLE) DTD 09/29/2023 5.803% 09/29/2028 3,400,000.00 A+ 2,250,000.00 A+ Aa3 Aa2 A1 COOPERAT RABOBANK UA/NY DTD 01/09/2024 4.800% 01/09/2029 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) DTD 01/24/2025 4.915% 01/24/2029 1,400,000.00 A CISCO SYSTEMS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 02/26/2024 4.850% 02/26/2029 1,620,000.00 AA-A1 CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE DTD 08/16/2024 4.375% 08/16/2029 215,000.00 A A2 ADOBE INC (CALLABLE) DTD 01/17/2025 4.950% 01/17/2030 2,795,000.00 A+ 875,000.00 NR A1 2,790,886.46 873,698.96 2,858,619.79 885,196.38NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP (CALLABLE) DTD 02/07/2025 4.950% 02/07/2030 A2 HERSHEY COMPANY (CALLABLE)2,000,000.00 A A1 2,006,031.82 2,021,780.00 DTD 02/24/2025 4.750% 02/24/2030 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 14 Page 61 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Date Original Cost YTM at Cost Accrued Interest Amortized Cost Market ValueDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Corporate Note MARS INC (CALLABLE)571676AY1 890,000.00 A A2 03/05/25 03/12/25 889,038.80 4.83 2,254.67 889,047.98 894,051.28 DTD 03/12/2025 4.800% 03/01/2030 Security Type Sub-Total Certificate of Deposit 80,585,000.00 79,694,767.40 4.12 738,113.01 80,115,634.39 80,068,137.80 CHIPPEWA VALLEY BANK DTD 07/29/2020 0.500% 07/29/2025 169894AT9 58404DHQ7 63873TBC1 63873QP65 22536DWD6 245,000.00 NR 245,000.00 NR 1,000,000.00 A-1 2,300,000.00 A+ 3,100,000.00 A+ NR NR P-1 A1 07/29/20 07/30/20 02/14/25 09/18/23 02/01/24 07/29/20 07/30/20 02/18/25 09/20/23 02/05/24 245,000.00 0.50 245,000.00 0.55 1,000,000.00 4.51 2,300,000.00 5.61 3,100,000.00 4.76 10.07 7.38 245,000.00 245,000.00 241,962.24 241,978.17MEDALLION BANK UTAH DTD 07/30/2020 0.550% 07/30/2025 NATIXIS NY BRANCH DTD 02/18/2025 4.510% 02/13/2026 5,261.67 69,891.25 22,543.89 1,000,000.00 2,300,000.00 3,100,000.00 1,001,773.00 2,346,968.30 3,116,674.90 NATIXIS NY BRANCH DTD 09/20/2023 5.610% 09/18/2026 CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB NY A1 DTD 02/05/2024 4.760% 02/01/2027 Security Type Sub-Total Bank Note 6,890,000.00 6,890,000.00 4.72 97,714.26 6,890,000.00 6,949,356.61 WELLS FARGO BANK NA (CALLABLE) DTD 08/09/2023 5.450% 08/07/2026 94988J6D4 4,675,000.00 A+Aa2 08/03/23 08/09/23 4,672,195.00 5.47 38,218.13 4,673,735.41 4,738,210.67 Security Type Sub-Total Asset-Backed Security 4,675,000.00 4,672,195.00 5.47 38,218.13 4,673,735.41 4,738,210.67 HAROT 2021-4 A3 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880% 01/21/2026 43815GAC3 14317DAC4 92868KAC7 38,125.71 NR 79,632.14 AAA 13,316.61 AAA Aaa Aaa Aaa 11/16/21 07/21/21 12/07/21 11/24/21 07/28/21 12/13/21 38,117.67 0.89 79,619.04 0.56 13,316.09 1.02 9.32 19.47 4.15 38,124.15 79,628.91 13,316.47 37,996.00 79,391.26 13,291.89 CARMX 2021-3 A3 DTD 07/28/2021 0.550% 06/15/2026 VALET 2021-1 A3 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020% 06/22/2026 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 15 Page 62 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Date Original Cost YTM at Cost Accrued Interest Amortized Cost Market ValueDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Asset-Backed Security HART 2022-A A3 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220% 10/15/2026 448977AD0 380146AC4 43813YAB8 98164RAB2 65480MAD5 02582JJZ4 14041NGD7 02582JJZ4 05522RDG0 254683CZ6 438123AC5 50117DAC0 89237QAD2 448976AD2 287,119.38 AAA 83,728.08 AAA NR NR 03/09/22 01/11/22 08/09/24 02/06/24 10/18/23 08/07/23 07/14/23 07/14/23 07/14/23 07/14/23 11/01/23 02/11/25 07/23/24 10/08/24 03/16/22 01/19/22 08/21/24 02/14/24 10/25/23 08/10/23 07/18/23 07/18/23 07/18/23 07/18/23 11/08/23 02/12/25 07/30/24 10/16/24 287,108.32 2.22 83,720.80 1.26 283.29 43.96 287,115.66 83,725.63 285,860.93 83,287.08GMCAR 2022-1 A3 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260% 11/16/2026 HAROT 2024-3 A2 DTD 08/21/2024 4.890% 02/22/2027 2,366,029.68 NR 459,880.21 AAA 650,000.00 NR 2,000,000.00 AAA 2,720,000.00 AAA 2,720,000.00 AAA 3,449,000.00 AAA 3,305,000.00 AAA 395,000.00 NR 2,100,000.00 NR 1,475,000.00 AAA 1,215,000.00 AAA Aaa NR 2,365,844.42 4.89 459,844.20 5.05 649,868.05 5.94 1,995,625.00 4.92 2,683,237.50 4.73 2,717,556.25 4.89 3,437,682.97 4.87 3,306,549.22 4.92 394,930.44 5.67 2,124,363.28 4.92 1,474,999.12 4.88 1,214,911.06 4.41 3,213.86 1,032.18 1,713.11 4,328.89 5,343.29 5,887.29 7,342.54 7,241.62 622.13 2,365,888.89 459,857.09 2,369,486.45 460,309.28WOART 2024-A A2A DTD 02/14/2024 5.050% 04/15/2027 NAROT 2023-B A3 DTD 10/25/2023 5.930% 03/15/2028 Aaa NR 649,908.58 657,171.45 AMXCA 2023-1 A DTD 06/14/2023 4.870% 05/15/2028 1,997,132.65 2,696,211.25 2,718,418.67 3,441,676.83 3,306,011.77 394,950.09 2,010,988.00 2,720,916.64 2,734,943.68 3,464,375.64 3,327,774.76 399,740.79 COMET 2023-A1 A DTD 05/24/2023 4.420% 05/15/2028 NR AMXCA 2023-1 A DTD 06/14/2023 4.870% 05/15/2028 NR BACCT 2023-A1 A1 DTD 06/16/2023 4.790% 05/15/2028 NR DCENT 2023-A2 A DTD 06/28/2023 4.930% 06/15/2028 Aaa Aaa Aaa NR HAROT 2023-4 A3 DTD 11/08/2023 5.670% 06/21/2028 KCOT 2024-2A A3 DTD 06/25/2024 5.260% 11/15/2028 4,909.33 3,199.11 2,381.40 2,123,560.68 1,475,000.00 1,214,922.28 2,133,784.80 1,486,758.70 1,216,234.44 TAOT 2024-C A3 DTD 07/30/2024 4.880% 03/15/2029 HART 2024-C A3 NR DTD 10/16/2024 4.410% 05/15/2029 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 16 Page 63 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Date Original Cost YTM at Cost Accrued Interest Amortized Cost Market ValueDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Asset-Backed Security HAROT 2024-4 A3 DTD 10/24/2024 4.330% 05/15/2029 43816DAC9 05522RDJ4 02589BAE0 38014AAD3 92868MAD1 096924AD7 92970QAE5 34535KAD0 58773DAD6 92348KDY6 3,000,000.00 AAA 3,065,000.00 AAA 2,095,000.00 AAA 975,000.00 AAA 2,340,000.00 NR 1,830,000.00 AAA 1,750,000.00 AAA 2,835,000.00 AAA 1,555,000.00 NR 2,790,000.00 NR Aaa Aaa NR 01/30/25 06/06/24 07/16/24 10/08/24 03/18/25 02/04/25 10/17/24 03/18/25 01/14/25 03/25/25 01/31/25 06/13/24 07/23/24 10/16/24 03/25/25 02/12/25 10/24/24 03/25/25 01/23/25 03/31/25 2,987,578.13 4.44 3,064,828.05 4.93 2,094,904.89 4.65 974,812.22 4.40 2,339,920.44 4.50 1,829,819.75 4.56 1,749,739.95 4.29 2,834,724.44 4.45 1,554,669.25 4.78 2,789,880.03 4.51 5,773.33 6,715.76 4,329.67 1,787.50 1,755.00 1,390.80 3,336.67 2,102.63 3,303.51 349.53 2,988,029.01 3,064,863.06 2,094,918.68 974,829.57 2,996,649.00 3,106,481.71 2,111,596.59 975,950.63 BACCT 2024-A1 A DTD 06/13/2024 4.930% 05/15/2029 AMXCA 2024-3 A DTD 07/23/2024 4.650% 07/15/2029 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 DTD 10/16/2024 4.400% 08/16/2029 Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa VALET 2025-1 A3 DTD 03/25/2025 4.500% 08/20/2029 2,339,925.61 1,829,829.64 1,749,762.22 2,834,732.48 1,554,685.74 2,789,539.70 2,345,955.30 1,837,852.53 1,748,696.25 2,841,511.99 1,568,278.15 2,790,871.88 BMWOT 2025-A A3 DTD 02/12/2025 4.560% 09/25/2029 WFCIT 2024-A2 A DTD 10/24/2024 4.290% 10/15/2029 FORDO 2025-A A3 DTD 03/25/2025 4.450% 10/15/2029 MBART 2025-1 A3 DTD 01/23/2025 4.780% 12/17/2029 VZMT 2025-3 A1A DTD 03/31/2025 4.510% 03/20/2030 Security Type Sub-Total 45,591,831.81 400,382,751.99 45,548,170.58 388,655,491.81 4.70 4.11 78,419.34 45,566,565.31 392,884,673.10 45,806,155.82 393,616,594.93Managed Account Sub-Total 2,276,772.47 Securities Sub-Total Accrued Interest Total Investments $400,382,751.99 $388,655,491.81 4.11%$2,276,772.47 $392,884,673.10 $393,616,594.93 $2,276,772.47 $395,893,367.40 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 17 Page 64 Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description Next Call Date Market Price Market Value Unreal G/L On Cost Unreal G/L Amort Cost Effective Duration YTM at MktDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/15/2023 4.625% 03/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 04/17/2023 3.750% 04/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 04/30/2019 2.375% 04/30/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/16/2016 1.625% 05/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/01/2021 0.750% 05/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/01/2021 0.750% 05/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/02/2021 0.625% 07/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/02/2021 0.625% 07/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/02/2021 0.625% 07/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/15/2016 1.500% 08/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2021 0.875% 09/30/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2021 0.875% 09/30/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/01/2021 1.125% 10/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/01/2021 1.125% 10/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/01/2021 1.125% 10/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B 91282CGR6 91282CGV7 9128286S4 912828R36 91282CCF6 91282CCF6 91282CCP4 91282CCP4 91282CCP4 9128282A7 91282CCZ2 91282CCZ2 91282CDG3 91282CDG3 91282CDG3 912828U24 912828U24 1,600,000.00 BMO 100.50 99.68 98.24 97.37 96.29 96.29 95.66 95.66 95.66 96.69 95.54 95.54 95.67 95.67 95.67 96.94 96.94 1,608,000.00 2,591,794.40 3,880,535.30 3,432,193.80 2,888,673.00 5,873,635.10 1,913,126.00 2,869,689.00 2,869,689.00 4,375,285.85 955,352.00 7,125.00 39,935.02 7,587.96 16,383.75 0.93 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.15 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.34 1.46 1.46 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.57 1.57 4.34 4.07 4.06 4.04 4.04 4.04 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.98 3.97 3.97 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 2,600,000.00 BMO 3,950,000.00 Nomura 3,525,000.00 Citigrou 3,000,000.00 JPMorgan 6,100,000.00 RBC Capi 2,000,000.00 Citigrou 3,000,000.00 Citigrou 3,000,000.00 Citigrou 4,525,000.00 BOFAML 1,000,000.00 Citigrou 3,900,000.00 BMO 160,746.24 (72,564.99) 33,985.50 22,433.08 (87,395.31) (71,839.91) (223,252.33) (83,133.55) (128,186.58) (1,541.82) (62,001.34) 1,687.42 (213,021.15) (72,889.63) (122,342.25) 51,329.62 126,204.80 76,484.81 3,725,872.80 382,687.60 183,728.27 (14,890.53) 28,750.50 (14,594.24) (16,538.15) 5,904.21 400,000.00 Citigrou 2,000,000.00 WellsFar 3,000,000.00 BMO 1,913,438.00 2,870,157.00 2,908,125.00 3,877,500.00 80,508.56 (54,884.18) (44,431.57) 8,660.13 3,000,000.00 BOFAML 4,000,000.00 Citigrou 37,734.37 DTD 11/15/2016 2.000% 11/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B 41,250.00 DTD 11/15/2016 2.000% 11/15/2026 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 18 Page 65 Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description Next Call Date Market Price Market Value Unreal G/L On Cost Unreal G/L Amort Cost Effective Duration YTM at MktDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/30/2021 1.250% 11/30/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/30/2021 1.250% 11/30/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2021 1.250% 12/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2019 1.750% 12/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2020 1.500% 01/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2017 2.250% 02/15/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2017 2.250% 02/15/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2017 2.250% 02/15/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/02/2020 1.125% 02/28/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/02/2020 1.125% 02/28/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/15/2024 4.250% 03/15/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/15/2017 2.375% 05/15/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/01/2022 2.750% 07/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/31/2020 0.500% 08/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/31/2020 0.500% 08/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B 91282CDK4 91282CDK4 91282CDQ1 912828YX2 912828Z78 912828V98 912828V98 912828V98 912828ZB9 912828ZB9 91282CKE0 912828X88 91282CFB2 91282CAH4 91282CAH4 91282CAH4 91282CFM8 1,400,000.00 Citigrou 2,895,000.00 Nomura 1,625,000.00 JPMorgan 3,520,000.00 BMO 95.68 95.68 95.48 96.32 95.72 96.97 96.97 96.97 94.86 94.86 100.59 96.85 97.41 92.19 92.19 92.19 100.52 1,339,570.40 2,770,040.22 1,551,558.13 3,390,337.28 2,057,954.20 625,448.76 20,836.02 (133,215.05) (65,126.44) 166,924.78 68,364.36 50.71 5,752.34 (127,713.05) (70,523.93) 35,567.81 3,742.80 1.62 1.62 1.70 1.70 1.78 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.86 1.86 1.86 2.03 2.23 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.31 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.93 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.90 2,150,000.00 BOFAML 645,000.00 BOFAML 1,950,000.00 BOFAML 3,400,000.00 Citigrou 2,850,000.00 MorganSt 4,500,000.00 BMO (11,721.89) (43,048.87) (67,945.15) 5,969.64 1,890,891.60 3,296,939.20 2,703,604.05 4,268,848.50 2,212,975.60 3,196,102.80 1,558,563.20 1,106,250.00 1,567,187.50 2,489,062.50 3,015,702.00 (20,260.74) (16,732.68) 56,332.57 258,750.84 13,920.91 16,887.96 36,563.20 12,468.75 23,773.44 161,578.12 (65,391.75) 38,314.09 13,853.09 (49,701.42) (1,617.96) (7,056.67) (4,966.45) (20,579.00) (30,348.75) 2,200,000.00 WellsFar 3,300,000.00 BOFAML 1,600,000.00 BMO 1,200,000.00 BOFAML 1,700,000.00 BOFAML 2,700,000.00 BOFAML 3,000,000.00 Citigrou DTD 08/31/2020 0.500% 08/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 4.125% 09/30/2027 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 19 Page 66 Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description Next Call Date Market Price Market Value Unreal G/L On Cost Unreal G/L Amort Cost Effective Duration YTM at MktDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/02/2020 0.500% 10/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/02/2020 0.500% 10/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/15/2024 4.125% 11/15/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/15/2017 2.250% 11/15/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/03/2023 3.875% 12/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/03/2023 3.875% 12/31/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/01/2021 0.750% 01/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2023 3.500% 01/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2018 2.750% 02/15/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2018 2.750% 02/15/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2018 2.750% 02/15/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2021 1.250% 03/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2021 1.250% 03/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2023 3.625% 03/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 04/30/2021 1.250% 04/30/2028 US TREASURY N/B 91282CAU5 91282CAU5 91282CLX7 9128283F5 91282CGC9 91282CGC9 91282CBJ9 91282CGH8 9128283W8 9128283W8 9128283W8 91282CBS9 91282CBS9 91282CGT2 91282CBZ3 91282CCE9 91282CCH2 2,000,000.00 Citigrou 3,050,000.00 BOFAML 800,000.00 WellsFar 3,200,000.00 Citigrou 2,500,000.00 BMO 2,500,000.00 BMO 3,100,000.00 BMO 4,550,000.00 WellsFar 2,000,000.00 BMO 3,000,000.00 BMO 3,375,000.00 BMO 1,700,000.00 JPMorgan 2,625,000.00 BOFAML 2,950,000.00 WellsFar 3,900,000.00 BMO 325,000.00 RBC Capi 3,375,000.00 BMO 91.68 91.68 100.51 95.87 99.91 99.91 91.59 98.89 96.87 96.87 96.87 92.54 92.54 99.20 92.33 92.12 91.91 1,833,516.00 2,796,111.90 804,093.60 32,578.50 198,607.99 9,062.35 11,580.65 (11,304.92) 8,651.17 2.52 2.52 2.43 2.50 2.57 2.57 2.76 2.66 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.88 2.88 2.77 2.96 3.04 3.12 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.90 3.90 3.90 3.91 3.90 3.90 3.90 3.90 3.90 3.90 3.91 3.92 3.92 3,067,750.40 2,497,755.00 2,497,755.00 2,839,407.80 4,499,344.85 1,937,344.00 2,906,016.00 3,269,268.00 1,573,231.00 2,429,253.75 2,926,376.40 3,600,795.90 299,380.90 54,125.40 38,087.03 51,661.25 201,622.64 39,989.38 68,047.12 (14,999.63) 131,968.20 90,246.62 172,163.91 9,563.90 (30,222.60) 20,775.67 40,009.02 48,646.56 12,436.37 13,376.29 (47,287.16) 54,463.90 10,670.05 49,901.08 8,808.52 137,108.40 18,370.16 203,424.12 (25,138.46) 2,853.23 DTD 06/01/2021 1.250% 05/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B 3,102,100.88 59,797.80 DTD 06/30/2021 1.250% 06/30/2028 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 20 Page 67 Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description Next Call Date Market Price Market Value Unreal G/L On Cost Unreal G/L Amort Cost Effective Duration YTM at MktDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B DTD 10/02/2023 4.625% 09/30/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 10/31/2023 4.875% 10/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/15/2018 3.125% 11/15/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/02/2024 3.750% 12/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2022 1.750% 01/31/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2022 1.750% 01/31/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2019 2.625% 02/15/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2022 2.375% 03/31/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/02/2022 2.875% 04/30/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/02/2022 2.875% 04/30/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2022 3.250% 06/30/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2022 3.250% 06/30/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/01/2022 2.625% 07/31/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/01/2022 2.625% 07/31/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 3.875% 09/30/2029 US TREASURY N/B 91282CJA0 91282CJF9 9128285M8 91282CJR3 91282CDW8 91282CDW8 9128286B1 91282CEE7 91282CEM9 91282CEM9 91282CEV9 91282CEV9 91282CFC0 91282CFC0 91282CFL0 91282CFL0 91282CFT3 6,000,000.00 BOFAML 7,000,000.00 BMO 102.25 103.09 97.25 99.32 92.26 92.26 95.30 94.21 95.98 95.98 97.24 97.24 94.73 94.73 99.61 99.61 100.11 6,134,766.00 7,216,566.00 7,780,312.00 4,767,374.40 1,937,495.70 4,151,776.50 5,455,747.52 5,935,532.40 2,639,356.50 3,839,064.00 2,139,242.60 4,861,915.00 947,305.00 41,719.12 72,737.87 158,749.50 106,499.40 73,171.48 71,190.56 215,136.19 193,426.93 7,305.72 65,371.22 101,620.74 72,470.16 85,228.99 35,071.66 (25,721.25) 131,606.49 106,488.10 (7,943.55) (10,325.38) (17,046.78) (63,994.37) 7,116.47 3.15 3.22 3.35 3.44 3.65 3.65 3.63 3.72 3.76 3.76 3.90 3.90 4.03 4.03 4.02 4.02 4.09 3.93 3.93 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.97 3.97 3.97 8,000,000.00 BMO 4,800,000.00 BOFAML 2,100,000.00 BMO 4,500,000.00 Nomura 5,725,000.00 BOFAML 6,300,000.00 Citigrou 2,750,000.00 Citigrou 4,000,000.00 BOFAML 2,200,000.00 BOFAML 5,000,000.00 Nomura 1,000,000.00 BMO 12,032.75 (11,687.09) (54,881.88) 12,148.75 (15,038.72) 10,871.44 14,141.25 20,012.40 1,100,000.00 Nomura 1,100,000.00 BOFAML 2,000,000.00 BMO 1,042,035.50 1,095,660.50 1,992,110.00 2,727,981.15 (19,094.32) 9,729.82 12,435.41 18,983.42 DTD 09/30/2022 3.875% 09/30/2029 US TREASURY N/B 2,725,000.00 WellsFar DTD 10/31/2022 4.000% 10/31/2029 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 21 Page 68 Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description Next Call Date Market Price Market Value Unreal G/L On Cost Unreal G/L Amort Cost Effective Duration YTM at MktDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2024 4.375% 12/31/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2024 4.375% 12/31/2029 US TREASURY N/B 91282CMD0 91282CMD0 91282CGJ4 2,000,000.00 Nomura 2,500,000.00 MorganSt 6,500,000.00 Citigrou 101.70 101.70 97.91 2,033,906.00 2,542,382.50 6,363,909.50 29,374.75 40,624.69 27,425.12 29,493.89 40,694.41 25,154.26 4.23 4.23 4.39 3.97 3.97 3.98 DTD 01/31/2023 3.500% 01/31/2030 Security Type Sub-Total 213,485,000.00 206,460,729.94 3,374,386.71 (231,809.24)2.59 3.95 Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security FHMS K062 A2 DTD 02/01/2017 3.413% 12/01/2026 FHMS K067 A2 DTD 09/01/2017 3.194% 07/01/2027 FHMS K505 A2 DTD 07/01/2023 4.819% 06/01/2028 FHMS KJ46 A1 DTD 07/01/2023 4.777% 06/01/2028 FNA 2023-M6 A2 DTD 07/01/2023 4.182% 07/01/2028 FHMS K508 A2 DTD 10/01/2023 4.740% 08/01/2028 FHMS K506 A2 DTD 09/01/2023 4.650% 08/01/2028 FHMS K509 A2 DTD 10/01/2023 4.850% 09/01/2028 FHMS K507 A2 DTD 09/01/2023 4.800% 09/01/2028 FHMS K510 A2 DTD 11/01/2023 5.069% 10/01/2028 FHMS K511 A2 DTD 12/01/2023 4.860% 10/01/2028 FHMS K514 A2 3137BUX60 3137FAWS3 3137HACX2 3137HAD45 3136BQDE6 3137HAQ74 3137HAMH6 3137HAST4 3137HAMS2 3137HB3D4 3137HB3G7 3137HBLV4 1,710,000.00 Barclays 1,960,000.00 TD Secur 3,150,000.00 SAN 98.48 97.67 1,684,026.81 1,914,253.60 3,192,468.30 3,192,486.99 3,226,506.60 3,035,529.00 3,506,445.28 2,365,478.91 3,041,400.00 1,154,784.29 1,746,687.52 1,801,663.64 59,526.81 78,514.54 39,761.27 19,343.96 99,836.26 101,337.00 82,850.95 109,766.30 131,751.57 28,051.12 31,629.08 (6,234.57) 18,375.94 27,596.58 40,682.03 19,316.86 60,312.90 83,446.29 68,163.93 91,231.87 107,799.82 27,231.60 30,415.18 (2,379.95) 1.60 2.14 2.86 2.07 2.99 3.02 3.00 3.10 3.06 3.13 3.16 3.26 4.24 4.21 4.27 4.37 4.34 4.28 4.28 4.29 4.28 4.31 4.31 4.31 101.35 100.61 99.35 3,173,222.36 JPMorgan 3,247,697.83 JPMorgan 3,000,000.00 BMO 101.18 100.90 101.52 101.38 102.19 101.55 100.65 3,475,000.00 WellsFar 2,330,000.00 MorganSt 3,000,000.00 PNCBank 1,130,000.00 JPMorgan 1,720,000.00 BOFAML 1,790,000.00 JPMorgan DTD 02/01/2024 4.572% 12/01/2028 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 22 Page 69 Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description Next Call Date Market Price Market Value Unreal G/L On Cost Unreal G/L Amort Cost Effective Duration YTM at MktDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security FHMS K520 A2 DTD 04/01/2024 5.180% 03/01/2029 FHMS K528 A2 DTD 09/01/2024 4.508% 07/01/2029 FHMS K527 A2 DTD 08/01/2024 4.618% 07/01/2029 FHMS K526 A2 DTD 08/01/2024 4.543% 07/01/2029 FHMS K529 A2 DTD 10/01/2024 4.791% 09/01/2029 FHMS K530 A2 DTD 11/01/2024 4.792% 09/01/2029 FHMS K537 A2 3137HCKV3 3137HFNZ4 3137HFF59 3137HDXL9 3137HH6C0 3137HHJL6 3137HKPF5 4,000,000.00 WellsFar 1,305,000.00 BOFAML 2,650,000.00 MorganSt 3,345,000.00 BMO 102.80 100.48 100.89 100.61 101.59 101.60 100.14 4,111,864.00 1,311,200.06 2,673,698.95 3,365,357.67 2,392,522.22 3,789,750.87 2,087,879.38 73,582.75 (19,873.84) (22,607.15) (10,931.46) (9,547.17) 40,328.76 2,902.31 78,976.90 (17,177.99) (17,421.48) (7,336.19) (5,610.43) 41,283.65 2,897.77 3.50 3.84 3.81 3.82 3.93 3.94 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.34 4.34 4.35 4.35 4.37 2,355,000.00 MorganSt 3,730,000.00 JPMorgan 2,085,000.00 MorganSt DTD 03/01/2025 4.430% 02/01/2030 Security Type Sub-Total Corporate Note 49,155,920.18 49,594,004.09 829,988.49 647,805.28 3.21 4.31 IBM CORP 459200JZ5 04636NAA1 89236TJK2 61761J3R8 61761J3R8 857477CD3 02665WDZ1 14913R2Q9 1,675,000.00 MorganSt 1,675,000.00 MorganSt 1,105,000.00 JPMorgan 1,000,000.00 SUSQ 98.90 96.61 96.27 98.25 98.25 101.11 95.64 95.66 1,656,626.93 1,618,199.08 1,063,728.25 982,499.00 (188,234.82) (65,896.17) (38,818.65) (79,821.00) 46,219.00 (58,931.08) (59,025.39) (40,646.67) (34,909.64) 10,072.38 1.07 1.12 1.19 1.27 1.27 1.22 1.40 1.41 4.28 4.22 4.29 4.47 4.47 4.40 4.48 4.25 DTD 05/15/2019 3.300% 05/15/2026 ASTRAZENECA FINANCE LLC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/28/2021 1.200% 05/28/2026 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP DTD 06/18/2021 1.125% 06/18/2026 MORGAN STANLEY DTD 07/25/2016 3.125% 07/27/2026 MORGAN STANLEY DTD 07/25/2016 3.125% 07/27/2026 STATE STREET CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 08/03/2023 5.272% 08/03/2026 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE 04/28/26 1,000,000.00 SEEL 982,499.00 2,500,000.00 JPMorgan 2,000,000.00 RBC Capi 2,000,000.00 LoopCapM 07/03/26 2,527,667.50 1,912,808.00 1,913,276.00 26,267.50 27,064.83 (57,932.00) (54,364.00) (78,359.43) (76,890.02) DTD 09/09/2021 1.300% 09/09/2026 CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE DTD 09/14/2021 1.150% 09/14/2026 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 23 Page 70 Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description Next Call Date Market Price Market Value Unreal G/L On Cost Unreal G/L Amort Cost Effective Duration YTM at MktDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Corporate Note JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) DTD 07/21/2016 2.950% 10/01/2026 CITIGROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 10/21/2016 3.200% 10/21/2026 NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP (CALLABLE) DTD 11/02/2023 5.600% 11/13/2026 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP DTD 01/10/2022 1.700% 01/11/2027 BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 01/20/2023 5.080% 01/20/2027 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 01/26/2017 3.850% 01/26/2027 TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 03/02/2021 1.267% 03/02/2027 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 03/03/2022 2.450% 03/03/2027 HOME DEPOT INC (CALLABLE) 46625HRV4 172967KY6 63743HFK3 24422EWA3 06051GLE7 38141GWB6 89788MAD4 808513BY0 437076CN0 61772BAB9 665859AW4 91324PEG3 91324PEG3 693475AT2 63254ABE7 06051GJS9 459200KT7 1,000,000.00 SUSQ 1,200,000.00 RBS 07/01/26 07/21/26 10/13/26 98.00 98.01 101.82 95.70 100.34 99.01 96.93 96.45 97.35 96.82 99.45 98.79 98.79 97.35 99.17 96.36 99.48 980,014.00 1,176,078.00 784,020.16 (77,526.00) 51,450.00 14,289.66 (74,748.00) 38,406.00 48,626.60 85,772.40 30,864.00 10,854.00 31,291.00 (24,236.02) (4,640.40) (29,485.40) (27,700.00) 1,230.00 (37,560.43) 12,749.00 14,169.20 (82,012.87) 22,926.10 6,809.02 1.40 1.43 1.44 1.72 0.78 1.36 0.92 1.83 1.91 1.05 1.93 1.97 1.97 1.99 2.05 1.27 2.14 4.34 4.55 4.42 4.25 5.20 4.44 4.84 4.37 4.24 4.90 4.29 4.30 4.30 4.48 4.28 4.92 4.39 770,000.00 MIZU 2,000,000.00 JPMorgan 2,000,000.00 JPMorgan 2,300,000.00 MorganSt 2,100,000.00 GoldmanS 2,000,000.00 CSFirstB 2,000,000.00 Scotiaca 500,000.00 BOFAML 1,595,000.00 JPMorgan 400,000.00 BOFAML 1,400,000.00 JPMorgan 2,500,000.00 JANE 1,913,972.00 2,006,826.00 2,277,165.60 2,035,580.40 1,929,064.00 1,946,954.00 484,116.00 01/20/26 01/26/26 03/02/26 02/03/27 03/15/27 05/04/26 04/10/27 04/15/27 04/15/27 04/19/27 (5,917.53) (30,542.88) (26,622.00) 4,253.63 DTD 03/28/2022 2.875% 04/15/2027 MORGAN STANLEY (CALLABLE) DTD 04/22/2021 1.593% 05/04/2027 NORTHERN TRUST CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 05/10/2022 4.000% 05/10/2027 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/20/2022 3.700% 05/15/2027 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/20/2022 3.700% 05/15/2027 PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES (CALLABLE) DTD 05/19/2017 3.150% 05/19/2027 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BK/NY 1,586,171.68 395,143.60 (15,181.38) (4,764.46) (22,238.22) (49,019.29) (13,368.04) 26,470.60 (40,787.01) 1,383,002.60 2,433,800.00 2,975,220.00 1,059,938.00 2,487,110.00 3,000,000.00 JPMorgan 1,100,000.00 JANE DTD 06/09/2022 3.905% 06/09/2027 BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 04/22/2021 1.734% 07/22/2027 IBM CORP (CALLABLE) 07/22/26 06/27/27 73,788.00 (73,945.00)2,500,000.00 BNPPSA DTD 07/27/2022 4.150% 07/27/2027 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 24 Page 71 Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description Next Call Date Market Price Market Value Unreal G/L On Cost Unreal G/L Amort Cost Effective Duration YTM at MktDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Corporate Note TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 08/03/2020 1.125% 08/03/2027 TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 08/03/2020 1.125% 08/03/2027 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP DTD 09/20/2022 4.550% 09/20/2027 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 11/03/2017 2.900% 11/03/2027 COMCAST CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 11/07/2022 5.350% 11/15/2027 JOHNSON & JOHNSON (CALLABLE) DTD 02/20/2025 4.550% 03/01/2028 MORGAN STANLEY (CALLABLE) DTD 04/19/2024 5.652% 04/13/2028 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) DTD 04/22/2024 5.571% 04/22/2028 HERSHEY COMPANY (CALLABLE) DTD 05/04/2023 4.250% 05/04/2028 META PLATFORMS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/03/2023 4.600% 05/15/2028 MERCK & CO INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/17/2023 4.050% 05/17/2028 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE DTD 07/07/2023 5.125% 07/07/2028 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP DTD 07/14/2023 4.950% 07/14/2028 BMW US CAPITAL LLC (CALLABLE) DTD 08/11/2023 5.050% 08/11/2028 CITIBANK NA (CALLABLE) DTD 09/29/2023 5.803% 09/29/2028 COOPERAT RABOBANK UA/NY 89788MAC6 89788MAC6 89236TKJ3 882508BC7 20030NEA5 478160DH4 61747YFP5 46647PEE2 427866BH0 30303M8L9 58933YBH7 02665WEM9 24422EXB0 05565ECE3 17325FBB3 21688ABC5 46647PEU6 300,000.00 JANE 06/03/27 06/03/27 92.68 92.68 278,053.80 1,390,269.00 2,310,308.60 2,227,586.80 2,049,674.00 560,745.36 17,368.80 163,974.00 34,849.60 68,852.80 (35,846.00) 6,067.26 (3,338.43) 24,883.26 22,537.83 2,223.94 2.26 2.26 2.32 2.39 2.33 2.65 1.87 1.89 2.78 2.80 2.83 2.95 2.98 3.00 3.10 3.39 2.59 4.47 4.47 4.32 4.23 4.36 4.16 4.85 4.80 4.21 4.17 4.12 4.57 4.30 4.77 4.52 4.42 4.71 1,500,000.00 GoldmanS 2,300,000.00 Citigrou 2,300,000.00 MorganSt 2,000,000.00 TD Secur 555,000.00 JPMorgan 1,540,000.00 JANE 100.45 96.8508/03/27 10/15/27 02/01/28 04/13/27 04/22/27 04/04/28 04/15/28 04/17/28 102.48 101.04 102.01 101.96 100.08 101.13 99.72 3,558.79 6,055.63 1,571,007.90 1,096,092.58 2,401,816.80 2,528,355.00 3,041,582.00 812,837.60 22,907.50 17,964.33 (22,063.20) 23,705.00 13,755.50 16,453.60 10,167.20 52,887.60 156,032.80 24,657.75 12,023.20 25,261.70 18,865.83 (12,827.62) 25,418.71 5,491.39 1,075,000.00 MAXE 2,400,000.00 GoldmanS 2,500,000.00 JPMorgan 3,050,000.00 Citigrou 800,000.00 GoldmanS 800,000.00 GoldmanS 2,700,000.00 Barclays 3,400,000.00 GoldmanS 2,250,000.00 MIZU 101.60 101.94 100.83 104.09 101.24 100.86 15,205.32 11,952.86 42,990.85 151,487.54 25,357.20 12,023.20 815,527.20 07/11/28 08/29/28 2,722,485.60 3,539,168.80 2,277,807.75 1,412,023.20 DTD 01/09/2024 4.800% 01/09/2029 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) DTD 01/24/2025 4.915% 01/24/2029 1,400,000.00 JPMorgan 01/24/28 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 25 Page 72 Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description Next Call Date Market Price Market Value Unreal G/L On Cost Unreal G/L Amort Cost Effective Duration YTM at MktDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Corporate Note CISCO SYSTEMS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 02/26/2024 4.850% 02/26/2029 CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE DTD 08/16/2024 4.375% 08/16/2029 ADOBE INC (CALLABLE) DTD 01/17/2025 4.950% 01/17/2030 NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP (CALLABLE) DTD 02/07/2025 4.950% 02/07/2030 HERSHEY COMPANY (CALLABLE) DTD 02/24/2025 4.750% 02/24/2030 MARS INC (CALLABLE) 17275RBR2 14913UAQ3 00724PAJ8 63743HFX5 427866BL1 571676AY1 1,620,000.00 Citigrou 215,000.00 BOFAML 2,795,000.00 BOFAML 875,000.00 RBC Capi 2,000,000.00 TD Secur 890,000.00 BOFAML 01/26/29 101.69 99.71 1,647,297.00 214,371.56 2,858,619.79 885,196.38 2,021,780.00 894,051.28 27,864.00 (45.79) 27,746.94 (112.18) 3.48 3.92 4.17 4.22 4.29 4.30 4.36 4.46 4.41 4.69 4.48 4.68 12/17/29 01/07/30 01/24/30 02/01/30 102.28 101.17 101.09 100.46 67,896.14 11,535.13 15,640.00 5,012.48 67,733.33 11,497.42 15,748.18 5,003.30 DTD 03/12/2025 4.800% 03/01/2030 Security Type Sub-Total Certificate of Deposit 80,585,000.00 80,068,137.80 373,370.40 (47,496.59)2.25 4.44 CHIPPEWA VALLEY BANK DTD 07/29/2020 0.500% 07/29/2025 MEDALLION BANK UTAH DTD 07/30/2020 0.550% 07/30/2025 NATIXIS NY BRANCH DTD 02/18/2025 4.510% 02/13/2026 NATIXIS NY BRANCH 169894AT9 58404DHQ7 63873TBC1 63873QP65 22536DWD6 245,000.00 NEW ACC 245,000.00 NEW ACC 1,000,000.00 NAT 98.76 98.77 241,962.24 241,978.17 (3,037.76) (3,021.83) 1,773.00 (3,037.76) (3,021.83) 1,773.00 0.32 0.32 0.86 1.38 1.76 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.10 4.39 100.18 102.04 100.54 1,001,773.00 2,346,968.30 3,116,674.90 2,300,000.00 WellsFar 3,100,000.00 CRAG 46,968.30 16,674.90 46,968.30 16,674.90 DTD 09/20/2023 5.610% 09/18/2026 CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB NY DTD 02/05/2024 4.760% 02/01/2027 Security Type Sub-Total Bank Note 6,890,000.00 6,949,356.61 59,356.61 59,356.61 1.40 4.28 WELLS FARGO BANK NA (CALLABLE) DTD 08/09/2023 5.450% 08/07/2026 94988J6D4 4,675,000.00 BOFAML 07/07/26 101.35 4,738,210.67 66,015.67 64,475.26 1.23 4.41 Security Type Sub-Total 4,675,000.00 4,738,210.67 66,015.67 64,475.26 1.23 4.41 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 26 Page 73 Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description Next Call Date Market Price Market Value Unreal G/L On Cost Unreal G/L Amort Cost Effective Duration YTM at MktDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Asset-Backed Security HAROT 2021-4 A3 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880% 01/21/2026 CARMX 2021-3 A3 DTD 07/28/2021 0.550% 06/15/2026 VALET 2021-1 A3 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020% 06/22/2026 HART 2022-A A3 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220% 10/15/2026 GMCAR 2022-1 A3 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260% 11/16/2026 HAROT 2024-3 A2 DTD 08/21/2024 4.890% 02/22/2027 WOART 2024-A A2A DTD 02/14/2024 5.050% 04/15/2027 NAROT 2023-B A3 DTD 10/25/2023 5.930% 03/15/2028 AMXCA 2023-1 A DTD 06/14/2023 4.870% 05/15/2028 COMET 2023-A1 A DTD 05/24/2023 4.420% 05/15/2028 AMXCA 2023-1 A DTD 06/14/2023 4.870% 05/15/2028 BACCT 2023-A1 A1 DTD 06/16/2023 4.790% 05/15/2028 DCENT 2023-A2 A DTD 06/28/2023 4.930% 06/15/2028 HAROT 2023-4 A3 DTD 11/08/2023 5.670% 06/21/2028 KCOT 2024-2A A3 DTD 06/25/2024 5.260% 11/15/2028 TAOT 2024-C A3 43815GAC3 14317DAC4 92868KAC7 448977AD0 380146AC4 43813YAB8 98164RAB2 65480MAD5 02582JJZ4 14041NGD7 02582JJZ4 05522RDG0 254683CZ6 438123AC5 50117DAC0 89237QAD2 448976AD2 38,125.71 BOFAML 79,632.14 RBC Capi 13,316.61 WellsFar 287,119.38 BOFAML 83,728.08 BNPPSA 99.66 99.70 37,996.00 79,391.26 (121.67) (227.78) (24.20) (128.15) (237.65) (24.58) 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.20 0.16 0.48 0.24 0.88 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.15 1.08 1.88 1.55 1.88 15.65 4.53 4.52 4.46 4.50 4.60 4.63 4.73 4.39 4.44 4.39 4.41 4.37 4.61 4.46 4.40 4.39 99.81 13,291.89 99.56 285,860.93 83,287.08 (1,247.39) (433.72) 3,642.03 465.08 (1,254.73) (438.55) 3,597.56 452.19 99.47 2,366,029.68 JPMorgan 459,880.21 MIZU 100.15 100.09 101.10 100.55 100.03 100.55 100.45 100.69 101.20 101.61 100.80 100.10 2,369,486.45 460,309.28 657,171.45 2,010,988.00 2,720,916.64 2,734,943.68 3,464,375.64 3,327,774.76 399,740.79 2,133,784.80 1,486,758.70 1,216,234.44 650,000.00 MIZU 7,303.40 15,363.00 37,679.14 17,387.43 26,692.67 21,225.54 4,810.35 9,421.52 11,759.58 1,323.38 7,262.87 13,855.35 24,705.39 16,525.01 22,698.81 21,762.99 4,790.70 10,224.12 11,758.70 1,312.16 2,000,000.00 SUMITR 2,720,000.00 SUMITR 2,720,000.00 SUMITR 3,449,000.00 SUMITR 3,305,000.00 SUMITR 395,000.00 JPMorgan 2,100,000.00 WellsFar 1,475,000.00 MUFG 1,215,000.00 Barclays DTD 07/30/2024 4.880% 03/15/2029 HART 2024-C A3 DTD 10/16/2024 4.410% 05/15/2029 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 27 Page 74 Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 Security Type/Description Next Call Date Market Price Market Value Unreal G/L On Cost Unreal G/L Amort Cost Effective Duration YTM at MktDated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Asset-Backed Security HAROT 2024-4 A3 DTD 10/24/2024 4.330% 05/15/2029 BACCT 2024-A1 A DTD 06/13/2024 4.930% 05/15/2029 AMXCA 2024-3 A DTD 07/23/2024 4.650% 07/15/2029 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 DTD 10/16/2024 4.400% 08/16/2029 VALET 2025-1 A3 DTD 03/25/2025 4.500% 08/20/2029 BMWOT 2025-A A3 DTD 02/12/2025 4.560% 09/25/2029 WFCIT 2024-A2 A DTD 10/24/2024 4.290% 10/15/2029 FORDO 2025-A A3 43816DAC9 05522RDJ4 02589BAE0 38014AAD3 92868MAD1 096924AD7 92970QAE5 34535KAD0 58773DAD6 92348KDY6 3,000,000.00 BOFAML 3,065,000.00 BOFAML 2,095,000.00 Citigrou 975,000.00 MIZU 99.89 101.35 100.79 100.10 100.25 100.43 99.93 2,996,649.00 3,106,481.71 2,111,596.59 975,950.63 9,070.87 41,653.66 16,691.70 1,138.41 6,034.86 8,032.78 (1,043.70) 6,787.55 13,608.90 991.85 8,619.99 41,618.65 16,677.91 1,121.06 6,029.69 8,022.89 (1,065.97) 6,779.51 13,592.41 1,332.18 1.71 1.97 2.13 1.90 2.18 2.02 2.37 2.16 2.18 2.36 4.43 4.34 4.33 4.38 4.42 4.41 4.33 4.38 4.40 4.57 2,340,000.00 Barclays 1,830,000.00 WellsFar 1,750,000.00 WellsFar 2,835,000.00 SGAS 1,555,000.00 SGAS 2,790,000.00 BOFAML 2,345,955.30 1,837,852.53 1,748,696.25 2,841,511.99 1,568,278.15 2,790,871.88 100.23 100.85 100.03 DTD 03/25/2025 4.450% 10/15/2029 MBART 2025-1 A3 DTD 01/23/2025 4.780% 12/17/2029 VZMT 2025-3 A1A DTD 03/31/2025 4.510% 03/20/2030 Security Type Sub-Total 45,591,831.81 400,382,751.99 $400,382,751.99 45,806,155.82 393,616,594.93 257,985.24 4,961,103.12 $4,961,103.12 239,590.51 731,921.83 $731,921.83 1.60 2.45 2.45 4.43 4.16Managed Account Sub-Total Securities Sub-Total Accrued Interest Total Investments $393,616,594.93 $2,276,772.47 4.16% $395,893,367.40 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 28 Page 75 Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 Transaction Type Principal Proceeds Accrued Interest Realized G/L Realized G/L Cost Amort Cost Sale MethodTrade BUY Settle Security Description CUSIP Par Total 03/03/25 03/03/25 03/05/25 03/11/25 03/18/25 03/18/25 03/25/25 03/05/25 03/05/25 03/12/25 03/20/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2023 3.625% 03/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2023 3.500% 01/31/2030 MARS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 03/12/2025 4.800% 03/01/2030 FHMS K537 A2 DTD 03/01/2025 4.430% 02/01/2030 FORDO 2025-A A3 DTD 03/25/2025 4.450% 10/15/2029 VALET 2025-1 A3 DTD 03/25/2025 4.500% 08/20/2029 VZMT 2025-3 A1A 91282CGT2 2,950,000.00 6,500,000.00 890,000.00 (2,916,812.50) (6,336,484.38) (889,038.80) (45,830.36) (20,738.95) 0.00 (2,962,642.86) (6,357,223.33) (889,038.80) 91282CGJ4 571676AY1 3137HKPF5 34535KAD0 92868MAD1 92348KDY6 2,085,000.00 2,835,000.00 2,340,000.00 2,790,000.00 (2,084,977.07) (2,834,724.44) (2,339,920.44) (2,789,880.03) (4,874.85) 0.00 (2,089,851.92) (2,834,724.44) (2,339,920.44) (2,789,880.03) 0.00 0.00 DTD 03/31/2025 4.510% 03/20/2030 Transaction Type Sub-Total INTEREST 20,390,000.00 (20,191,837.66)(71,444.16)(20,263,281.82) 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 FHMS K505 A2 DTD 07/01/2023 4.819% 06/01/2028 FHMS K062 A2 DTD 02/01/2017 3.413% 12/01/2026 FHMS K067 A2 DTD 09/01/2017 3.194% 07/01/2027 FHMS K520 A2 DTD 04/01/2024 5.180% 03/01/2029 FHMS K507 A2 DTD 09/01/2023 4.800% 09/01/2028 FHMS K526 A2 DTD 08/01/2024 4.543% 07/01/2029 FHMS K508 A2 DTD 10/01/2023 4.740% 08/01/2028 FHMS K528 A2 3137HACX2 3137BUX60 3137FAWS3 3137HCKV3 3137HAMS2 3137HDXL9 3137HAQ74 3137HFNZ4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,649.88 4,863.53 5,216.87 17,266.67 12,000.00 12,663.61 11,850.00 4,902.45 12,649.88 4,863.53 5,216.87 17,266.67 12,000.00 12,663.61 11,850.00 4,902.45 DTD 09/01/2024 4.508% 07/01/2029 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 29 Page 76 Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 Transaction Type Principal Proceeds Accrued Interest Realized G/L Realized G/L Cost Amort Cost Sale MethodTradeSettleSecurity Description CUSIP Par Total INTEREST 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/02/25 03/03/25 03/04/25 03/09/25 03/14/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/02/25 03/03/25 03/04/25 03/09/25 03/14/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 FNA 2023-M6 A2 DTD 07/01/2023 4.182% 07/01/2028 FHMS K529 A2 DTD 10/01/2024 4.791% 09/01/2029 FHMS K530 A2 DTD 11/01/2024 4.792% 09/01/2029 FHMS K509 A2 DTD 10/01/2023 4.850% 09/01/2028 FHMS K506 A2 DTD 09/01/2023 4.650% 08/01/2028 FHMS K514 A2 DTD 02/01/2024 4.572% 12/01/2028 FHMS KJ46 A1 DTD 07/01/2023 4.777% 06/01/2028 FHMS K510 A2 DTD 11/01/2023 5.069% 10/01/2028 FHMS K511 A2 DTD 12/01/2023 4.860% 10/01/2028 FHMS K527 A2 DTD 08/01/2024 4.618% 07/01/2029 TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 03/02/2021 1.267% 03/02/2027 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 03/03/2022 2.450% 03/03/2027 MONEY MARKET FUND 3136BQDE6 0.00 11,317.14 9,402.34 14,895.13 9,417.08 13,465.63 6,819.90 12,647.93 4,773.31 6,966.00 10,198.08 13,303.50 24,500.00 143.24 11,317.14 9,402.34 14,895.13 9,417.08 13,465.63 6,819.90 12,647.93 4,773.31 6,966.00 10,198.08 13,303.50 24,500.00 143.24 3137HH6C0 3137HHJL6 3137HAST4 3137HAMH6 3137HBLV4 3137HAD45 3137HB3D4 3137HB3G7 3137HFF59 89788MAD4 808513BY0 MONEY0002 02665WDZ1 14913R2Q9 05522RDJ4 91282CGR6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DTD 01/01/2010 0.000% AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE -- 13,000.00 11,500.00 12,592.04 92,500.00 13,000.00 11,500.00 12,592.04 92,500.00 DTD 09/09/2021 1.300% 09/09/2026 CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE DTD 09/14/2021 1.150% 09/14/2026 BACCT 2024-A1 A DTD 06/13/2024 4.930% 05/15/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/15/2023 4.625% 03/15/2026 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 30 Page 77 Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 Transaction Type Principal Proceeds Accrued Interest Realized G/L Realized G/L Cost Amort Cost Sale MethodTradeSettleSecurity Description CUSIP Par Total INTEREST 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/16/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/16/25 MBART 2025-1 A3 DTD 01/23/2025 4.780% 12/17/2029 HART 2022-A A3 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220% 10/15/2026 WFCIT 2024-A2 A DTD 10/24/2024 4.290% 10/15/2029 CARMX 2021-3 A3 DTD 07/28/2021 0.550% 06/15/2026 HART 2024-C A3 DTD 10/16/2024 4.410% 05/15/2029 NAROT 2023-B A3 DTD 10/25/2023 5.930% 03/15/2028 WOART 2024-A A2A DTD 02/14/2024 5.050% 04/15/2027 TAOT 2024-C A3 DTD 07/30/2024 4.880% 03/15/2029 COMET 2023-A1 A DTD 05/24/2023 4.420% 05/15/2028 AMXCA 2023-1 A DTD 06/14/2023 4.870% 05/15/2028 AMXCA 2024-3 A DTD 07/23/2024 4.650% 07/15/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/15/2024 4.250% 03/15/2027 KCOT 2024-2A A3 DTD 06/25/2024 5.260% 11/15/2028 DCENT 2023-A2 A DTD 06/28/2023 4.930% 06/15/2028 HAROT 2024-4 A3 DTD 10/24/2024 4.330% 05/15/2029 BACCT 2023-A1 A1 58773DAD6 0.00 6,194.08 6,194.08 448977AD0 92970QAE5 14317DAC4 448976AD2 65480MAD5 98164RAB2 89237QAD2 14041NGD7 02582JJZ4 02589BAE0 91282CKE0 50117DAC0 254683CZ6 43816DAC9 05522RDG0 380146AC4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 646.48 6,256.25 58.11 646.48 6,256.25 58.11 4,465.13 3,212.08 2,243.31 5,998.33 10,018.67 19,155.33 8,118.13 46,750.00 9,205.00 13,578.04 10,825.00 13,767.26 111.55 4,465.13 3,212.08 2,243.31 5,998.33 10,018.67 19,155.33 8,118.13 46,750.00 9,205.00 13,578.04 10,825.00 13,767.26 111.55 DTD 06/16/2023 4.790% 05/15/2028 GMCAR 2022-1 A3 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260% 11/16/2026 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 31 Page 78 Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 Transaction Type Principal Proceeds Accrued Interest Realized G/L Realized G/L Cost Amort Cost Sale MethodTradeSettleSecurity Description CUSIP Par Total INTEREST 03/16/25 03/20/25 03/20/25 03/21/25 03/21/25 03/21/25 03/25/25 03/29/25 03/29/25 03/30/25 03/31/25 03/31/25 03/31/25 03/31/25 03/31/25 03/31/25 03/31/25 03/16/25 03/20/25 03/20/25 03/21/25 03/21/25 03/21/25 03/25/25 03/29/25 03/29/25 03/30/25 03/31/25 03/31/25 03/31/25 03/31/25 03/31/25 03/31/25 03/31/25 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 38014AAD3 0.00 3,575.00 3,575.00 DTD 10/16/2024 4.400% 08/16/2029 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP DTD 09/20/2022 4.550% 09/20/2027 VALET 2021-1 A3 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020% 06/22/2026 HAROT 2024-3 A2 DTD 08/21/2024 4.890% 02/22/2027 HAROT 2023-4 A3 DTD 11/08/2023 5.670% 06/21/2028 HAROT 2021-4 A3 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880% 01/21/2026 BMWOT 2025-A A3 DTD 02/12/2025 4.560% 09/25/2029 CHIPPEWA VALLEY BANK DTD 07/29/2020 0.500% 07/29/2025 CITIBANK NA (CALLABLE) DTD 09/29/2023 5.803% 09/29/2028 MEDALLION BANK UTAH DTD 07/30/2020 0.550% 07/30/2025 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2022 2.375% 03/31/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 3.875% 09/30/2029 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2023 3.625% 03/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 4.125% 09/30/2027 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2021 0.875% 09/30/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 10/02/2023 4.625% 09/30/2028 US TREASURY N/B 89236TKJ3 92868KAC7 43813YAB8 438123AC5 43815GAC3 096924AD7 169894AT9 17325FBB3 58404DHQ7 91282CEE7 91282CFL0 91282CGT2 91282CFM8 91282CCZ2 91282CJA0 91282CBS9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52,325.00 40.70 52,325.00 40.70 9,943.00 1,866.38 46.34 9,943.00 1,866.38 46.34 9,967.40 97.33 9,967.40 97.33 98,651.00 110.75 98,651.00 110.75 74,812.50 60,062.50 53,468.75 61,875.00 21,437.50 138,750.00 27,031.25 74,812.50 60,062.50 53,468.75 61,875.00 21,437.50 138,750.00 27,031.25 DTD 03/31/2021 1.250% 03/31/2028 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 32 Page 79 Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 Transaction Type Trade Settle Principal Proceeds Accrued Interest Realized G/L Realized G/L Cost Amort Cost Sale MethodSecurity Description CUSIP Par Total Transaction Type Sub-Total 0.00 1,123,517.48 1,123,517.48 PAYDOWNS 03/01/25 03/01/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/16/25 03/20/25 03/21/25 03/21/25 03/25/25 03/25/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/15/25 03/16/25 03/20/25 03/21/25 03/21/25 FHMS KJ46 A1 DTD 07/01/2023 4.777% 06/01/2028 FNA 2023-M6 A2 DTD 07/01/2023 4.182% 07/01/2028 WOART 2024-A A2A DTD 02/14/2024 5.050% 04/15/2027 CARMX 2021-3 A3 DTD 07/28/2021 0.550% 06/15/2026 HART 2022-A A3 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220% 10/15/2026 GMCAR 2022-1 A3 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260% 11/16/2026 VALET 2021-1 A3 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020% 06/22/2026 HAROT 2024-3 A2 3137HAD45 3,983.14 3,983.14 23.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,983.14 23.40 0.10 0.87 5.73 7.76 2.40 1.95 1.35 5.79 5.28 0.07 3136BQDE6 98164RAB2 14317DAC4 448977AD0 380146AC4 92868KAC7 43813YAB8 43815GAC3 23.40 73,182.42 47,157.33 62,331.62 22,511.66 34,564.34 73,970.32 25,070.72 0.60 3.75 1.99 0.83 0.67 0.37 4.46 1.06 73,182.42 47,157.33 62,331.62 22,511.66 34,564.33 73,970.32 25,070.72 73,182.42 47,157.33 62,331.62 22,511.66 34,564.33 73,970.32 25,070.72 DTD 08/21/2024 4.890% 02/22/2027 HAROT 2021-4 A3 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880% 01/21/2026 Transaction Type Sub-Total SELL 342,794.95 342,794.94 0.00 342,794.94 31.23 13.80 03/03/25 03/03/25 03/03/25 03/03/25 03/06/25 03/05/25 03/05/25 03/05/25 03/05/25 03/07/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2021 0.750% 03/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/01/2021 0.375% 01/31/2026 BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 03/22/2022 3.384% 04/02/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/01/2021 0.500% 02/28/2026 US TREASURY N/B 91282CBT7 91282CBH3 06051GKM0 91282CBQ3 91282CGR6 3,000,000.00 1,525,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,650,000.00 900,000.00 2,894,179.69 1,473,590.82 1,997,880.00 2,556,628.91 904,675.78 9,642.86 521.32 2,903,822.55 1,474,112.14 2,026,644.00 2,556,808.94 924,568.39 (79,453.12) (29,189.46) 39,180.00 (67,181.64) 4,183.59 (100,155.71) (46,900.04) 9,280.21 FIFO FIFO FIFO FIFO FIFO 28,764.00 180.03 (88,199.28) 4,427.3619,892.61 DTD 03/15/2023 4.625% 03/15/2026 PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 33 Page 80 Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 73340000 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 Transaction Type Principal Proceeds Accrued Interest Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale MethodTrade SELL Settle Security Description CUSIP Par Total Cost Amort Cost 03/14/25 03/19/25 03/19/25 03/19/25 03/20/25 03/26/25 03/31/25 03/17/25 03/20/25 03/20/25 03/20/25 03/21/25 03/31/25 03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/15/2023 4.625% 03/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/01/2021 1.250% 05/31/2028 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/01/2021 1.250% 05/31/2028 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) DTD 03/23/2016 3.300% 04/01/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/15/2023 4.625% 03/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B DTD 04/17/2023 3.750% 04/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B 91282CGR6 2,000,000.00 475,000.00 3,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 400,000.00 1,500,000.00 50,000.00 2,009,921.88 435,441.41 2,750,156.25 1,483,335.00 402,046.88 1,494,375.00 49,138.67 502.72 2,010,424.60 437,235.71 2,761,488.67 1,506,572.50 402,348.51 1,520,182.01 49,634.01 8,828.13 9,384.63 2,486.79 5,936.63 9,943.73 1,940.61 8,598.59 304.89 FIFO FIFO FIFO FIFO FIFO FIFO FIFO 91282CCE9 91282CCE9 46625HQW3 91282CGR6 91282CGV7 9128286S4 1,794.30 11,332.42 23,237.50 301.63 24,733.40 142,148.44 52,905.00 1,828.13 25,807.01 495.34 22,148.44 2,052.73 DTD 04/30/2019 2.375% 04/30/2026 Transaction Type Sub-Total Managed Account Sub-Total Total Security Transactions 19,000,000.00 18,451,370.29 (1,397,672.43) ($1,397,672.43) 122,471.74 1,174,545.06 $1,174,545.06 18,573,842.03 (223,127.37) ($223,127.37) 122,183.64 122,214.87 $122,214.87 (182,951.59) (182,937.79) ($182,937.79) PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Account 73340000 Page 34 Page 81 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Portfolio Summary March 31, 2025 Cash Dividends Closing Portfolio Holdings and Income Market Value $ 162,021.71 $ - - - PFM Managed Account PFM Cash Balance CAMP Pool State Pool - 64,440,260.74 63,404.55 28,579,310.58 144,198.31 Total $ 162,021.71 $ 93,163,769.63 Peter Castro, Treasurer Date I certify that this report accurately reflects all District pooled investments and is in conformity with the investment policy adopted June 27, 2024. A copy of the investment policy is available in the Finance Department. The Investment Program herein shown provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six months' estimated expenditures. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 82 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ACCOUNT STATEMENT For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 Customer Service PO Box 11813 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1813 Contents Cover/Disclosures Summary Statement Individual Accounts RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT RICK FLINCHUM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 Client Management Team Accounts included in Statement 73340100 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS https://www.pfmam.comOnline Access 1-717-232-2723Customer Service Meredith LaBuda Sullivan Senior Portfolio Manager 213 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-2141 717-231-2723 labudam@pfmam.com Jeremy King Key Account Manager 213 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-2141 717-232-2723 kingj@pfmam.com Rachael Miller Client Consultant 213 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-2141 717-232-2723 millerr@pfmam.com Page 83 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 Account Statement Important Disclosures Important Disclosures 365 and dividing the result by 7. The yields quoted should not be considered a representation of the yield of the fund in the future, since the yield is not fixed. Average maturity represents the average maturity of all securities and investments of a portfolio, determined by multiplying the par or principal value of each security or investment by its maturity (days or years), summing the products, and dividing the sum by the total principal value of the portfolio. The stated maturity date of mortgage backed or callable securities are used in this statement. However the actual maturity of these securities could vary depending on the level or prepayments on the underlying mortgages or whether a callable security has or is still able to be called. Monthly distribution yield represents the net change in the value of one share (normally $1.00 per share) resulting from all dividends declared during the month by a fund expressed as a percentage of the value of one share at the beginning of the month. This resulting net change is then annualized by multiplying it by 365 and dividing it by the number of calendar days in the month. YTM at Cost The yield to maturity at cost is the expected rate of return, based on the original cost, the annual interest receipts, maturity value and the time period from purchase date to maturity, stated as a percentage, on an annualized basis. YTM at Market The yield to maturity at market is the rate of return, based on the current market value, the annual interest receipts, maturity value and the time period remaining until maturity, stated as a percentage, on an annualized basis. Managed Account A portfolio of investments managed discretely by PFMAM according to the client’s specific investment policy and requirements. The investments are directly owned by the client and held by the client’s custodian. Unsettled Trade A trade which has been executed however the final consummation of the security transaction and payment has not yet taken place. Please review the detail pages of this statement carefully. If you think your statement is wrong, missing account information, or if you need more information about a transaction, please contact PFMAM within 60 days of receipt. If you have other concerns or questions regarding your account, or to request an updated copy of PFMAM's current disclosure statement, please contact a member of your client management team at PFMAM Service Operations at the address below. PFM Asset Management Attn: Service Operations 213 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 NOT FDIC INSURED NO BANK GUARANTEE MAY LOSE VALUE This statement is for general information purposes only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations. PFM Asset Management ("PFMAM") is a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. ("USBAM"), a SEC-registered investment adviser. USBAM is direct subsidiary of U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank") and an indirect subsidiary of U.S. Bancorp. U.S. Bank is not responsible for and does not guarantee the products, services or performance of PFMAM. PFMAM maintains a written disclosure statement of our background and business experience. If you would like to receive a copy of our current disclosure statement, please contact Service Operations at the address below. Proxy Voting PFMAM does not normally receive proxies to vote on behalf of its clients. However, it does on occasion receive consent requests. In the event a consent request is received the portfolio manager contacts the client and then proceeds according to their instructions. PFMAM’s Proxy Voting Policy is available upon request by contacting Service Operations at the address below. Questions About an Account PFMAM’s monthly statement is intended to detail our investment advisory activity as well as the activity of any accounts held by clients in pools that are managed by PFMAM. The custodian bank maintains the control of assets and executes (i.e., settles) all investment transactions. The custodian statement is the official record of security and cash holdings and transactions. PFMAM recognizes that clients may use these reports to facilitate record keeping and that the custodian bank statement and the PFMAM statement should be reconciled and differences resolved. Many custodians use a settlement date basis which may result in the need to reconcile due to a timing difference. Account Control PFMAM does not have the authority to withdraw funds from or deposit funds to the custodian outside the scope of services provided by PFMAM. Our clients retain responsibility for their internal accounting policies; implementing and enforcing internal controls and generating ledger entries or otherwise recording transactions. Market Value Generally, PFMAM’s market prices are derived from closing bid prices as of the last business day of the month as supplied by ICE Data Services. There may be differences in the values shown for investments due to accrued but uncollected income and the use of differing valuation sources and methods. Non-negotiable FDIC-insured bank certificates of deposit are priced at par. Although PFMAM believes the prices to be reliable, the values of the securities may not represent the prices at which the securities could have been bought or sold. Explanation of the valuation methods for a registered investment company or local government investment program is contained in the appropriate fund offering documentation or information statement. Amortized Cost The original cost of the principal of the security is adjusted for the amount of the periodic reduction of any discount or premium from the purchase date until the date of the report. Discount or premium with respect to short term securities (those with less than one year to maturity at time of issuance) is amortized on a straightline basis. Such discount or premium with respect to longer term securities is amortized using the constant yield basis. Tax Reporting Cost data and realized gains / losses are provided for informational purposes only. Please review for accuracy and consult your tax advisor to determine the tax consequences of your security transactions. PFMAM does not report such information to the IRS or other taxing authorities and is not responsible for the accuracy of such information that may be required to be reported to federal, state or other taxing authorities. Financial Situation In order to better serve you, PFMAM should be promptly notified of any material change in your investment objective or financial situation. Callable Securities Securities subject to redemption prior to maturity may be redeemed in whole or in part before maturity, which could affect the yield represented. Portfolio The securities in this portfolio, including shares of mutual funds, are not guaranteed or otherwise protected by PFMAM, the FDIC (except for certain non-negotiable certificates of deposit) or any government agency. Investment in securities involves risks, including the possible loss of the amount invested. Actual settlement values, accrued interest, and amortized cost amounts may vary for securities subject to an adjustable interest rate or subject to principal paydowns. Any changes to the values shown may be reflected within the next monthly statement’s beginning values. Rating Information provided for ratings is based upon a good faith inquiry of selected sources, but its accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed. Shares of some local government investment programs and TERM funds are distributed by representatives of USBAM's affiliate, U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. which is registered with the SEC as a broker/dealer and is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”). You may reach the FINRA by calling the FINRA Hotline at 1-800-289-9999 or at the FINRA website address https://www.finra.org/investors/investor-contacts. A brochure describing the FINRA Regulation Public Disclosure Program is also available from FINRA upon request. Key Terms and Definitions Dividends on local government investment program funds consist of interest earned, plus any discount ratably amortized to the date of maturity, plus all realized gains and losses on the sale of securities prior to maturity, less ratable amortization of any premium and all accrued expenses to the fund. Dividends are accrued daily and may be paid either monthly or quarterly. The monthly earnings on this statement represent the estimated dividend accrued for the month for any program that distributes earnings on a quarterly basis. There is no guarantee that the estimated amount will be paid on the actual distribution date. Current Yield is the net change, exclusive of capital changes and income other than investment income, in the value of a hypothetical fund account with a balance of one share over the seven-day base period including the statement date, expressed as a percentage of the value of one share (normally $1.00 per share) at the beginning of the seven-day period. This resulting net change in account value is then annualized by multiplying it by Page 84 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025 Account Statement Consolidated Summary Statement RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Investment Allocation Investment Type Closing Market Value Percent 7,852,804.89 8.43 Asset-Backed Security 12,456,826.27 13.37 Corporate Note 886,830.87 0.95 Bank Note 1,243,320.18 1.33 Certificate of Deposit 7,723,157.53 8.29 Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security 599,407.64 0.64 Corporate Note 794,179.09 0.85 Supra-National Agency Bond / Note 32,883,734.27 35.31 U.S. Treasury Bond / Note 28,579,310.58 30.68 CAMP Pool 144,198.31 0.15 Local Agency Investment Fund $93,163,769.63 Total 100.00% Portfolio Summary and Income Closing Market ValuePortfolio Holdings Cash Dividends PFMAM Managed Account 162,021.71 64,440,260.74 CAMP Pool 0.00 28,579,310.58 Local Agency Investment Fund 0.00 144,198.31 $162,021.71 $93,163,769.63 Total Maturity Distribution (Fixed Income Holdings) Portfolio Holdings Closing Market Value Percent 28,723,508.89 0.00 0.00 241,978.17 1,015,034.66 17,505,719.61 10,686,785.22 21,059,820.84 13,930,922.24 0.00 30.83 0.00 0.00 0.26 1.09 18.79 11.47 22.61 14.95 0.00 Under 30 days 31 to 60 days 61 to 90 days 91 to 180 days 181 days to 1 year 1 to 2 years 2 to 3 years 3 to 4 years 4 to 5 years Over 5 years Total $93,163,769.63 739 100.00% Weighted Average Days to Maturity Sector Allocation 8.43% ABS 13.37% Corporate Note 0.95% Bank Note 1.33% Cert of Deposit 8.29% Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security 0.64% Priv Placement Bond 0.85% Supra-National Agency Bond / Note 35.31% US TSY Bond / Note 30.68% CAMP Pool 0.15% Local Agency Investment Fund Summary Page 1PFM Asset Management Page 85 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Summary Statement CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Total Cash Basis Earnings Plus Net Realized Gains/Losses Less Purchased Interest Related to Interest/Coupons Interest/Dividends/Coupons Received Earnings Reconciliation (Cash Basis) - Managed Account Less Beginning Accrued Interest Less Beginning Amortized Value of Securities Less Cost of New Purchases Plus Coupons/Dividends Received Plus Proceeds of Maturities/Calls/Principal Payments Plus Proceeds from Sales Ending Accrued Interest Ending Amortized Value of Securities Earnings Reconciliation (Accrual Basis) $64,121,193.86 (38,412.70) (3,026,029.02) 3,269,077.74 0.00 114,430.86 $64,440,260.74 216,178.20 (12,140.70) (42,015.79) $162,021.71 Total 64,315,838.29 362,016.40 3,041,418.09 38,412.70 200,789.13 (3,281,218.44) (64,133,890.06) (382,624.15) Total Accrual Basis Earnings $160,741.96 Closing Market Value Change in Current Value Unsettled Trades Principal Acquisitions Principal Dispositions Maturities/Calls Opening Market Value Transaction Summary - Managed Account _________________ _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________Reconciling Transactions Net Cash Contribution Security Purchases Principal Payments Coupon/Interest/Dividend Income Sale Proceeds Maturities/Calls Cash Transactions Summary - Managed Account 0.00 3,041,418.09 200,789.13 38,412.70 (3,281,218.44) (0.26) 0.00 Cash Balance $63,404.55 Closing Cash Balance Account 73340100 Page 1PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 86 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Portfolio Summary and Statistics CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Account Summary Percent Par Value Market ValueDescription U.S. Treasury Bond / Note 33,985,000.00 32,883,734.27 51.03 Supra-National Agency Bond / Note 815,000.00 794,179.09 1.23 Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security 7,665,261.40 7,723,157.53 11.98 Corporate Note 13,100,000.00 13,056,233.91 20.26 Certificate of Deposit 1,235,000.00 1,243,320.18 1.93 Bank Note 875,000.00 886,830.87 1.38 Asset-Backed Security 7,815,436.20 7,852,804.89 12.19 Managed Account Sub-Total 65,490,697.60 64,440,260.74 100.00% Accrued Interest 362,016.40 Total Portfolio 65,490,697.60 64,802,277.14 Unsettled Trades 0.00 0.00 Sector Allocation 12.19% ABS 1.38% Bank Note 1.93% Cert of Deposit 19.33% Corporate Note 11.98% Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security 0.93% Priv Placement Bond 1.23% Supra-National Agency Bond / Note 51.03% US TSY Bond / Note 0 - 6 Months 6 - 12 Months 1 - 2 Years 2 - 3 Years 3 - 4 Years 4 - 5 Years Over 5 Years 0.37%1.58% 27.17% 16.58% 32.68% 21.62% 0.00% Maturity Distribution Characteristics Yield to Maturity at Cost Yield to Maturity at Market Weighted Average Days to Maturity 1068 4.11% 4.16% Account 73340100 Page 2PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 87 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Issuer Summary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Credit Quality (S&P Ratings) 3.71% NR 3.95% A 9.46% A+ 5.79% A- 0.47% AA 63.02% AA+ 1.75% AA- 10.40% AAA 1.45% BBB+ Issuer Summary Percentof HoldingsIssuer Market Value 470,470.52 0.73 Adobe Inc 303,022.50 0.47 Amazon.com Inc 1,483,268.25 2.29 American Express Co 144,913.35 0.22 AstraZeneca PLC 1,159,664.70 1.79 BA Credit Card Trust 514,596.03 0.80 Bank of America Corp 453,747.60 0.70 Bayerische Motoren Werke AG 296,265.85 0.46 BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 515,173.56 0.80 Capital One Financial Corp 94,722.32 0.15 Caterpillar Inc 289,359.60 0.45 Charles Schwab Corp 274,549.50 0.43 Cisco Systems Inc 766,539.08 1.19 Citigroup Inc 435,555.73 0.68 Comcast Corp 374,572.83 0.58 Cooperatieve Rabobank UA 593,173.61 0.92 Credit Agricole Group 191,397.20 0.30 Deere & Co 629,306.88 0.98 Discover Card Execution Note Trust 7,153,774.01 11.09 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp 569,383.52 0.88 Federal National Mortgage Association 456,045.13 0.71 Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 168,923.05 0.26 GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receiv 768,694.36 1.19 Goldman Sachs Group Inc 408,168.40 0.63 Groupe BPCE 728,588.73 1.13 Hershey Co 962,496.64 1.49 Honda Auto Receivables Owner Trust 496,094.90 0.77 Honda Motor Co Ltd 229,742.15 0.36 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 794,179.09 1.23 International Bank for Reconstruction & 268,562.53 0.42 International Business Machines Corp 90,931.68 0.14 Johnson & Johnson 334,268.33 0.52 JPMorgan Chase & Co Account 73340100 Page 3PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 88 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Issuer Summary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Percentof HoldingsIssuer Market Value 355,630.80 0.55 Kubota Credit Owner Trust 145,660.04 0.23 Mars Inc 241,978.17 0.38 Medallion Financial Corp 267,262.84 0.41 Mercedes-Benz Auto Receivables Trust 473,689.00 0.74 Merck & Co Inc 455,103.90 0.71 Meta Platforms Inc 460,794.00 0.72 Morgan Stanley 396,696.00 0.62 National Australia Bank Ltd 269,104.07 0.42 National Rural Utilities Cooperative Fi 121,323.96 0.19 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner Trust 397,786.00 0.62 Northern Trust Corp 251,871.50 0.39 PepsiCo Inc 267,718.00 0.42 PNC Financial Services Group Inc 596,529.53 0.93 State Street Corp 387,406.40 0.60 Texas Instruments Inc 241,913.28 0.38 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner Trust 798,570.90 1.24 Toyota Motor Corp 628,034.04 0.97 Truist Financial Corp 32,883,734.27 51.02 United States Treasury 311,175.59 0.48 UnitedHealth Group Inc 455,142.19 0.71 Verizon Master Trust 377,315.97 0.59 Volkswagen Auto Loan Enhanced Trust 886,830.87 1.38 Wells Fargo & Co 279,791.40 0.43 WF Card Issuance Trust 69,046.39 0.11 World Omni Auto Trust $64,440,260.74 Total 100.00% Account 73340100 Page 4PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 89 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Detail of Securities Held CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTradeSettle Par U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B DTD 04/17/2023 3.750% 04/15/2026 747,633.00 742,906.92 12,980.77 736,113.28 04/03/2404/01/24AaaAA+ 750,000.00 91282CGV7 4.72 US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/16/2016 1.625% 05/15/2026 584,203.20 599,079.00 3,689.92 596,554.69 03/07/2203/03/22AaaAA+ 600,000.00 912828R36 1.77 US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/31/2019 2.125% 05/31/2026 538,140.90 558,970.76 3,917.24 587,318.36 07/28/2107/26/21AaaAA+ 550,000.00 9128286X3 0.70 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2021 0.875% 06/30/2026 505,107.23 505,294.72 1,154.78 496,617.19 09/05/2409/03/24AaaAA+ 525,000.00 91282CCJ8 3.99 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2021 0.875% 06/30/2026 577,265.40 595,956.14 1,319.75 585,468.75 01/07/2201/06/22AaaAA+ 600,000.00 91282CCJ8 1.44 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/15/2016 1.500% 08/15/2026 966,914.00 980,615.95 1,864.64 939,023.44 04/22/2204/21/22AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 9128282A7 3.02 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2021 0.875% 09/30/2026 1,433,028.00 1,458,820.45 35.86 1,379,472.66 05/13/2205/12/22AaaAA+ 1,500,000.00 91282CCZ2 2.84 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/01/2021 1.125% 10/31/2026 191,343.80 190,884.50 944.75 188,554.69 10/31/2410/28/24AaaAA+ 200,000.00 91282CDG3 4.14 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/01/2021 1.125% 10/31/2026 296,582.89 309,554.63 1,464.36 308,595.31 11/03/2111/01/21AaaAA+ 310,000.00 91282CDG3 1.22 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/01/2021 1.125% 10/31/2026 956,719.00 998,064.37 4,723.76 993,945.31 11/18/2111/17/21AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 91282CDG3 1.25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/16/2024 4.000% 01/15/2027 575,404.23 568,505.67 4,828.73 565,948.24 07/02/2407/01/24AaaAA+ 575,000.00 91282CJT9 4.66 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/16/2024 4.000% 01/15/2027 925,650.28 923,450.10 7,767.96 922,904.30 08/02/2408/01/24AaaAA+ 925,000.00 91282CJT9 4.10 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2025 4.125% 01/31/2027 697,117.67 693,565.79 4,751.73 693,452.54 02/06/2502/03/25AaaAA+ 695,000.00 91282CMH1 4.24 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2017 2.250% 02/15/2027 678,781.60 694,235.04 1,957.87 686,054.69 08/03/2208/01/22AaaAA+ 700,000.00 912828V98 2.72 Account 73340100 Page 5PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 90 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Detail of Securities Held CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTradeSettle Par U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/02/2020 1.125% 02/28/2027 664,043.10 658,083.13 684.78 623,792.97 09/08/2309/05/23AaaAA+ 700,000.00 912828ZB9 4.54 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/15/2024 4.250% 03/15/2027 427,506.65 424,830.48 834.41 424,817.38 02/05/2502/04/25AaaAA+ 425,000.00 91282CKE0 4.27 US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/15/2017 2.375% 05/15/2027 532,683.80 529,886.27 4,943.54 526,968.75 12/05/2412/02/24AaaAA+ 550,000.00 912828X88 4.19 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/01/2022 2.750% 07/31/2027 487,051.00 487,556.61 2,279.01 475,625.00 01/06/2301/04/23AaaAA+ 500,000.00 91282CFB2 3.93 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2020 0.375% 09/30/2027 274,968.90 273,764.00 3.07 269,636.72 10/31/2410/28/24AaaAA+ 300,000.00 91282CAL5 4.09 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 4.125% 09/30/2027 603,140.40 608,997.66 67.62 610,687.50 10/03/2410/01/24AaaAA+ 600,000.00 91282CFM8 3.49 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 4.125% 09/30/2027 1,005,234.00 1,015,350.25 112.70 1,027,031.25 05/08/2305/03/23AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 91282CFM8 3.46 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/02/2020 0.500% 10/31/2027 458,379.00 460,232.26 1,049.72 425,820.31 01/06/2301/04/23AaaAA+ 500,000.00 91282CAU5 3.91 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/02/2020 0.500% 10/31/2027 733,406.40 728,774.14 1,679.56 720,375.00 12/05/2412/02/24AaaAA+ 800,000.00 91282CAU5 4.18 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/15/2024 4.125% 11/15/2027 140,716.38 139,202.43 2,185.57 139,130.47 12/31/2412/26/24AaaAA+ 140,000.00 91282CLX7 4.36 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/15/2017 2.250% 11/15/2027 790,904.40 798,696.17 7,025.03 776,950.20 01/30/2301/25/23AaaAA+ 825,000.00 9128283F5 3.58 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/01/2021 0.750% 01/31/2028 755,648.85 742,702.59 1,025.55 701,991.21 11/06/2311/03/23AaaAA+ 825,000.00 91282CBJ9 4.67 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2018 2.750% 02/15/2028 968,672.00 984,434.39 3,418.51 973,671.88 04/06/2304/05/23AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 9128283W8 3.34 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2021 1.250% 03/31/2028 277,629.00 275,746.05 10.25 261,703.13 07/07/2307/05/23AaaAA+ 300,000.00 91282CBS9 4.26 Account 73340100 Page 6PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 91 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Detail of Securities Held CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTradeSettle Par U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2021 1.250% 03/31/2028 462,715.00 453,210.04 17.08 429,921.88 10/04/2310/02/23AaaAA+ 500,000.00 91282CBS9 4.75 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2023 3.625% 03/31/2028 520,795.80 519,228.18 52.00 519,093.75 03/05/2503/03/25AaaAA+ 525,000.00 91282CGT2 4.02 US TREASURY N/B DTD 04/30/2021 1.250% 04/30/2028 600,132.65 604,322.39 3,411.60 577,281.25 06/05/2306/01/23AaaAA+ 650,000.00 91282CBZ3 3.77 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2021 1.250% 06/30/2028 712,334.28 698,560.64 2,435.26 665,561.53 11/06/2311/03/23AaaAA+ 775,000.00 91282CCH2 4.66 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/02/2021 1.000% 07/31/2028 659,268.60 659,083.34 1,201.66 634,601.56 01/05/2401/03/24AaaAA+ 725,000.00 91282CCR0 4.01 US TREASURY N/B DTD 10/02/2023 4.625% 09/30/2028 1,002,011.78 991,334.48 123.84 995,197.66 12/05/2312/04/23AaaAA+ 980,000.00 91282CJA0 4.26 US TREASURY N/B DTD 10/31/2023 4.875% 10/31/2028 721,656.60 724,193.13 14,328.73 731,308.59 02/05/2402/01/24AaaAA+ 700,000.00 91282CJF9 3.83 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/15/2018 3.125% 11/15/2028 690,502.69 684,070.96 8,396.93 676,413.67 03/06/2403/04/24AaaAA+ 710,000.00 9128285M8 4.25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/02/2024 3.750% 12/31/2028 1,564,294.73 1,542,332.37 14,847.20 1,534,517.58 04/03/2404/01/24AaaAA+ 1,575,000.00 91282CJR3 4.35 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2022 1.750% 01/31/2029 253,719.68 249,126.96 797.65 244,137.70 06/05/2406/03/24AaaAA+ 275,000.00 91282CDW8 4.45 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2022 1.750% 01/31/2029 507,439.35 510,583.06 1,595.30 498,738.28 02/05/2402/01/24AaaAA+ 550,000.00 91282CDW8 3.82 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2019 2.625% 02/15/2029 1,215,035.47 1,185,725.73 4,160.48 1,167,123.05 05/06/2405/02/24AaaAA+ 1,275,000.00 9128286B1 4.62 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2022 2.375% 03/31/2029 1,130,577.60 1,110,294.15 77.87 1,093,734.38 06/05/2406/03/24AaaAA+ 1,200,000.00 91282CEE7 4.44 US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/02/2022 2.875% 04/30/2029 177,556.71 174,104.43 2,233.29 172,310.16 07/02/2407/01/24AaaAA+ 185,000.00 91282CEM9 4.47 Account 73340100 Page 7PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 92 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Detail of Securities Held CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTradeSettle Par U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/02/2022 2.875% 04/30/2029 959,766.00 962,347.34 12,071.82 956,757.81 08/02/2408/01/24AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 91282CEM9 3.88 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2022 3.250% 06/30/2029 267,405.33 270,925.02 2,246.72 270,423.83 09/05/2409/04/24AaaAA+ 275,000.00 91282CEV9 3.63 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2022 3.250% 06/30/2029 510,501.08 514,569.06 4,289.19 513,290.04 09/05/2409/03/24AaaAA+ 525,000.00 91282CEV9 3.76 US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/01/2022 2.625% 07/31/2029 464,179.45 472,685.10 2,131.91 470,878.52 10/03/2410/01/24AaaAA+ 490,000.00 91282CFC0 3.51 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 3.875% 09/30/2029 622,534.38 617,006.07 66.17 616,357.42 11/05/2411/01/24AaaAA+ 625,000.00 91282CFL0 4.19 US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2024 4.375% 12/31/2029 381,357.38 375,827.27 4,124.22 375,849.61 02/06/2502/03/25AaaAA+ 375,000.00 91282CMD0 4.32 US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2024 4.375% 12/31/2029 701,697.57 690,465.91 7,588.57 690,485.16 01/07/2501/02/25AaaAA+ 690,000.00 91282CMD0 4.36 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2023 3.500% 01/31/2030 964,377.06 960,565.22 5,714.09 960,221.09 03/05/2503/03/25AaaAA+ 985,000.00 91282CGJ4 4.07 168,633.02 32,883,734.27 32,918,721.32 3.76 32,432,429.74 33,985,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Supra-National Agency Bond / Note INTL BK RECON & DEVELOP (CALLABLE) DTD 02/10/2021 0.650% 02/10/2026 673,451.53 693,857.77 639.98 688,738.05 05/26/2105/25/21AaaAAA 695,000.00 459058JS3 0.85 INTL BK RECON & DEVELOP DTD 04/10/2024 4.750% 04/10/2026 120,727.56 119,983.75 2,707.50 119,968.80 04/10/2404/03/24AaaAAA 120,000.00 459058LE1 4.76 3,347.48 794,179.09 813,841.52 1.44 808,706.85 815,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security FHMS K062 A2 DTD 02/01/2017 3.413% 12/01/2026 305,291.41 301,960.10 881.69 294,500.00 08/22/2308/17/23AaaAA+ 310,000.00 3137BUX60 5.03 Account 73340100 Page 8PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 93 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Detail of Securities Held CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTradeSettle Par Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security FHMS K067 A2 DTD 09/01/2017 3.194% 07/01/2027 341,831.00 336,903.04 931.58 327,810.55 08/22/2308/17/23AaaAA+ 350,000.00 3137FAWS3 4.97 FHMS KJ46 A1 DTD 07/01/2023 4.777% 06/01/2028 600,763.48 597,128.43 2,377.11 597,123.34 07/27/2307/19/23AaaAA+ 597,138.25 3137HAD45 4.78 FHMS K505 A2 DTD 07/01/2023 4.819% 06/01/2028 608,089.20 600,340.25 2,409.50 600,515.63 08/01/2307/27/23AaaAA+ 600,000.00 3137HACX2 4.80 FNA 2023-M6 A2 DTD 07/01/2023 4.182% 07/01/2028 569,383.52 558,740.07 1,997.13 551,765.36 08/22/2308/17/23AaaAA+ 573,123.15 3136BQDE6 5.04 FHMS K508 A2 DTD 10/01/2023 4.740% 08/01/2028 556,513.65 541,215.16 2,172.50 537,935.20 10/19/2310/11/23AaaAA+ 550,000.00 3137HAQ74 5.25 FHMS K506 A2 DTD 09/01/2023 4.650% 08/01/2028 605,429.40 593,660.09 2,325.00 591,124.20 09/14/2309/07/23AaaAA+ 600,000.00 3137HAMH6 4.99 FHMS K509 A2 DTD 10/01/2023 4.850% 09/01/2028 456,852.15 439,232.26 1,818.75 435,652.65 10/31/2310/25/23AaaAA+ 450,000.00 3137HAST4 5.60 FHMS K510 A2 DTD 11/01/2023 5.069% 10/01/2028 224,825.26 219,523.53 929.32 219,363.98 11/21/2311/14/23AaaAA+ 220,000.00 3137HB3D4 5.14 FHMS K511 A2 DTD 12/01/2023 4.860% 10/01/2028 324,965.12 319,306.48 1,296.00 319,080.64 12/07/2311/28/23AaaAA+ 320,000.00 3137HB3G7 4.93 FHMS K514 A2 DTD 02/01/2024 4.572% 12/01/2028 291,889.64 292,275.22 1,104.90 292,899.71 02/08/2402/01/24AaaAA+ 290,000.00 3137HBLV4 4.34 FHMS K520 A2 DTD 04/01/2024 5.180% 03/01/2029 308,389.80 302,466.53 1,295.00 302,871.09 07/05/2407/01/24AaaAA+ 300,000.00 3137HCKV3 4.95 FHMS K528 A2 DTD 09/01/2024 4.508% 07/01/2029 216,021.47 218,851.56 807.68 219,295.70 09/12/2409/04/24AaaAA+ 215,000.00 3137HFNZ4 4.06 FHMS K527 A2 DTD 08/01/2024 4.618% 07/01/2029 428,800.78 431,594.79 1,635.54 432,426.45 08/22/2408/13/24AaaAA+ 425,000.00 3137HFF59 4.23 FHMS K526 A2 DTD 08/01/2024 4.543% 07/01/2029 553,347.30 554,553.55 2,082.21 555,144.70 08/15/2408/07/24AaaAA+ 550,000.00 3137HDXL9 4.33 Account 73340100 Page 9PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 94 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Detail of Securities Held CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTradeSettle Par Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security FHMS K529 A2 DTD 10/01/2024 4.791% 09/01/2029 365,735.88 366,593.53 1,437.30 367,195.32 10/16/2410/08/24AaaAA+ 360,000.00 3137HH6C0 4.34 FHMS K530 A2 DTD 11/01/2024 4.792% 09/01/2029 604,531.31 597,945.84 2,376.03 598,098.17 11/27/2411/19/24AaaAA+ 595,000.00 3137HHJL6 4.67 FHMS K537 A2 DTD 03/01/2025 4.430% 02/01/2030 360,497.16 359,996.82 1,329.00 359,996.04 03/20/2503/11/25AaaAA+ 360,000.00 3137HKPF5 4.43 29,206.24 7,723,157.53 7,632,287.25 4.80 7,602,798.73 7,665,261.40 Security Type Sub-Total Corporate Note GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 02/25/2016 3.750% 02/25/2026 164,035.74 167,685.76 618.75 183,570.75 05/27/2105/25/21A2BBB+ 165,000.00 38143U8H7 1.30 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 02/25/2016 3.750% 02/25/2026 173,977.30 174,975.28 656.25 174,895.00 04/29/2204/27/22A2BBB+ 175,000.00 38143U8H7 3.77 BANK OF AMERICA CORP DTD 04/19/2016 3.500% 04/19/2026 163,401.48 168,840.60 2,598.75 182,902.50 05/27/2105/25/21A1A- 165,000.00 06051GFX2 1.21 CITIGROUP INC DTD 05/02/2016 3.400% 05/01/2026 168,003.18 173,762.36 2,408.33 187,113.90 05/27/2105/25/21A3BBB+ 170,000.00 172967KN0 1.29 IBM CORP DTD 05/15/2019 3.300% 05/15/2026 148,354.65 153,632.06 1,870.00 165,211.50 09/03/2109/01/21A3A- 150,000.00 459200JZ5 1.08 ASTRAZENECA FINANCE LLC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/28/2021 1.200% 05/28/2026 144,913.35 150,199.21 615.00 150,814.50 09/03/2109/01/21A1A+ 150,000.00 04636NAA1 1.08 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP DTD 06/18/2021 1.125% 06/18/2026 105,891.50 109,937.78 354.06 109,755.80 09/13/2109/08/21A1A+ 110,000.00 89236TJK2 1.17 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP DTD 06/18/2021 1.125% 06/18/2026 240,662.50 243,559.30 804.69 228,305.00 05/16/2205/12/22A1A+ 250,000.00 89236TJK2 3.42 MORGAN STANLEY DTD 07/25/2016 3.125% 07/27/2026 221,062.28 218,795.99 1,250.00 210,663.00 07/07/2307/05/23A1A- 225,000.00 61761J3R8 5.41 STATE STREET CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 08/03/2023 5.272% 08/03/2026 596,529.53 590,142.23 5,011.33 590,330.40 08/03/2308/01/23Aa3A 590,000.00 857477CD3 5.25 Account 73340100 Page 10PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 95 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Detail of Securities Held CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTradeSettle Par Corporate Note AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE DTD 09/09/2021 1.300% 09/09/2026 191,280.80 199,116.74 158.89 197,074.00 12/03/2112/01/21A3A- 200,000.00 02665WDZ1 1.62 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO (CALLABLE) DTD 11/04/2021 1.650% 11/04/2026 215,508.15 218,790.37 1,515.94 207,758.25 06/03/2206/01/22A2A- 225,000.00 025816CM9 3.54 NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP (CALLABLE) DTD 11/02/2023 5.600% 11/13/2026 157,822.24 154,970.00 3,327.33 154,945.75 11/02/2310/30/23A2A- 155,000.00 63743HFK3 5.61 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP DTD 01/10/2022 1.700% 01/11/2027 191,397.20 199,598.49 755.56 198,872.00 01/13/2201/11/22A1A 200,000.00 24422EWA3 1.82 BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 01/20/2023 5.080% 01/20/2027 351,194.55 347,182.48 3,506.61 344,473.50 07/07/2307/05/23A1A- 350,000.00 06051GLE7 5.58 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 01/26/2017 3.850% 01/26/2027 430,681.32 429,393.53 3,023.85 421,484.55 09/07/2209/02/22A2BBB+ 435,000.00 38141GWB6 4.64 IBM CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 02/09/2022 2.200% 02/09/2027 120,207.88 123,410.59 397.22 120,833.75 03/28/2203/24/22A3A- 125,000.00 459200KM2 2.94 TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 03/02/2021 1.267% 03/02/2027 266,564.10 267,339.01 280.68 255,332.00 03/28/2203/24/22Baa1A- 275,000.00 89788MAD4 2.83 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 03/03/2022 2.450% 03/03/2027 289,359.60 293,941.03 571.67 284,730.00 04/29/2204/27/22A2A- 300,000.00 808513BY0 3.60 NORTHERN TRUST CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 05/10/2022 4.000% 05/10/2027 397,786.00 402,266.35 6,266.67 405,484.00 05/16/2205/12/22A2A+ 400,000.00 665859AW4 3.70 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/20/2022 3.700% 05/15/2027 64,210.84 64,985.06 908.56 64,964.90 05/20/2205/17/22A2A+ 65,000.00 91324PEG3 3.71 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/20/2022 3.700% 05/15/2027 246,964.75 251,296.65 3,494.44 253,095.00 06/03/2206/01/22A2A+ 250,000.00 91324PEG3 3.43 PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES (CALLABLE) DTD 05/19/2017 3.150% 05/19/2027 267,718.00 273,110.12 3,176.25 270,765.00 08/08/2208/04/22A3A- 275,000.00 693475AT2 3.50 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BK/NY DTD 06/09/2022 3.905% 06/09/2027 396,696.00 398,478.41 4,859.56 396,532.00 06/13/2206/09/22Aa2AA- 400,000.00 63254ABE7 4.10 Account 73340100 Page 11PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 96 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Detail of Securities Held CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTradeSettle Par Corporate Note TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 08/03/2020 1.125% 08/03/2027 176,100.74 178,215.08 344.38 165,100.50 08/24/2208/22/22Baa1A- 190,000.00 89788MAC6 4.08 TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 08/03/2020 1.125% 08/03/2027 185,369.20 182,051.43 362.50 163,506.00 10/31/2210/27/22Baa1A- 200,000.00 89788MAC6 5.54 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP DTD 09/20/2022 4.550% 09/20/2027 452,016.90 447,607.32 625.63 445,198.50 10/06/2210/04/22A1A+ 450,000.00 89236TKJ3 4.79 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 11/03/2017 2.900% 11/03/2027 387,406.40 387,019.63 4,768.89 375,432.00 12/09/2212/07/22Aa3A+ 400,000.00 882508BC7 4.30 COMCAST CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 11/07/2022 5.350% 11/15/2027 435,555.73 434,799.48 8,589.72 443,173.00 01/30/2301/25/23A3A- 425,000.00 20030NEA5 4.35 AMAZON.COM INC (CALLABLE) DTD 12/01/2022 4.550% 12/01/2027 303,022.50 301,420.33 4,550.00 302,691.00 12/09/2212/07/22A1AA 300,000.00 023135CP9 4.35 JOHNSON & JOHNSON (CALLABLE) DTD 02/20/2025 4.550% 03/01/2028 90,931.68 89,949.69 466.38 89,947.80 02/20/2502/18/25AaaAAA 90,000.00 478160DH4 4.57 MORGAN STANLEY (CALLABLE) DTD 04/19/2024 5.652% 04/13/2028 239,731.72 235,876.86 6,198.36 236,236.10 05/06/2405/02/24A1A- 235,000.00 61747YFP5 5.50 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) DTD 04/22/2024 5.571% 04/22/2028 132,550.73 130,269.28 3,198.68 130,378.30 05/06/2405/02/24A1A 130,000.00 46647PEE2 5.49 HERSHEY COMPANY (CALLABLE) DTD 05/04/2023 4.250% 05/04/2028 425,321.73 427,593.28 7,375.52 429,228.75 05/08/2305/04/23A1A 425,000.00 427866BH0 4.03 META PLATFORMS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/03/2023 4.600% 05/15/2028 455,103.90 450,528.53 7,820.00 450,837.00 06/05/2306/01/23Aa3AA- 450,000.00 30303M8L9 4.56 MERCK & CO INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/17/2023 4.050% 05/17/2028 473,689.00 472,833.78 7,160.63 471,546.75 05/22/2305/18/23Aa3A+ 475,000.00 58933YBH7 4.21 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE DTD 07/07/2023 5.125% 07/07/2028 304,814.10 299,112.11 3,587.50 298,644.00 07/11/2307/07/23A3A- 300,000.00 02665WEM9 5.23 BMW US CAPITAL LLC (CALLABLE) DTD 08/11/2023 5.050% 08/11/2028 453,747.60 446,582.46 3,156.25 444,933.00 08/17/2308/14/23A2A 450,000.00 05565ECE3 5.31 Account 73340100 Page 12PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 97 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Detail of Securities Held CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTradeSettle Par Corporate Note CITIBANK NA (CALLABLE) DTD 09/29/2023 5.803% 09/29/2028 598,535.90 572,916.68 185.37 572,148.00 10/04/2310/02/23Aa3A+ 575,000.00 17325FBB3 5.92 COOPERAT RABOBANK UA/NY DTD 01/09/2024 4.800% 01/09/2029 374,572.83 370,402.98 4,045.33 370,518.00 01/12/2401/10/24Aa2A+ 370,000.00 21688ABC5 4.77 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) DTD 01/24/2025 4.915% 01/24/2029 201,717.60 200,000.00 1,829.47 200,000.00 01/24/2501/16/25A1A 200,000.00 46647PEU6 4.92 CISCO SYSTEMS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 02/26/2024 4.850% 02/26/2029 274,549.50 269,925.01 1,273.13 269,905.50 02/26/2402/21/24A1AA- 270,000.00 17275RBR2 4.86 CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE DTD 08/16/2024 4.375% 08/16/2029 94,722.32 94,771.89 519.53 94,742.55 08/16/2408/12/24A2A 95,000.00 14913UAQ3 4.44 ADOBE INC (CALLABLE) DTD 01/17/2025 4.950% 01/17/2030 470,470.52 459,323.00 4,680.50 459,296.20 01/17/2501/14/25A1A+ 460,000.00 00724PAJ8 4.98 NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP (CALLABLE) DTD 02/07/2025 4.950% 02/07/2030 111,281.83 109,836.44 816.75 109,831.70 02/07/2502/04/25A2NR 110,000.00 63743HFX5 4.98 PEPSICO INC (CALLABLE) DTD 02/07/2025 4.600% 02/07/2030 251,871.50 248,607.47 1,725.00 248,570.00 02/10/2502/07/25A1A+ 250,000.00 713448GB8 4.73 HERSHEY COMPANY (CALLABLE) DTD 02/24/2025 4.750% 02/24/2030 303,267.00 300,904.77 1,464.58 300,921.00 02/25/2502/24/25A1A 300,000.00 427866BL1 4.68 MARS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 03/12/2025 4.800% 03/01/2030 145,660.04 144,844.89 367.33 144,843.40 03/12/2503/05/25A2A 145,000.00 571676AY1 4.83 123,541.82 13,056,233.91 13,030,801.79 4.27 12,977,536.10 13,100,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Certificate of Deposit MEDALLION BANK UTAH DTD 07/30/2020 0.550% 07/30/2025 241,978.17 245,000.00 7.38 245,000.00 07/30/2007/30/20NRNR 245,000.00 58404DHQ7 0.55 NATIXIS NY BRANCH DTD 09/20/2023 5.610% 09/18/2026 408,168.40 400,000.00 12,155.00 400,000.00 09/20/2309/18/23A1A+ 400,000.00 63873QP65 5.61 CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB NY DTD 02/05/2024 4.760% 02/01/2027 593,173.61 590,000.00 4,290.61 590,000.00 02/05/2402/01/24A1A+ 590,000.00 22536DWD6 4.76 Account 73340100 Page 13PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 98 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Detail of Securities Held CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTradeSettle Par Certificate of Deposit 16,452.99 1,243,320.18 1,235,000.00 4.22 1,235,000.00 1,235,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Bank Note WELLS FARGO BANK NA (CALLABLE) DTD 08/09/2023 5.450% 08/07/2026 886,830.87 874,763.31 7,153.13 874,475.00 08/09/2308/03/23Aa2A+ 875,000.00 94988J6D4 5.47 7,153.13 886,830.87 874,763.31 5.47 874,475.00 875,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Asset-Backed Security HAROT 2021-4 A3 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880% 01/21/2026 3,570.09 3,582.13 0.88 3,581.53 11/24/2111/16/21AaaNR 3,582.28 43815GAC3 0.89 VALET 2021-1 A3 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020% 06/22/2026 1,361.60 1,364.12 0.43 1,364.08 12/13/2112/07/21AaaAAA 1,364.14 92868KAC7 1.02 HART 2022-A A3 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220% 10/15/2026 29,538.95 29,668.60 29.27 29,667.85 03/16/2203/09/22NRAAA 29,668.99 448977AD0 2.22 GMCAR 2022-1 A3 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260% 11/16/2026 8,767.05 8,813.21 4.63 8,812.70 01/19/2201/11/22NRAAA 8,813.47 380146AC4 1.26 HAROT 2024-3 A2 DTD 08/21/2024 4.890% 02/22/2027 383,584.90 383,002.50 520.28 382,995.30 08/21/2408/09/24AaaNR 383,025.30 43813YAB8 4.89 WOART 2024-A A2A DTD 02/14/2024 5.050% 04/15/2027 69,046.39 68,978.56 154.83 68,976.63 02/14/2402/06/24NRAAA 68,982.03 98164RAB2 5.05 NAROT 2023-B A3 DTD 10/25/2023 5.930% 03/15/2028 121,323.96 119,983.12 316.27 119,975.64 10/25/2310/18/23AaaNR 120,000.00 65480MAD5 5.94 AMXCA 2023-1 A DTD 06/14/2023 4.870% 05/15/2028 402,197.60 399,426.53 865.78 399,125.00 08/10/2308/07/23NRAAA 400,000.00 02582JJZ4 4.92 COMET 2023-A1 A DTD 05/24/2023 4.420% 05/15/2028 515,173.56 510,495.88 1,011.69 508,039.45 07/18/2307/14/23NRAAA 515,000.00 14041NGD7 4.73 AMXCA 2023-1 A DTD 06/14/2023 4.870% 05/15/2028 517,829.41 514,700.59 1,114.69 514,537.30 07/18/2307/14/23NRAAA 515,000.00 02582JJZ4 4.89 Account 73340100 Page 14PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 99 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Detail of Securities Held CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTradeSettle Par Asset-Backed Security BACCT 2023-A1 A1 DTD 06/16/2023 4.790% 05/15/2028 652,897.70 648,619.87 1,383.78 647,867.19 07/18/2307/14/23NRAAA 650,000.00 05522RDG0 4.87 DCENT 2023-A2 A DTD 06/28/2023 4.930% 06/15/2028 629,306.88 625,191.33 1,369.44 625,292.97 07/18/2307/14/23AaaAAA 625,000.00 254683CZ6 4.92 HAROT 2023-4 A3 DTD 11/08/2023 5.670% 06/21/2028 75,900.15 74,990.52 118.13 74,986.79 11/08/2311/01/23AaaNR 75,000.00 438123AC5 5.67 KCOT 2024-2A A3 DTD 06/25/2024 5.260% 11/15/2028 355,630.80 353,926.78 818.22 354,060.55 02/12/2502/11/25AaaNR 350,000.00 50117DAC0 4.92 TAOT 2024-C A3 DTD 07/30/2024 4.880% 03/15/2029 241,913.28 240,000.00 520.53 239,999.86 07/30/2407/23/24NRAAA 240,000.00 89237QAD2 4.88 HART 2024-C A3 DTD 10/16/2024 4.410% 05/15/2029 200,203.20 199,987.21 392.00 199,985.36 10/16/2410/08/24NRAAA 200,000.00 448976AD2 4.41 BACCT 2024-A1 A DTD 06/13/2024 4.930% 05/15/2029 506,767.00 499,977.66 1,095.56 499,971.95 06/13/2406/06/24AaaAAA 500,000.00 05522RDJ4 4.93 HAROT 2024-4 A3 DTD 10/24/2024 4.330% 05/15/2029 499,441.50 498,004.84 962.22 497,929.69 01/31/2501/30/25AaaAAA 500,000.00 43816DAC9 4.44 AMXCA 2024-3 A DTD 07/23/2024 4.650% 07/15/2029 347,733.09 344,986.61 713.00 344,984.34 07/23/2407/16/24NRAAA 345,000.00 02589BAE0 4.65 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 DTD 10/16/2024 4.400% 08/16/2029 160,156.00 159,972.03 293.33 159,969.18 10/16/2410/08/24AaaAAA 160,000.00 38014AAD3 4.40 VALET 2025-1 A3 DTD 03/25/2025 4.500% 08/20/2029 375,954.37 374,988.08 281.25 374,987.25 03/25/2503/18/25AaaNR 375,000.00 92868MAD1 4.50 BMWOT 2025-A A3 DTD 02/12/2025 4.560% 09/25/2029 296,265.85 294,972.54 224.20 294,970.94 02/12/2502/04/25AaaAAA 295,000.00 096924AD7 4.56 WFCIT 2024-A2 A DTD 10/24/2024 4.290% 10/15/2029 279,791.40 279,961.96 533.87 279,958.39 10/24/2410/17/24AaaAAA 280,000.00 92970QAE5 4.29 FORDO 2025-A A3 DTD 03/25/2025 4.450% 10/15/2029 456,045.13 454,957.06 337.46 454,955.77 03/25/2503/18/25AaaAAA 455,000.00 34535KAD0 4.45 Account 73340100 Page 15PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 100 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Detail of Securities Held CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTradeSettle Par Asset-Backed Security MBART 2025-1 A3 DTD 01/23/2025 4.780% 12/17/2029 267,262.84 264,946.44 562.98 264,943.63 01/23/2501/14/25AaaNR 265,000.00 58773DAD6 4.78 VZMT 2025-3 A1A DTD 03/31/2025 4.510% 03/20/2030 455,142.19 454,924.93 57.00 454,980.44 03/31/2503/25/25AaaNR 455,000.00 92348KDY6 4.51 13,681.72 7,852,804.89 7,810,423.10 4.73 7,806,919.78 7,815,436.20 Security Type Sub-Total 65,490,697.60 63,737,866.20 4.11 362,016.40 64,315,838.29 64,440,260.74 Managed Account Sub-Total $65,490,697.60 $63,737,866.20 $362,016.40 $64,315,838.29 $64,440,260.74 4.11% $64,802,277.14 $362,016.40 Total Investments Accrued Interest Securities Sub-Total Account 73340100 Page 16PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 101 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Value On Cost Amort CostCUSIPBrokerDatePriceDated Date/Coupon/Maturity Par at Mkt Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/LNext Call MarketSecurity Type/Description YTMEffective Duration U.S. Treasury Bond / Note 4,726.08 11,519.72 747,633.00 99.68 BMO 750,000.00 91282CGV7US TREASURY N/B DTD 04/17/2023 3.750% 04/15/2026 4.07 1.00 (14,875.80)(12,351.49) 584,203.20 97.37 Citigrou 600,000.00 912828R36US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/16/2016 1.625% 05/15/2026 4.04 1.10 (20,829.86)(49,177.46) 538,140.90 97.84 Citigrou 550,000.00 9128286X3US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/31/2019 2.125% 05/31/2026 4.05 1.14 (187.49) 8,490.04 505,107.23 96.21 WellsFar 525,000.00 91282CCJ8US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2021 0.875% 06/30/2026 4.01 1.23 (18,690.74)(8,203.35) 577,265.40 96.21 WellsFar 600,000.00 91282CCJ8US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2021 0.875% 06/30/2026 4.01 1.23 (13,701.95) 27,890.56 966,914.00 96.69 BOFAML 1,000,000.00 9128282A7US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/15/2016 1.500% 08/15/2026 3.98 1.34 (25,792.45) 53,555.34 1,433,028.00 95.54 Nomura 1,500,000.00 91282CCZ2US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2021 0.875% 09/30/2026 3.97 1.46 459.30 2,789.11 191,343.80 95.67 BMO 200,000.00 91282CDG3US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/01/2021 1.125% 10/31/2026 3.96 1.54 (12,971.74)(12,012.42) 296,582.89 95.67 MorganSt 310,000.00 91282CDG3US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/01/2021 1.125% 10/31/2026 3.96 1.54 (41,345.37)(37,226.31) 956,719.00 95.67 Citigrou 1,000,000.00 91282CDG3US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/01/2021 1.125% 10/31/2026 3.96 1.54 6,898.56 9,455.99 575,404.23 100.07 Nomura 575,000.00 91282CJT9US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/16/2024 4.000% 01/15/2027 3.95 1.71 2,200.18 2,745.98 925,650.28 100.07 MorganSt 925,000.00 91282CJT9US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/16/2024 4.000% 01/15/2027 3.95 1.71 3,551.88 3,665.13 697,117.67 100.30 MorganSt 695,000.00 91282CMH1US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2025 4.125% 01/31/2027 3.95 1.75 (15,453.44)(7,273.09) 678,781.60 96.97 BOFAML 700,000.00 912828V98US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2017 2.250% 02/15/2027 3.94 1.81 5,959.97 40,250.13 664,043.10 94.86 BMO 700,000.00 912828ZB9US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/02/2020 1.125% 02/28/2027 3.93 1.86 2,676.17 2,689.27 427,506.65 100.59 WellsFar 425,000.00 91282CKE0US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/15/2024 4.250% 03/15/2027 3.93 1.86 2,797.53 5,715.05 532,683.80 96.85 WellsFar 550,000.00 912828X88US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/15/2017 2.375% 05/15/2027 3.93 2.03 Account 73340100 Page 17PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 102 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Value On Cost Amort CostCUSIPBrokerDatePriceDated Date/Coupon/Maturity Par at Mkt Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/LNext Call MarketSecurity Type/Description YTMEffective Duration U.S. Treasury Bond / Note (505.61) 11,426.00 487,051.00 97.41 BMO 500,000.00 91282CFB2US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/01/2022 2.750% 07/31/2027 3.91 2.23 1,204.90 5,332.18 274,968.90 91.66 BOFAML 300,000.00 91282CAL5US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2020 0.375% 09/30/2027 3.90 2.44 (5,857.26)(7,547.10) 603,140.40 100.52 WellsFar 600,000.00 91282CFM8US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 4.125% 09/30/2027 3.90 2.31 (10,116.25)(21,797.25) 1,005,234.00 100.52 Citigrou 1,000,000.00 91282CFM8US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 4.125% 09/30/2027 3.90 2.31 (1,853.26) 32,558.69 458,379.00 91.68 BOFAML 500,000.00 91282CAU5US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/02/2020 0.500% 10/31/2027 3.91 2.52 4,632.26 13,031.40 733,406.40 91.68 Citigrou 800,000.00 91282CAU5US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/02/2020 0.500% 10/31/2027 3.91 2.52 1,513.95 1,585.91 140,716.38 100.51 WellsFar 140,000.00 91282CLX7US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/15/2024 4.125% 11/15/2027 3.91 2.43 (7,791.77) 13,954.20 790,904.40 95.87 Citigrou 825,000.00 9128283F5US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/15/2017 2.250% 11/15/2027 3.91 2.50 12,946.26 53,657.64 755,648.85 91.59 BMO 825,000.00 91282CBJ9US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/01/2021 0.750% 01/31/2028 3.90 2.76 (15,762.39)(4,999.88) 968,672.00 96.87 BMO 1,000,000.00 9128283W8US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2018 2.750% 02/15/2028 3.90 2.73 1,882.95 15,925.87 277,629.00 92.54 JPMorgan 300,000.00 91282CBS9US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2021 1.250% 03/31/2028 3.90 2.88 9,504.96 32,793.12 462,715.00 92.54 BOFAML 500,000.00 91282CBS9US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2021 1.250% 03/31/2028 3.90 2.88 1,567.62 1,702.05 520,795.80 99.20 WellsFar 525,000.00 91282CGT2US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2023 3.625% 03/31/2028 3.90 2.77 (4,189.74) 22,851.40 600,132.65 92.33 BMO 650,000.00 91282CBZ3US TREASURY N/B DTD 04/30/2021 1.250% 04/30/2028 3.91 2.96 13,773.64 46,772.75 712,334.28 91.91 MorganSt 775,000.00 91282CCH2US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2021 1.250% 06/30/2028 3.92 3.12 185.26 24,667.04 659,268.60 90.93 WellsFar 725,000.00 91282CCR0US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/02/2021 1.000% 07/31/2028 3.92 3.22 10,677.30 6,814.12 1,002,011.78 102.25 BOFAML 980,000.00 91282CJA0US TREASURY N/B DTD 10/02/2023 4.625% 09/30/2028 3.93 3.15 Account 73340100 Page 18PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 103 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Value On Cost Amort CostCUSIPBrokerDatePriceDated Date/Coupon/Maturity Par at Mkt Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/LNext Call MarketSecurity Type/Description YTMEffective Duration U.S. Treasury Bond / Note (2,536.53)(9,651.99) 721,656.60 103.09 Citigrou 700,000.00 91282CJF9US TREASURY N/B DTD 10/31/2023 4.875% 10/31/2028 3.93 3.22 6,431.73 14,089.02 690,502.69 97.25 BMO 710,000.00 9128285M8US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/15/2018 3.125% 11/15/2028 3.94 3.35 21,962.36 29,777.15 1,564,294.73 99.32 BMO 1,575,000.00 91282CJR3US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/02/2024 3.750% 12/31/2028 3.94 3.44 4,592.72 9,581.98 253,719.68 92.26 BMO 275,000.00 91282CDW8US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2022 1.750% 01/31/2029 3.94 3.65 (3,143.71) 8,701.07 507,439.35 92.26 Nomura 550,000.00 91282CDW8US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2022 1.750% 01/31/2029 3.94 3.65 29,309.74 47,912.42 1,215,035.47 95.30 BOFAML 1,275,000.00 9128286B1US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/15/2019 2.625% 02/15/2029 3.94 3.63 20,283.45 36,843.22 1,130,577.60 94.21 Citigrou 1,200,000.00 91282CEE7US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2022 2.375% 03/31/2029 3.95 3.72 3,452.28 5,246.55 177,556.71 95.98 BMO 185,000.00 91282CEM9US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/02/2022 2.875% 04/30/2029 3.95 3.76 (2,581.34) 3,008.19 959,766.00 95.98 BOFAML 1,000,000.00 91282CEM9US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/02/2022 2.875% 04/30/2029 3.95 3.76 (3,519.69)(3,018.50) 267,405.33 97.24 Nomura 275,000.00 91282CEV9US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2022 3.250% 06/30/2029 3.96 3.90 (4,067.98)(2,788.96) 510,501.08 97.24 BOFAML 525,000.00 91282CEV9US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2022 3.250% 06/30/2029 3.96 3.90 (8,505.65)(6,699.07) 464,179.45 94.73 Nomura 490,000.00 91282CFC0US TREASURY N/B DTD 08/01/2022 2.625% 07/31/2029 3.96 4.03 5,528.31 6,176.96 622,534.38 99.61 BOFAML 625,000.00 91282CFL0US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 3.875% 09/30/2029 3.97 4.02 5,530.11 5,507.77 381,357.38 101.70 Nomura 375,000.00 91282CMD0US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2024 4.375% 12/31/2029 3.97 4.23 11,231.66 11,212.41 701,697.57 101.70 MorganSt 690,000.00 91282CMD0US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2024 4.375% 12/31/2029 3.97 4.23 3,811.84 4,155.97 964,377.06 97.91 Citigrou 985,000.00 91282CGJ4US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2023 3.500% 01/31/2030 3.98 4.39 451,304.53 3.95 (34,987.05) 32,883,734.27 33,985,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total 2.65 Account 73340100 Page 19PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 104 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Value On Cost Amort CostCUSIPBrokerDatePriceDated Date/Coupon/Maturity Par at Mkt Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/LNext Call MarketSecurity Type/Description YTMEffective Duration Supra-National Agency Bond / Note (20,406.24)(15,286.52) 673,451.53 96.90 05/10/25KEYB 695,000.00 459058JS3INTL BK RECON & DEVELOP (CALLABLE) DTD 02/10/2021 0.650% 02/10/2026 4.34 0.84 743.81 758.76 120,727.56 100.61 BOFAML 120,000.00 459058LE1INTL BK RECON & DEVELOP DTD 04/10/2024 4.750% 04/10/2026 4.13 0.97 (14,527.76) 4.31 (19,662.43) 794,179.09 815,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total 0.86 Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security 3,331.31 10,791.41 305,291.41 98.48 Barclays 310,000.00 3137BUX60FHMS K062 A2 DTD 02/01/2017 3.413% 12/01/2026 4.24 1.60 4,927.96 14,020.45 341,831.00 97.67 TD Secur 350,000.00 3137FAWS3FHMS K067 A2 DTD 09/01/2017 3.194% 07/01/2027 4.21 2.14 3,635.05 3,640.14 600,763.48 100.61 JPMorgan 597,138.25 3137HAD45FHMS KJ46 A1 DTD 07/01/2023 4.777% 06/01/2028 4.37 2.07 7,748.95 7,573.57 608,089.20 101.35 SAN 600,000.00 3137HACX2FHMS K505 A2 DTD 07/01/2023 4.819% 06/01/2028 4.27 2.86 10,643.45 17,618.16 569,383.52 99.35 JPMorgan 573,123.15 3136BQDE6FNA 2023-M6 A2 DTD 07/01/2023 4.182% 07/01/2028 4.34 2.99 15,298.49 18,578.45 556,513.65 101.18 BMO 550,000.00 3137HAQ74FHMS K508 A2 DTD 10/01/2023 4.740% 08/01/2028 4.28 3.02 11,769.31 14,305.20 605,429.40 100.90 WellsFar 600,000.00 3137HAMH6FHMS K506 A2 DTD 09/01/2023 4.650% 08/01/2028 4.28 3.00 17,619.89 21,199.50 456,852.15 101.52 MorganSt 450,000.00 3137HAST4FHMS K509 A2 DTD 10/01/2023 4.850% 09/01/2028 4.29 3.10 5,301.73 5,461.28 224,825.26 102.19 JPMorgan 220,000.00 3137HB3D4FHMS K510 A2 DTD 11/01/2023 5.069% 10/01/2028 4.31 3.13 5,658.64 5,884.48 324,965.12 101.55 BOFAML 320,000.00 3137HB3G7FHMS K511 A2 DTD 12/01/2023 4.860% 10/01/2028 4.31 3.16 (385.58)(1,010.07) 291,889.64 100.65 JPMorgan 290,000.00 3137HBLV4FHMS K514 A2 DTD 02/01/2024 4.572% 12/01/2028 4.31 3.26 5,923.27 5,518.71 308,389.80 102.80 WellsFar 300,000.00 3137HCKV3FHMS K520 A2 DTD 04/01/2024 5.180% 03/01/2029 4.33 3.50 (2,830.09)(3,274.23) 216,021.47 100.48 BOFAML 215,000.00 3137HFNZ4FHMS K528 A2 DTD 09/01/2024 4.508% 07/01/2029 4.34 3.84 Account 73340100 Page 20PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 105 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Value On Cost Amort CostCUSIPBrokerDatePriceDated Date/Coupon/Maturity Par at Mkt Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/LNext Call MarketSecurity Type/Description YTMEffective Duration Federal Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security (2,794.01)(3,625.67) 428,800.78 100.89 MorganSt 425,000.00 3137HFF59FHMS K527 A2 DTD 08/01/2024 4.618% 07/01/2029 4.34 3.81 (1,206.25)(1,797.40) 553,347.30 100.61 BMO 550,000.00 3137HDXL9FHMS K526 A2 DTD 08/01/2024 4.543% 07/01/2029 4.34 3.82 (857.65)(1,459.44) 365,735.88 101.59 MorganSt 360,000.00 3137HH6C0FHMS K529 A2 DTD 10/01/2024 4.791% 09/01/2029 4.35 3.93 6,585.47 6,433.14 604,531.31 101.60 JPMorgan 595,000.00 3137HHJL6FHMS K530 A2 DTD 11/01/2024 4.792% 09/01/2029 4.35 3.94 500.34 501.12 360,497.16 100.14 MorganSt 360,000.00 3137HKPF5FHMS K537 A2 DTD 03/01/2025 4.430% 02/01/2030 4.37 4.32 120,358.80 4.31 90,870.28 7,723,157.53 7,665,261.40 Security Type Sub-Total 3.18 Corporate Note (3,650.02)(19,535.01) 164,035.74 99.42 11/25/25JPMorgan 165,000.00 38143U8H7GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 02/25/2016 3.750% 02/25/2026 4.37 0.82 (997.98)(917.70) 173,977.30 99.42 11/25/25MAXE 175,000.00 38143U8H7GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 02/25/2016 3.750% 02/25/2026 4.37 0.82 (5,439.12)(19,501.02) 163,401.48 99.03 FifthThi 165,000.00 06051GFX2BANK OF AMERICA CORP DTD 04/19/2016 3.500% 04/19/2026 4.45 1.00 (5,759.18)(19,110.72) 168,003.18 98.83 JPMorgan 170,000.00 172967KN0CITIGROUP INC DTD 05/02/2016 3.400% 05/01/2026 4.52 1.03 (5,277.41)(16,856.85) 148,354.65 98.90 MorganSt 150,000.00 459200JZ5IBM CORP DTD 05/15/2019 3.300% 05/15/2026 4.28 1.07 (5,285.86)(5,901.15) 144,913.35 96.61 04/28/26MorganSt 150,000.00 04636NAA1ASTRAZENECA FINANCE LLC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/28/2021 1.200% 05/28/2026 4.22 1.12 (4,046.28)(3,864.30) 105,891.50 96.27 JPMorgan 110,000.00 89236TJK2TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP DTD 06/18/2021 1.125% 06/18/2026 4.29 1.19 (2,896.80) 12,357.50 240,662.50 96.27 JANE 250,000.00 89236TJK2TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP DTD 06/18/2021 1.125% 06/18/2026 4.29 1.19 2,266.29 10,399.28 221,062.28 98.25 SEEL 225,000.00 61761J3R8MORGAN STANLEY DTD 07/25/2016 3.125% 07/27/2026 4.47 1.27 6,387.30 6,199.13 596,529.53 101.11 07/03/26JPMorgan 590,000.00 857477CD3STATE STREET CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 08/03/2023 5.272% 08/03/2026 4.40 1.22 Account 73340100 Page 21PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 106 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Value On Cost Amort CostCUSIPBrokerDatePriceDated Date/Coupon/Maturity Par at Mkt Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/LNext Call MarketSecurity Type/Description YTMEffective Duration Corporate Note (7,835.94)(5,793.20) 191,280.80 95.64 RBC Capi 200,000.00 02665WDZ1AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE DTD 09/09/2021 1.300% 09/09/2026 4.48 1.40 (3,282.22) 7,749.90 215,508.15 95.78 10/04/26JANE 225,000.00 025816CM9AMERICAN EXPRESS CO (CALLABLE) DTD 11/04/2021 1.650% 11/04/2026 4.40 1.53 2,852.24 2,876.49 157,822.24 101.82 10/13/26MIZU 155,000.00 63743HFK3NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP (CALLABLE) DTD 11/02/2023 5.600% 11/13/2026 4.42 1.44 (8,201.29)(7,474.80) 191,397.20 95.70 JPMorgan 200,000.00 24422EWA3JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP DTD 01/10/2022 1.700% 01/11/2027 4.25 1.72 4,012.07 6,721.05 351,194.55 100.34 01/20/26JPMorgan 350,000.00 06051GLE7BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 01/20/2023 5.080% 01/20/2027 5.20 0.78 1,287.79 9,196.77 430,681.32 99.01 01/26/26MorganSt 435,000.00 38141GWB6GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 01/26/2017 3.850% 01/26/2027 4.44 1.36 (3,202.71)(625.87) 120,207.88 96.17 01/09/27Deutsche 125,000.00 459200KM2IBM CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 02/09/2022 2.200% 02/09/2027 4.37 1.78 (774.91) 11,232.10 266,564.10 96.93 03/02/26GoldmanS 275,000.00 89788MAD4TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 03/02/2021 1.267% 03/02/2027 4.84 0.92 (4,581.43) 4,629.60 289,359.60 96.45 02/03/27CSFirstB 300,000.00 808513BY0CHARLES SCHWAB CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 03/03/2022 2.450% 03/03/2027 4.37 1.83 (4,480.35)(7,698.00) 397,786.00 99.45 04/10/27Deutsche 400,000.00 665859AW4NORTHERN TRUST CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 05/10/2022 4.000% 05/10/2027 4.29 1.93 (774.22)(754.06) 64,210.84 98.79 04/15/27BOFAML 65,000.00 91324PEG3UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/20/2022 3.700% 05/15/2027 4.30 1.97 (4,331.90)(6,130.25) 246,964.75 98.79 04/15/27MAXE 250,000.00 91324PEG3UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/20/2022 3.700% 05/15/2027 4.30 1.97 (5,392.12)(3,047.00) 267,718.00 97.35 04/19/27JANE 275,000.00 693475AT2PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES (CALLABLE) DTD 05/19/2017 3.150% 05/19/2027 4.48 1.99 (1,782.41) 164.00 396,696.00 99.17 JPMorgan 400,000.00 63254ABE7NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BK/NY DTD 06/09/2022 3.905% 06/09/2027 4.28 2.05 (2,114.34) 11,000.24 176,100.74 92.68 06/03/27JANE 190,000.00 89788MAC6TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 08/03/2020 1.125% 08/03/2027 4.47 2.26 3,317.77 21,863.20 185,369.20 92.68 06/03/27GoldmanS 200,000.00 89788MAC6TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 08/03/2020 1.125% 08/03/2027 4.47 2.26 4,409.58 6,818.40 452,016.90 100.45 Citigrou 450,000.00 89236TKJ3TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP DTD 09/20/2022 4.550% 09/20/2027 4.32 2.32 Account 73340100 Page 22PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 107 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Value On Cost Amort CostCUSIPBrokerDatePriceDated Date/Coupon/Maturity Par at Mkt Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/LNext Call MarketSecurity Type/Description YTMEffective Duration Corporate Note 386.77 11,974.40 387,406.40 96.85 08/03/27MorganSt 400,000.00 882508BC7TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 11/03/2017 2.900% 11/03/2027 4.23 2.39 756.25 (7,617.27) 435,555.73 102.48 10/15/27TD Secur 425,000.00 20030NEA5COMCAST CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 11/07/2022 5.350% 11/15/2027 4.36 2.33 1,602.17 331.50 303,022.50 101.01 11/01/27RBC Capi 300,000.00 023135CP9AMAZON.COM INC (CALLABLE) DTD 12/01/2022 4.550% 12/01/2027 4.13 2.41 981.99 983.88 90,931.68 101.04 02/01/28JPMorgan 90,000.00 478160DH4JOHNSON & JOHNSON (CALLABLE) DTD 02/20/2025 4.550% 03/01/2028 4.16 2.65 3,854.86 3,495.62 239,731.72 102.01 04/13/27JANE 235,000.00 61747YFP5MORGAN STANLEY (CALLABLE) DTD 04/19/2024 5.652% 04/13/2028 4.85 1.87 2,281.45 2,172.43 132,550.73 101.96 04/22/27MAXE 130,000.00 46647PEE2JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) DTD 04/22/2024 5.571% 04/22/2028 4.80 1.89 (2,271.55)(3,907.02) 425,321.73 100.08 04/04/28GoldmanS 425,000.00 427866BH0HERSHEY COMPANY (CALLABLE) DTD 05/04/2023 4.250% 05/04/2028 4.21 2.78 4,575.37 4,266.90 455,103.90 101.13 04/15/28JPMorgan 450,000.00 30303M8L9META PLATFORMS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/03/2023 4.600% 05/15/2028 4.17 2.80 855.22 2,142.25 473,689.00 99.72 04/17/28Citigrou 475,000.00 58933YBH7MERCK & CO INC (CALLABLE) DTD 05/17/2023 4.050% 05/17/2028 4.12 2.83 5,701.99 6,170.10 304,814.10 101.60 GoldmanS 300,000.00 02665WEM9AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE DTD 07/07/2023 5.125% 07/07/2028 4.57 2.95 7,165.14 8,814.60 453,747.60 100.83 07/11/28Barclays 450,000.00 05565ECE3BMW US CAPITAL LLC (CALLABLE) DTD 08/11/2023 5.050% 08/11/2028 4.77 3.00 25,619.22 26,387.90 598,535.90 104.09 08/29/28GoldmanS 575,000.00 17325FBB3CITIBANK NA (CALLABLE) DTD 09/29/2023 5.803% 09/29/2028 4.52 3.10 4,169.85 4,054.83 374,572.83 101.24 MIZU 370,000.00 21688ABC5COOPERAT RABOBANK UA/NY DTD 01/09/2024 4.800% 01/09/2029 4.42 3.39 1,717.60 1,717.60 201,717.60 100.86 01/24/28JPMorgan 200,000.00 46647PEU6JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) DTD 01/24/2025 4.915% 01/24/2029 4.71 2.59 4,624.49 4,644.00 274,549.50 101.69 01/26/29Citigrou 270,000.00 17275RBR2CISCO SYSTEMS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 02/26/2024 4.850% 02/26/2029 4.36 3.48 (49.57)(20.23) 94,722.32 99.71 BOFAML 95,000.00 14913UAQ3CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE DTD 08/16/2024 4.375% 08/16/2029 4.46 3.92 11,147.52 11,174.32 470,470.52 102.28 12/17/29BOFAML 460,000.00 00724PAJ8ADOBE INC (CALLABLE) DTD 01/17/2025 4.950% 01/17/2030 4.41 4.17 Account 73340100 Page 23PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 108 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Value On Cost Amort CostCUSIPBrokerDatePriceDated Date/Coupon/Maturity Par at Mkt Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/LNext Call MarketSecurity Type/Description YTMEffective Duration Corporate Note 1,445.39 1,450.13 111,281.83 101.17 01/07/30RBC Capi 110,000.00 63743HFX5NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP (CALLABLE) DTD 02/07/2025 4.950% 02/07/2030 4.69 4.22 3,264.03 3,301.50 251,871.50 100.75 01/07/30UBSS 250,000.00 713448GB8PEPSICO INC (CALLABLE) DTD 02/07/2025 4.600% 02/07/2030 4.43 4.26 2,362.23 2,346.00 303,267.00 101.09 01/24/30TD Secur 300,000.00 427866BL1HERSHEY COMPANY (CALLABLE) DTD 02/24/2025 4.750% 02/24/2030 4.48 4.29 815.15 816.64 145,660.04 100.46 02/01/30BOFAML 145,000.00 571676AY1MARS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 03/12/2025 4.800% 03/01/2030 4.68 4.30 78,697.81 4.43 25,432.12 13,056,233.91 13,100,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total 2.30 Certificate of Deposit (3,021.83)(3,021.83) 241,978.17 98.77 NEW ACC 245,000.00 58404DHQ7MEDALLION BANK UTAH DTD 07/30/2020 0.550% 07/30/2025 4.35 0.32 8,168.40 8,168.40 408,168.40 102.04 WellsFar 400,000.00 63873QP65NATIXIS NY BRANCH DTD 09/20/2023 5.610% 09/18/2026 4.10 1.38 3,173.61 3,173.61 593,173.61 100.54 CRAG 590,000.00 22536DWD6CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB NY DTD 02/05/2024 4.760% 02/01/2027 4.39 1.76 8,320.18 4.29 8,320.18 1,243,320.18 1,235,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total 1.35 Bank Note 12,067.56 12,355.87 886,830.87 101.35 07/07/26BOFAML 875,000.00 94988J6D4WELLS FARGO BANK NA (CALLABLE) DTD 08/09/2023 5.450% 08/07/2026 4.41 1.23 12,355.87 4.41 12,067.56 886,830.87 875,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total 1.23 Asset-Backed Security (12.04)(11.44) 3,570.09 99.66 BOFAML 3,582.28 43815GAC3HAROT 2021-4 A3 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880% 01/21/2026 15.65 0.09 (2.52)(2.48) 1,361.60 99.81 WellsFar 1,364.14 92868KAC7VALET 2021-1 A3 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020% 06/22/2026 4.52 0.06 (129.65)(128.90) 29,538.95 99.56 BOFAML 29,668.99 448977AD0HART 2022-A A3 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220% 10/15/2026 4.46 0.20 Account 73340100 Page 24PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 109 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Value On Cost Amort CostCUSIPBrokerDatePriceDated Date/Coupon/Maturity Par at Mkt Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/LNext Call MarketSecurity Type/Description YTMEffective Duration Asset-Backed Security (46.16)(45.65) 8,767.05 99.47 BNPPSA 8,813.47 380146AC4GMCAR 2022-1 A3 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260% 11/16/2026 4.50 0.16 582.40 589.60 383,584.90 100.15 JPMorgan 383,025.30 43813YAB8HAROT 2024-3 A2 DTD 08/21/2024 4.890% 02/22/2027 4.60 0.48 67.83 69.76 69,046.39 100.09 MIZU 68,982.03 98164RAB2WOART 2024-A A2A DTD 02/14/2024 5.050% 04/15/2027 4.63 0.24 1,340.84 1,348.32 121,323.96 101.10 MIZU 120,000.00 65480MAD5NAROT 2023-B A3 DTD 10/25/2023 5.930% 03/15/2028 4.73 0.88 2,771.07 3,072.60 402,197.60 100.55 SUMITR 400,000.00 02582JJZ4AMXCA 2023-1 A DTD 06/14/2023 4.870% 05/15/2028 4.39 1.07 4,677.68 7,134.11 515,173.56 100.03 SUMITR 515,000.00 14041NGD7COMET 2023-A1 A DTD 05/24/2023 4.420% 05/15/2028 4.44 1.07 3,128.82 3,292.11 517,829.41 100.55 SUMITR 515,000.00 02582JJZ4AMXCA 2023-1 A DTD 06/14/2023 4.870% 05/15/2028 4.39 1.07 4,277.83 5,030.51 652,897.70 100.45 SUMITR 650,000.00 05522RDG0BACCT 2023-A1 A1 DTD 06/16/2023 4.790% 05/15/2028 4.41 1.07 4,115.55 4,013.91 629,306.88 100.69 SUMITR 625,000.00 254683CZ6DCENT 2023-A2 A DTD 06/28/2023 4.930% 06/15/2028 4.37 1.15 909.63 913.36 75,900.15 101.20 JPMorgan 75,000.00 438123AC5HAROT 2023-4 A3 DTD 11/08/2023 5.670% 06/21/2028 4.61 1.08 1,704.02 1,570.25 355,630.80 101.61 WellsFar 350,000.00 50117DAC0KCOT 2024-2A A3 DTD 06/25/2024 5.260% 11/15/2028 4.46 1.88 1,913.28 1,913.42 241,913.28 100.80 MUFG 240,000.00 89237QAD2TAOT 2024-C A3 DTD 07/30/2024 4.880% 03/15/2029 4.40 1.55 215.99 217.84 200,203.20 100.10 Barclays 200,000.00 448976AD2HART 2024-C A3 DTD 10/16/2024 4.410% 05/15/2029 4.39 1.88 6,789.34 6,795.05 506,767.00 101.35 BOFAML 500,000.00 05522RDJ4BACCT 2024-A1 A DTD 06/13/2024 4.930% 05/15/2029 4.34 1.97 1,436.66 1,511.81 499,441.50 99.89 BOFAML 500,000.00 43816DAC9HAROT 2024-4 A3 DTD 10/24/2024 4.330% 05/15/2029 4.43 1.71 2,746.48 2,748.75 347,733.09 100.79 Citigrou 345,000.00 02589BAE0AMXCA 2024-3 A DTD 07/23/2024 4.650% 07/15/2029 4.33 2.13 183.97 186.82 160,156.00 100.10 MIZU 160,000.00 38014AAD3GMCAR 2024-4 A3 DTD 10/16/2024 4.400% 08/16/2029 4.38 1.90 Account 73340100 Page 25PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 110 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Value On Cost Amort CostCUSIPBrokerDatePriceDated Date/Coupon/Maturity Par at Mkt Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/LNext Call MarketSecurity Type/Description YTMEffective Duration Asset-Backed Security 966.29 967.12 375,954.37 100.25 Barclays 375,000.00 92868MAD1VALET 2025-1 A3 DTD 03/25/2025 4.500% 08/20/2029 4.42 2.18 1,293.31 1,294.91 296,265.85 100.43 WellsFar 295,000.00 096924AD7BMWOT 2025-A A3 DTD 02/12/2025 4.560% 09/25/2029 4.41 2.02 (170.56)(166.99) 279,791.40 99.93 WellsFar 280,000.00 92970QAE5WFCIT 2024-A2 A DTD 10/24/2024 4.290% 10/15/2029 4.33 2.37 1,088.07 1,089.36 456,045.13 100.23 SGAS 455,000.00 34535KAD0FORDO 2025-A A3 DTD 03/25/2025 4.450% 10/15/2029 4.38 2.16 2,316.40 2,319.21 267,262.84 100.85 SGAS 265,000.00 58773DAD6MBART 2025-1 A3 DTD 01/23/2025 4.780% 12/17/2029 4.40 2.18 217.26 161.75 455,142.19 100.03 BOFAML 455,000.00 92348KDY6VZMT 2025-3 A1A DTD 03/31/2025 4.510% 03/20/2030 4.57 2.36 45,885.11 4.43 42,381.79 7,852,804.89 7,815,436.20 Security Type Sub-Total 1.58 65,490,697.60 64,440,260.74 702,394.54 124,422.45 4.16 Managed Account Sub-Total 2.45 Total Investments $64,802,277.14 $362,016.40 $64,440,260.74 Accrued Interest Securities Sub-Total $65,490,697.60 $702,394.54 $124,422.45 4.16% 2.45 Account 73340100 Page 26PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 111 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Transaction Type Trade CUSIPSecurity DescriptionSettle Par Proceeds Principal Accrued Interest Total Cost Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Amort Cost Method BUY 03/05/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 01/31/2023 3.500% 01/31/2030 91282CGJ4 (960,221.09)(3,142.75)(963,363.84) 985,000.00 03/03/25 03/05/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2023 3.625% 03/31/2028 91282CGT2 (519,093.75)(8,156.25)(527,250.00) 525,000.00 03/03/25 03/12/25 MARS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 03/12/2025 4.800% 03/01/2030 571676AY1 (144,843.40) 0.00 (144,843.40) 145,000.00 03/05/25 03/20/25 FHMS K537 A2 DTD 03/01/2025 4.430% 02/01/2030 3137HKPF5 (359,996.04)(841.70)(360,837.74) 360,000.00 03/11/25 03/25/25 VALET 2025-1 A3 DTD 03/25/2025 4.500% 08/20/2029 92868MAD1 (374,987.25) 0.00 (374,987.25) 375,000.00 03/18/25 03/25/25 FORDO 2025-A A3 DTD 03/25/2025 4.450% 10/15/2029 34535KAD0 (454,955.77) 0.00 (454,955.77) 455,000.00 03/18/25 03/31/25 VZMT 2025-3 A1A DTD 03/31/2025 4.510% 03/20/2030 92348KDY6 (454,980.44) 0.00 (454,980.44) 455,000.00 03/25/25 (12,140.70)(3,281,218.44)(3,269,077.74) 3,300,000.00 Transaction Type Sub-Total INTEREST 03/25/25 FHMS K520 A2 DTD 04/01/2024 5.180% 03/01/2029 3137HCKV3 0.00 1,295.00 1,295.00 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS K530 A2 DTD 11/01/2024 4.792% 09/01/2029 3137HHJL6 0.00 2,376.03 2,376.03 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS K514 A2 DTD 02/01/2024 4.572% 12/01/2028 3137HBLV4 0.00 1,104.90 1,104.90 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS K527 A2 DTD 08/01/2024 4.618% 07/01/2029 3137HFF59 0.00 1,635.54 1,635.54 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS K506 A2 DTD 09/01/2023 4.650% 08/01/2028 3137HAMH6 0.00 2,325.00 2,325.00 03/01/25 03/25/25 FNA 2023-M6 A2 DTD 07/01/2023 4.182% 07/01/2028 3136BQDE6 0.00 1,997.14 1,997.14 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS K505 A2 DTD 07/01/2023 4.819% 06/01/2028 3137HACX2 0.00 2,409.50 2,409.50 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS K510 A2 DTD 11/01/2023 5.069% 10/01/2028 3137HB3D4 0.00 929.32 929.32 03/01/25 Account 73340100 Page 27PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 112 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Transaction Type Trade CUSIPSecurity DescriptionSettle Par Proceeds Principal Accrued Interest Total Cost Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Amort Cost Method INTEREST 03/25/25 FHMS K067 A2 DTD 09/01/2017 3.194% 07/01/2027 3137FAWS3 0.00 931.58 931.58 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS K062 A2 DTD 02/01/2017 3.413% 12/01/2026 3137BUX60 0.00 881.69 881.69 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS K526 A2 DTD 08/01/2024 4.543% 07/01/2029 3137HDXL9 0.00 2,082.21 2,082.21 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS KJ46 A1 DTD 07/01/2023 4.777% 06/01/2028 3137HAD45 0.00 2,380.09 2,380.09 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS K529 A2 DTD 10/01/2024 4.791% 09/01/2029 3137HH6C0 0.00 1,437.30 1,437.30 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS K509 A2 DTD 10/01/2023 4.850% 09/01/2028 3137HAST4 0.00 1,818.75 1,818.75 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS K508 A2 DTD 10/01/2023 4.740% 08/01/2028 3137HAQ74 0.00 2,172.50 2,172.50 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS K511 A2 DTD 12/01/2023 4.860% 10/01/2028 3137HB3G7 0.00 1,296.00 1,296.00 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS K528 A2 DTD 09/01/2024 4.508% 07/01/2029 3137HFNZ4 0.00 807.68 807.68 03/01/25 03/02/25 TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 03/02/2021 1.267% 03/02/2027 89788MAD4 0.00 1,742.13 1,742.13 03/02/25 03/03/25 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 03/03/2022 2.450% 03/03/2027 808513BY0 0.00 3,675.00 3,675.00 03/03/25 03/04/25 MONEY MARKET FUND DTD 01/01/2010 0.000% -- MONEY0002 0.00 22.56 22.56 03/04/25 03/09/25 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE DTD 09/09/2021 1.300% 09/09/2026 02665WDZ1 0.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 03/09/25 03/15/25 BACCT 2023-A1 A1 DTD 06/16/2023 4.790% 05/15/2028 05522RDG0 0.00 2,594.58 2,594.58 03/15/25 03/15/25 KCOT 2024-2A A3 DTD 06/25/2024 5.260% 11/15/2028 50117DAC0 0.00 1,534.17 1,534.17 03/15/25 03/15/25 DCENT 2023-A2 A DTD 06/28/2023 4.930% 06/15/2028 254683CZ6 0.00 2,567.71 2,567.71 03/15/25 03/15/25 HART 2022-A A3 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220% 10/15/2026 448977AD0 0.00 66.80 66.80 03/15/25 Account 73340100 Page 28PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 113 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Transaction Type Trade CUSIPSecurity DescriptionSettle Par Proceeds Principal Accrued Interest Total Cost Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Amort Cost Method INTEREST 03/15/25 NAROT 2023-B A3 DTD 10/25/2023 5.930% 03/15/2028 65480MAD5 0.00 593.00 593.00 03/15/25 03/15/25 AMXCA 2023-1 A DTD 06/14/2023 4.870% 05/15/2028 02582JJZ4 0.00 3,713.38 3,713.38 03/15/25 03/15/25 HAROT 2024-4 A3 DTD 10/24/2024 4.330% 05/15/2029 43816DAC9 0.00 1,804.17 1,804.17 03/15/25 03/15/25 HART 2024-C A3 DTD 10/16/2024 4.410% 05/15/2029 448976AD2 0.00 735.00 735.00 03/15/25 03/15/25 WOART 2024-A A2A DTD 02/14/2024 5.050% 04/15/2027 98164RAB2 0.00 336.50 336.50 03/15/25 03/15/25 COMET 2023-A1 A DTD 05/24/2023 4.420% 05/15/2028 14041NGD7 0.00 1,896.92 1,896.92 03/15/25 03/15/25 BACCT 2024-A1 A DTD 06/13/2024 4.930% 05/15/2029 05522RDJ4 0.00 2,054.17 2,054.17 03/15/25 03/15/25 AMXCA 2024-3 A DTD 07/23/2024 4.650% 07/15/2029 02589BAE0 0.00 1,336.88 1,336.88 03/15/25 03/15/25 MBART 2025-1 A3 DTD 01/23/2025 4.780% 12/17/2029 58773DAD6 0.00 1,055.58 1,055.58 03/15/25 03/15/25 WFCIT 2024-A2 A DTD 10/24/2024 4.290% 10/15/2029 92970QAE5 0.00 1,001.00 1,001.00 03/15/25 03/15/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/15/2024 4.250% 03/15/2027 91282CKE0 0.00 9,031.25 9,031.25 03/15/25 03/15/25 TAOT 2024-C A3 DTD 07/30/2024 4.880% 03/15/2029 89237QAD2 0.00 976.00 976.00 03/15/25 03/16/25 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 DTD 10/16/2024 4.400% 08/16/2029 38014AAD3 0.00 586.67 586.67 03/16/25 03/16/25 GMCAR 2022-1 A3 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260% 11/16/2026 380146AC4 0.00 11.74 11.74 03/16/25 03/20/25 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP DTD 09/20/2022 4.550% 09/20/2027 89236TKJ3 0.00 10,237.50 10,237.50 03/20/25 03/20/25 VALET 2021-1 A3 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020% 06/22/2026 92868KAC7 0.00 4.17 4.17 03/20/25 03/21/25 HAROT 2023-4 A3 DTD 11/08/2023 5.670% 06/21/2028 438123AC5 0.00 354.38 354.38 03/21/25 Account 73340100 Page 29PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 114 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Transaction Type Trade CUSIPSecurity DescriptionSettle Par Proceeds Principal Accrued Interest Total Cost Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Amort Cost Method INTEREST 03/21/25 HAROT 2024-3 A2 DTD 08/21/2024 4.890% 02/22/2027 43813YAB8 0.00 1,609.63 1,609.63 03/21/25 03/21/25 HAROT 2021-4 A3 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880% 01/21/2026 43815GAC3 0.00 4.35 4.35 03/21/25 03/25/25 BMWOT 2025-A A3 DTD 02/12/2025 4.560% 09/25/2029 096924AD7 0.00 1,606.77 1,606.77 03/25/25 03/29/25 CITIBANK NA (CALLABLE) DTD 09/29/2023 5.803% 09/29/2028 17325FBB3 0.00 16,683.63 16,683.63 03/29/25 03/30/25 MEDALLION BANK UTAH DTD 07/30/2020 0.550% 07/30/2025 58404DHQ7 0.00 110.75 110.75 03/30/25 03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2021 0.875% 09/30/2026 91282CCZ2 0.00 6,562.50 6,562.50 03/31/25 03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 4.125% 09/30/2027 91282CFM8 0.00 33,000.00 33,000.00 03/31/25 03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2022 3.875% 09/30/2029 91282CFL0 0.00 12,109.38 12,109.38 03/31/25 03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 10/02/2023 4.625% 09/30/2028 91282CJA0 0.00 22,662.50 22,662.50 03/31/25 03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2023 3.625% 03/31/2028 91282CGT2 0.00 9,515.63 9,515.63 03/31/25 03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 09/30/2020 0.375% 09/30/2027 91282CAL5 0.00 562.50 562.50 03/31/25 03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2022 2.375% 03/31/2029 91282CEE7 0.00 14,250.00 14,250.00 03/31/25 03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 03/31/2021 1.250% 03/31/2028 91282CBS9 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 03/31/25 200,789.13 200,789.13 0.00 Transaction Type Sub-Total PAYDOWNS 03/25/25 FNA 2023-M6 A2 DTD 07/01/2023 4.182% 07/01/2028 3136BQDE6 4.13 0.00 4.13 0.15 0.11 4.13 03/01/25 03/25/25 FHMS KJ46 A1 DTD 07/01/2023 4.777% 06/01/2028 3137HAD45 749.55 0.00 749.55 0.02 0.01 749.55 03/01/25 Account 73340100 Page 30PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 115 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Transaction Type Trade CUSIPSecurity DescriptionSettle Par Proceeds Principal Accrued Interest Total Cost Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Amort Cost Method PAYDOWNS 03/15/25 WOART 2024-A A2A DTD 02/14/2024 5.050% 04/15/2027 98164RAB2 10,977.36 0.00 10,977.36 0.86 0.56 10,977.36 03/15/25 03/15/25 HART 2022-A A3 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220% 10/15/2026 448977AD0 6,440.93 0.00 6,440.93 0.24 0.08 6,440.93 03/15/25 03/16/25 GMCAR 2022-1 A3 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260% 11/16/2026 380146AC4 2,369.65 0.00 2,369.65 0.21 0.07 2,369.65 03/16/25 03/20/25 VALET 2021-1 A3 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020% 06/22/2026 92868KAC7 3,540.74 0.00 3,540.74 0.14 0.04 3,540.74 03/20/25 03/21/25 HAROT 2024-3 A2 DTD 08/21/2024 4.890% 02/22/2027 43813YAB8 11,974.70 0.00 11,974.70 0.93 0.72 11,974.70 03/21/25 03/21/25 HAROT 2021-4 A3 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880% 01/21/2026 43815GAC3 2,355.64 0.00 2,355.64 0.50 0.10 2,355.64 03/21/25 0.00 1.69 3.05 38,412.70 38,412.70 38,412.70 Transaction Type Sub-Total SELL 03/05/25 INTL BK RECON & DEVELOP (CALLABLE) DTD 02/10/2021 0.650% 02/10/2026 459058JS3 965,990.00 451.39 966,441.39 (25,000.00)(32,228.21)FIFO 1,000,000.00 03/03/25 03/05/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 04/30/2021 1.250% 04/30/2028 91282CBZ3 459,218.75 2,158.15 461,376.90 15,156.25 (4,801.35)FIFO 500,000.00 03/03/25 03/07/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/28/2019 2.500% 02/28/2026 9128286F2 147,708.98 71.33 147,780.31 (591.80)(1,852.43)FIFO 150,000.00 03/06/25 03/14/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 04/17/2023 3.750% 04/15/2026 91282CGV7 49,830.08 772.66 50,602.74 755.86 325.41 FIFO 50,000.00 03/12/25 03/17/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/28/2019 2.500% 02/28/2026 9128286F2 344,722.66 404.21 345,126.87 (1,312.50)(4,282.56)FIFO 350,000.00 03/14/25 03/20/25 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) DTD 03/23/2016 3.300% 04/01/2026 46625HQW3 336,222.60 5,267.17 341,489.77 (37,362.60)(9,483.23)FIFO 340,000.00 03/19/25 03/20/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 06/30/2021 1.250% 06/30/2028 91282CCH2 45,742.19 136.40 45,878.59 2,802.74 723.66 FIFO 50,000.00 03/19/25 03/25/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/15/2017 2.375% 05/15/2027 912828X88 289,921.88 2,558.70 292,480.58 902.35 (5,106.67)FIFO 300,000.00 03/24/25 03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/15/2017 2.375% 05/15/2027 912828X88 145,001.96 1,338.40 146,340.36 492.19 (2,531.41)FIFO 150,000.00 03/26/25 Account 73340100 Page 31PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 116 For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100 Transaction Type Trade CUSIPSecurity DescriptionSettle Par Proceeds Principal Accrued Interest Total Cost Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Amort Cost Method SELL 03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B DTD 05/15/2017 2.375% 05/15/2027 912828X88 241,669.92 2,230.66 243,900.58 2,138.67 823.86 FIFO 250,000.00 03/26/25 15,389.07 (58,412.93)(42,018.84) 3,041,418.09 3,026,029.02 3,140,000.00 Transaction Type Sub-Total (204,636.02) 204,037.50 (598.52)(42,015.79)(58,411.24)Managed Account Sub-Total Total Security Transactions ($42,015.79)($598.52)$204,037.50 ($204,636.02)($58,411.24) Account 73340100 Page 32PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. Page 117 DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Julie A. Sowles, Deputy City Manager of Community Programs Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director Patricia Bravo-Valdez, MMC, Deputy Director of City Clerk Services Jasmin Oriel, CMC, Management Analyst SUBJECT:Consideration to Cancel and Reschedule the September 17, 2025 Regular Meetings of the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority, and City Council to September 16, 2025. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council cancel and reschedule the September 17, 2025 Regular Meetings of the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority, and City Council to September 16, 2025. BACKGROUND: The City Council serves as the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Financing Authority. Its Regular Meetings are held on the first and third Wednesdays of each month. ANALYSIS: Due to a State of the County event, staff recommends the City Council cancel and reschedule the September 17, 2025, Regular Meetings to September 16, 2025. The City Clerk Services Department will provide the appropriate legal notifications of changes. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item maintains organizational efficiency and planning to help advance the quality of life for the community through inclusive decision-making. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 118 DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Jevin Kaye, Finance Director Ruth Cain, Procurement Manager Cheryl Combs, Procurement Business Partner SUBJECT:Consideration to Declare Surplus for Retired VHF Mobile Radio That Have Been Deemed No Longer Needed, Obsolete, or Unusable as Surplus. (FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Fire Board of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District declare the list of VHF Mobile Radio detailed in the Analysis section that have been deemed no longer needed, obsolete, or unusable as surplus. BACKGROUND: Per the City’s Municipal Code Section 3.08.150, the Procurement Manager shall have the authority, granted by the City Council, to request the disposal of City items that have been deemed as obsolete and unsuitable for City use. Methods for disposing of surplus are to exchange for or trade in on new supplies, transfer to another department, or offer for sale on a competitive bid basis. After a reasonable effort, and if no bids have been received, Procurement may dispose of surplus for the highest scrap value. The City may sell surplus property to any other governmental agency at a fair market value without any other bids or donate surplus property to any agency or entity which is exempt from federal income tax, with the approval of City Council. ANALYSIS: The items to be considered for surplus at this time were submitted by Fire Protection District. Proposed surplus items include retired VHF Mobile Radio deemed no longer needed, obsolete, or unusable. Staff recommends Council approve the disposal of these VHF Mobile Radio through auction or best method as determined by the Procurement Manager. VHF Mobile Radio RCF Tag #Make - Model Serial # 22631 DMH5992X VHF Mobile 1027075 N/A DMH5992X VHF Mobile 1109067 22659 DMH5992X VHF Mobile 1027042 N/A DMH5992R VHF Mobile 1112172 N/A DMH5992R VHF Mobile 1112196 N/A DMH5992R VHF Mobile 1112178 Page 119 Page 2 2 8 0 3 RCF Tag #Make - Model Serial # 22496 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713056 3379 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 535090 22402 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 325012 22488 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713027 22493 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 150045 22487 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713021 22485 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 703058 22486 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 703060 3380 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 602027 22500 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713063 N/A GMH5992X VHF Mobile 832072 22494 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 150182 22502 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713070 22427 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 635401 22494 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713046 22509 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 750085 2636 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 132162 22426 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 635040 3381 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 602016 22660 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 1040166 22492 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713036 N/A GMH5992X VHF Mobile 150181 22491 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713035 22489 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 7131028 22370 EMV4990A VHF Mobile 219179 22338 EMH5992X VHF Mobile 13151 N/A D43MJA7DASCK 800 Mobile 428FNQ4750 21781 D51MJA97A3AK 800 Mobile 356AUG0561 FISCAL IMPACT: As of April 16, 2025, FY 2024/25 surplus has accumulated $115,167.31 in sales through the Public Surplus Auction Site. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Reusing and recycling items supports the City Council’s Core Value of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 120 2 8 0 7 DATE: TO: FROM: INITIATED BY: SUBJECT: May 7, 2025 Mayor and Members of the City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Jevin Kaye, Finance Director Ruth Cain, Procurement Manager Hector Velazquez, Procurement Business Partner Consideration for the Transfer of Title for One (1) 2025 Honda Pioneer 1000 Side-by-Side, Procured from Huntington Beach Honda, to Facilitate the Vehicles Used by San Bernardino County for Police Department Services. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council authorize the transfer of one (1) 2025 Honda Pioneer 1000 to facilitate the vehicles used by San Bernardino County for Police Department Services. BACKGROUND: On December 14, 2023, the City Council approved the acceptance of grant revenue in the amount of $33,045.00, awarded by the Office of Emergency Services (FY 22 Homeland Security Grant) to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and authorized appropriation in Account 701380-7007 to procure one (1) side-by-side vehicle for the purpose of response to a catastrophic incident. The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department provided the Procurement Division with specifications for the side-by-side vehicle. The Procurement Division prepared and posted RFQ #000473 to Planet Bids, there were one hundred twenty-eight (128) notified bidders, twelve (12) prospective bidders, and three (3) responses were received. The lowest most responsive bidder was Huntington Beach Honda, of Huntington Beach, California, in the amount of $28,710.68, to be funded from Account F380 (Homeland Security Grant) CC 701 (Police) SC 7007 (Capital Outlay-Vehicles). ANALYSIS: The request to transfer the one (1) side-by-side vehicle to the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department for liability requirements will alleviate the City from liability while the vehicle is in use under ownership with the County of San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department. At the end of its service life, the vehicle will be transferred from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department back to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for proper surplus disposition. FISCAL IMPACT: No financial impact is anticipated. Page 121 Page 2 2 8 0 7 COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Authorizing the transfer of ownership to the County of San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department supports the City Council’s Core Value of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 122 DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Neil Plummer, Public Works Services Director Andy Miller, Facilities Superintendent Lisa O'Brien, Public Works Business Manager Paige Eberle, Management Analyst ll SUBJECT:Consideration of a Contract with Mukai Construction for the Quakes Stadium Bowl Emergency Waterproofing in the Amount of $427,220. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1.Confirm and ratify the City Manager’s declaration that an emergency existed requiring the immediate repair of the Quakes Stadium Bowl (Seating Area) water leaks to prevent any additional facility water damage and bypass the formal bidding process. 2.Authorize and approve the City Manager’s prior approval of the execution of a contract with Mukai Construction for emergency services to provide waterproofing for the Quakes Stadium Bowl. 3.Authorize the expenditure of $427,220. 4. Appropriate $427,220 from General Fund (F001) fund balance. 5.Approve transfer of $175,000 to PID-2168-030 Quakes Stadium Upgrades F030. BACKGROUND: During the Stadium Modernization with Rancho Baseball LLC, it was found that the interior areas beneath the stadium seating at Quakes Stadium had widespread moisture intrusion in the locker rooms, restrooms, utility and storage rooms, kitchen, and hallways, evidenced by efflorescent staining, calcium deposits, and rust. This moisture is primarily traced to multiple exterior structural deficiencies, including deteriorated and cracked caulking seals at concrete control joints, compromised expansion joint systems, and poorly installed or deteriorated flashing systems, particularly at stairways and walkways. Additionally, damaged pedestrian coatings and spalling concrete contribute to water entry. These issues are exacerbated by routine cleaning with large volumes of water, which penetrates through faulty joints and seals, leading to the current interior leakage. ANALYSIS: The work was authorized by the City Manager due to the exigent circumstances. Facilities staff partnered with Rancho Baseball LLC to find a contractor that had the capacity to make the repairs required for this emergency project in a timely manner before Opening Day on April 4. Mukai Construction Inc. was recommended for quotes on various solutions to waterproof the Quakes Page 123 Page 2 2 8 1 1 Stadium Bowl. The bowl was repaired with a combination of sealing the horizontal joints in the decking, sealing all deck to wall transitions, recoating walkway and stair surfaces and the installation of new horizontal joint expansion joints to reconstruct the damaged areas and to return the bowl to a safe and secure condition. The repairs will ensure the new locker rooms located directly under the bowl remain dry and safe for the incoming players. FISCAL IMPACT: Construction Costs for the emergency project are as follows: Expenditures Amount First Draw at start of work $ 175,000 Second draw at 60% completion $ 175,000 Final Payment upon completion $ 77,220 Total Construction Costs $427,220 This project was not included in the FY 2024/25 budget. Therefore, an appropriation in the amount of $427,220 is required to be funded as follows: Account Fund Description Amount F001 CC701 SC2106 General Fund Emergency Waterproofing $427,220 Total Project Funding:$427,220 COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s core value of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all by ensuring City facilities are properly maintained. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 124 DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Marlena Perez, Principal Engineer Krystal Lai, Associate Engineer SUBJECT:Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement With Z&K Consultants, Inc. in the Amount of $409,400, Plus 10% Contingency for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Project. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Z&K Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $409,400, plus a 10% contingency for Construction Management and Inspection services for the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Project (Project). BACKGROUND: Heritage Park (Park), located in the northwestern portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, is a center of recreational activity and is uniquely divided into two sections by the Demens Creek Channel. Large numbers of people of all ages visit the park annually as it has multiple recreational areas, including a playground, baseball fields, soccer fields, and a dedicated equestrian arena and facility, which is connected to the area’s existing equestrian trail network. The equestrian center area of the Park, because of its size and accessibility to horse trailers as well as a dedicated restroom and community center, also serves as a staging area for emergency response during fire or flooding incidents occurring in the foothills. A Vicinity Map illustrating the location of the Project is included in Attachment 1. In 2019, a bridge report and structural evaluation was conducted for the three (3) bridges that serve as the main access point over the Demens Creek Channel to the Equestrian Center and Emergency Staging Area of the Park. The evaluation confirmed that all three (3) bridges needed replacement, and after evaluating options, it was determined that the best course of action would be to demolish all three (3) of the existing bridges and replace them with a single bridge structure. At the present time, those bridges can no longer support the weight of emergency equipment. The Demens Creek Channel is owned and maintained by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFD). The City has worked extensively over the past four years with SBCFD and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to obtain the necessary permits to begin construction. In August and November 2024, the City received permits from the Army Corps and SBCFD, respectively, granting the City permission to enter their right of way and construct the Project. Page 125 Page 2 2 7 9 6 On April 16, 2025, the City Council awarded and executed a construction contract with CT&T Concrete Paving Inc. for the Project. The construction phase for this project is expected to start in May 2025. ANALYSIS: This Project will construct a new single bridge that will be approximately 50’ wide and span approximately 21’ across the Demens Creek Channel. The new bridge will provide separated areas and pathways for pedestrians, equestrians, and vehicles. In addition, ADA access to the bridge will be maintained with the construction of new pathways, lighting will be upgraded to current City standards, and new landscaping and vegetation will be installed. Once complete, the bridge will provide a critically improved connection to the equestrian center. In February 2025, a Request for Proposal (RFP) #24/25-010 was released for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Project. In total, thirteen (13) qualified proposal responses were received. The proposal responses were evaluated and rated in accordance with the criteria specified in the RFP. Z&K Consultants, Inc. received the highest overall score from the evaluation committee, clearly demonstrating a strong understanding of the Project scope of services, potential construction challenges, and the sensitive nature of the community impacts. The scope of work includes, but is not limited to, pre-construction services, daily monitoring and inspection, reviewing contractor submittals, overseeing construction administration activities, materials testing, and overseeing construction close-out. A copy of the Professional Services Agreement is held on file with the City Clerk’s office. FISCAL IMPACT: Anticipated costs for Construction Management and Inspection Services are estimated as follows: Task Amount Construction Management and Inspection Services* $409,400 Contingency $40,940 Total with Contingency $450,340 * CM&I Services are approximately 25% of the base construction contract. A total of $2,400,000 was budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Budget for this Project consisting of funds from the Citywide Infrastructure Improvement Fund (198) and the Fire Capital Projects Fund (288). An additional $750,000 was awarded from San Bernardino County through the County Board Discretionary Fund Priorities Program. Following design, preconstruction and construction expenses, the remaining budget available for the Project is $1,196,540, see the table below for the expenses breakdown: Expenses Amount Preconstruction Expenses $48,520 Construction Contract $1,655,100 Construction Contract Contingency (15%)$248,270 Bid Noticing Advertisement $1,570 Total Expenses to Date (Fiscal Year 2024/25) $1,953,460 Amended Budget $3,150,000 Remaining Budget $1,196,540 Page 126 Page 3 2 7 9 6 From this available budget, funds will be allocated for this contract as identified under the Capital Improvement Project account number listed below: Account No. Funding Source Description Amount F198 CC303 SC7004 PID1963-198 Citywide Infrastructure Improvement Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Project $225,170 F288 CC501 SC7004 PID1963-288 Fire Capital Projects Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Project $225,170 Total $450,340 Excess funds from the budgeted amount for this Project will be returned to the fund balances for their associated funds at the end of the fiscal year and will be available for use on future projects. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s core values by ensuring the construction of high-quality public improvements that promote success as a world class community. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map Page 127 ATTACHMENT 1 HERITAGE PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE Page 128 DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Michael Parmer, Engagement and Special Programs Director Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services / City Engineer Trina Valdez, Utilities Operations Supervisor SUBJECT:Consideration of Amendment No. 15 to the Agreement with Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. (CO19-085) in the Amount of $295,000 for High Voltage Electrical Support and Related Infrastructure. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 15 authorizing an increase in the amount of $295,000 to the Agreement with Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. (CO19-085). BACKGROUND: In 2019, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. entered into an Agreement (CO19-085) to provide installation, operation, maintenance and emergency support for the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) electrical infrastructure and distribution systems. ANALYSIS: During this Fiscal Year, RCMU has had numerous small projects that required high voltage electrical support from Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. including cable and transformer removal, a transformer installation, and a pad mounted transformer relocation that will include a planned service outage requiring crews to be on-site during the outage. The improvements and support will be paid for by the owner or developer of the various projects. Additionally, RCMU has experienced multiple unplanned outages in its service area that has required additional hours and expenses to locate and make the necessary repairs to restore service. A transformer was also found to be leaking oil and needed to be replaced. The outages and additional support have utilized the 2024/25 approved budget for Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. and additional funds are needed to cover these expenses and for the remainder of the fiscal year. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds from the Municipal Utlity Fund (Fund 705) in the amount of $295,000 is available in account number F705CC304SC2106 of the Fiscal Year 2024/25 approved budget. No additional appropriations are required at this time. Page 129 Page 2 2 7 9 7 COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s vision for the City by ensuring the construction and maintenance of high-quality public improvements that promote a world class community. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 130 DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Michael Parmer, Engagement and Special Programs Director Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services / City Engineer Trina Valdez, Utilities Operations Supervisor SUBJECT:Consideration of an Approval of Amendment No. 5 to the Agreement with Henkels & McCoy, Inc. (CO19-148) and Amendment No. 16 to the Agreement with Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. (CO19-085) in the Amount of $780,600, Plus a 10% Contingency and an Authorization to Appropriate $858,660 for the Municipal Utility Connector Replacement Project. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Municipal Utility Connector Replacement Project (Project); 2. Award and authorize the execution of an amendment to the existing agreement with Henkels & McCoy, Inc. (CO19-148) and Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. (CO19-085) in the total amount of $780,600; 3. Authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $78,060; and 4. Authorize an appropriation in the amount of $858,660 for the Municipal Utility Connector Replacement. BACKGROUND: Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility’s (RCMU) distribution system was initially installed in 2003 to serve the Victoria Garden’s Regional Mall property and surrounding commercial projects from Rochester Avenue to Day Creek Boulevard. The initial three 12KV feeder circuits were commissioned in 2004 and the distribution system continued to expand from 2005 through 2010 when a new fourth feeder circuit extension was added to serve City facilities and additional commercial development projects along Haven Avenue. Over the past twenty years, RCMU’s distribution system has been very reliable with very few issues on its main feeder systems. During the past several months, RCMU has experienced three separate unplanned outages on three of its main feeder circuits. The cause of each feeder outage was found to be 600 Amp connectors that failed. When this type of outage occurs and with over 100 connectors on the three main feeder circuits, it is difficult to quickly locate where the problem is in the circuit. The length of the outage can be four to five hours from when the outage is initially reported to when the problem is found and then repaired. Page 131 Page 2 2 8 1 4 It was determined that with the first three 12 KV circuits being installed at the same time and the 600 Amp connectors depreciating at the same rate, it would be crucial to begin a strategic replacement plan of the connectors to minimize potential future outages. The replacement plan would be completed in phases and replace connections beginning with the oldest underground circuits first. The replacement work will take place in underground manholes, vaults and at pad mounted switches. This project will also allow the opportunity while the equipment is being accessed to install fault indicators at the pad mounted switches which will take the next steps in developing an outage notification system resulting in faster response times when an outage occurs. ANALYSIS: With the complexity of the work and the urgency to complete a portion of the connector replacement before the summer temperatures arrive to avoid further service disruptions and costly after-hours repairs, staff determined a joint effort between two (2) of the three (3) pre- qualified vendors would meet the needs of the City. It should further be noted that this is specialty repair work that our pre-qualified vendors would already perform during emergency outages. In order to proactively prevent such outages, staff obtained a quote from both vendors and determined the quote to be deemed as reasonable. FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditures for this work has not been included in the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Adopted Budget, therefore, an appropriation is needed in the following amount: Account No.Funding Source Description Amount F708CC304SC7002 RCMU Capital Replacement Fund (Fund 708) Capital Outlay – Equipment and Furnishings $858,660 The current fund balance for Fund 708 has sufficient funds to cover the requested appropriation. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s vision for the City by ensuring the construction and maintenance of high-quality public improvements that promote a world class community. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 132 DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Sarine K. Hazarshahian, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT:Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Allocating Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Program Funds for Fiscal Year 2025/26. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-012) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution to allocate Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Program funds for Fiscal Year 2025/26 for the completion of the projects listed in the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Major Projects Program. BACKGROUND: On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill 1 (SB1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 creating the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program in order to address deferred maintenance on the State highway and local street and road systems. Funds made available by the program are required to be utilized for basic road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, and on critical safety projects. Prior to receiving an apportionment of funds under the program in a fiscal year, the City must submit a list of proposed projects to the California Transportation Commission (CTC), and the funding must be allocated by resolution. ANALYSIS: The guidelines and regulations for obtaining funds from the program have been previously amended by the CTC requiring local agencies to adopt their project list by resolution; submission of a project list adopted through City budget is no longer acceptable. The CTC has announced the deadline of July 1, 2025 for local agencies to submit their adopted project list by resolution for the upcoming fiscal year. On that basis, staff recommends the following projects which are planned for consideration in the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Major Projects Program for funding from the RMRA Fund (F179): 1. Highland Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation – Sapphire Street to Carnelian Avenue and Amethyst Avenue to Archibald Avenue 2.Vineyard Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation – Base Line Road to Foothill Boulevard and the Cucamonga Creek Channel Crossing to 8th Street Page 133 Page 2 2 7 9 5 FISCAL IMPACT: Revenue for the RMRA is currently estimated to be $4,571,840 in the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Budget. Staff will continue to monitor revenue estimates and receipts to ensure adequate funding will be available to cover budgeted project costs and will adjust the planned improvements listed above accordingly. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This project reflects the City Council's core values by enhancing community safety and well-being while driving continuous improvement through the development of high-quality public infrastructure. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2025-012 Page 134 Resolution No. 2025-012 - Page 1 of 3 5 5 9 0 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE PROJECTS FOR THE ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025/26 FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION ACCOUNT (RMRA) FUNDS WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statues of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; WHEREAS, SB1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project's completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and WHEREAS, the City, will receive an estimated $4,571,840 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2025/26 from SB1; and WHEREAS, this is the nineth year in which the City is receiving SB1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB1; and WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the community's priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate two (2) major arterial roadways in the City this year and similar projects into the future; and WHEREAS, the 2022 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City's streets and roads are at lower risk and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade will maintain our streets and roads in a good condition; and WHEREAS, the SB1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 135 Resolution No. 2025-012 - Page 2 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, as follows: 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct. 2.The following list of proposed projects will be funded in-part or solely with Fiscal Year 2025/26 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues: Project 1: Highland Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation – Sapphire Street to Carnelian Avenue and Amethyst Avenue to Archibald Avenue (PID 2104) This project includes cold planing, localized asphalt removal and replacement, crack sealing, asphalt rubber hot mix overlay, ADA ramp upgrades, utility adjustments and thermoplastic pavement striping for approximately 0.80 mile of roadway. The estimated useful life of this roadway is 20 years and construction is anticipated to start in March 2026. Project 2: Vineyard Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation – Base Line Road to Foothill Boulevard and the Cucamonga Creek Channel Crossing to 8th Street (PID 2196): This project includes cold planing, localized asphalt removal and replacement, crack sealing, asphalt rubber hot mix overlay, ADA ramp upgrades, utility adjustments and thermoplastic pavement striping for approximately 1.25 miles of roadway. The estimated useful life of this roadway is 20 years and construction is anticipated to start in March 2026. Page 136 Resolution No. 2025-012 - Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 07th day of May 2025. Page 137 DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Marlena Perez, Principal Engineer Romeo M. David, Associate Engineer SUBJECT:Consideration of Resolutions Declaring Portions of City-Owned Properties Located North of Foothill Boulevard Approximately 725 Feet East of Grove Avenue, Exempt Surplus Land and Not Necessary for the City’s Use Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B), Finding that Such Declaration is Exempt from Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Making Related Findings. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-015 AND RESOLUTION NO. 2025-016) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolutions declaring portions of City-Owned properties (Properties) located north of Foothill Boulevard approximately 725 feet east of Grove Avenue, described as a portion of Lot 6 and Lot 10 of Tract 2521 (Assessor Parcel No.’s 207-112-005 and -024), exempt surplus land and not necessary for the City’s use pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B), finding that such declaration is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and making related findings. BACKGROUND: The City recently completed the West Foothill Boulevard Street Improvements Project (Project), which was a transformational project at the Westerly gateway to the City. The Project served as a major step in transforming Foothill Boulevard, from Grove Avenue to San Bernardino Road, to a vibrant mixed used corridor, as identified in PlanRC, that would build upon the great historic resources in the area such as the Red Hill community, the Pacific Electric Trail, and existing restaurants that have served residents and visitors to the area for decades. The Project modified the design of the street improvements to better align them with the community’s vision as articulated in PlanRC and to better serve the residents, visitors, and businesses in the area by providing facilities for all users of the street, vehicles, buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians. A key element of the Project was the realignment of Red Hill Country Club Drive approximately 400 feet to the east and the construction of a traffic signal to provide for better and safer intersection operation. The City acquired three privately-owned properties several years ago in anticipation of the Project in order to use a portions of the properties for the new Red Hill Country Club Drive alignment. On February 19, 2025 the City Council accepted the Project as complete and approved the resolution dedicating a portion of these properties for public use as a public Page 138 Page 2 2 8 0 5 street. The remaining portions of these Properties are no longer required for City use as the Project is complete and the new public street has been constructed. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is the owner in fee simple of certain real Properties described as a portion of Lot 6 and Lot 10 of Tract 2521 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as filed in Book 36 pages 37 through 38, and as shown on the Record of Survey on File in Book 71, Page 74 Records of San Bernardino, California (APN 207- 112-005 and -024). Both Properties are located at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club Drive. APN 207-112-005 measures approximately 7,409 square feet (0.170 acres) and APN 207-112-024 measures approximately 7,366 square feet (0.169 acres). A Vicinity Map illustrating the location of the Properties is included as attachment 1. Under the Surplus Land Act, Government Code Sections 54220-54234 (“Act”), surplus land is land owned in fee simple by the City for which the City Council takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring the land is surplus and not necessary for the City’s use. The Act provides that land shall be declared either surplus land or exempt surplus land before the City may take action to dispose of it. Under the Act, land is necessary for the City’s use if the land is being used or is planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the City Council, for City work or operations. The Act specifies that the City’s use does not include commercial or industrial uses, and land that is disposed of for the purpose of investment or generation of revenue is not necessary for the City’s use. ANALYSIS: The subject Properties are not currently being used by the City for agency work or operations, nor are the Properties land that the City plans to use for agency work or operations pursuant to any written plan. Staff evaluated the Properties for their potential to be used as a utility site, watershed property, for conservation purposes, demonstration, exhibition, and other purposes described in Section 104 of the Surplus Land Act guidelines and determined that the Properties are not suitable for the City’s use. Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B) and 54221(f)(2) provides that “exempt surplus land” means surplus land that is less than one-half acre in size and not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low- and moderate-income housing purposes. In addition, exempt surplus land is land that does not meet any of the conditions described in paragraph (2) of Government Code Section 54221(f) (e.g., land in a coastal zone). The Properties are not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open space or low- and moderate-income housing properties. Further, the properties do not meet any of the conditions described in paragraph (2) of Government Code Section 54221(f). Staff is therefore recommending that the City Council declare that the subject Properties are exempt surplus land and not necessary for the City’s use. The Act requires that a local agency that determines that property is exempt surplus property, support such a determination with written findings and provide a copy of the written determination to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Following adoption of the subject Resolutions, staff will submit the appropriate documentation to HCD for review. The City cannot engage in property negotiations until the resolutions and supporting documentation are approved by City Council and HCD. Page 139 Page 3 2 8 0 5 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUAILTY ACT (CEQA): Staff has recommended that the City Council find that it can be seen with certainty that the declaration of exempt surplus land has no likelihood of causing a significant negative effect on the environment. This finding is premised on the fact that no project or physical changes are proposed for the Properties and this declaration is merely an administrative procedure before the City may dispose of the Properties. Based upon these findings, the attached Resolutions contain a determination of the City Council that the Resolutions are exempt from the application of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This action is in keeping with the Council’s vision to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant City, by setting the stage for appropriate, high-quality reuse of these properties in the future. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Attachment 2 - Resolution No. 2025-015 Attachment 3 - Resolution No. 2025-016 Page 140 ATTACHMENT 1 " WEST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ” APN 207-112-005 and APN 207-112-024 8214 Foothill Boulevard and 8211 Red Hill Country Club Drive NOT TO SCALE Location site Location Site Page 141 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DECLARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221(f)(1)(B) THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY LOCATED NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 725 FEET EAST OF GROVE AVENUE DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 6 OF TRACT 2521 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (APN 207-112-005) IS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND AND NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CITY’S USE, FINDING THAT SUCH DECLARATION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND MAKING RELATED FINDINGS WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City) is the owner in fee simple of a certain parcel of real property located north of Foothill Boulevard approximately 725 feet East of Grove Avenue described as a portion of Lot 6 of Tract 2521 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California as filed in Book 36, pages 37 through 38, and as shown on the Record of Survey on file in Book 71, Page 74 Records of San Bernardino, California (APN 207-112-005) and described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and made a part of hereof (the “Parcel”); and WHEREAS, under Section 54221(b) of the Surplus Land Act, Government Code Sections 54220-54234 (the “Act”), surplus land is land owned in fee simple by the City for which the City Council takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring the land is surplus and not necessary for the City’s use. The Act provides that land must be declared either surplus land or exempt surplus land before the City may take any action to dispose of it consistent with the City’s policies or procedures; and WHEREAS, under the Act, land is necessary for the City’s use if the land is being used, or is planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the City Council, for City work or operations; and WHEREAS, the Parcel is approximately 7,409 square feet (0.170 acres), and located at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club Drive. The City acquired the Parcel in order to use a portion for right-of-way purposes as part of the City’s West Foothill Project, which made various improvements to Foothill Boulevard, including a new street connection to Red Hill Country Club Drive adjacent to the Parcel; and WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the Parcel for its potential to be used for other City municipal use or operations and has determined that the Parcel is not suitable for the City’s use because (1) the West Foothill Project construction is complete and the portion of the Parcel needed for right-of-way has already been used; (2) the small size of the parcel renders it unusable for any City operations; and (3) the Parcel lacks any improvements that are needed by the City for future use or operations; and Attachment 2 Page 142 WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B) provides that “exempt surplus land” means surplus land that is less than one-half acre in size and not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low and moderate income housing purposes; and WHEREAS, the Parcel is less than one-half acre in area and is not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low and moderate income housing purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to declare that the Parcel is exempt surplus land pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B) and not necessary for the City’s use; and WHEREAS, the Act provides that the City may dispose of property declared exempt surplus land without further regard to the requirements of the Act, except for the requirement to notify the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) at least 30 days prior to disposition of the property. WHEREAS, the Parcel is not: (1) within the coastal zone; (2) adjacent to a historical unit of the State Parks System; (3) listed on, or determined by the State Office of Historic Preservation to be eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places; or (4) within the Lake Tahoe region as defined in Government Code Section 66905.5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution. Section 2. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 54221(b), the City Council hereby declares that the Parcel is exempt surplus land and not necessary for the City’s use. Section 3. The Parcel constitutes exempt surplus land pursuant to an independent statutory exemption under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B) which would support this determination on its own. Section 4. The City Council has reviewed this Resolution with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”). The City Council hereby finds that the City Council’s designation of the Parcel as exempt surplus land does not have the potential for creating a significant negative effect on the environment and therefore the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from further review under CEQA because it is not a project as defined in Section 150060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Page 143 Section 5. Staff of the City are hereby authorized and directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to HCD in the form and manner required by HCD at least 30 days prior to the disposition of the Parcel. Section 6. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to do all things which he may deem necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution, and any such actions previously taken are hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of _________, 2025. _____________________________________ L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, KIM SEVY, 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 ____ day of ________, 2025. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: __________________________ Kim Sevy, City Clerk Page 144 EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 09 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: REMAINDER PARCEL: LOT 6 OF TRACT NO. 2521, ON FILE IN BOOK 36, PAGES 37 THROUGH 38, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY ON FILE IN BOOK 71, PAGE 74, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF THE ALLEY ADJACENT TO SAID LOT, WHICH WAS VACATED BY THE CITY RESOLUTION NO. 83-130 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83-225182; EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTH 30° 27’ 20” EAST 10.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHEAST BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID LINE; THENCE NORTH 59° 04’ 42” WEST 36.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42° 41’ 15” WEST 24.60 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 AND THE POINT OF TERMINUS. CONTAINING 7,409 SQUARE FEET, OR 0.170 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ALL AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT “B” ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. 01/27/2025 SCOTT T. BENNETT DATE Page 145 Land Surveyors Civil Engineers GIS 8885 Haven Avenue, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Phone: (909) 989-9789 Fax: (909) 989-9660 STATE:COUNTY:CITY: FILE NAME:SHEET:OF JOB REF. NO.: DATE: SURVEYED BY:SURVEY DATE:DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY: REMAINDER PARCEL PORTION OF LOT 6 PER MB 36/37-38 RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAN BERNARDINO CA N/A N/A M. BONILLA M. GRUGINSKI S. BENNETT 2024-621 1 1 01/27/2025 2024-621_V-EXH 04_Lot 6 Remainder.dwg SCALE: 1"=30' 30'15'0'15'30' 50 ' L C F O O T H I L L B O U L E V A R D P.O.B. P.O.C. S'LY CORNER LOT 6 LEGEND: MAP REFERENCE: P.O.B. ABBREVIATIONS: REMAINDER PARCEL AREA: P.O.C. EXHIBIT "B" P.O.T. P.O.T. Page 146 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DECLARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221(f)(1)(B) THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY LOCATED NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 725 FEET EAST OF GROVE AVENUE DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 10 OF TRACT 2521 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (APN 207-112-024) IS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND AND NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CITY’S USE, FINDING THAT SUCH DECLARATION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND MAKING RELATED FINDINGS WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City) is the owner in fee simple of a certain parcel of real property located north of Foothill Boulevard approximately 725 feet East of Grove Avenue described as a portion of Lot 10 of Tract 2521 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California as filed in Book 36, pages 37 through 38, and as shown on the Record of Survey on file in Book 71, Page 74 Records of San Bernardino, California (APN 207-112-024) and described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and made a part of hereof (the “Parcel”); and WHEREAS, under Section 54221(b) of the Surplus Land Act, Government Code Sections 54220-54234 (the “Act”), surplus land is land owned in fee simple by the City for which the City Council takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring the land is surplus and not necessary for the City’s use. The Act provides that land must be declared either surplus land or exempt surplus land before the City may take any action to dispose of it consistent with the City’s policies or procedures; and WHEREAS, under the Act, land is necessary for the City’s use if the land is being used, or is planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the City Council, for City work or operations; and WHEREAS, the Parcel is approximately 7,366 square feet (0.169 acres), and located at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club Drive. The City acquired the Parcel in order to use a portion for right-of-way purposes as part of the City’s West Foothill Project, which made various improvements to Foothill Boulevard, including a new street connection to Red Hill Country Club Drive adjacent to the Parcel; and WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the Parcel for its potential to be used for other City municipal use or operations and has determined that the Parcel is not suitable for the City’s use because (1) the West Foothill Project construction is complete and the portion of the Parcel needed for right-of-way has already been used; (2) the small size of the parcel renders it unusable for any City operations; and (3) the Parcel lacks any improvements that are needed by the City for future use or operations; and Attachment 3 Page 147 WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B) provides that “exempt surplus land” means surplus land that is less than one-half acre in size and not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low and moderate income housing purposes; and WHEREAS, the Parcel is less than one-half acre in area and is not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low and moderate income housing purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to declare that the Parcel is exempt surplus land pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B) and not necessary for the City’s use; and WHEREAS, the Act provides that the City may dispose of property declared exempt surplus land without further regard to the requirements of the Act, except for the requirement to notify the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) at least 30 days prior to disposition of the property. WHEREAS, the Parcel is not: (1) within the coastal zone; (2) adjacent to a historical unit of the State Parks System; (3) listed on, or determined by the State Office of Historic Preservation to be eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places; or (4) within the Lake Tahoe region as defined in Government Code Section 66905.5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution. Section 2. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 54221(b), the City Council hereby declares that the Parcel is exempt surplus land and not necessary for the City’s use. Section 3. The Parcel constitutes exempt surplus land pursuant an independent statutory exemption under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B, which would support this determination on its own. Section 4. The City Council has reviewed this Resolution with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”). The City Council hereby finds that the City Council’s designation of the Parcel as exempt surplus land does not have the potential for creating a significant negative effect on the environment and therefore the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from further review under CEQA because it is not a project as defined in Section 150060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Page 148 Section 5. Staff of the City are hereby authorized and directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to HCD in the form and manner required by HCD at least 30 days prior to the disposition of the Parcel. Section 6. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to do all things which he may deem necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution, and any such actions previously taken are hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of _________, 2025. _____________________________________ L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, KIM SEVY, 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 ____ day of ________, 2025. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: __________________________ Kim Sevy, City Clerk Page 149 EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: REMAINDER PARCEL: LOT 10 OF TRACT NO. 2521, ON FILE IN BOOK 36, PAGES 37 THROUGH 38, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY ON FILE IN BOOK 71, PAGE 74, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF THE ALLEY ADJACENT TO SAID LOT 10, WHICH WAS VACATED BY THE CITY RESOLUTION NO. 83-130 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1983, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83- 225182; EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WESTERLY OF THE LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE OF THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 7 OF SAID TRACT NO. 2521 AND THE CENTERLINE OF SAID VACATED ALLEY, 20 FEET WIDE, LYING 10 FEET ON EACH SIDE, AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 2521, ALSO BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGET CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET AND FROM WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 56° 34’ 07” EAST; THENCE ALONG SAID NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT 46.69 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26° 45’ 01” TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 45.00 FEET AND FROM WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 83° 19’ 48” WEST; THENCE 40.78 FEET ALONG SAID REVERSE CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 51° 55’ 28” TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, BEING 40 FEET WIDE AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 2521, AND THE POINT OF TERMINUS. Page 150 EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONTAINING 7,366 SQUARE FEET, OR 0.169 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ALL AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT “B” ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. ____________________________________ 01/27/2025 SCOTT T. BENNETT DATE Page 151 2 0 ' 2 0 ' 4 0 ' SCALE: 1"=40' 40'20'0'20'40' P.O.B. L C F O O T H I L L B O U L E V A R D LC 50 ' COUNTRYCLUBDRIVE Land Surveyors Civil Engineers GIS 8885 Haven Avenue, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Phone: (909) 989-9789 Fax: (909) 989-9660 STATE:COUNTY:CITY: FILE NAME:SHEET:OF JOB REF. NO.: DATE: SURVEYED BY:SURVEY DATE:DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY: REMAINDER PARCEL PORTION OF LOT 10 PER MB 36/37-38 RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAN BERNARDINO CA N/A N/A M. BONILLA M. GRUGINSKI S. BENNETT 2024-621 1 2 01/27/2025 2024-621_V-EXH 02_Lot 10 Remainder.dwg EXHIBIT "B" P.O.T. HILLRED Page 152 Land Surveyors Civil Engineers GIS 8885 Haven Avenue, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Phone: (909) 989-9789 Fax: (909) 989-9660 STATE:COUNTY:CITY: FILE NAME:SHEET:OF JOB REF. NO.: DATE: SURVEYED BY:SURVEY DATE:DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY: REMAINDER PARCEL PORTION OF LOT 10 PER MB 36/37-38 RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAN BERNARDINO CA N/A N/A M. BONILLA M. GRUGINSKI S. BENNETT 2024-621 2 2 01/27/2025 2024-621_V-EXH 02_Lot 10 Remainder.dwg CURVE TABLE CURVE #LENGTH RADIUS DELTA EXHIBIT "B" LEGEND: MAP REFERENCE: P.O.B. ABBREVIATIONS: REMAINDER PARCEL AREA: P.O.T. Page 153 DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager Zack Neighbors, Director of Building and Safety Services Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer SUBJECT:Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1038 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 3.80 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR FIRE IMPACTS OF RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.68 TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO QUIMBY ACT IN LIEU FEES, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1038. BACKGROUND: The introduction and first reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was conducted at the Regular Council meeting of April 16, 2025. Votes at first reading: AYES: Kennedy, Hutchison, Scott, Stickler, Michael. ANALYSIS: Please refer to the April 16, 2025, City Council staff report. FISCAL IMPACT: Please refer to the April 16, 2025, City Council staff report. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Please refer to the April 16, 2025, City Council staff report. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Proposed Ordinance No. 1038 (Fire DIF Program and Park Impact Fee) Attachment 2 – Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1038 (Fire Impact Fee - Chapter 3.80) Attachment 3 – Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 1038 (Park Impact Fee) Page 154 Ordinance No. 1038 - Page 1 of 4 5 6 1 7 ORDINANCE NO. 1038 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 3.80 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR FIRE IMPACTS OF RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.68 TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO QUIMBY ACT IN LIEU FEES, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT I. Recitals. A. The Mitigation Fee Act contained in Government Code 66000 et seq., permits the City to impose development impact fees on new development for the purposes of funding the public facilities necessary to serve that new development. B. The City desires to update existing impact fees and expand the categories of fees that the City seeks to impose on new development to more fully and appropriately fund the costs associated with increased demand for certain public facilities throughout the City. C. Rancho Cucamonga has a park impact fee, authorized by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (“RCMC”) Chapter 3.68. Chapter 3.68 contains outdated references to an in-lieu fee for land dedications for subdivisions, which are authorized under the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) but not imposed by the City, see RCMC 16.28.020 and Chapter 16.32. The City therefore desires to remove the references to Quimby Act in lieu fees in Chapter 3.68. This change is an administrative clean up and in no way impacts the authorized park facilities development impact fee. D. Rancho Cucamonga does not have an existing fire impact fee. The City therefore desires to establish an impact fee for fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus and equipment provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) to all development in the City. E. NBS Government Finance Group has prepared the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Impact Fee Nexus Study dated February 20, 2025 (“NBS Nexus Study”). The NBS Nexus Study covers the Park Impact Fees, Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee, and a new Fire Impact Fee. A copy of the NBS Nexus Study shall be on file with the City Clerk and available during regular City business hours for public inspection. F. The NBS Nexus Study identifies the purpose of the Fire Impact Fee, the use to which the Fire Impact fee will be put, demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee will be imposed and provides how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 155 Ordinance No. 1038 - Page 2 of 4 5 6 1 7 G. The City has complied with the notice and hearing requirements of state law and the Mitigation Fee Act prior to adopting this Ordinance, and a notice of public hearing on the development impact fees was mailed as required by law to any interested party who filed a written request with the City Clerk for mailed notice of a meeting on new or increased fees. H. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at the April 2, 2025, Regular Council meeting to consider the NBS Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan, and establishment of updated development impact fees, including establishment of the fire impact fee. I. The City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the NBS Nexus Study, the City’s General Plan, ordinances and resolutions, the staff report, written correspondence received by the City, and the testimony received at the hearing prior to the adoption of this Ordinance contain substantial evidence to support the imposition and collection of the development impact fee established herein. J. The City Council has reviewed and considered the fire impact fee established herein and finds that the fee will mitigate some of the impacts associated with additional capital and infrastructure needs necessitated by new residential and business development in the City. II. Findings. A. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part I, of this Ordinance, are true and correct. B. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This action is not a project within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) and 15061(b)(3) as it has no potential for physical effects on the environment because it involves an adoption of certain fees and/or charges imposed by the City, does not commit the City to any specific project, and said fees and/or charges are applicable to future development projects and/or activities, each of which future projects and/or activities will be fully evaluated in full compliance with CEQA when sufficient physical details regarding said projects and/or activities are available to permit meaningful CEQA review (see CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(b)(1)). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the creation of government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a “project” under CEQA. Therefore, approval of the fees and/or charges is not a “project” for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378(b)(4); and, even if considered a “project” under CEQA, is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approval of the fees and/or charges may have a significant effect on the environment. C. The City Council by separate Resolution No. 1038 adopted the NBS Nexus Fee Study, and the findings contained therein with respect to the adoption of a Fire Impact Fee which are included below. As provided on pages 8-11 to 8-12 of the NBS Nexus Study: i. Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development in the City on the need for facilities, apparatus and equipment provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD). Page 156 Ordinance No. 1038 - Page 3 of 4 5 6 1 7 ii. Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional facilities, apparatus and equipment to mitigate the impact of new development in the City on the need for those facilities. iii. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional facilities, apparatus and equipment to serve the added demand for fire protection and other emergency services associated with new development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. iv. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development in the City increases the demand for fire protection and other emergency services provided by the Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Without additional facilities, apparatus and equipment, the increase in demand associated with new development would negatively impact the ability of RCFPD the to provide services efficiently and effectively to all development in the City. v. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the fire impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that project. The fees per square foot for residential development and the fees per unit of non-residential development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated calls for service per unit per year associated with that type of development in the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the overall need for facilities, apparatus and equipment used by RCFPD to serve development in the City. D. The City Council by separate Resolution No. 1038 adopted the fee amount for the Fire Impact Fee, as supported by the NBS Nexus Study, in accordance with proposed Municipal Code section 3.80.050. III. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 3.80 is hereby added to Title 3 (“Revenue and Finance”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 2. Chapter 3.68 of Title 3 (“Revenue and Finance”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to remove references to in lieu fees or land dedication requirements for certain residential subdivisions authorized by the Quimby Act but not imposed by the City and to make other revisions to read as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto. SECTION 3. All impact fees within the City shall be charged in accordance with applicable law in effect at the time the fee is imposed. As of the time of this ordinance’s adoption, an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. Accessory dwelling units of 750 square feet or less shall not be charged development impact fees by the City. Page 157 Ordinance No. 1038 - Page 4 of 4 5 6 1 7 SECTION 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take other actions on behalf of City, which are not expressly and specifically reserved for the City Council, to implement and effectuate this ordinance. The City Clerk is directed to codify this ordinance in a manner which best reflects the legislative intent of the City Council in enacting this ordinance. The City Clerk is directed to resolve any numbering conflicts accordingly. SECTION 5. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance for any reason be held invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published or posted as required by law. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ______________, 2025. _____________________________________ L. Dennis Michael Mayor I, KIM SEVY, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the _____ day of _______________, 2025, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ______ day of ______________, 2025, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST:______________________________ City Clerk Page 158 Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1038 CHAPTER 3.80 FIRE IMPACT FEE § 3.80.010. Purpose. The city council finds that the purpose of the Fire Impact Fee hereby enacted is to prevent new residential and commercial/industrial development from reducing the quality and availability of public services provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential and business development to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of fire assets, including facilities, apparatus and equipment provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) in the city. The city finds: A. Fire services, facilities and equipment are needed to serve future development in the city. B. Fire services serve the entire residential and business population. C. The need to expand the existing fleet of fire vehicles and equipment will be necessary as the population continues to grow. D. These fees apply to all residential and business development. E. Revenue from the impact fees may be used to expand the availability of fire assets in the city through the acquisition or improvement of real property; or the acquisition, construction or expansion of buildings, furnishings, equipment or any of these. F. New residential and business development within the city imposes a burden on the existing fire facilities by adding additional population. G. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus and equipment is calls for service per year. H. As set forth in the Study, fire impact fees paid by new development are based on the system plan method because fire protection and emergency response are provided by an integrated system of assets and the best time to assess the overall relationship between development and service demand is at the point when all of the assets and all of the development will be in place. I. Since assisted living facilities are allowed in some residential zoning districts with a conditional use permit; and residents of those facilities do make use of fire services, impact fees will apply to new development of these types of facilities. J. The cost per capita will be applied to future population to compute impact fees per unit. K. Impact fees for other specialized development types should be calculated in the same way, if the need arises. L. The fee established by this chapter is in addition to any other fees or charges or taxes that are required by law as a condition of development. M. The period of greater than 10 days prior to adoption of this chapter, data has been available to the public, and to developers and their representative, indicating the cost or estimated cost of the infrastructure to be funded, the revenue sources anticipated and means of spending these costs. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 159 Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1038 § 3.80.020. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the meanings set forth below: “Business Development” means all Non-Residential Development subject to the fee, as further described and set forth in the Study. "Businesses" includes all commercial/industrial, hotel/motel, and office units. "City/service area" means the entire city. "Dwelling unit" includes each single-family dwelling, each unit of an apartment, duplex dwelling group or multiple dwelling structure or condominium or planned residential development as a separate habitat for one or more persons or each mobilehome space designed to contain a mobilehome trailer on a semi-permanent or permanent basis. "Equipment/material" includes all necessary materials that are required for the proper operation of the facility for which this fee is imposed as defined in the study. "Facilities" means those fire facilities, land, improvements, or infrastructure of RCFD located in the city. "Person" includes every person, firm or corporation constructing a dwelling unit directly or through the services of any employee, agent or independent contractor. "Residential development" includes all buildings or dwelling units constructed for the first time on open land or when existing structures are remodeled and added to or otherwise altered to increase the number of dwelling units. "Study" means the current development impact fee study on file in the city's engineering services department that supports the fee resolution adopted pursuant to section 3.80.050. § 3.80.030. Establishment and administration of Fire Impact Fees. The city council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and the need for facilities of development projects on which they are imposed and established a fire impact fee upon business and residential development. § 3.80.040. Payment. The fee imposed by this chapter shall be due and payable no sooner than issuance of building permits and no later than issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit(s) subject to the fee. No certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued until the development fee has been paid in full. The amount of the fee shall be calculated at the time the fee is paid, based upon the rate then in effect. § 3.80.050. Fees. The fees imposed by this chapter shall be set by resolution of the city council. § 3.80.060. Fee exemptions. In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees. § 3.80.070. Use of fees. Page 160 Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1038 The city council finds that there is established a fire impact fee fund where all sums collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited. All fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in this fund. All fire impact fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be forwarded to the RCFD by the city no less than on an annual basis. All fees so forwarded shall be deposited in a restricted account of the RCFD and all moneys deposited in such account together with any interest earned thereon shall be used only for the purposes of providing additional facilities, apparatus and equipment to mitigate the impact of new development in the city on the need for those facilities. § 3.80.080. Severability. If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall affect the other provisions of this chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or its application, and to this end, the provisions of this chapter are severable. Page 161 Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 1038 11231-0001\3061663v5.doc CHAPTER 3.68 PARK IMPACT FEES § 3.68.010. Purpose. The city council finds that the purpose of the Park Impact Fees hereby enacted is to prevent new residential development from reducing the quality and availability of public services provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of park and recreation assets in the city. The city finds: A. The need for two types of development fees for parks: Fees for park land acquisition and fees for park improvement. B. The need for fees to serve future development in the city without placing a burden on existing resources. C. The general plan has been adopted containing specific policies and standards for parks and recreation facilities. D. The demand factor for each type of residential development is the average population per unit for that type because the need for parks in a community is almost always based on population. E. The total acreage of improved city-owned park land will be used to determine the existing level of service for purposes of calculating impact fees for park land acquisition and park improvements. F. Impact fees for other specialized development types should be calculated in the same way, if the need arises. G. The period of greater than ten days prior to adoption of this chapter, data has been available to the public, and to developers and their representative, indicating the cost or estimated cost of the infrastructure to be funded, the revenue sources anticipated and means of spending these costs. § 3.68.020. Definitions. "City/service area" means the entire city. "Dwelling unit" includes each single-family dwelling, each unit of an apartment, duplex dwelling group or multiple dwelling structure or condominium or planned residential development as a separate habitat for one or more persons or each mobilehome space designed to contain a mobilehome trailer on a semi-permanent or permanent basis. "Facilities" means those park and recreation facilities, land, improvements, or infrastructure located in the city. ATTACHMENT 3 Page 162 -2- 11231-0001\3061663v5.doc "Person" includes every person, firm or corporation constructing a dwelling unit directly or through the services of any employee, agent or independent contractor. "Residential development" includes all dwelling units constructed for the first time on open land or when existing structures are remodeled and added to or otherwise altered to increase the number of dwelling units. "Study" means the current development impact fee study on file in the city's engineering services department that supports the fee resolution adopted pursuant to section 3.68.050. § 3.68.030. Establishment and administration of Park Impact Fees. The city council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and the need for facilities of development projects on which they are imposed. A. The finance director shall establish park improvement impact fee and park land acquisition impact fee funds, (collectively "Park Impact Fees"). All fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in this fund and shall be expended to provide additional parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. B. A fee is imposed in the amounts set forth in this chapter and shall be applicable to every dwelling unit as defined in section 3.68.020 constructed in the city after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter and shall be known as the Park Impact Fee. § 3.68.040. Payment. The fee imposed by this chapter shall be due and payable no sooner than issuance of building permits and no later than issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit(s) subject to the fee. No certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued until the development fee has been paid in full. The amount of the fee shall be calculated at the time the fee is paid, based upon the rate then in effect. § 3.68.050. Fees. The fees imposed by this chapter shall be set by resolution of the city council. § 3.68.060. Fee exemptions. In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees. § 3.68.070. Use of fees. The city council finds that there is established a Park Fund where all sums collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited and shall be used to provide additional parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City as set forth in the Study Those public facilities and other assets are identified in the Study. Page 163 -3- 11231-0001\3061663v5.doc § 3.68.080. Severability. If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall affect the other provisions of this chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or its application, and to this end, the provisions of this chapter are severable. Page 164 DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Erika Lewis-Huntley, Management Analyst III SUBJECT:Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1039 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.84 TO TITLE 10 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING THE USE OF BICYCLES AND E-CONVEYANCES IN PUBLIC AREAS RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1039. BACKGROUND: The introduction and first reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was conducted at the Regular Council meeting of April 16, 2025. Votes at first reading: AYES: Kennedy, Hutchison, Scott, Stickler, Michael. ANALYSIS: Please refer to the April 16, 2025 City Council staff report. FISCAL IMPACT: Please refer to the April 16, 2025 City Council staff report. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Please refer to the April 16, 2025 City Council staff report. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 1039 Page 165 Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 1 of 7 ORDINANCE NO. 1039 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.84 TO TITLE 10 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING THE USE OF BICYCLES AND E- CONVEYANCES IN PUBLIC AREAS WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) is committed to ensuring the public health, safety, and welfare of all its residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes the importance of fostering sustainable transportation options while maintaining public safety and accessibility for all users of public spaces; and WHEREAS, bicycles and e-conveyances (electric bicycles, scooters, and similar devices) have become increasingly popular modes of transportation and recreation within the City; and WHEREAS, the use of bicycles and e-conveyances in public spaces presents both benefits and challenges, including safety concerns for riders, pedestrians, and motorists; and WHEREAS, the City has observed a significant increase in traffic incidents involving e- conveyance users and motor vehicles with their increasing popularity, often due to higher speeds and unsafe riding practices; and WHEREAS, the public has expressed concerns regarding the unsafe operation of e- conveyances, including reckless riding behaviors that pose risks to riders, pedestrians, drivers, and others in public spaces; and WHEREAS, the City aims to promote the safe use of bicycles and e-conveyances by implementing regulations that align with state law and best practices in transportation safety; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to educating its residents and visitors on the safe operation of bicycles and e-conveyances to prevent accidents and other traffic hazards and promote responsible use of these transportation modes; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that providing clear guidelines for the operation of bicycles and e-conveyances in public spaces will improve the quality of life for all residents and visitors. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Chapter 10.84 is hereby added to Title 10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows: ATTACHMENT 1 Page 166 Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 2 of 7 “Chapter 10.84 – REGULATING THE USE OF BICYCLES AND E-CONVEYANCES 10.84.010 – Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth in this section: “Bicycle” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 231, as it may be amended from time to time. “Bicycle Lane” has the same meaning as defined in Street and Highways Code Section 890.4, as it may be amended from time to time. “Bicycle Path or Bicycle Trail” has the same meaning as defined in Street and Highways Code Section 890.4 and California Vehicle Code Section 231.5, as the provisions may be amended from time to time. “E-Conveyance” means any electric bicycle or e-bike, electric scooter, electrically motorized skateboard, or other device that is designed to convey one or more people and is capable of being powered by human propulsion or electric motor propulsion. “Electric Bicycle” or “E-Bike” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 312.5, as it may be amended from time to time, and which, as of the date of the adoption of this section, provides that an “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts, and are categorized under Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3. “Electrically Motorized Skateboard” has the same meaning as defined in the California Vehicle Code Section 313.5, as it may be amended from time to time. “Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 313, as it may be amended from time to time. “Minor” means any person under the age of eighteen. “Narrow Width Lane” means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. “Off-Highway Motorcycle” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 436, as it may be amended from time to time. “Pedestrian” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 467, as it may be amended from time to time. "Public area" means any outdoor area, public alley, parkway, public transportation path, roadway, Page 167 Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 3 of 7 right-of-way, sidewalk, park, trail, paseo, pathway or street that is owned, granted by easement, operated or controlled by the City. “Unsafe manner” is defined as an act in violation of the City Municipal Code, California Vehicle Code, or any other applicable state or federal law. For purposes of this section, operation of a bicycle or e-conveyance in an “unsafe manner” also includes operating in such a way that constitutes a danger to the operator, passenger, other motorist, other rider, pedestrian, or property. “Vehicle” has the same meaning as in California Vehicle Code Section 670, as it may be amended from time to time. 10.84.020 Operation. A.No person shall ride a bicycle or e-conveyance in an unsafe manner, as defined under Section 10.84.010, on any publicly owned property, including but not limited to a public street, sidewalk, public right of way, park, bicycle path, trail, or lane, or any other public area open for vehicle or pedestrian travel. Examples of riding in an unsafe manner include, but are not limited to, the following actions: 1. Riding on a public street or bikeway against the flow of traffic. 2. Not yielding to vehicles or pedestrians when required. 3. Operating an e-conveyance in a manner it was not designed for, including carrying passengers when not designed for carrying passengers. 4. Failing to obey posted traffic or other signs. 5. A person under the age of 18 riding without a properly fitted and fastened helmet. 6. Engaging in racing, speed, or stunt contests. 7. Carrying any package, bundle, item or article which prohibits the operator from having full control and forward visibility at all times. 8. Operating a bicycle or e-conveyance at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing taking into account the weather, pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and the surface and width of the sidewalk or roadway. 9. Performing any acrobatics, tricks, wheelies, or stunts when pedestrians or moving vehicles are present. B.Any person operating a bicycle or e-conveyance upon a street at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such a time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations: 1.When overtaking and passing another bicycle, e-conveyance, or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; 2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; 3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, other e-conveyances, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface Page 168 Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 4 of 7 hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge; or 4. When operating as close as practicable to the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway on a one-way street. C.Persons riding or operating bicycles or electric bicycles shall not ride more than two abreast, except on paths or parts of a roadway set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. D.Any person operating a bicycle or e-conveyance who is emerging from an alley, driveway, bicycle path, building or otherwise approaching upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area, shall yield the right-of-way to all pedestrians on such sidewalk or sidewalk area, and upon entering a bicycle lane, highway, or street shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles, bicycles, or e-conveyances on the roadway. E.No person shall operate a bicycle or e-conveyance in any City park, except on paved paths or trails that are specifically designated for bicycle or e-conveyance use. The operation of bicycles or e-conveyances is strictly prohibited on dirt, grass, athletic fields, landscaped areas, or any other non-designated surfaces within any City park. F.No person shall operate a bicycle or e-conveyance in any parking lot of any property owned or operated by the City. Within such parking lots, bicycles or e-conveyances must be walked, not ridden. G.No person shall operate a bicycle or e-conveyance while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device unless the wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, and it is used in that manner while riding. H.No person shall operate a bicycle or electric bicycle on any sidewalk, except: 1. A person may ride a bicycle or electric bicycle on any area designated as a driveway; 2. Any area designated as a bikeway by the City Council; or 3. To avoid a dangerous situation on the road or an obstacle. 10.84.030 Electric Off-Highway Motorcycles. A. No person shall operate an electric off-highway motorcycle of any model (e.g., Sur-Ron, Talaria, E Ride Pro) on any publicly-owned property, including but not limited to, a public street, sidewalk, public right of way, park, bicycle path or trail, or any other public area open for vehicle or pedestrian travel. B. Electric off-highway motorcycles are only allowed to be operated in areas specifically designated for off-highway vehicle recreation, or on private property with the express permission of the property owner. Unlike electric bicycles or mopeds, such vehicles are not eligible for highway Page 169 Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 5 of 7 registration and cannot be retrofitted for on-road use unless originally manufactured and certified for dual-purpose operation. 10.84.040 Equipment. A.Every bicycle, including electric bicycles, when operated within the City, shall comply with all of the equipment requirements contained in California Vehicle Code Section 21201. B.Any minor operating or riding as a passenger upon a bicycle or e-conveyance in a public area or any other place open to the public for vehicle and pedestrian travel must wear a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet. C.Any operator or passenger of a Class 3 electric bicycle, regardless of age, must wear a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 21213. 10.84.050 Parking. No person shall temporarily leave unaccompanied, abandon, or park a bicycle or e-conveyance in a manner that obstructs vehicular traffic, the pedestrian travel way of any sidewalk or pedestrian path, or on public property in violation of any government sign prohibiting parking of bicycles or e- conveyances at a location. 10.84.060 Enforcement. A. Any person, including a minor, who violates the provisions of this Chapter shall be subject to penalties, fines, and enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 1.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. B. Violations by Minors 1.The parent of any child, and the guardian of any ward, shall not authorize or knowingly permit any minor child or ward to violate any of the provisions of this Chapter. 2.In the case of a minor committing a violation under this Chapter, the parent or guardian may be held responsible for the violation and any associated penalties or fines. 3.If the minor’s activities result in damage to public property, the City may, pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1714.1, pursue a civil complaint against the minor’s parent(s) or guardian(s) having custody and control of the minor for every tort resulting in property damage. C.Impoundment 1.In addition to all other available penalties, the Enforcement Officer shall have the authority to take immediate possession of and transport a bicycle or e-conveyance for safekeeping to the nearest City facility if an unaccompanied minor is found in violation of any provisions of this Chapter, and the unsafe manner in which the device was operated constitutes an immediate danger Page 170 Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 6 of 7 to the health and safety of the juvenile operator or to members of the public, thus constituting an exigent circumstance. 2.The impounded device shall be released by the City to the parent or legal guardian of the minor if the individual owns the device. 3.Upon impoundment of any e-conveyance device under this Chapter, the minor shall be issued a receipt. Said receipt shall state the days, business hours, location, and process by which the owner may claim the impounded device within 30 days. The citation receipt shall also explain that unclaimed devices impounded for longer than 30 days will be disposed subject to an opportunity for a pre-disposal hearing or sold at an auction in accordance with laws governing the disposal of abandoned property. 10.84.070 Exemptions. A. First responders, as defined under California Government Code Section 8562, are exempt from this Chapter while in the performance of their duties. B. This Chapter is not intended to apply to or otherwise restrict electric personal assistive mobility devices used in a safe manner by physically disabled persons as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.) and section 36.311 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” SECTION 2: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable. SECTION 3: CEQA. The City Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that the regulations for bicycles and e- conveyances will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, this Ordinance is not subject to CEQA under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) because the Ordinance is an activity that is not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. SECTION 4: Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. Page 171 Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 7 of 7 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2025. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATTEST: Kim Sevy, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 16th day of April 2025, and was passed at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 7th day of May, 2025. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Executed this 8th day of May 2025, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Kim Sevy, City Clerk Page 172 DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Julie A. Sowles, Deputy City Manager-Community Programs Jennifer Hunt Gracia, Community Services Director Jonathan Hilton, Management Analyst I Jennelle Markel, Community Services Supervisor SUBJECT:Consideration of Introduction and First Reading by Title Only of Ordinance No. 1040, an Ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Amending Section 5.08.100 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Amend the Limitation on Total Value of Prizes Awarded During the Conduct of Bingo Games. This Action is Not Considered a Project Under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and is Therefore Exempt from Further Environmental Review. (ORDINANCE NO. 1040) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the consideration of introduction and first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1040, an Ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, amending Section 5.08.100 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to amend the limitation on total value of prizes awarded during the conduct of bingo games. BACKGROUND: Currently, Section 5.08.100 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code sets a fixed maximum prize limit of $250 per bingo game. This limit is significantly lower than the amount permitted under California Penal Code Section 326.5, which authorizes substantially higher prize values. Due to the current standing of Municipal Code Section 5.08.100, Rancho Cucamonga-based organizations that operate bingo games face a distinct competitive disadvantage compared to organizations in neighboring jurisdictions, where prize limits are either higher or aligned directly with state guidelines. This competitive imbalance may discourage participants from attending local bingo events, subsequently reducing potential revenues and limiting the growth opportunities of these organizations. California Penal Code Section 326.5 specifically states: "The total value of prizes awarded during the conduct of any bingo game shall not exceed five hundred dollars ($500) in cash or kind, or both, for each separate game which is held." The current Rancho Cucamonga ordinance restricts prizes to $250 per game, creating a noticeable disparity between local and state regulations. By adopting the state-permitted limit, Rancho Cucamonga will align directly with state law, thereby eliminating this competitive disadvantage. Page 173 Page 2 2 7 7 0 ANALYSIS: By updating Rancho Cucamonga’s Municipal Code Section 5.08.100, the City is affording the opportunity for all local bingo operations to match the state-permitted prize levels in an effort to provide the best in local gaming prizes. Resultingly, these organizations can attract and maintain greater participation rates, encouraging both residents and visitors from neighboring communities to engage with Rancho Cucamonga's events. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This ordinance aligns with the City Council's strategic priorities by fostering collaboration among community stakeholders, enhancing respectful engagement with residents and community groups, and supporting proactive planning and decision-making to accommodate the evolving needs of the Rancho Cucamonga community. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 1040 Page 174 ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1040 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 5.08.100 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND THE LIMITATION ON TOTAL VALUE OF PRIZES AWARDED DURING THE CONDUCT OF BINGO GAMES The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 5.08.100 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: “Each organization holding a license under this chapter shall conduct bingo games in accordance with the following requirements: A. No minor shall be allowed to participate in any bingo games; B. The licensee shall conduct bingo games on property as listed on the license application form; C. All bingo games shall be open to the public, not just to the members of the licensee organization; D. A bingo game shall be operated and staffed only by members of the licensee organization. No person shall receive or pay a profit, wage or salary from any bingo game; E. No individual, corporation, partnership or other entity except the licensee organization shall hold a financial interest in the conduct of such bingo game; F. No person who is obviously intoxicated shall be allowed to participate in a bingo game, and no alcoholic beverage shall be allowed to be consumed in the room in which the bingo game is being conducted; G. No person shall be allowed to participate in a bingo game, unless a person is physically present at the time and place at which the bingo game is being conducted; H. The total value of prizes awarded during the conduct of any bingo games shall not exceed the total value set forth in California Penal Code Section 326.5, in cash or kind, or both, for each separate game which is held. I. No licensee shall conduct bingo games more than two days per calendar week and more than six hours out of any 24-hour period. No bingo game shall be conducted before 10:00 a.m. nor after 11:59 p.m. of any day.” SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that adoption of this Ordinance does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that the regulations of bingo games will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, this Ordinance falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such Page 175 5 5 0 1 decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ______________, 2025. _____________________________________ L. Dennis Michael Mayor I, KIM SEVY, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the _____ day of _______________, 2025, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ______ day of ______________, 2025, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST:______________________________ City Clerk Page 176 Amending Section 05.08.100 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Recommendation Recommendation o Amend Section 5.08.100 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code o Max Payout per Bingo Game to Mirror California Penal Code Section 326.5. Background Background: •Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Caps Payout at $250 per Bingo Game. •Payout Limit Considerably Lower Than California State Penal Code Allowance of $500 / Bingo Game. •Current Payout Limit Constricts Bingo Game Attendance Rates, Resultingly Restricting Revenue Generation. Analysis Analysis: •Updating Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 5.08.100 to Mirror California Penal Code Section 326.5 Will Increase the Payout per Game Limit...Resulting in: Increased Participation Rates Higher Revenue Generation Greater Community Cohesion & Civic Engagement Alignm ent to Council Goals Fostering Collaboration Among Community Stakeholders Enhancing Respectful Engagement with Residents and Community Groups Supporting Proactive Planning and Decision Making Questions ? DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Chris Ellis, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT:Consideration of a Resolution to Create a Residential Permit Parking District on Salerno Place, Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10.50. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-013) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2025-013 to establish the “Salerno Place, et al.” residential permit parking district on Salerno Place. BACKGROUND: Salerno Place is located within Tract 13442, situated north of Victoria Park Lane between Rochester Avenue and Milliken Avenue. Development of Tract 13442 began in 1987. This street, which consists of 13 single-family homes, is served by residential local streets that intersect with Victoria Park Lane, providing access to the City’s street network. In 1988, development began on Kenyon Park, located on the south side of Kenyon Way between Milliken Avenue and Rochester Avenue. Parking along Salerno Place is currently restricted (i.e. no parking allowed) on weekdays from 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM, and on weekends from 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM to help manage parking impacts due to adjacent park activities. The current restrictions, however, are no longer effectively addressing the parking concerns in the area. ANALYSIS: In late 2024, residents of Salerno Place contacted staff to express concerns regarding ongoing nuisance activities and repeated violations of existing parking regulations. These violations included illegal on-street parking, littering in the roadway and parkways, blocked mailboxes, and obstructed driveways, all of which raised public safety concerns. According to residents, these violations are primarily associated with individuals participating in activities at Kenyon Park and vehicles driven by individuals from outside the immediate neighborhood. In response, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department was contacted to issue citations and remove vehicles parked in violation of the current restrictions within the proposed permit parking district. As a response to fully understand that situation, staff completed field assessments of the area and observed that the parking lot serving Kenyon Park typically has ample available spaces, however many drivers choose to park on nearby residential streets, such as Salerno Place, in an effort to be closer to the baseball field. Page 177 Page 2 2 8 0 4 In addition to the above-mentioned violations, residents have also expressed frustration over their inability to park on the street during the hours of current parking restrictions and would like to have more opportunity to park their vehicles on the street near their homes. Following the process outlined in Municipal Code section 10.50, a representative of the neighborhood has submitted a petition showing support from 11 of the 13 addresses (2 vacant) on the street, representing 84.6% of the residents, for the creation of a permit parking district on Salerno Place. The proposed parking district aims to ease parking restrictions for residents by allowing them to park on the street at all hours with a valid permit, while implementing stricter limitations for nonresidents by prohibiting on-street parking entirely. Chapter 10.50.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code requires that the City Council make the following findings prior to adoption of a resolution creating a residential permit parking district: A. Vehicles, operated by persons whose destinations are outside the proposed parking district, do or may substantially and regularly interfere with the use of the majority of available parking spaces for use of residents within the proposed permit parking district; Vehicles parked within the proposed residential permit parking district have been observed to originate from outside the neighborhood and have consistently interfered with residents’ and their guests’ ability to utilize on-street parking. Many of these vehicles are reportedly owned by individuals who do not reside within the immediate area. B. The interference by such vehicles occurs at regular and significant daily or weekly intervals; Significant interference with on-street parking is occurring on a daily basis. C. That such vehicles being driven or parked in the area of the proposed permit parking district cause or are the source of unreasonable noise, traffic hazards, environmental pollution, parking availability for residents, or devaluation of real property in such proposed district; Vehicles parked within the proposed residential permit parking district have been reported to regularly obstruct mailboxes and driveways, and to leave trash on roadways, parkways, and private properties. D. That 75% of the residents within the proposed district desire, agree or request permit parking privileges (unless established by city council action in absence of a petition); The petition requesting the establishment of a residential permit parking district is supported by 11 of the 13 households (2 vacant) within the neighborhood, representing approximately 84.6% of the residents in the proposed district. E. That no unreasonable displacement of vehicles will result into surrounding residential areas; Given Kenyon Park's proximity, it is likely that the potentially displaced vehicles belong to individuals visiting the park. Establishing the proposed permit parking district would Page 178 Page 3 2 8 0 4 encourage non-residents who wish to access Kenyon Park to utilize the designated parking lot that serves the park, rather than relying on nearby residential streets. F. That no alternative solution, other than the establishment of the permit parking district, is practical. The area is currently subject to time-based parking restrictions. In collaboration with community members, staff explored alternative approaches, including a complete prohibition of on-street parking. However, ongoing enforcement of parking violations within the proposed permit parking district has proven both costly and ineffective in deterring noncompliance. Based on these findings, the implementation of a residential permit parking district is determined to be the most appropriate and practical solution to address the ongoing issues and minimize impacts on the neighborhood. Residential permit parking districts have been successfully implemented in other areas of the City and have proven effective in addressing similar concerns. The proposed permit parking district is expected to mitigate the current impacts on the neighborhood and help preserve the community’s quality of life. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of this action is expected to be minimal, limited to the cost of producing parking permits, installing appropriate signage, and administering the permit parking program for an additional 13 residences. The City currently operates several permit parking districts, and this proposed district would follow the same established policies and procedures. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Creation of the proposed permit parking district addresses the City Council’s vision for the City by establishing programs that maintain the high quality of life in local neighborhoods that promote a world class community. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Attachment 2 – Resolution No. 2025-013 Page 179 ATTACHMENT 1 5 6 0 5 VICINITY MAP MI L L I K E N A V E N E U E RO C H E S T E R A V E N E U E VICTORIA PARK LANE KENYON PARK Proposed “Salerno Place” Permit Parking District Page 180 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE “SALERNO PLACE, ET AL.” PERMIT PARKING DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 10.50 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE A. Recitals 1. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 allows a general law city to establish by resolution a preferential parking program by which there is a designation of certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges are given to residents adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their guests. 2. Chapter 10.50 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code permits the establishment of a Permit Parking District in an area in which vehicles operated by persons whose destinations are outside of the proposed Permit Parking District substantially and regularly interfere with the use of the majority of available parking spaces for use by residents. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a map of an area herein referred to as “Salerno Place, et al.”, and also hereinafter referred to as the “Parking District” in which vehicles operated by persons whose destination is outside of the boundaries of the proposed district, substantially and regularly interfering with the use and availability of parking spaces in the Parking District. 4. Substantial evidence has been presented to this Council demonstrating that the persons referred to in Recital 3 above, not only occupy a majority of the parking spaces in the Parking District, but also block access to the Parking District’s residences, disrupt delivery of mail and packages, and deposit trash and litter within the Parking District, and that these activities occur at regular and significant intervals. 5. It is the purpose of this Resolution to establish the Parking District as an area within which parking shall be limited at all times to parking by residents of that Parking District, their guests, and those persons exempt from that limitation pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 10.50.100. 6. Pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 10.50.040, the residents of the proposed Permit Parking District’s petition shall be submitted before the City Council with the City Engineer’s Recommendation and Report which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof. 7. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have been satisfied. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: Page 181 Resolution No. 2025-013 -Page 2 of 5 5 6 0 6 1. This Council hereby finds that all the facts stated in Part A of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based on substantial evidence presented to this City Council including the evidence contained in the staff report, the City Council further finds and determines as follows: A. Vehicles operated by persons whose destinations are outside of the Parking District as defined in Subsection 10.50.020(A) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code substantially and regularly interfere with the use of the majority of parking spaces for use of residents within the Parking District; B. The interference by the vehicles referred to in Paragraph 2(A) above occurs at regular and significant intervals; C. The vehicles referred to in Paragraph 2(A) above cause and are the source of unreasonable noise, traffic hazards, and environmental pollution within the Parking District; D. A petition of the Residents of the proposed Permit Parking District has been received by the City Engineer and said petition was confirmed to have more than 75% of the Residents agree to the establishment of the Permit Parking District. E. No unreasonable displacement of vehicles operated by persons whose destination is outside of the Parking District will result into surrounding residential areas; and F. No alternative solution, other than the establishment of the Permit Parking District is feasible or practical. 3. Based on the findings set forth in Paragraph 2 above, the Parking District is hereby established as a Permit Parking District pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 10.50 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and parking therein is restricted to those residents and their guests possessing permits issued by the City Engineer or his designee and those exempt pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 10.50.100. 4. The City Engineer’s Recommendation and Report has been submitted and the City Council accepts and approves said Recommendation and Report inclusive of Cost of Parking Permits. 5. The City Engineer is hereby instructed to immediately cause appropriate signs to be placed and posted within the Parking District indicating the parking limitations established by this Resolution and to implement and administer the permit process specified in Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Sections 10.50.070 and 10.50.080. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Page 182 Resolution No. 2025-013 -Page 3 of 5 5 6 0 6 EXHIBIT A “Salerno Place, et al.” Permit Parking District The proposed district includes the houses fronting Salerno Place and shall restrict parking on both sides of these streets North of Sorrento Road to vehicles with valid permits or exemptions as defined by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Page 183 Residential Parking Permit Program Page 1 Updated: 1/12/2017 Resolution No. 2025-013 -Page 4 of 5 PERMIT PARKING DISTRICTS PERMIT PARKING DISTRICT PROGRAM The Parking Permit District Program is governed by Section 10.50, “Permit Parking Districts” of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and allows residents of a Permit Parking District special permits that exempt them and their guests from certain on-street parking restrictions. REQUESTING A PERMIT PARKING DISTRICT Requests for creation of a Permit Parking District may be made by submitting a petition signed by at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the residents (one vote per address) within the boundaries of the proposed district (as designated in the petition) to the Engineering Services Department. All requests will be reviewed for conformance with program requirements defined in Section 10.50, “Permit Parking Districts” of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code including the following required findings: •Vehicles, operated by persons whose destinations are outside the proposed parking district, do or may substantially and regularly interfere with the use of the majority of available parking spaces for use of residents within the proposed permit parking district; •The interference by commuter vehicles occurs at regular and significant daily or weekly intervals; •That such vehicles being driven or parked in the area of the proposed permit parking district cause or are the source of unreasonable noise, traffic hazards, environmental pollution, parking availability for residents, or devaluation of real property in such proposed district; •That 75 percent of the residents within the proposed district desire, agree or request permit parking privileges (unless established by city council action in absence of a petition); •That no unreasonable displacement of commuter vehicles will result into surrounding residential areas; •That no alternative solution, other than the establishment of the permit parking district, is feasible or practical. Upon completion of this review, City staff will inform applicants of their findings. Requests that meet program requirements will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The City Council may establish the requested Permit Parking District by adoption of a resolution. LIMITATIONS A parking permit does not exempt a vehicle from Section 10.44.130, "Storage of Vehicles upon Streets", of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. According to Section 10.44.130, a vehicle may not park in the same parking space on a public street for more than seventy-two (72) consecutive hours. As well, parking permits do not exempt a vehicle from Section 10.64.030 "Parking Restriction", of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. According to Section 10.64.030, it is unlawful for any person to park or store any house car, trailer, camp trailer, trailer coach, camper, or boat upon any public street or highway or alley within the City for longer than one hour between the hours of 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM on any day. EXHIBIT B Engineer’s Recommendations Page 184 Residential Parking Permit Program Page 2 Updated: 1/12/2017 Resolution No. 2025-013 -Page 5 of 5 TYPES OF PERMITS AND PROPER DISPLAY The City currently issues a mirror-hanger style permit which shall be hung from the inside rear view mirror, visible from the front of the vehicle. Temporary guest parking permits are to be placed on the dashboard with the printed side visible from the front of the vehicle. OBTAINING PARKING PERMITS Residents living within the boundaries of an established Permit Parking District may apply for parking permits. Proof of residency less than 30 days old is required upon application for permits. A maximum of five (5) parking permits may be issued to residents of a single dwelling unit. Requests for more than five (5) parking permits per address are subject to review by the City Engineer. Parking permits may be obtained in person Monday through Thursday, 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM at City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 or by mailing a copy of your information to the Engineering Services Department at the address listed below. Residents must provide proof of residency less than 30 days old in one of the following forms (originals will be reviewed for proof of residency and returned to the requestor): •Current utility bill, bank statement, credit card bill, or other bill statement that was sent through the mail on a monthly billing cycle •Rental/lease agreement signed within the last 30 days •Proof of property ownership, tax bill or new escrow papers EXPIRATION Parking permits are valid for a period of up to five (5) years. Parking permits currently being issued will expire on July 31, 2025. COSTS •Parking Permit $10 for the first vehicle plus $2 for each additional vehicle (maximum of 5) when registered all at the same time. •Replacement of lost, stolen, or damaged permits $10 each •Temporary Guest Parking Permit Free The cost listed for parking permits is based on the cost of materials and staff time to manage the program and for keeping records. Costs are subject to change. TEMPORARY GUEST PARKING PERMITS Residents living within the boundaries of an established Permit Parking District may apply for Temporary Guest Parking Permits which are valid for one day. If a resident desire more than fifty (50) Temporary Guest Parking Permits for a special event, the resident may apply for a special event permit that will temporarily suspend the need for visitors to display a parking permit. Staff may require that the resident fulfill special conditions, such as notifying neighbors of the special event, and covering the permit parking district regulation signs. FINE FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS •Fine per violation $50 (Fines are subject to change) PROGRAM CONTACT INFORMATION City of Rancho Cucamonga / Engineering Services Department P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2700 Page 185 Salerno Place Residential Permit Parking District Location of Proposed Parking District Kenyon Park Proposed Parking District EXISTING PARKING RESTRICTIONS NO PARKING 3pm – 7pm | Monday to Friday 8am to 12pm | Saturday & Sunday RESIDENT CONCERNS •Vehicles incorrectly parked •Blocking driveways •Blocking mailboxes •Trash on roadways ESTABLISHING A PARKING DISTRICT •Drivers who don’t live in the neighborhood are regularly occupying on- street parking in the neighborhood. •Vehicles parking in the area reduce parking availability for residents. •Designated resident collects signatures from residents (1 per address) •Signed petition from a minimum of 75% of the residents within the proposed district. Findings and Proposed Changes •Parking passes •Installation of (6) signs Minimal Fiscal Impact Support •11 of 13 (84.6%) New Parking Restrictions •Parking By Permit Only Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2025-013 to establish the “Salerno Place, et al.” residential permit parking district on Salerno Place. Questions? DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager Zack Neighbors, Director of Building and Safety Services Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer SUBJECT:Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2025-014, A Resolution of the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Approving a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study for the Transportation Impact Fee, Adopting a Capital Improvement Program as Part of the Nexus Study, Establishing the Fee Amount, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under CEQA. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-014) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Conduct the noticed public hearing to receive comments and testimony from the public on the items being considered; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-014 adopting nexus study and capital improvement program and approving the impact fee for the updated Transportation Development Impact Fee Program including findings in support thereof. BACKGROUND: Impact fees are charges that local governments impose on developers to offset the impacts and cost of new development on public services and infrastructure, such as roads, schools, parks, and emergency services. These fees aim to ensure that growth supports itself financially, rather than placing a burden on existing residents and taxpayers. In recent years, California has faced a housing shortage, driven by high demand and limited supply. To address this crisis, the state has sought to regulate the fees associated with development, ensuring that they are applied in a way that supports housing development and balances infrastructure needs. One key regulation addressing development fees is the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025), which governs how local governments can charge developers impact or mitigation fees to address the effects of new developments on public infrastructure and services. The Mitigation Fee Act has recently been updated with Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602), which in part addresses the application of impact fees on housing projects. Page 186 Page 2 2 8 1 0 The most recent update to the City’s Transportation Development Impact Fees (DIFs) was adopted by Council on December 2, 2020. Construction costs have experienced significant increases from December 2020 to the present, driven by several factors including supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, inflation, and rising prices for materials. Construction inflation has typically outpaced general inflation, with industry-specific inflation in the construction sector often reaching 5 -10% annually. The rising cost of inflation has significant implications for the City's ability to fund and expand the public infrastructure and facilities required to support growth driven by new development. This update is recommended to ensure that the DIFs continue to reflect current costs, are properly apportioned, and meet current legal requirements, so that the City can effectively meet the demands of future growth. This staff report provides an overview of the legal and procedural background for the establishment and implementation of Development Impact Fees, specifically in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025) as most recently amended by Assembly Bill 602, 2019 (AB 602). It outlines the required procedures, methodology, and guidelines for adopting impact fees to mitigate the effects of new development on public infrastructure and services. The goal is to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the costs for public facilities and services that are necessitated by the development, without placing an undue burden on existing residents or taxpayers. DIFs are charges levied on new development projects to fund the construction or expansion of public infrastructure and facilities needed to support the growth generated by the development. Included in the current DIFs are Park Impact Fees, Community and Recreation Impact Fees, Library Impact Fees, Animal Center Impact Fees, Police Impact Fees, and Citywide Transportation Impact Fees which ensures that new development and redevelopment projects will pay their “fair share” towards new and expanded infrastructure and facilities that mitigate the impacts caused by this growth. Mitigation Fee Act: The Mitigation Fee Act provides the legal framework for the imposition of development fees in California. It requires that fees imposed on new development must be reasonably related to the impact caused by the development, and the fee must not exceed the cost of the public facilities or services required to serve the development. AB 602 modified the Mitigation Fee Act to enhance transparency and accountability in the process of collecting and expending development impact fees. AB 602 requires that agencies provide clear and detailed accounting of fees collected and ensure the use of funds aligns with the purpose for which they were intended. The Mitigation Fee Act sets forth the following key provisions regarding the establishment and collection of development impact fees: •Nexus Requirement: The imposition of development impact fees must demonstrate a clear nexus between the proposed fee and the public infrastructure, or services needed to support the development. In other words, there must be a reasonable connection between the fee charged and the impacts of the new development on public facilities. •Proportionality: The fees must be proportional to the impact caused by the development. This means the fee cannot exceed the fair share of the cost of providing necessary infrastructure or services that the development necessitates. Page 187 Page 3 2 8 1 0 •Fee Transparency: The public must be notified of any proposed fees, and a detailed report on the fees must be provided that explains the methodology used to calculate the fees, including the specific improvements that the fees are intended to fund. •Accountability: Fees collected must be used solely for the purpose for which they were collected and must be expended in a timely manner. Unspent fees must be returned to the developers or held in a separate interest-bearing account. The Mitigation Fee Act also requires agencies to follow other requirements, including: •Annual Reporting: Local agencies that collect development impact fees are required to provide an annual report to the public detailing the amounts of fees collected, how the fees have been spent, and the status of any projects funded by the fees. •Five-Year Spending Requirement: Fees must generally be spent within five years of being collected, or the developer is entitled to a refund. This requirement aims to ensure that collected fees are used in a timely manner to address the impacts of development. •Fee Transparency: Agencies must now provide a clear, itemized accounting of the fee amounts collected and the projects funded, making the process more transparent for developers, the public, and other stakeholders. The process for establishing DIFs involves several steps, including data collection, analysis, and stakeholder engagement. A typical methodology for setting up development impact fees includes the following steps: •Assess the Impact: Analyze the types and scale of infrastructure and services needed to serve new development, based on projected growth and land use patterns. •Consult with Relevant Departments: Coordinate with public agencies, including transportation, parks, water, and education departments, to assess facility and service needs. •Nexus Analysis: A Nexus Study is typically required to determine the appropriate amount of the impact fee. The study should demonstrate a clear connection between the new development and the infrastructure, or services required to support it. •Proportionality: The study should also demonstrate that the fees are proportional to the level of service that the new development will require. •Fee Calculation: The fee level is determined based on the estimated cost of infrastructure improvements and the number of new residents or employees that will be generated by the development. Various methodologies can be used, such as: o Level of Services Method: Charges developers for the actual costs of providing facilities or services. o Plan-based Method: Calculates fees based on an adopted capital improvement plan or facility master plan. o System-based Method: Calculates the fees associated with the Fire Development Impact Fee. •Public Review: The public must be given an opportunity to review the proposed fees. This includes a public hearing where stakeholders can provide input. •Adoption of Fees: After the public hearing, the governing body (e.g., City Council) may adopt the fees. •Annual Reporting: An annual report is required to show the fees collected, how the fees have been spent, and the progress of the related capital projects. Page 188 Page 4 2 8 1 0 •Timely Expenditure: Fees must be expended within five years of collection unless a project is delayed for a valid reason. In order to ensure that newly established or updated fees are in alignment with the Mitigation Fee Act, the City contracted with Fehr & Peers, consulting firms with extensive experience in the preparation of nexus studies to prepare the attached nexus study. ANALYSIS: The DIF Program is designed around key projects and improvements outlined in the City’s General Plan. With the enactment of new State laws and updates to existing regulations, the General Plan has undergone revisions to align with these changes. Notably, these updates include provisions to accommodate more than 10,000 new residential units mandated by the State of California over the next eight years, reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) in accordance with State targets, and implement new infrastructure to accommodate new development. These revisions directly affect the City’s DIFs. As a result of these updates, the City’s approach to levying fees has evolved, particularly in response to the new requirements of AB 602, which became effective on January 1, 2022. This legislation mandates that impact fees levied on housing development projects be calculated based on square footage for future units rather than the prior standard of per dwelling unit. A nexus study must evaluate how existing and future residential development can be estimated by square footage or provide justification for why square footage is not relevant in this context, if it does not appropriately reflect the relationship between the fee, facility demand, and residential land use. Additionally, AB 602 requires that, effective July 1, 2022, large jurisdictions adopting a nexus study must also adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the study. To comply with this requirement, the City has prepared an amendment to the Capital Improvement Plan, which is integrated into the Major Projects Program. This amendment has been included in the attached resolution for consideration as part of the process to establish fees under the DIF Program. In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2) of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an explanation must be included Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2). It should be noted that many projects in the proposed program are not evaluated based on level of service but rather are evaluated against appropriate metrics such as population growth. Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan projects significant growth by 2040, with an anticipated future population of approximately 344,835 residents and 110,948 jobs at buildout (Table 9). Such growth is reasonably expected to elevate the demand for transportation infrastructure, increasing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and necessitating enhancements to maintain current service levels. The General Plan outlines a vision for a layered circulation network that accommodates various transportation modes (vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and public transit) across the city. To support this vision, strategic investments in infrastructure are essential to prevent congestion and ensure safe, efficient mobility. Page 189 Page 5 2 8 1 0 Given the projected growth, the City must expand its transportation network proportionally. The General Plan highlights the need for maintaining a LOS D or better for its roadways. Failure to expand infrastructure to meet the additional demands from growth could degrade the service levels of facilities, leading to congestion, safety concerns, and a diminished quality of life for all who rely on the transportation system. Furthermore, this growth exacerbates safety risks by increasing potential conflicts at intersections, pedestrian crossings, and other high-use areas. Consequently, safety improvements – such as intersection enhancements, protected non- motorized facilities, and modernized traffic controls – are essential to maintaining a safe and efficient transportation system while accommodating new development. As outlined in the General Plan and supported by transportation planning principles, developments generate varying impacts on transportation networks. Therefore, the DIF must differentiate this relationship by aligning fees assessed with the projected impacts of each type of future development. Page 190 Page 6 2 8 1 0 Table 9 – Land Use Growth General Plan Existing Year (2018) Current Condition (2024)1 General Plan Buildout Year (2040) Chan ge (2024- 2040) Residents 176,274 191,987 233,887 41,980 Single Family Dwelling Units (SFDU) 37,921 38,997 41,865 2,868 Multifamily Dwelling Units (MFDU)22,874 28,803 44,615 15,812 Employment 89,717 95,507 110,948 15,441 Total Service Populatio n 265,991 287,494 344,835 57,341 1 2024 estimate developed by assuming linear growth between the general plan buildout and the existing conditions of the general plan (e.g. linear growth between 2018 and 2040). In addition to the changes required by AB602 such as levying fees for residential DIFs on a per square foot basis, the Transportation DIF Nexus Study recognizes that the impact on the transportation system from development will be different across the city and that a geographic approach to analyzing impacts, infrastructure needs, and cost distribution is prudent to ensure that the impacts caused by any project are roughly proportional to the projects proposed to mitigate those impacts. To that end, several geographic areas were established to ensure that new development was burdened based on proportion of the program anticipated to benefit development within a specific area. This approach, known as a zone-based fee program, was identified as the most appropriate way to implement a fee program for the city. This study utilized a “band approach or zonal approach” whereby the city was divided into three bands, with a northern, central, and southern zone incorporated into the fee program. The zones were identified based on their predominant east-west travel patterns within the City and the region as identified in the countywide transportation model (SBTAM) and as reported in the SBCTA Travel Trends Community Profile for Rancho Cucamonga prepared by Fehr & Peers in August 2022. Further, the boundaries of the zones align with the travel-sheds of the major east-west travel corridors of SR-210 and Foothill Boulevard. The zones have been identified as shown in the graphic below and are bound as follows: •North Zone – North of 19th Street from the west City Limits to Haven Avenue and north of SR-210 from Haven Avenue to I-15. •Central Zone - South of the North Zone and north of Foothill Boulevard. •South Zone – South of Foothill Boulevard Page 191 Page 7 2 8 1 0 Zonal Approach – North, Central and South Zones The establishment of this Zonal Approach is used to identify improvements and accounts for the interaction of trips between the established zones based on the County’s traffic model. Further, the study identifies the total cost for projects in each zone and the total project cost burden shown in Table 16 of the Fehr & Peers Transportation Nexus Study below: Table 16 – Total Cost of Improvements By Zone Contributions Sub- area Project costs North Central South North $27,302,057 $20,400,379 $4,340,113 $2,561,566 Central $67,221,794 $4,590,764 $52,705,425 $9,925,606 South $228,621,926 $10,614,904 $40,891,246 $177,115,776 Applying the zone-specific contributions to the estimated development potential (total new trips) within the respective zones results in the following costs per trip and per EDU (Equivalent Dwelling Unit) associated with the DIF Program as illustrated in Table 17 of the Fehr & Peers Transportation Nexus Study below: Page 192 Page 8 2 8 1 0 Table 17 – Cost per Trip and Cost per EDU Sub-area ID Total New Trips Total Contributions Cost per Trip Cost per EDU - DIF Balance North 25,034 $35,606,046 $1,422 $13,412 $10,122 Central 51,314 $97,936,783 $1,909 $17,998 $14,708 South 107,085 $189,602,948 $1,771 $16,697 $13,406 Applying the estimated cost per EDU to each land use category, a maximum fee per unit of land use is calculated. Please note that per AB 602 requirements and assessments within this Study, impact fees for proposed residential projects must be assessed proportionally by square feet, adjusted by their relationship to the average size of Single-Family Residential comparable units. Developments near high-quality transit generally produce fewer vehicle trips due to the availability of transit options, which encourages a shift away from car usage. As such, AB 2533 was passed which requires lower impact fees to be assessed in areas where development is close to high quality transit. This bill was codified in Government Code section 66005.1. Multifamily development (Close to Rail) trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) were utilized to estimate the reductions appropriate for development meeting the requirements of the legislation. Please note that, by using ITE rates to develop this adjustment, low-rise multifamily units near high quality transit see a fee reduction of approximately 30% compared to the same development that is not near high quality transit. However, for mid-rise multifamily units, ITE rates show an increase in vehicle trip making for development near transit. To simplify the fee program, a 30% reduction is applied for all residential land use meeting the AB 2533 requirements. Based on the maximum calculated fees from Table 18 and the zonal approach a developer will be able to determine the DIF Program cost for the project based on the location, size, and land use for the project please see the example calculations for a single-family development and a commercial office space development below. Page 193 Page 9 2 8 1 0 Table 18 – Maximum Fee Calculation Land Use Unit EDU Maximum Fee Per Land Use Category by Zone North Zone Central Zone South Zone DU – 2,500 SF (100%)1.00 $10,122 $14,708 $13,406 Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee collection) $4.05 $5.88 $5.36Single Family – Detached* If located in a high-quality transit area** $2.84 $4.12 $3.75 DU – 1,700 SF (100%)0.76 $7,728 $11,230 $10,236 Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee collection) $4.55 $6.61 $6.02Single Family – Attached* If located in a high-quality transit area** $3.19 $4.63 $4.21 DU – 1,700 SF (100%)0.71 $7,235 $10,512 $9,582 Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee collection) $4.26 $6.18 $5.64Multifamil y – (Low- Rise)*If located in a high-quality transit area** $2.98 $4.33 $3.95 DU – 1,700 SF (100%)0.48 $4,873 $7,081 $6,454 Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee collection) $2.87 $4.17 $3.80Multifamil y – (Mid- Rise)*If located in a high-quality transit area** $2.01 $2.92 $2.66 Senior Housing Bed 0.46 $4,626 $6,722 $6,127 Nursing/ Congregate Care Bed 0.23 $2,372 $3,447 $3,142 Commercial/Ret ail** KSF 2.75 $19,466 $28,284 $25,782 Office/Business Park KSF 1.15 $11,636 $16,907 $15,411 Industrial KSF 0.52 $5,227 $7,596 $6,924 Warehouse KSF 0.68 $6,913 $10,044 $9,156 Hotel/Motel Room 0.85 $8,576 $12,462 $11,359 Elementary School Stu 0.24 $2,437 $3,540 $3,227 Day Care Stu 0.43 $4,390 $6,379 $5,815 Self-Storage KSF 0.15 $1,556 $2,262 $2,061 Service Station**Pump 12.77 $90,471 $131,457 $119,826 Page 194 Page 10 2 8 1 0 * For Single Family Residential Units (Detached or Attached), proposed square footage of projects above or below the average size (2,500 square feet for detached, 1,700 square feet for attached and multi-family), shall be responsible for a proportional increase or decrease to the impact fees assessed. (See table and examples for application of fees in the following sections) ** See text description related to 30% reduction for land use in a high-quality transit area that was derived using ITE rates for low- rise multifamily units away from and proximate to transit. Same reduction applied to service station and commercial/retail categories to account for pass-by trips. Steps to Calculate Transporation Impact Fees: Step 1- Determine Project Descripion and Land Use Quantities In this step, the development project is clearly defined by identifying the land use type and its scale. The description should include: Project type: Residential (single-family or multi-family), commercial, industrial, or mixed-use. Land use categories: For example, residential units (number and size of Single-Family Units, Multifamily Units, etc.), office space (square feet), or retail space (square feet). Project size: Specify the quantity in units of the chosen land use category. For residential projects, this will be the number and size of dwelling units (DU). For non-residential projects, this could be square feet (KSF)of office or retail space, or other relevant measures. Step 2 – Apply Transportation Impact Fees Once the land use quantities are identified, the next step is to apply the appropriate transportation impact fee rates. Locate the fee schedule: Use the pre-determined transportation impact fee schedule (Table 18) that outlines the fee rates for different land use categories, such as single-family residential, multifamily, commercial, or industrial. Calculate the total fee: Multiply the number of proposed quantities of land use by the corresponding transportation impact fee rate. Example Calculation Step 1 – Determine Project Description and Land Use Quantities Example: A proposed development includes 100 single-family detached homes averaging 2,000 sq. ft. (200,000 sq. ft.) and 40,000 square feet of office space in the North Zone. \ Page 195 Page 11 2 8 1 0 Step 2 – Apply Transportation Impact Fees Example: If the fee for a single-family detached home is $4.05 per sq. ft., the fee for 200,000 sq. ft. would be: 200,000 sq. ft. × $4.05/sq. ft. = $810,000 Example: If the fee for office space is $11,636 per 1,000 square feet, the fee for 40,000 square feet of office space would be: 40 KSF × $11,636 /KSF = $465,440 Summing up the total fees: After calculating the fees for each land use type, the total transportation impact fee for the project is obtained by adding the individual fees, or $1,275,440. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is an essential metric for assessing transportation impact, especially regarding environmental sustainability and public health. It is now the required metric under California's CEQA and contributes significantly to the City's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan aims to reduce VMT as a core component of its sustainability goals, aligning with state policies to reduce GHG emissions. The completion of projects in the DIF list will increase bike lane mileage per capita, while reducing the number of trail, sidewalk, and road lane miles per capita. Expanding bike lanes is part of the city's strategy to promote active transportation and reduce car dependency, improving air quality and lowering GHG emissions. This aligns with the city's objectives to develop a connected, safe biking environment, enhance access to schools, parks, and transit hubs, and offer an alternative to car travel. The DIF-funded projects are designed not only to accommodate growth but also to manage and reduce VMT. While roadway improvements are necessary, they are balanced with VMT-reducing investments, such as multimodal network enhancements. This strategy ensures that while the city can grow and remain connected, the overall environmental impact remains minimal, with a projected 0.1% reduction in citywide VMT by 2040 which is illustrated in Table 12 of the Fehr & Peers Transportation Nexus Study below: Page 196 Page 12 2 8 1 0 Table 12 – Effects of DIF Projects on Citywide VMT General Plan Buildout (2040) Percent Change from Buildout Citywide VMT 10,730,168 VMT Induced by Capacity Increasing Projects 94,795 0.96% VMT Reduced by Other DIF Projects -105,476 -0.98% Citywide VMT with DIF Implementation 10,719,486 Net Change in Citywide VMT with DIF Implementation -10,682 -0.1% Administrative Fee: The City is required to implement the fee program according to various administrative, accounting, reporting, and public notice responsibilities that are specified in the Government Code. These responsibilities require the expenditure of staff time and often include retaining outside advisory services. The City proposes to include a fee to allow for reasonable cost recovery for these administrative costs and proposes a fee of two and one-half percent (2.5%) which is in line with representative implementation costs including as specified in the “Nexus Study and Residential Feasibility Calculation Templates in fulfillment of AB 602” prepared by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley for the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Communication: The City met the requirements of Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(7) by publishing and sending notice to interested parties 30 days prior to the adoption of the impact fee nexus (30 days prior to the advertised hearing). The City published and sent notice thirty-four (34) days prior to the advertised hearing. The City also made a copy of the Nexus Studies available on the City’s website and a hard copy available at the City Clerk’s office thirty-four (34) days prior to the advertised public hearing. The Public Hearing Notice was advertised twice ten (10) days in advance and at least five (5) days between those dates in the local newspaper. The City met with BIA (Building Industry Association) and other interested parties twice before the previous advertised hearing once in November of 2024 and once in December of 2024 and has had conversations with BIA and interested parties prior to the advertised public hearing date for April 2, 2025. The City has received letters with questions and comments from DVBA (Desert Valley Builders Association), BIA, DPFG (Development Planning & Finance Group) and LLG (Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers) and have provided responses to the questions and comments which have been attached to the Staff Report as Attachment 5. In added, the City Council continued the public hearing initially scheduled for April 2, 2025, to April 16, 2025, for the Non- Transportation Nexus Study, which was approved on April 16,2025 to go into effect on July 1, 2025, and a continued hearing on May 7, 2025, for the Transportation Nexus Study, in order to provide for further communication with interested stakeholders on the fees. Since the continuation of the hearing, staff has met with members and staff of the BIA at least once per week to collaborate on information sharing and adjustments to the nexus study in preparation for the May 7, 2025 hearing. Page 197 Page 13 2 8 1 0 Implementation: During last minute discussions with the Building Industry Association (BIA) prior to the April 16, 2025 hearing on the Non-Transportation fees, concerns were expressed about the prepayment of development impact fees prior to increases taking effect, as well as ensuring a level of certainty for projects with already completed applications. Existing state law, known as SB 330, already provides a process for housing developers to freeze fees at the time of application submittal. The City follows existing state law in this regard with no local changes or additions. The City is also proposing that if approved by the City Council, the proposed Development Impact Fee changes outlined in this report would take effect on July 7, 2025, which meets the timeline required under the Mitigation Fee Act. Fee changes which take effect at the start of a new fiscal year, as are planned in this case, are often easier to notice, apply and update systems. The BIA expressed concerns that existing deemed complete applications in process, should be allowed several years to finish entitlement and move to permits, during which their fees would be grandfathered. The City, however, did not calculate this type of extended multiple year freeze into the Nexus Study and has significant concerns that this could undermine the validity of the Nexus Study calculations. A second issue the BIA expressed concern about was the deadline for deemed complete applications as the BIA was requesting a deadline 30 days after the ordinance takes effect. The City has similar concerns with a rush of applications intended to beat the deadline that could result in thousands of units coming in under the old fees, also undermining the validity of the Nexus Study calculations. In response to the BIA concerns, the City is recommending the following: o Developers with applications submitted prior to close of business on April 16, 2025, and are subsequently deemed complete, may elect to proceed forward under the new or old Development Impact Fee Program. ▪Proceeding forward under the old development impact fee program will be permitted so long as entitlements are received and building permits are pulled prior to July 1, 2026. ▪Proceeding forward under the new development impact fee program, and the payment of fees at the initial rates, prior to issuance of a building permit, will require completion of plans to the point of knowing actual square footages. Otherwise, the option always exists to pay the fees in effect at time of permit issuance or time of certificate of occupancy, however long that might take. o The City finds the adjustments noted above should not create a significant deviation in the nexus study such that further adjustments would be needed. Page 198 Page 14 2 8 1 0 Actions to Update the DIFs: To implement the updated DIF program as proposed, the City Council must: 1) Adopt the Nexus Studies 2) Adopt the CIP 3) Establish the DIF fee amounts Items 1, 2, and 3 above are included in Resolution No. 2025-014, which is included as attachment 2,3 & 4. Staff therefore recommends that the City Council: Adopt A Resolution of the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Approving Development Impact Fee Nexus Studies, Adopting Capital Improvement Programs as Part of the Nexus Studies, Updating and Establishing the Fee Amounts for the City’s Transportation Development Impact Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under CEQA. ENVIRONMENTAL The Project (approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans associated with the Nexus Studies, and the adoption of the development impact fees specified in the Resolution and Ordinance), was reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines. Approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans, and the adoption of the development impact fees specified will not have a significant impact on the environment and are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines because these actions involve the adoption of development impact fees and no specific development is authorized by the adoption of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans, or the adoption of new or updated development impact fees. Furthermore, the Capital Improvement Program is a prioritizing and funding allocation program and cannot and does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. No physical activity will occur until all required environmental review is conducted at the time the physical improvements prioritized in the Capital Improvement Program are undertaken at a future unspecified date. Therefore, the approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans associated with the Nexus Studies, and adoption of the development impact fees does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the adoption of this Project approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects and equipment necessary to maintain service within existing service areas and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15273(a)(4). Also, approval of the Capital Improvement Plans associated with the Nexus Studies, is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because the Plan is not a “project” as defined by CEQA, but involves the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Page 199 Page 15 2 8 1 0 FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts of DIFs on the City’s finances are associated with both increased revenues and expenses. Administrative expenses will be incurred as City staff collect fees and manage the use and application of fee revenues. The City is proposing a two and one-half percent (2.5%) Administrative Fee to cover these costs. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s vision for building upon our past successes to create a world class community by ensuring that the means are available to continue the City’s growth and success. Page 200 Page 16 2 8 1 0 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution No. 2025-014 (DIF Program Fee Update) Attachment 2: Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2025-014 Transportation Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Attachment 3: Exhibit B to Resolution No. 2025-014 Proposed MPP (CIP) Amendment for DIF Program Attachment 4: Exhibit C to Resolution No. 2025-014 Proposed Transportation DIF Fee Schedule Attachment 5: Comment Response Memorandum on Transportation Nexus Study Attachment 6: Attachment to Comment Response Memorandum (DVBA- Transportation) Attachment 7: Attachment to Comment Response Memorandum (BIA) Attachment 8: Attachment to Comment Response Memorandum (DPFG- Transportation) Attachment 9: Attachment to Comment Response Memorandum (LLG- Transportation) Page 201 Resolution No. 2025-014 - Page 1 of 10 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE, ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AS PART OF THE NEXUS STUDY, ESTABLISHING THE FEE AMOUNT, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA A Recitals. 1.The Mitigation Fee Act, contained in Government Code 66000 et seq., permits the City to impose development impact fees on new development for the purposes of funding public facilities necessary to serve that new development. 2.Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 3.28 (“City-Wide System Fees for Transportation”) established the City’s current development impact fee program for Transportation Development Impact Fees. 3.The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code provisions establish the program and the requirements for imposition of development impact fees on development projects, as supported by nexus studies, and in Section 3.28.020 provides that the City Council shall, by resolution, impose the specific amount of development impact fees that will be levied on new development in the City for each category of fee. 4.The City Council now desires to update the Transportation Development Impact Fee on new development to fund the costs associated with the increased demand for such public facilities throughout the City. 5.Fehr & Peers has prepared the Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program Nexus Study dated Aril 30, 2025, included as Exhibit A (“F&P Nexus Study”). The F&P Nexus Study covers the Transportation Development Impact Fee. 6.The F&P Nexus Study identifies the purpose of the fee and the use of the fee, and demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use, the type of development projects where the fee will be imposed, provides how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee, and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development. In addition, the F&P Nexus Study identifies capital projects necessary to meet the goals, programs and objectives within the City’s General Plan. 7.The F&P Nexus Study provides the documentation, detail, and other ATTACHMENT 1 Page 202 Resolution No. 2025-014 - Page 2 of 10 information required by the Mitigation Fee Act as the basis for the adoption and imposition of the Transportation Development Impact Fee. Furthermore, the F&P Nexus Study describes the benefit and impact area on which the development impact fee is to be imposed, lists specific public improvements to be financed through the imposition and collection of the development impact fee, describes the estimated cost of providing the improvements and facilities, describes the reasonable relationship between the development impact fee and the various types of new development, and otherwise satisfies the requirements of the law with regard to the imposition and collection of development impact fee. 8.The facts and evidence presented to the City Council have established that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for new facilities or improvements and the impacts of new development for which a corresponding fee is charged, also that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s uses and the type of development for which the fee is imposed. 9.The City is required to implement the fee program according to various administrative, accounting, reporting, and public notice responsibilities that are specified in the Government Code. These responsibilities require the expenditure of staff time and often include retaining outside advisory services. The City proposes to include a fee to allow for reasonable cost recovery for these administrative costs and proposes a fee of two and one-half percent (2.5%) which is in line with representative implementation costs, including as specified and studied in the “Nexus Study and Residential Feasibility Calculation Templates in fulfillment of AB 602” prepared by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley for the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 10.The City has complied with the notice and hearing requirements of state law and the Mitigation Fee Act prior to adopting the F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan, and fee specified in this Resolution, and a notice of public hearing on the development impact fee was mailed as required by law to any interested party who filed a written request with the City Clerk for mailed notice of a meeting on new or increased fees. 11.The City Council opened a duly noticed public hearing at the April 2, 2025 regular City Council meeting, at which time testimony was presented. Thereafter, the City Council continued the public hearing to the City Council’s regular meeting of May 7, 2025. 12.The City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the F&P Nexus Study, the City’s General Plan, ordinances and resolutions, the staff report, written correspondence received by the City, and the testimony received at the hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution, contains substantial evidence to support the imposition and collection of the development impact fee established herein. Page 203 Resolution No. 2025-014 - Page 3 of 10 13.The City Council has reviewed and considered the development impact fee established herein, and finds that the fee will mitigate some of the impacts associated with additional transportation capital and infrastructure needs necessitated by new residential and non-residential development in the City. B. Resolution. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds and resolves as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts and recitals set forth in Part A of this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated herein as a material part of this Resolution. SECTION 2. CEQA. The approval of the F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan associated with the F&P Nexus Study, and the adoption of the development impact fees specified in this Resolution, was reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that approval of the F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan, and the adoption of the development impact fee specified in this Resolution will not have a significant impact on the environment and are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines because these actions involve the adoption of development impact fees and no specific development is authorized by the adoption of the F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan, or the adoption of new or updated development impact fees. Furthermore, the Capital Improvement Program is a prioritizing and funding allocation program and cannot and does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. No physical activity will occur until all required environmental review is conducted at the time the physical improvements prioritized in the Capital Improvement Program are undertaken at a future unspecified date. Therefore, the approval of the F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan associated with the F&P Nexus Study, and adoption of the development impact fee does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the adoption of this Resolution approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects and equipment necessary to maintain service within existing service areas and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15273(a)(4). Also, approval of the Capital Improvement Plan associated with the F&P Nexus Study, is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because the Plan is not a “project” as defined by CEQA, but involves the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. SECTION 3. Approval of the F&P Nexus Study and Mitigation Fee Act Findings. The City Council hereby approves the F&P Nexus Fee Study, and the findings contained therein which the City Council finds, pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 3.28.020, describe the benefit and impact area on which the development fee is imposed, list the Nexus Improvement Program and its components specifying the public Page 204 Resolution No. 2025-014 - Page 4 of 10 improvements to be financed, describe the estimated cost of the facilities, and describe the reasonable relationship between this fee and the various types of new developments. A copy of the F&P Nexus Study shall be on file with the City Clerk and available during regular City business hours for public inspection. With respect to development impact fee for transportation facilities, the F&P Nexus Study explains (1) the purpose of the impact fee; (2) the use of the impact fee; (3) the reasonable relationship between the use of the impact fee and the development type on which it is imposed; (4) the reasonable relationship between the need for the facilities and the type of development between the need for the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and (5) the reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and facility cost attributable to the applicable development project. The City Council agrees with the findings set forth in the F&P Nexus Study and adopts them as their own as if set forth in full here. SECTION 4. Adoption of a Capital Improvement Program. The City Council hereby adopts the amendments to the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Major Projects Program which contains the City’s Capital Improvement Program as shown in the attached listing included as Exhibit B to this Resolution and as a part of the F&P Nexus Study. SECTION 5. Establishing the Amount of Development Impact Fees. The City Council hereby adopts the development impact fee amounts for the Transportation Impact Fee in accordance with the Amendments to the Master Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference. The Master Fee Schedule shall be amended to contain the fees and amounts identified therein. The City Council is not readopting or revising the existing fees not identified in this Resolution or analyzed in the F&P Nexus Study; all such fees and charges remain in place at the current amount. SECTION 6. Adoption of Methodology for Calculation, Adjustment, and Collection of Development Impact Fees. The City Council adopts the methodology set forth in the F&P Nexus Study for calculating and collecting the development impact fees adopted herein. The amount of the development impact fees shall be adjusted annually in July of each calendar year beginning in 2026, using the Caltrans Construction Cost Index for the Transportation Impact Fee for the twelve-month period ending in May, or a similar published index if the Caltrans Construction Cost Index is no longer available. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make such annual adjustments to certain fees based on an inflationary factors effective July 1 of each year. SECTION 7. Timing of Payment. All development fees shall be paid when required by the applicable provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and in accordance with Government Code section 66007. SECTION 8. Effective Date of Development Impact Fees. The development impact fee established by Section 5 of this Resolution shall be effective on the later of: (i) the sixtieth (60th) day following the adoption of this Resolution or (ii) July 7, 2025. SECTION 9. Elective Delayed Effective Date for Development Impact Fee on Housing Development Projects. Notwithstanding Section 8 above, a housing development project that is the subject of an application for a land use entitlement Page 205 Resolution No. 2025-014 - Page 5 of 10 submitted prior to 5 P.M. on April 16, 2025, and that has been deemed complete or is subsequently deemed complete, may elect to be subject to either: (i) the development impact fee and rates in effect as of April 16, 2025 (“Old DIF Program”); (ii) the development impact fee and rates in effect as of the effective date provided in Section 8 (“New DIF Program”); or (iii) the development impact fee and rates in effect as of the time the fee is paid (or as otherwise provided for under applicable state law). For purposes of this Section 9, a “housing development project” shall have the same meaning as currently provided under Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2). In order for a housing development project to qualify under the Old DIF Program, the land use entitlement(s) that is the subject of the timely application must be approved and a building permit to construct the associated housing development project must be issued prior to July 1, 2026. Thereafter, the housing development project shall be subject to the development impact fee and rates in effect as of the time the fee is paid. In order for a housing development project to qualify under the New DIF Program prior to the issuance of a building permit, the land use entitlement(s) that is the subject of the timely application must be approved and complete development plans must be submitted to the City for plan check showing the square footages of all units prior to July 1, 2026. Thereafter, the housing development project shall be subject to the development impact fee and rates in effect as of the time the fee is paid. The City hereby finds the adjustments noted above will not create a significant deviation in the F&P Nexus Study such that further adjustments would be needed. Any shortfall in funding for improvements identified in the Nexus Study will be paid for by third party sources, such as grant funding or the General Fund. SECTION 10. Administration Fee. The City shall include an Administration Fee in the not to exceed amount of two and one-half percent (2.5%) of the total project cost for the management of the development impact fee program. SECTION 11. Fee Credit. A credit against the amount of the impact fees for a project shall be granted as an offset to the total amount of the project’s impact fees if the project actually constructs any improvement listed in Exhibit C and/or the developer dedicates associated land. Such credit is equal to the estimated value of the improvements and/or dedicated land as outlined in Exhibit C, as adjusted and in effect as of the date the impact fees are calculated.” SECTION 12. No Changes to Other City Fees. Nothing in this Resolution shall repeal, amend or supersede any other City imposed fees except for the amount of specific type and category of development impact fee addressed in the F&P Nexus Study and expressly established by this Resolution. SECTION 13. Severance Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Resolution shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Page 206 Resolution No. 2025-014 - Page 6 of 10 Resolution, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions of this Resolution be declared invalid or unenforceable. SECTION 14. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Page 207 11231-0001\3098298v3.doc PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May 2025 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: __________________________________ L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Kim Sevy, City Clerk I, KIM SEVY, 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 7th day of May 2025. Executed this ___ day of_______, 2025 at Rancho Cucamonga, California _________________________________ Kim Sevy, City Clerk Page 208 11231-0001\3098298v3.doc EXHIBIT A F&P NEXUS STUDY Page 209 11231-0001\3098298v3.doc EXHIBIT B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Page 210 -10- 11231-0001\3098298v3.doc EXHIBIT C AMENDMENTS TO MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Page 211 ATTACHMENT 2 TransportationDevelopment ImpactFee (DIF) ProgramNexus Study Prepared for: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Updated April 30, 2025 OC22-0937.01 Page 212 Table of Contents Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... 1 What is the Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF)?...................................................................1 Who pays the DIF?.......................................................................................................................................................................1 How is the DIF calculated? .......................................................................................................................................................1 How are fees assessed?.............................................................................................................................................................2 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 3 Nexus Study Scope......................................................................................................................................................................3 Regulatory Context......................................................................................................................................................................3 California Government Code...........................................................................................................................................3 California Assembly Bill 602 ............................................................................................................................................4 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)...........................................................................................................5 Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF).....................................................................................5 Other DIF Considerations.................................................................................................................................................5 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................................................6 Data Collection .....................................................................................................................................................................6 Cost Estimation.....................................................................................................................................................................7 Maximum Allowable Fee...................................................................................................................................................8 Other Considerations.........................................................................................................................................................8 Summary of Findings..................................................................................................................................................................9 Fee Structure and Development................................................................................................ 10 Purpose of Impact Fee Program..........................................................................................................................................10 Existing Service Population and Transportation Facilities.................................................................................11 Development Trends........................................................................................................................................................11 Infrastructure Improvements.................................................................................................................................................14 Facility Standards...............................................................................................................................................................14 Infrastructure Changes ....................................................................................................................................................15 Transportation Project List and Estimated Costs ..................................................................................................16 Cost Estimating Assumptions.......................................................................................................................................16 Existing Deficiencies .........................................................................................................................................................17 Nexus Analysis............................................................................................................................. 20 Need................................................................................................................................................................................................20 Benefits...........................................................................................................................................................................................21 Page 213 Cost Allocation............................................................................................................................................................................24 Total Program Costs .................................................................................................................................................................26 Maximum Fee Calculation......................................................................................................................................................27 Fee Implementation.................................................................................................................... 31 Steps to Calculate Transportation Impact Fees .............................................................................................................31 Step 1 – Determine Project Description and Land Use Quantities ................................................................31 Step 2 – Apply Transportation Impact Fees............................................................................................................31 Example Calculation..................................................................................................................................................................32 Step 1 – Determine Project Description and Land Use Quantities ................................................................32 Step 2 – Apply Transportation Impact Fees............................................................................................................32 Program Administration..........................................................................................................................................................32 Program Administration..................................................................................................................................................32 Program Update.................................................................................................................................................................33 Program Reporting ...........................................................................................................................................................33 Unique Land Use Categories.........................................................................................................................................34 Refund Provisions..............................................................................................................................................................34 Grievances ............................................................................................................................................................................34 Appendices................................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix A – Resolution No. 20-122.................................................................................................................................37 Appendix B – Completed DIF Projects List (Resolution No. 20-122).....................................................................38 Appendix C...................................................................................................................................................................................41 DIF Cost Estimates and Soft Cost Assumptions.............................................................................................................41 DIF Project List and Project Cost Estimates.....................................................................................................................50 Appendix D...................................................................................................................................................................................59 General Plan Level Of Service Assessment and Forecasting.....................................................................................59 Page 214 List of Tables Table 1 – Unit Cost Estimates1 ........................................................................................................................................................7 Table 2 – Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 Table 3 – Development Trends.................................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 4 - Trips Between Zones..................................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 5 – Existing Transportation Facilities per Service Population.............................................................................. 15 Table 6 – Projected Facility Need Based on Service Population Growth .................................................................... 15 Table 7 – Development Impact Fee Project Improvements............................................................................................. 16 Table 8 – Cost Adjustments for Deficient Roadway Facilities.......................................................................................... 19 Table 9 – Land Use Growth............................................................................................................................................................ 21 Table 10 – Facility Needs to Maintain Existing Facility Standards ................................................................................. 22 Table 11 – Vehicle Miles Traveled Projections....................................................................................................................... 23 Table 12 – Effects of DIF Projects on Citywide VMT............................................................................................................ 24 Table 13 – Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) and Cost per Square Foot Estimates ................................................... 25 Table 14 – DIF Program Cost Total............................................................................................................................................. 27 Table 15 – Cost per Trip Citywide............................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 16 – Total Cost of Improvements By Zone ................................................................................................................. 28 Table 17 – Cost per Trip and Cost per EDU ............................................................................................................................ 28 Table 18 – Maximum Fee Calculation ....................................................................................................................................... 30 Page 215 Executive Summary What is the Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF)? The Transportation Development Impact Fee Program (“DIF”) is a type of development impact fee created to address the impacts of new residents and workers utilizing transportation-related infrastructure, such as roads, intersections, bridges, as well as facilities that serve transit, pedestrians and/or non-motorized vehicles (e.g., trails, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.). The fee is established such that new development and redevelopment projects will pay their “fair share” towards new and expanded transportation infrastructure and facilities that mitigate the impacts caused by this growth. Who pays the DIF? Development impact fees are paid for by applicants of land use development and redevelopment projects including, but not limited to, residential, office, retail, and industrial uses. How is the DIF calculated? The Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) is calculated based on this Nexus Study prepared per the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Fees established herein follow the fundamental legal tenets of having an essential nexus (relationship), and being roughly proportional, to the impacts which the fee is designed to mitigate. The relationship is drawn between transportation related impacts of future development and the necessary transportation infrastructure improvements, such as roadway expansion and non-motorized transportation facilities, identified to support the increased demand. The costs associated with the identified improvements are then proportionally related to future development quantified by the magnitude of anticipated impacts. As the DIF is a type of development impact fee Page 216 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study program, it is designed to account for the impacts of future developments and does not address existing deficiencies. Specifically, fee programs cannot charge for new development to fix existing deficiencies and, as such, this study needs to identify whether there are existing deficiencies on the system and ensure that the cost to fix those deficiencies is not burdened onto future development. This is typically evaluated related to roadway capacity where a segment or intersection may not be operating at the city’s defined acceptable threshold. In this instance, the full cost of the improvement cannot be burdened onto new development (although new development can be burdened with their “fair share” of the cost of the improvement). How are fees assessed? The DIF fees are assessed based on the anticipated impact of new developments on the transportation infrastructure, calculated using the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) method as land use from the City’s General Plan only includes estimated growth in number of units, not in sq. ft., for residential uses. Assessed fees are proportional to the development's estimated increase to transportation demand, with different land use categories, such as residential, commercial, and industrial, assigned appropriate rates based on their impact. The fee assessment process involves identifying the project’s land use, calculating the number in units of a particular land use category, and applying fees based on the calculated maximum allowable fee and adopted fee schedule. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A), residential DIF fees, although initially estimated using EDUs, are then converted to a per square foot fee basis rather than a per dwelling unit basis. 2 Page 217 Introduction Nexus Study Scope This Transportation Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (“Nexus Study” or “Study”) provides the technical documentation to support the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s (“City”) update of the Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) program by defining the relevant geographic boundaries, the types of development projects to which the fee is imposed, and the types of transportation infrastructure to be funded by the fee program. Since its inception in 1991, the City’s DIF has worked continuously to fund infrastructure improvements throughout the City to support its growth. By updating the DIF with current growth estimates, changes to infrastructure needs, recent infrastructure costs, and the associated fee basis this Study re-evaluates the service standards of existing transportation facilities, the need for planned facilities to maintain a consistent standard of transportation service and determine a justifiable cost per unit of demand by future developments. The Nexus Study provides the basis for the City to collect fees consistent with the California Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/Government Code 66000 et seq.). This analysis also demonstrates that the fees established have a reasonable relationship based on the needs, benefits, and proportionality to the impacts which the fee is designed to mitigate. Regulatory Context California Government Code The California Government Code §§ 66000-66025, often referred to as the Mitigation Fee Act, governs how local governments can impose development impact fees. This legislation ensures that such fees are both legally defensible and equitable. The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to adopt an ordinance that Page 218 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study enables the fee and defines the program structure. The fee may be updated periodically when supported by a technical analysis and approved by City Council. In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development project1, Government Code §§ 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must:    Identify the purpose of the fee. Identify how the fee is to be used. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee established and type of development project for which the fee is imposed.   Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for which the fee is imposed. Demonstrate the relationship between the fee and the cost of the public facility. Once the DIF is adopted, this Nexus Study and the technical information it contains will be maintained and reviewed periodically by the City to ensure impact fee accuracy and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To the extent that transportation improvement requirements, costs, and development potential changes over time, the fee program will need to be updated. California Assembly Bill 602 Effective January 1, 2022, AB 602 requires that impact fees levied on residential development must be calculated such that they are proportional to the square footage of future units. A nexus study must evaluate how existing and future residential development can be estimated by residential square feet or document why the use of residential square feet is not relevant as it would not appropriately reflect the relationship between the fee, facility demand, and residential land use. Effective July 1, 2022, AB 602 also mandates that large jurisdictions2 adopting a nexus study shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study. At the time of this Study’s development, the residential population within the County of San Bernardino is approximately 2.18 million3 and thus, a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is required as a part of this Study. The City of Rancho Cucamonga updates and publishes the Capital Improvement Program as part of the annual citywide budgeting procedure, and the latest documentation can be found on the City’s website. Further, the City has prepared a draft amendment to the Capital Improvement Plan (as incorporated into the Major Project's Program) to be 1 Development includes any land use activity that involves construction of residential, commercial, industrial, office, or other non-residential improvements which requires the issuance of a building permit. Such improvements are generally expected to create additional impacts to the City’s transportation infrastructure once completed through additional travel demand associated with the proposed use. 2 As defined in Section 53559.1 of the Health and Safety Code, “Large jurisdiction” means a county with a population of more than 250,000, or any city within that county. 3 United States Census Bureau, 2023 ACS 1-Year Estimate 4 Page 219 considered as part of the establishment of fees under the DIF program. The amendment is available for review under separate cover. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Impact considerations by CEQA are not applicable to fee programs, since such programs are government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to specific projects that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment and therefore not “projects” which would be subject to CEQA4. However, necessary environmental documents shall be prepared prior to the construction phase of capital improvement projects, funding by the DIF or otherwise, unless such projects are otherwise determined to be exempt from CEQA. Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) On April 18, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance No. 445 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging citywide transportation development fees. The ordinance modified the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (RCMC) to describe the purpose, basis, limited-use, and mechanism for future adjustments of the fee program. Subsequently, the City adopted Resolution No. 91-092 and established the definition of “Development Projects” subject to the fee program, methodology to calculate the cost per “Equivalent Dwelling Unit” (fee schedule), use of the collected fees, the process by which fees are assessed and updated, and a list of programmed projects and associated costs. Over the decades, the fee program has been periodically updated to account for increased costs based on engineering and construction cost adjustment factors. The most recent iteration of the adopted fee program was adjusted in 2020 by Resolution No. 20-122 (Appendix A – Resolution No. 20-122). Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(4) as amended by AB 602 requires local agencies adopting increases to existing DIF program fees review the assumptions in the prior study as part of a new nexus study. Since the adoption of Resolution No. 20-122, the City approved a General Plan update that set forth a renewed vision for the community including anticipated development patterns, population growth estimates, and transportation needs. Further, since that time, construction costs have increased dramatically for public improvements. This study has reviewed the prior assumptions and incorporated currently available data and assumptions as more appropriate to the analysis considered in this study. Other DIF Considerations Existing State law provides that certain types of projects, largely involving housing, are exempt from or receive a reduced or vested development impact fees (exceptions). These exceptions include, for example, a prohibition on impact fees for accessory dwelling units of 750 square feet or less and vested impact fees for qualifying housing development projects subject to a preliminary application under the Housing 4 CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) DIF Nexus Study 5 Page 220 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Accountability Act, SB 330. Such exceptions may change over time. As a Pro Housing jurisdiction, the City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes the importance of providing more housing and affordable housing for all income levels. To that end, the city supports current State law in this regard and intends to comply with future changes in this area. This nexus study anticipated all future development in the city without considering the potential applicability of any exceptions to the impact fees applied to such development. This is because, among other reasons, it is not possible to determine whether any particular project will qualify for an exception and then to what extent. It is speculative to forecast that a certain amount of development expected in the city will be attributable to projects that qualify for exceptions. To be sure, the value of any potential exception was not re-allocated or re-distributed to other development projects. Therefore, no project will subsidize any lost revenue caused by a project that qualifies for an exception, and any shortfalls in funding for exempt or reduced fee projects will be made up through grants or other local discretionary funding sources. Further, the City has long recognized that for some development projects there is mutual benefit for the developer to construct public improvements that are part of the impact fee program’s list of capital projects. In accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and other laws, the developer may be eligible for a credit against the amount of the relevant impact fee for the cost of the improvement when the development impact fee is calculated. To ensure the sustainability and equity of the program, such credits are equal to the estimated value of the improvements and/or dedicated land as outlined in the nexus study, as adjusted and in effect as of the date the fees are calculated. Finally, the City seeks to defray the cost of construction for public infrastructure through alternative means such as grant programs. The City proactively pursues grants and other funding mechanisms; however, the City does not have the ability to guarantee a certain percentage of grant awards toward projects within this DIF program. In order to ensure that new development funds its fair share of the improvements in this program, applicable grant awards will be first used to offset the appropriate project cost share attributable to existing development and then remaining grant awards (if any) will be used to offset the cost borne by the fee program unless the grant award is specifically made to offset new development costs. Should new development costs be offset by grant or other funding mechanisms, such offset will be accounted for in the next major update to this nexus study. Methodology Data Collection This Study utilized data from various citywide planning documents, including the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (Plan RC), City of Rancho Cucamonga Active Transportation Plan (Connect RC), City of Rancho Cucamonga ADA Transition Masterplan, historic fee programs, Capital Improvement Program 6 Page 221 (CIP) cost estimates and records, and publicly available United States Census Data and American Community Survey (ACS) Estimates. Cost Estimation The cost estimation for transportation infrastructure improvements in Rancho Cucamonga is based on the most recent and relevant project cost estimates and records. For each type of infrastructure – such as roadway lane miles, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and trail facilities, the cost per unit of improvement is determined by referencing recent costs and adjusting for factors such as construction materials, labor, environmental compliance, and project-specific contingencies. Basic unit cost estimates applicable to multiple facilities are listed in the table below. These unit costs are then applied to the quantity of infrastructure needed to support future development, stipulated on the anticipated growth in demand. To ensure that the fee program remains responsive to changing economic conditions, cost estimates are indexed to industry standards (e.g. Caltrans Contract Cost Index). This ensures that projected costs account for inflation and other future economic factors. Table 1 – Unit Cost Estimates1 Facility Type Roadway Widening (Full Section)2 Bridge Widening3 Unit Lane Mile Square Feet Each Cost per Unit $1,325,000 $250 Intersection Improvement – New Traffic Signal2 Intersection Improvement – Traffic Signal Modification2 Intersection Improvement – Roundabout5 Multi-Use Trail4 $750,000 $50,000Each Each $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $300,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $30 Mile Class II Bike Lane4 Mile Class III Bike Route4 Mile Class IV Separated Bikeway2 Sidewalk4 Mile Square Feet $10,000,000 $50,000,000 for Foothill/Haven Complete Street Improvements Corridor Active Transportation Improvements2 Mile 1. This table contains unit cost estimates before adjustments to develop project cost estimates in Appendix C. Specifically, engineering and environmental documentation are typically 10%-30% of the construction cost of the facility. For more complex projects, the City directed specific “soft cost” assumptions that were more reflective of the potential challenges to deliver those projects. The soft cost assumptions are presented in the appendix and the total project cost estimates, including construction materials, labor, environmental compliance, and project specific contingencies (soft costs) are utilized in the DIF 2. City of Rancho Cucamonga 24/25 CIP estimates (2024) 3. Caltrans Comparative Bridge Costs (2019) 4. City of Rancho Cucamonga Active Transportation Plan (Connect RC) (2023) 5. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 672 & 1043 (FHWA, 2010, 2023) DIF Nexus Study 7 Page 222 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study As described in the table above, the unit costs are utilized to develop a construction cost estimate for the facility, but these costs do not reflect “soft costs” associated with project delivery. Soft costs typically include environmental assessment and mitigation, engineering for the facility, and any contingencies needed to deliver the project. Contingencies relate to other factors not included in the assessment, like unknown utility conflicts or the need to acquire right-of-way for facility implementation. Soft costs are typically 10%-50% of the construction cost of a facility. Some improvements include a higher soft cost if right-of-way acquisition were needed or there is a greater degree of uncertainty in the costs to deliver the facility as exemplified by soft costs on recent City projects. The facility cost estimates and the soft cost assumptions are provided in Appendix C. Maximum Allowable Fee The maximum allowable fee is calculated by the following steps. 1. Identify total program costs – cost for improvements plus cost for implementation 2. Account for known funding (current fund balance) and fee credits (amount to be subtracted from fund balance due to outstanding obligations such as improvement reimbursement programs discussed in later sections of this Study) 3. Account for existing deficiencies 4. Account for administrative fees 5. Determine proportional allocation of cost to new development Other Considerations Developmental growth can fluctuate. By accounting for growth between 2024 and 2040, the updated fee program and maximum fee consider only the remaining growth through buildout of the General Plan with a planning horizon of 2040. While the Study establishes a justified fee based on proportional costs of infrastructure improvements for new development, the City Council retains the authority to adopt transportation impact fees lower than the maximum allowable amounts calculated in the Nexus Study. This flexibility allows the Council to balance the need for infrastructure funding with considerations such as encouraging development or addressing affordability concerns, while still maintaining compliance with the California Mitigation Fee Act. The fee program is designed specifically to address transportation infrastructure needs generated by new development and does not cover the cost of remedying existing deficiencies in the system. Under the California Mitigation Fee Act, impact fees can only be used to fund improvements proportionate to the impacts of future development. As a result, any existing deficiencies, such as under-capacity roads or outdated infrastructure, must be addressed through alternative funding sources. 8 Page 223 Summary of Findings The findings of this Study support the implementation of a transportation development impact fee program through the following steps,      Identify the purpose of the fee Account for existing population and projected growth Determine the appropriate facility standards Provide cost estimates of necessary improvements Demonstrate the need, benefit, and fair share responsibility of the public facilities Transportation related development impact fees will be assessed per unit of land use proposed in the amount no more than the Maximum Fee Calculations provided at the end of this Study. DIF Nexus Study 9 Page 224 Fee Structure and Development Purpose of Impact Fee Program An impact fee program is often utilized to ensure that new developments contribute to the cost of public infrastructure that are proportional to the additional demand created by the development projects. As cities grow, new residential, commercial, and industrial projects increase the burden on the existing transportation networks. Without an impact fee program, the financial burden of accommodating this growth would fall disproportionately on existing residents, who would be forced to subsidize the infrastructure needs caused by new development. In the last decade, Rancho Cucamonga experienced significant growth, with the residential population increasing by approximately 9,800 and a similar rise in the number of employees5. As projected growth continues, the City's General Plan lays out a comprehensive vision that relies on well-maintained and effective infrastructure. The impact fee program is essential to securing sufficient funding for new and expanded facilities that support the City's long-term operational goals and maintain the desired quality of service for all residents and businesses. 5 Number of residents grew between 2010 and 2020 from an estimate of 165,000 to 176,000, number of employments increased from 80,700 to 89,400. ACS 5-year Estimates. Page 225 Existing Service Population and Transportation Facilities The City of Rancho Cucamonga serves an existing population of approximately 176,274 residents and 89,717 employees, with a population density of around 3,790 residents per square mile. This diverse and growing population places significant demands on the city's infrastructure, public services, and amenities. To support an estimated 10 million vehicle miles traveled per day, the City maintains approximately 1,152 lane miles of roadway, 31 miles of mixed-use trails, 107 miles of bicycle facilities, 102 miles of sidewalk and pedestrian facilities, and over 200 traffic signals across the 46.5 square mile jurisdiction. Throughout recent years, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has undergone various types of citywide planning efforts. The studies associated with the plan development process are referenced to provide a fundamental description of the City’s existing conditions and inventory of its transportation infrastructure. Table 2 – Existing Facilities Source Plan RC Unit Lane Mile Mile Quantity 1,152.2 30.7 Roadway Trails Connect RC Bike Lane Sidewalk Facilities Connect RC Mile 106.8 ADA Transition Masterplan Mile 102.0 Besides roadways, trails, bike lanes, and sidewalks, there exists a wide range and variety of transportation facilities that serve the Rancho Cucamonga population. Some aspects of such improvements are difficult to measure tangibly, such as safety, comfort, equity, and access to the system; but are all crucial to the viability of an effective transportation system. Infrastructure such as the traffic management systems, access to regional transit systems, and an overall transportation to support active and healthy mobility are all crucial elements of a system to foster sustainable development. Development Trends What types of existing and new development are occurring, and are there geographic differences that might affect the need for facilities and associated fees charged to certain types of development in an area? Land use growth and new development require the support of transportation infrastructure. It is imperative to estimate the amount of new development expected to take place within the planning horizon, and the additional transportation facilities that would be required, to prevent overburdening the existing service population (residents and employment) with the cost of new improvements. According to the City’s General Plan, the number of residential units are anticipated to grow by 3,944 Single Family Residential (SFR) units (SFDU), and 21,741 Multifamily units (MFDU), leading to an estimated increase of 57,613 residents by buildout of the General Plan. The number of employees is also expected to grow across various industries including retail, education, office, and construction amongst the highest growing sectors. DIF Nexus Study 11 Page 226 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Table 3 – Development Trends General Plan Existing General Plan Buildout Change % ChangeYear (2018)Year (2040) Residents 176,274 233,887 57,613 21,231 32.7% 23.7%Employees 89,717 110,948 Total Service Population (Residents + Employees)265,991 344,835 78,844 29.6% Although development projects will take place in specific parcels across the city, the city’s transportation network is designed to serve all areas. However, improvements in a specific area tend to benefit development within that area more than development in a different area of the city. To that end, and to ensure that there is a localized nexus between new development and improvements needed to serve that new development, several geographies were reviewed to ensure that the local areas were burdened the most for local benefits. This approach, known as a zone-based fee program, was identified as the most appropriate way to implement a fee program for the city. This study utilized a “band approach” whereby the city was divided into three bands, with a northern, central, and southern zone incorporated into the fee program. The zones were identified based on their predominant east-west travel patterns within the City and the region. Further, the boundaries of the zones align with the travel-sheds of the major east-west travel corridors of SR-210 and Foothill Boulevard. The zones have been identified as shown in the graphic below and are bound as follows: North Zone - North of 19th Street from the west City Limits to Haven Avenue and north of SR-210 from Haven Avenue to I-15   Central Zone - South of the North Zone and north of Foothill Boulevard South Zone - South of Foothill Boulevard 12 Page 227 Zonal Approach – North, Central and South Zones Utilizing this approach assisted in understanding where new trips were being generated in addition to how trips generated from one zone were attributed to other zones of the city. Table 4 summarizes the trip interactions between the zones as estimated by the city’s General Plan travel demand model. In this instance, 74.7% of the total cost of projects in the north band of the city are the responsibility of local development projects, and development in other parts of the city are responsible for their fair share contribution to trip making in that north band zone. The General Plan forecasting used the San Bernardino County Travel Demand Model (SBTAM) for the assessment, which, at the time the General Plan was completed, was the state-of-the-practice tool available for estimating travel patterns and traffic volumes associated with changes to land use and the transportation network within the County. By utilizing the travel demand model developed for the City’s General Plan update, this approach ensures that the assumptions that informed the General Plan update are integrated into the fee program analysis. Table 4 - Trips Between Zones To\From North North Central South Total 100% 100% 100% 74.7%15.9%9.4% Central South 6.8% 4.6% 78.4% 17.9% 14.8% 77.5% DIF Nexus Study 13 Page 228 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Infrastructure Improvements Facility Standards Establishing an appropriate facility standard is crucial for ensuring that the future inventory of transportation infrastructure in Rancho Cucamonga meets the demands of new development while aligning with the city's long-term goals. The following standards are derived from the City's adopted policies and standards. Complete Streets Standards – The General Plan emphasizes the creation of Complete Streets, designed to safely and efficiently accommodate all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and transit riders. Paired with the recently adopted Active Transportation Plan (Connect RC), multimodal elements such as mixed-use trails, bike lanes, sidewalks, and transit accommodations will be integrated as a critical component of the transportation network. This ensures that new developments contribute their fair share to a transportation system that is inclusive and accessible to all residents by mitigating increased demand for mobility generated by new development within the City. The General Plan identifies a desire for the City to investigate and set service levels by travel mode in the future based on the modal priority on the street. Although this multi-modal level of service approach has not yet been implemented, the General Plan sets clear expectations related to implementing complete streets and prioritizing non-automotive modes of travel. Furthermore, the General Plan has set specific standards related to greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets which rely on a reduction in vehicles miles of travel (VMT). This Study utilizes VMT reduction as a potential nexus; but it also looks to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are delivered to residents at a rate consistent with that currently provided (e.g. maintaining mileage of bicycle or pedestrian facilities per capita). As previously noted, new development accounts for 29.6% of the population and employment growth in the city (the remainder are existing residents). As such, complete streets improvements that assist the city in achieving its GHG reduction targets can only be funded at 29.6% of the total cost for those improvements through the DIF program (grants and other funding will be required to achieve full funding of these projects). Roadway Capacity and Quality – Maintaining efficient traffic flow and safety is a priority in the General Plan, especially on automobile priority streets. To address this, facility standards will include minimum levels of service (LOS) for roadways (LOS D, or V/C of 0.9), ensuring that necessary improvements are included to handle the increased traffic generated by new developments. This standard ensures that the road infrastructure remains functional and safe as the city grows. The following information related to roadway facilities supports and helps to validate the rough proportionality of the program and how it relates to new development. 14 Page 229 Table 5 – Existing Transportation Facilities per Service Population Facility Unit Lane Mile Mile Quantity/1,000 Service Population Roadway Trails 4.33 0.12 0.40 0.38 Bike Lane Mile Sidewalk Facilities Mile In addition to multimodal and roadway capacity considerations, the City’s General Plan also emphasizes the need to maintain an effective transit infrastructure, enhance safety and accessibility of the transportation system, and promote scalable and sustainable growth, all of which are supported by projects to transform the city according to the layered circulation network approach. Infrastructure Changes By utilizing previously collected fees, the City has delivered various infrastructure projects including expansion of bridges, roadways, freeway interchanges, and traffic signal improvement projects. A list of completed projects that are removed from the previously adopted DIF program is provided in Appendix B, which totals roughly $137,400,000 of infrastructure improvements in 2020 dollars. Based on the change in service population between existing year and General Plan buildout year, a proportional increase of transportation infrastructure would be required to maintain a consistent standard of transportation services. The projected need for transportation facilities is calculated in proportion to the amount of growth in service population anticipated over the planning horizon of the General Plan. Table 6 – Projected Facility Need Based on Service Population Growth % Change in Total Facility NeedUnit Lane Mile Mile NotesDemandby 2040 Provided for informational purposes, as LOS is the metric used for establishing this need.Roadway 29.6%1,493.7 This metric and/or VMT reduction can be used for establishing this need.Trails 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 39.8 138.5 132.2 This metric and/or VMT reduction can be used for establishing this need.Bike Lane Sidewalk Facilities Mile This metric and/or VMT reduction can be used for establishing this need.Mile As noted in Table 6, roadway improvements are identified based on the City’s need to maintain LOS per the City’s General Plan policies. Some of the key improvements have been identified to assist with this as noted below (the full list is presented in Appendix C): Traffic Signals – The fee program includes new traffic signals and improvements for traffic signal communications to improve the efficiency of the traffic signal system. These improvements help with throughput and improve LOS for all corridors they are implemented in. DIF Nexus Study 15 Page 230 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Roundabouts – For several locations, roundabouts have been identified as the preferred improvements to achieve the City’s LOS goals. In many cases, roundabouts reduce crash frequency and crash severity while improving traffic operations to meet the City’s LOS targets. This is consistent with General Plan Policy MA-2.3 related to street design where the City implements innovative designs to, “…maximize efficiency and safety in the city…. Possible tools include roundabouts…” Etiwanda Grade Separation – The proposed grade separation of the railroad tracks at Etiwanda has been planned by the City for years. Additionally, it is identified in General Plan Policy MA-4.5 which states, “Support the construction of grade separations of roadways and trails from rail lines.” This grade separation is needed to support the continuation of land use growth and associated traffic impacts, especially in the Southeast Industrial Quadrant (SEIQ), to maintain LOS goals in the area. This also will improve goods movement and redundancy in the system such that mobility can be maintained if a train is stuck on the track for some unknown reason at the Etiwanda Grade Separation. Transportation Project List and Estimated Costs List of DIF projects and associated cost estimates are provided in Appendix C. Project cost estimates are calculated by multiplying the quantity of the planned improvement and the estimated cost per unit of facility expansion. Please note that completion of all identified projects would not lead to a greater ratio of miles or lane miles of facility per person in the City compared to what the City currently provides for its residents. Table 7 – Development Impact Fee Project Improvements Unit Lane Mile Mile DIF Project List Roadway 13.8 4.5Trails Bike Lane Sidewalk Facilities Mile 34.8 1.8Mile Comparison of the programmed improvements in the DIF project list (Table 7) to the “total facility need by 2040” (Table 6) demonstrates that the city’s planned development is infill in nature and consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan. Additionally, the new facilities delivered by this fee program meet the requirement for rough proportionality as the number of miles of facility per person being delivered by the fee program is far less than that currently served by the city and its infrastructure for roadways, trails, and sidewalk facilities. The only increase in service levels associated with this program is an increase in planned bike lane miles. Cost Estimating Assumptions Cost estimates for transportation improvements are referenced from the latest available and relevant cost records. The cost to construct each unit of improvement is calculated as an average of project costs with 16 Page 231 similar scopes and adjusting for forecasted future costs of environmental procedures, engineering design, and contingency. Future updates to the Fee Program should also index costs to an industry standard (typically the Caltrans Construction Contract Cost Index) and adjust the fee schedule annually to ensure that the program maintains consistency with what actual costs are to deliver the program accordingly. Existing Deficiencies Existing deficiencies refer to the gaps or inadequacies in current infrastructure or facilities that prevent them from meeting the desired service levels or standards. In the context of capacity-based projects, such as roadway widening, identifying and accounting for existing deficiencies is critical because these projects are often intended to enhance the ability of the infrastructure to accommodate current and future traffic volumes; or, in more simplistic terms, new development cannot pay to fix existing deficiencies. While future development should not be burdened with addressing existing deficiencies in infrastructure, it is important to recognize that new growth proportionally contributes to the increased demand for expanded or improved facilities. When a new development is proposed, it will increase the existing levels of demand for transportation facilities. Therefore, it is reasonable and equitable to require new development to contribute its fair share towards the costs of infrastructure improvements that are necessitated by this growth. In the case of roadway widening or other capacity-based projects, while existing deficiencies may have been present before new development, the additional traffic generated by future growth exacerbates these deficiencies and creates a direct need for expansion. Thus, applying impact fees proportional to the new development is justified because the fees are not addressing pre-existing deficiencies, but rather the incremental impact that the new development imposes on the infrastructure system based on the proportion of growth to existing population and infrastructure level of service. Without new development, the need for such infrastructure improvements would not arise, or would arise at a much later time. Impact fees serve as a mechanism to ensure that new growth is financially responsible for the additional demands it places on public facilities, aligning with the principles and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, which emphasizes the importance of a fair and proportionate allocation of infrastructure costs. In simpler terms, this fee program applies two simple tests as it relates to roadway infrastructure needs: “But For” Argument – But for new development, the improvement would not be required. This typically applies to facilities that operate acceptably today but need widening in the future to serve future development. Alternatively, this could be applied to new roadway connections that are required to access new development. In these types of cases, since new development drives 100% of the need for the infrastructure, 100% of the cost of that infrastructure is included in the fee estimate. DIF Nexus Study 17 Page 232 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study “Fair Share” Argument – For facilities that are currently deficient, new development is only responsible for paying their “fair share” toward the improvement. In this case, the increased demand by new development is divided by the total future demand on the roadway to identify what that fair share would be. The expansion of roadways is typically justified by the need to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow, thereby directly responding to the deficiencies in capacity that limit the effectiveness of the existing road network. However, this approach is less applicable to other types of projects, such as multi-modal improvements, which focus on enhancing infrastructure for various modes of transportation – like pedestrian pathways, bicycle lanes, and public transit facilities – rather than increasing capacity for a single mode. Multi-modal improvements are designed to create a more integrated and balanced transportation network, often emphasizing safety, accessibility, and sustainability rather than solely addressing capacity deficiencies. Therefore, while existing deficiencies might drive roadway widening projects, they do not similarly affect the calculations for multi-modal improvements, which are generally aimed at improving the overall quality and functionality of the transportation system (including reducing VMT and GHG) rather than expanding its capacity. Table 8 details roadways facilities within the DIF projects with operational deficiencies as defined in the General Plan, and the associated share of costs proportional to future developments. All other roadway improvements not described within Table 8 currently operate at acceptable LOS, and which degrade to unacceptable levels with the inclusion of future development6. Information related to LOS on city streets was developed as part of the City’s General Plan Update and is presented in Appendix D. For complete streets facilities, there is not specific “existing deficiency” as achieving the city’s GHG reduction targets is outlined for the city as a whole. As such, new development can only be responsible for its fair share (as a percentage of total service population) of those improvements. For all the complete streets projects, new development is assumed to be responsible for 29.6% of the project cost which corresponds to the new development as compared to the future population of the city. 6 Including the Etiwanda Grade Separation (EGS) project, which will expand the existing 2-lane roadway to 4 lanes (currently operating at a V/C of 0.88 but degrades to a V/C of 1.32 after accounting for growth from future development). Final project cost estimate includes a 40% reduction in anticipation of future grant funding. 18 Page 233 Table 8 – Cost Adjustments for Deficient Roadway Facilities7 Project ID Existing Volume Growth Future Volume Future Share Adjusted Cost** Cost Difference***Cost Estimate V/C*(2024 to 2040)(2040) 36,940 47,410 43,020 20,810 19,930 S 6 S 8 $1,800,000 $292,500 $1,987,500 $795,000 $292,500 1.52 1.04 1.08 0.99 0.95 11,916 32.3% 28.6% 20.7% 13.5% 13.5% $580,700 $83,700 $1,219,300 $208,80013,566 S 9 8,926 $412,400 $107,500 $39,600 $1,575,100 $687,500S 10 S 11 2,812 2,693 $252,900 Subtotal $3,943,600 * Rancho Cucamonga has adopted a LOS D (V/C = 0.9) as the standard service standard, with exceptions to roadways and intersections where vehicle travel is not the priority, such as Foothill Blvd (Plan RC MA-2.8). Existing deficiency data obtained from the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2019 (excel spreadsheet) and the future roadway needs documented in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Traffic Volumes memo prepared by Fehr & Peers, January 18, 2022. ** All figures rounded to nearest $100 *** Cost not allowed into the fee program as it is due to existing deficiencies. 7 Refer to Appendix C – DIF Project List and Project Cost Estimate for description of each project in this table. DIF Nexus Study 19 Page 234 Nexus Analysis Need The Nexus Analysis, in alignment with the California Mitigation Fee Act, as amended including by AB 602 (2021), must establish a clear and proportional relationship between new development and the demand for public infrastructure. This section focuses on demonstrating the direct link between anticipated growth within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the necessity for transportation infrastructure improvements. By doing so, it ensures that the City’s Development Impact Fees (DIF) comply with the essential nexus and rough proportionality standards mandated by relevant legal precedents such as Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. Through the use of travel demand modeling8 and empirical demographic data, evaluation of the General Plan has also thoroughly demonstrated the causal relationship between new development and transportation impacts. Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan projects significant growth by 2040, with an anticipated future population of approximately 344,835 residents and 110,948 jobs at buildout (Table 9). Such growth is reasonably expected to elevate the demand for transportation infrastructure, increasing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and necessitating enhancements to maintain current service levels. The General Plan outlines a vision for a layered circulation network that accommodates various transportation modes 8 San Bernardino County Travel Demand Model (SBTAM) Page 235 (vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and public transit) across the city. To support this vision, strategic investments in infrastructure are essential to prevent congestion and ensure safe, efficient mobility. Given the projected growth, the City must expand its transportation network proportionally. The General Plan highlights the need for maintaining a LOS D or better for its roadways. Failure to expand infrastructure to meet the additional demands from growth could degrade the service levels of facilities, leading to congestion, safety concerns, and a diminished quality of life for all who rely on the transportation system. Furthermore, this growth exacerbates safety risks by increasing potential conflicts at intersections, pedestrian crossings, and other high-use areas. Consequently, safety improvements – such as intersection enhancements, protected non-motorized facilities, and modernized traffic controls – are essential to maintaining a safe and efficient transportation system while accommodating new development. As outlined in the General Plan and supported by transportation planning principles, developments generate varying impacts on transportation networks. Therefore, the DIF must differentiate this relationship by aligning fees assessed with the projected impacts of each type of future development. Table 9 – Land Use Growth General Plan Existing Year (2018) Current Condition (2024)1 General Plan Buildout Year (2040) Change (2024-2040) Residents 176,274 37,921 191,987 38,997 233,887 41,865 41,980 2,868Single Family Dwelling Units (SFDU) Multifamily Dwelling Units (MFDU)22,874 89,717 28,803 95,507 44,615 110,948 344,835 15,812 15,441 57,341 Employment Total Service Population 265,991 287,494 1 2024 estimate developed by assuming linear growth between the general plan buildout and the existing conditions of the general plan (e.g. linear growth between 2018 and 2040). Benefits The transportation infrastructure projects identified in the Nexus Study are essential to support the anticipated growth. These include roadway expansions, intersection improvements, and the development of multimodal transportation options such as bike lanes and pedestrian pathways. Each project is carefully selected to address specific infrastructure needs that will arise from increases in service population and to maintain a consistent and acceptable level of transportation services. DIF Nexus Study 21 Page 236 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Table 10 – Facility Needs to Maintain Existing Facility Standards Quantity/1,000 Service Population4 % Change from Existing Standards5 Existing (2018)1 Total Facility Need by 20402 of DIF Projects3 ImplementationUnit Roadway Trails Lane Mile Mile 1,152.2 30.7 1,493.7 39.8 1,166.0 35.2 3.38 0.10 0.41 -21.9% -11.6% 2.2%Bike Lane Mile 106.8 138.5 141.6 Sidewalk Facilities Mile 102.0 132.2 103.8 0.30 -21.5% Notes: 1 See Table 2 – Existing Facilities. 2 See Table 6 – Projected Facility Need Based on Service Population. 3 Existing plus DIF identified projects. 4 Calculation summarizing existing plus DIF projects divided by the service population. 5 % change between rate after DIF projects and the existing rate (e.g. what facilities are increasing or decreasing service levels). Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a critical measure of transportation impact, particularly concerning environmental sustainability and public health. VMT is the new CEQA metric required in the State, and it is the primary contributor to GHG emissions in the City. The City of Rancho Cucamonga’s General Plan prioritizes the reduction of VMT as a key component of its sustainability goals, aligning with state policies such as those mandated under CEQA and desires to reduce GHG emissions. Completion of planned projects within the DIF project list will increase the total bike lane mile per capita, while decreasing the same measure of trails, sidewalk, and lane miles of roadway. Increasing bikeway facilities aligns with the City’s objectives to promote active transportation and reduce dependency on automobiles, thus improving air quality and reducing GHG emissions. The General Plan specifically highlights the need to expand low-stress bike infrastructure, such as Class II bike lanes and protected Class IV bikeways, to create a more connected, comfortable, and safe biking environment. The Connect RC Plan similarly emphasizes the role of expanding bikeways in improving access to schools, parks, and transit hubs, providing a viable alternative to car travel for short to medium distances. Enhanced bikeway networks will not only facilitate active transportation but also contribute directly to the City’s GHG emission reduction strategy. As such, the increased number of bike-lane miles per capita (compared to the existing condition) is consistent with goals and policies in Plan RC, Connect RC, and the Climate Action Plan. Reducing roadways per capita aligns with the City’s sustainability and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. Plan RC and Climate Action Plan emphasize a shift towards reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by promoting compact, walkable communities and enhancing active transportation networks. One of the most effective strategies to meet the State’s GHG reduction targets is to reduce dependence on automobiles. By decreasing roadway per capita, the City would reduce the number of lanes dedicated to cars and facilitate alternative modes of transportation (which compete for the same existing City-owned right of way). 22 Page 237 Although maintaining trails is crucial for recreation and mobility, most of the City's trail system has already been largely built out. Major facilities such as the Pacific Electric Trail and Cucamonga Creek Trail have already been established and integrated into the City's mobility framework. Thus, a reduction in ratio of trail miles per capita does not reflect a lack of commitment to their benefits but recognizes the completion of the foundational network. The focus within the planning horizon is on maintenance and improving accessibility, safety, and connectivity, rather than expanding trail mileage. The majority of City's planned developments are expected at infill areas, where existing pedestrian infrastructures are already in place. The General Plan identifies that about 76% of the city streets already have sidewalks, particularly in more developed areas. The City’s policies emphasize that future infill development should focus on improving and enhancing existing pedestrian networks rather than constructing new sidewalk infrastructures, where further large-scale sidewalk expansion may not be necessary. Overall, the changes to the quantity of facilities per capita align with the City’s long-term objectives to provide a sustainable, safe, and productive transportation system. Table 11 – Vehicle Miles Traveled Projections Linear Projection (2024)1 General Plan Buildout (2040) Growth (2024-2040)Existing (2018) Total Population Households Employment VMT 176,274 60,795 191,987 67,063 233,887 83,776 41,900 16,713 15,441 621,348 89,717 95,507 110,948 9,875,814 10,108,820 10,730,168 VMT/Service Population 37.13 35.16 31.12 -6.01 Note: 1 2024 estimate developed by assuming linear growth between the general plan buildout and the existing conditions of the general plan (e.g. linear growth between 2018 and 2040). The DIF-funded projects are not only designed to accommodate growth but also to manage and reduce VMT. While roadway expansions are necessary to prevent congestion and improve connectivity, they can inadvertently lead to induced travel, where improved traffic flow encourages additional vehicle use. To mitigate the effects of induced travel, the City’s strategy includes investments in VMT-reducing projects, such as enhancements to the multimodal transportation network. The strategic combination of roadway improvements and VMT-reducing projects ensures that the City can accommodate growth and maintain service levels but does not do so at the cost of increased VMT and the associated negative environmental impacts. This balanced approach aligns with the General Plan’s goal to reduce overall VMT, thereby supporting the City’s commitment to sustainability and enhancing the quality of life for its residents. DIF Nexus Study 23 Page 238 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Implementation of DIF projects would result in the following changes to Citywide VMT from accounting for increase in roadway lane miles9, bike lane miles, and pedestrian network miles. Ultimately, the increase in VMT from expanded infrastructure would be fully offset by the construction of the program's VMT reducing projects with a de minimus overall improvement of citywide VMT of 0.1%. Table 12 – Effects of DIF Projects on Citywide VMT General Plan Buildout (2040) Percent Change from Buildout Citywide VMT 10,730,168 94,795VMT Induced by Capacity Increasing Projects VMT Reduced by Other DIF Projects Citywide VMT with DIF Implementation Net Change in Citywide VMT with DIF Implementation 0.96% -105,476 10,719,486 -10,682 -0.98% -0.1% Cost Allocation AB 602 mandates that development impact fees for residential units be calculated based on square footage rather than the traditional per-unit metric unless a local agency makes the finding that includes an explanation of why such a metric is not appropriate, that an alternative basis of calculation is reasonably related, and that other policies in the fee structure supports smaller developments. The principle of proportionality underlies the requirement that fees imposed on new developments must be proportionate to the impact those developments have on public facilities. For single-family residential units, a correlation exists between the size of the dwelling and its impact on transportation and other infrastructure. Larger homes typically house more residents, generate more vehicle trips, and thus have a greater impact on local infrastructure. Meanwhile, the correlation between multifamily units and increased transportation demand has been found to be associated more closely with the number of units, rather than the size of each unit10 based on recent studies completed in the Inland Empire. Although a case can be made to charge multifamily housing using a per unit fee consistent with other research completed in the Inland Empire, to adhere to the proportionality basis mandated by AB 602, calculation for fees assessed by land use category should differentiate the methodologies for single-family and multifamily residential units and the fee should be normalized to reflect sq. ft. of the unit. To accomplish all of this, and to crosswalk general plan land use designations from households into trip generation and sq. ft. estimates, Fehr & Peers normalized the proposed land use and the impact fee into a term known as Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). Correlating an EDU to the average single-family home, 9 https://travelcalculator.ncst.ucdavis.edu/ 10 WRCOG Residential Trip Generation Study (2023) 24 Page 239 then converting trips into EDU helps establish the impact fee schedule based on units of measurement for estimating trip generation in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. This is especially important as it helps with converting General Plan growth into trips that can be used in the fee calculation. For example, the General Plan identifies employment for non-residential uses (and utilizes a standard conversion for employees to sq. ft.), but the inputs for residential uses are number of households. As such, using the EDU as a representation for households assists with identifying the fee tied to other land uses described within the DIF program. According to building permit records provided by the city, the average size of single-family residential (SFR) development projects is roughly 2,500 square feet. For SFR units, a ratio of the proposed development compared to the average size identified (2,500 for Detached units, 1,700 for Attached units and for Multifamily units) should be applied in calculation of fees to be assessed. To be consistent with AB 602 requirements, we have utilized the average unit size identified above to calculate the fee per dwelling unit equivalent, then proportionally developed a per square foot cost to be charged for new development. Table 13 – Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) and Cost per Square Foot Estimates Average Size of Dwelling Units (SF) ** Daily Trip Pass-By Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)Land Use Unit Rate Reduction Single Family - Detached Single Family - Attached Multifamily - Attached (Low-Rise) Multifamily - Attached (Mid-Rise) Senior Housing DU DU 9.43 7.2 -1.0 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.2 2.7* 1.1 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.2 12.8* 2,500 1,700- DU 6.74 4.54 4.31 2.21 37.01 10.84 4.87 6.44 7.99 2.27 4.09 1.45 172.01 -1,700DU- Bed Bed KSF KSF KSF KSF Room Stu -- - - - - - - - - - - Nursing/Congregate Care Commercial/Retail* Office/Business Park Industrial - -30% - - Warehouse - Hotel/Motel - Elementary School Day Care - Stu - -Self-Storage KSF PumpService Station*-30% * 30% average reduction applied to retail and service station uses to account for likelihood of pass-by and divert trips ** City of Rancho Cucamonga (2024). DIF Nexus Study 25 Page 240 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Total Program Costs Total costs of the DIF program are calculated by the following steps, each ensuring that the fees collected are appropriately aligned with the costs incurred by new development impacts. 1. Identify Total Costs of Transportation Improvements. The total cost of expansion and improvement projects is $327,090,000 as provided in Appendix C. 2. Account for Known Funding (Balance) and Fee Credits (Obligations). The balance remaining in the current DIF program is $64,000,00011. This balance is subtracted from the estimated costs to complete improvement projects and to account for unspent dollars towards future projects. Improvement reimbursement programs allow developers to recover costs for constructing public infrastructure that exceeds the immediate needs of their project and benefits the broader community. Such reimbursement programs typically involve formal reimbursement agreements which the City would be obligated to fulfill, outstanding obligations should be accounted for and subtracted from the remaining balance. At the time of this Study, there are no known reimbursement obligations. 3. Account for Existing Deficiencies. All facilities where capacity-related improvement projects are identified are first evaluated to determine if they adequately serve the City’s current service population. Where the level of service is below acceptable standards (LOS D per the City’s General Plan), only a proportional amount of the total project costs is to be funded by future development. Deductions to account for existing deficiencies are in the amount of $3,943,600. The table below describes the total program cost. 11 DIF Fund Balance as of June 2024 26 Page 241 Table 14 – DIF Program Cost Total Program Element Total Cost $327,090,000DIF Program Project Contributions (Appendix C) DIF Account Balance (June 2024) Adjustments for Existing Deficiencies (Table 8) Program Total - $64,000,000 - $3,943,600 $259,146,400 Maximum Fee Calculation12 What is the maximum justified fee by land use type based on the prior steps that can be charged to new development, with the fee on residential land use levied per building square foot unless an alternative method is justified? Per the evaluation of travel demand forecasts during the development of the City’s General Plan, future development generate a total of 183,433 new daily trips. Table 15 demonstrates (for informational purposes only) the estimated cost per trip, and per EDU, without the zone approach. 12 Government Code §§ 66005.1 (a) – If housing development satisfies all of the following characteristics, then a transportation fee, or the portion of the fee relating to vehicular traffic impacts, must be set at a rate that reflects a lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with such housing developments in comparison to housing developments without these characteristics, unless the local agency adopts specific findings: • The housing development is located within one-half mile of a transit station and there is direct access between the housing development and the transit station along a barrier-free walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length. • Convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food, are located within one-half mile of the housing development. • The housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than one onsite parking space for zero-to-two-bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more-bedroom units, whichever is less. DIF Nexus Study 27 Page 242 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Table 15 – Cost per Trip Citywide (for comparative review only) Costs Total New Trips Total Program cost Cost per Trip 183,433 $259,146,400 $1,413 Cost per EDU*$13,322 * Provided for the City as a whole for comparative purposes. Since the cost per EDU is dependent on the zone the project is in, it changes per zone. Applying the band zonal approach to the identified improvements and accounting for the interaction of trips between those zones (Table 4), this study identifies the total costs for projects within each zone and the total project cost burden as shown in Table 16 below: Table 16 – Total Cost of Improvements By Zone ContributionsSub-area Project costs North Central South North Central South $27,302,057 $20,400,379 $4,590,764 $10,614,904 $4,340,113 $52,705,425 $40,891,246 $2,561,566 $9,925,606 $177,115,776 $67,221,794 $228,621,926 Applying the zone-specific contributions to the estimated development potential (total new trips) within the respective zones results in the following costs per trip and per EDU associated with this impact fee program (Table 17): Table 17 – Cost per Trip and Cost per EDU Sub-area ID Total New Trips Total Contributions Cost per Trip Cost per EDU - DIF Balance $10,12225,034 51,314 107,085 $35,606,046 $97,936,783 $189,602,948 $1,422 $1,909 $1,771 $13,412North Central South $17,998 $16,697 $14,708 $13,406 Applying the estimated cost per EDU to each land use category, a maximum fee per unit of land use is calculated. Please note that per AB 602 requirements and assessments within this Study, impact fees for proposed Single-Family Residential projects should be assessed by size (square feet), adjusted by their relationship to the average size of Single-Family Residential units. 28 Page 243 Developments near quality transit generally produce fewer vehicle trips due to the availability of transit options, which encourages a shift away from car usage. As such, AB 2533 was passed which requires lower impact fees to be assessed in areas where development is close to high quality transit. This bill was codified in Government Code section 66005.1. Multifamily development (Close to Rail) trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) were utilized to estimate the reductions appropriate for development meeting the requirements of the legislation. Please note that, by using ITE rates to develop this adjustment, low-rise multifamily units near high quality transit see a fee reduction of approximately 30% compared to the same development that is not near high quality transit. However, for mid-rise multifamily units, ITE rates show an increase in vehicle trip making for development near transit. To simplify the fee program, a 30% reduction is applied for all residential land use meeting the AB 2533 requirements. DIF Nexus Study 29 Page 244 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Table 18 – Maximum Fee Calculation Maximum Fee Per Land Use Category by ZoneLand Use Unit EDU North Zone Central Zone South Zone DU – 2,500 SF (100%)1.00 $10,122 $4.05 $14,708 $5.88 $13,406 $5.36Single Family – Detached*Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee collection) If located in a high-quality transit area**$2.84 $4.12 $3.75 DU – 1,700 SF (100%)0.76 $7,728 $4.55 $11,230 $6.61 $10,236 $6.02Single Family – Attached*Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee collection) If located in a high-quality transit area**$3.19 $4.63 $4.21 DU – 1,700 SF (100%)0.71 $7,235 $10,512 $9,582 Multifamily – (Low-Rise)Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee collection)$4.26 $2.98 $4,873 $2.87 $2.01 $4,626 $6.18 $4.33 $7,081 $4.17 $2.92 $6,722 $5.64 $3.95 $6,454 $3.80 $2.66 $6,127 If located in a high-quality transit area** DU – 1,700 SF (100%)0.48 Multifamily – (Mid-Rise)Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee collection) If located in a high-quality transit area** Senior Housing Bed Bed 0.46 0.23Nursing/ Congregate Care $2,372 $3,447 $3,142 Commercial/Retail** Office/Business Park Industrial KSF KSF 2.75 1.15 0.52 0.68 0.85 0.24 0.43 0.15 12.77 $19,466 $11,636 $5,227 $6,913 $8,576 $2,437 $4,390 $1,556 $90,471 $28,284 $16,907 $7,596 $25,782 $15,411 $6,924KSF Warehouse KSF $10,044 $12,462 $3,540 $9,156 Hotel/Motel Room Stu $11,359 $3,227Elementary School Day Care Stu $6,379 $5,815 Self-Storage KSF $2,262 $2,061 Service Station**Pump $131,457 $119,826 * For Single Family Residential Units (Detached or Attached), proposed square footage of projects above or below the average size (2,500 square feet for detached, 1,700 square feet for attached and multi-family), shall be responsible for a proportional increase or decrease to the impact fees assessed. (See table and examples for application of fees in the following sections) ** See text description related to 30% reduction for land use in a high-quality transit area that was derived using ITE rates for low- rise multifamily units away from and proximate to transit. Same reduction applied to service station and commercial/retail categories to account for pass-by trips. 30 Page 245 Fee Implementation Steps to Calculate Transportation Impact Fees Step 1 – Determine Project Description and Land Use Quantities In this step, the development project is clearly defined by identifying the land use type and its scale. The description should include: Project type: Residential (single-family or multi-family), commercial, industrial, or mixed-use. Land use categories: For example, residential units (number and size of Single-Family Units, Multifamily Units, etc.), office space (square feet), or retail space (square feet). Project size: Specify the quantity in units of the chosen land use category. For residential projects, this will be the number and size of dwelling units (DU). For non-residential projects, this could be square feet (KSF) of office or retail space, or other relevant measures. Step 2 – Apply Transportation Impact Fees Once the land use quantities are identified, the next step is to apply the appropriate transportation impact fee rates. Locate the fee schedule: Use the pre-determined transportation impact fee schedule (Table 18) that outlines the fee rates for different land use categories, such as single-family residential, multifamily, commercial, or industrial. Page 246 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Calculate the total fee: Multiply the number of proposed quantities of land use by the corresponding transportation impact fee rate. Example Calculation Step 1 – Determine Project Description and Land Use Quantities Example: A proposed development includes 100 single-family detached homes averaging 2,000 sq. ft. (200,000 sq. ft.) and 40,000 square feet of office space in the North Zone. Step 2 – Apply Transportation Impact Fees Example: If the fee for a single-family detached home is $4.05 per sq. ft., the fee for 200,000 sq. ft. would be: 200,000 sq. ft. × $4.05/sq. ft. = $810,000 Example: If the fee for office space is $11,636 per 1,000 square feet, the fee for 40,000 square feet of office space would be: 40 KSF × $11,636/KSF = $465,440 Summing up the total fees: After calculating the fees for each land use type, the total transportation impact fee for the project is obtained by adding the individual fees, or $1,275,440. Program Administration This section outlines the procedures for administering and reporting on the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Transportation Impact Fee (DIF) program. It includes guidelines for program administration, updates, regular reporting, and how to address land uses that are not explicitly described within the land use categories of the fee structure. The requirements and procedures for refunds and filing of grievances in settling disputes regarding fee assessment are also detailed. Program Administration The City will be responsible for the overall administration and ongoing management of the DIF program. This involves maintaining accurate records of fee collection, project funding, and program adjustments. Key Administrative Responsibilities:   Fee Collection: Ensure that all development projects subject to the DIF program pay the appropriate fees based on the approved fee schedule. Fund Allocation: Manage and allocate collected fees toward transportation infrastructure improvements that are directly related to growth. 32 Page 247 Monitoring and Adjustments: Regularly monitor the need for fee adjustments, including indexing fees to account for inflation or changes in construction costs. To maintain the program’s financial sustainability and relevance, the City will apply an annual adjustment to the DIF, reflecting changes in construction costs. Adjustments should be based on an established construction cost index, such as the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Construction Contract Cost Index, to ensure fees align with current market conditions. Program Update In compliance with AB 602, the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Transportation Impact Fee Program requires periodic updates and reviews to ensure its alignment with current development patterns, infrastructure needs, and legal standards.    Review the Fee Program every five (5) years per Government Code §§ 66001. Update the Nexus Study every eight (8) years per AB 602 Update the Fee Program and/or Nexus Study if there are any other substantial changes/updates to the Mitigation Fee Act Update the Fee Program and/or Nexus Study due to major changes in the policies/assumptions due to a General Plan Update or other citywide planning effort.    Update the Fee Program and/or Nexus Study if the City changes its development impact criteria. Update the Fee Program and/or Nexus Study if the construction costs change significantly. Annually update the Fee Program to reflect inflation and other factors that affect the costs of projects in the fee program. The City must adopt or update a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as part of the Nexus Study. The CIP outlines the infrastructure projects that will be funded by the collected impact fees, ensuring transparency and planning consistency. The City of Rancho Cucamonga publishes the Capital Improvement Program as part of the annual budgeting procedures, and the latest available information can be found on the City’s website under the Financial Reports section.13 Further the City has prepared an amendment to the Major Project Program (which includes the Capital Improvement Program) which will be considered for approval as part of the DIF Program update. A copy of the Major Project Program amendment is available under separate cover. Program Reporting Government Code §§ 65940.1 requires that the City maintains the following items (and posts on their website): A current schedule of fees, exactions, and affordability requirements imposed by the DIF. 13 https://www.cityofrc.us/your-government/budget DIF Nexus Study 33 Page 248 City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study    All zoning ordinances and development standards adopted by the City showing the information, which shall specify the zoning, design, and development standards that apply to each parcel. A list that specifies the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project. The current and five previous annual fee reports or the current and five previous annual financial reports, fee nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent, conducted by that City, on or after January 1, 2018. Unique Land Use Categories In cases where a proposed development does not fit neatly into the predefined land use categories within the DIF program, the City will apply a methodology that ensures the fee is proportional to the anticipated impact of the development on transportation infrastructure. Impact Assessment: For new or uncommon land uses, the project must submit a traffic impact assessment to determine the projected vehicle trips, or other relevant metrics (e.g., Vehicle Miles Traveled, VMT), generated by the proposed development. Trip Generation Data: The City will reference the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual to estimate the transportation demand of the new land use. If no specific trip generation data is available for the proposed land use, the City will use a comparable category from the manual as a proxy. Custom Fee Calculation: Once the anticipated transportation demand is assessed, the City will calculate a custom fee based on the closest comparable land use category in the DIF schedule, adjusted for any unique characteristics of the development. Refund Provisions Under California Government Code §§ 66001(d) and (e), the City of Rancho Cucamonga must refund any unexpended development impact fees, along with accrued interest, if not used or committed within five years of collection. Refunds are issued to the current record owners on a pro-rata basis, determined using the last equalized assessment roll. If administrative costs of processing the refund exceed the refund amount, the City may, after a public hearing, allocate the funds to a related public improvement serving the original development. Additionally, the City must make specific findings every five years regarding the purpose, relationship, and anticipated use of unspent fees, ensuring transparency and accountability in fee management. Grievances California Government Code §§ 66000-66025 requires legal avenues that are available to contest the fees associated with this update. This is further described in the city’s Municipal Code section 3.28.050 which states that, “A developer of any project subject to the fee described in section 3.28.020 [city-wide transportation development fees] may apply to the city council for a reduction or adjustment to that fee, 34 Page 249 or a waiver of that fee, based upon the absence of any reasonable relationship or nexus between the traffic impacts of that development and either the amount or the fee charged or the type of facilities to be financed.” This avenue is open to anyone disputing the transportation impact fee and generally would be facilitated by the following key considerations that are required by the Government Code: Fee Challenges and Protest Procedures Under Government Code § 66020, developers or property owners who disagree with the amount or validity of an imposed fee must follow a specific protest procedure. To preserve their right to challenge the fee:   The developer must submit a written notice of protest to the City at the time of fee payment or within 90 days after the fee imposition. The protest must clearly outline the grounds for dispute, such as the lack of nexus between the fee and the development's impact or disagreement with the fee calculation method. Failure to file a protest within this period waives the right to legally challenge the fee in the future. This is consistent with the Municipal Code as noted above. Public Hearing for Disputes If the dispute is not resolved at the local level, the developer has the right to seek judicial review. To initiate this process:   A lawsuit challenging the fee must be filed within 180 days of the fee being imposed or from the final decision issued by the City after the grievance process. Judicial review focuses on whether the fee complies with the Mitigation Fee Act, particularly the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests established in case law (e.g., Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard). DIF Nexus Study 35 Page 250 Appendices Page 251 Appendix A – Resolution No. 20‐122 Page 252 December 2, 2020 Page 253 Page 254 Page 255 Page 256 Page 257 Page 258 Page 259 Page 260 Page 261 Page 262 Page 263 Page 264 Page 265 Page 266 Appendix B – Completed DIF Projects List (Resolution No. 20‐122) Project ID Project Freeway Interchanges Freeway Interchanges Freeway Interchanges 1 2 3 Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway- Widen NB & SB On-Ramps Foothill Boulevard at 1-15 Freeway - Widen NB & SB On-Ramps Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway - Interchange Improvements Railroad Grade Separations and Crossings 1 4 Haven Avenue at Metrolink Crossing - Grade Separation Railroad Grade Separations and Crossings Hellman Avenue at 8th Street - Upgrade Existing RXR Crossing Gates Bridges Bridges Streets Streets Streets Streets 4 8 Banyan Street at Etiwanda Creek Channel - Bridge Wilson Avenue at Etiwanda Creek Channel - Bridge 4 Banyan Street - Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue - Widen North Side Banyan Street - East Avenue to Wardman Bullock Road - New Alignment East Avenue - Fire Station to Wilson - New 5 10 22 Haven Avenue - Base Line Road to 1-210 Freeway - Widen West Side Only Streets 25 Milliken Avenue - 5th Street to 700' S/O 5th Street - Widen West Side Only Victoria Street - East Property Line of Etiwanda High School to 1-15 Freeway - Improve Both ShouldersStreets26 Streets 27 30 1 Vintage Drive - Etiwanda Avenue to 1,300' W/O Etiwanda Avenue - New Wilson Avenue - East Avenue to Wardman Bullock Road - New 4th Street at Richmond Place Streets Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements 2 4th Street at Utica Avenue 3 6th Street at Buffalo Avenue 4 6th Street at Cleveland Avenue 6 6th Street at Hellman Avenue 8 6th Street at Rochester Avenue 10 11 12 15 6th Street at Utica Avenue Archibald Avenue at Banyan Street Archibald Avenue at San Bernardino Road Arrow Route at Center Avenue Page 267 Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 26 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 55 56 57 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Banyan Street at Wardman Bullock Road Base Line Road at San Carmela Court Base Line Road at Shelby Place Carnelian Street at Banyan Street Carnelian Street at Wilson Avenue Church Street at Elm Avenue (West) Church Street at Mayten Avenue Church Street at Terra Vista Parkway Day Creek Boulevard at Madrigal Place Day Creek Boulevard at Wilson Avenue East Avenue at Miller Avenue Etiwanda Avenue at Garcia Drive Etiwanda Avenue at Whittram Avenue Foothill Boulevard at Cornwall Court Foothill Boulevard at East Avenue Haven Avenue at Trademark Street Haven Avenue at Valencia Avenue Haven Avenue at Wilson Avenue Hellman Avenue at 8th Street Hermosa Avenue at Church Street Milliken Avenue at 5th Street Rochester Avenue at Jersey Boulevard Spruce Avenue at Elm Avenue Wilson Avenue at San Sevaine Road Wilson Avenue at Wardman Bullock Road Wilson Avenue at Canistel Avenue Arrow Route at Etiwanda Avenue - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Arrow Route at Red Oak Street - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Arrow Route at White Oak Street - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Banyan Street at East Avenue - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Base Line Road at Mountain View Drive - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Base Line Road at Spruce Avenue - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Base Line Road at Valencia Avenue - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Page 268 Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Day Creek Boulevard at Silverberry Street - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Day Creek Boulevard at Sugar Gum Street - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Day Creek Boulevard at Victoria Park Lane - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Milliken Avenue at Millenium Court - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Milliken Avenue at Mountain View Drive - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Milliken Avenue at Terra Vista Parkway - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Milliken Avenue at Victoria Park Lane - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Milliken Avenue at Vintage Drive - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Page 269 Appendix C DIF Cost Estimates and Soft Cost Assumptions Adjustment for Engineering, Environmental & Contingency (soft costs) Project Construction Cost Estimate Project Name/Location Description/ Location Quantity* (Mile or Lane Mile) Total Facility Cost in Fee ProgramProject ID Grove Avenue/ 4th Street at Interchange improvementF 1 R 1 - - $10,000,000 $3,719,000 20% 0% $12,000,000 $3,719,000 1-10 Freeway 6th Street E/O Santa Anita Avenue RXR crossing improvement Widen existing bridge or use prefab bridge adjacent to existing structure 6th Street at Cucamonga Creek Channel B 1 -$3,750,000 50%$5,625,000 Arrow Route at Etiwanda Ditch Widen existing bridgeB 2 B 3 B 4 S 1 - - $5,062,500 $3,750,000 $2,600,000 $3,000,000 50% 50% 50% 50% $7,593,750 $5,625,000 $3,900,000 $4,500,000 Whittram Avenue at Etiwanda Ditch Construct new Bridge Construct new bridge Complete Streets Wilson Avenue at Day Creek Channel - Arrow Route Grove Ave to Baker Ave 1.00 Widen west side of Cherry Ave from Wilson Ave to Channel Cherry Avenue roadway wideningS 2 S 3 0.30 0.75 $450,000 $561,750 50% 50% $675,000 $842,625Church Street buffered bike lanes From Ramona Ave to Haven Ave Page 270 East Avenue roadway Widen from 1-15 to S 4 S 5 widening north of I-Victoria Street at bottleneck locations -$1,325,000 $1,325,000 $1,200,000 50% 50% 50% $1,987,500 $1,987,500 $1,800,000 15 East Avenue extension north of Wilson Ave Wilson Avenue to North Rim Way- New 1.00 0.30 Etiwanda Avenue roadway widening south of Arrow Rte Widen 2 to 4 lanes from Arrow Rte to Whittram Ave S 6** Widen east side of Etiwanda Ave from Miller Ave to 850' north of Miller Ave Etiwanda Avenue roadway widening north of Miller Ave S 7 1.00 $240,000 50%$360,000 Foothill Boulevard - Widen north side of Hellman Avenue to 700' E/O Hellman Avenue Foothill Blvd from Hellman Ave to 700' east of Hellman Ave S 8** S 9** 0.30 1.00 0.30 $195,000 $1,325,000 $530,000 50% 50% 50% $292,500 $1,987,500 $795,000 Foothill Boulevard - Archibald Avenue to from Archibald Ave Hermosa Avenue Widen 4 to 6 lanes to Hermosa Ave Widen east side of Grove Ave from 1 to 2 lanes between 9th St and Tapia Via Dr Grove Avenue roadway widening north of 9th St S 10** Widen east side of Grove Ave from 1 toGrove Avenue S 11** S 12 roadway widening 2 lanes between San south of Foothill Blvd Bernardino Rd and Foothill Blvd 1.00 0.30 $195,000 50% 50% $292,500 Wilson Avenue extension west of Day Creek Blvd Wilson Ave extension from Milliken Ave to Day Creek Blvd $2,650,000 $3,975,000 Page 271 Wilson Avenue extension east of Etiwanda Ave Wilson Ave extension from Etiwanda Ave to East Ave S 13 1.00 $1,325,000 50%$1,987,500 (Backbone Only) 6th Street at Pittsburgh AvenueINT 1 INT 2 INT 3 INT 4 INT 5 INT 6 INT 7 INT 8 INT 9 INT 10 INT 11 INT 12 INT 13 INT 14 New Traffic Signal New Traffic Signal New Traffic Signal Roundabout - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $750,000 $750,000 10% 10% 10% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 10% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% $825,000 $825,0006th Street at Santa Anita Avenue Archibald Avenue at Victoria Street $750,000 $825,000 Banyan Street at Rochester Avenue $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $750,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $825,000 Church Street at Ramona Avenue Roundabout Civic Center Drive at Red Oak Street Roundabout Ridgeline Place at Wilson Avenue Roundabout East Avenue at Highland Avenue Roundabout Foothill Boulevard at Malachite Avenue New Traffic Signal RoundaboutMilliken Avenue at Wilson Avenue $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 Spruce Avenue at Mountain View Drive Roundabout Spruce Avenue at Red Oak Street Roundabout Terra Vista Parkway at Spruce Avenue Roundabout Terra Vista Parkway at Town Center Drive Roundabout Page 272 Town Center Drive at Elm AvenueINT 15 INT 16 INT 17 Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout - - - $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 50% 50% 50% $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 Wilson Avenue at East Avenue Wilson Avenue at Etiwanda Avenue 4th Street at Golden Oak Road - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Traffic signal modificationINT 18 INT 19 INT 20 T 1 - - $50,000 $50,000 10% 10% 50% 50% $55,000 $55,000 Archibald Avenue at Banyan Street - Left Turn Phasing Traffic signal modification Upgrade Citywide traffic signal communication improvements Signal Interconnect System -$30,000,000 $632,500 $45,000,000 $948,750 Cucamonga Creek Channel from Base Line Road to Foothill Boulevard Trail improvements 1.1 Cucamonga Creek Channel at Base Line Road Trail crossing improvementsT 2 T 3 T 4 - - - $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 10% 10% 10% $825,000 $825,000 $825,000 Cucamonga Creek Channel at Foothill Boulevard Trail crossing improvements Cucamonga Creek Channel at Arrow Route Trail crossing improvements Cucamonga Creek Channel at 9th Street Trail crossing improvementsT 5 T 6 - - $75,000 50% 10% $112,500 $825,000Cucamonga Creek Channel at 6th Street Trail crossing improvements $750,000 Page 273 Deer Creek Channel at Foothill Boulevard Trail crossing improvementsT 7 T 8 - - - - - $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $75,000 10% 10% 10% 50% 10% $825,000 $825,000 $825,000 $112,500 $825,000 Deer Creek Channel at Arrow Route Trail crossing improvements Deer Creek Channel at 6th Street Trail crossing improvementsT 9 Day Creek Channel at Victoria Park Lane Trail crossing improvementsT 10 T 11 Day Creek Channel at Base Line Road Trail crossing improvements $750,000 Archibald Avenue Buffered Bike Lanes and Ped Base Line Rd to Foothill Blvd, Arrow Rte to 7th St CRH 4 1.50 $690,000 $690,000 Enhancements San Bernardino Road Stripe Shoulders Vineyard Ave to Archibald AveCRH 5 CRH 6 -$122,000 $486,000 $122,000 $486,000 Church Street Buffered Bike Lanes and Stripe Shoulders Pepper St to Ramona Ave 1.10 See Connect RC App. B. Cost Estimates Include Soft Costs For These Items Hermosa Avenue Buffered Bike Lane and New Sidewalks Base Line Rd to Foothill BlvdCRH 11 CRH 14 E 1 1.00 - $741,000 $191,000 $3,853,000 $741,000 $191,000 $3,853,000 Feron Boulevard Ped Enhancements Archibald Ave to Hermosa Ave Banyan Street Ped Enhancements and to Wardman Bullock Deer Creek Channel 3.70 Buffered Lanes Rd Day Creek Boulevard Buffered Bike Lanes Etiwanda Ave to SR-E 2 2.20 $1,144,000 $1,144,000and Ped 210 WB Ramp Enhancements Page 274 Etiwanda Avenue Bike Route and Ped Crossing SR-210 to Banyan St, Saddleridge Dr to Victoria St E 4 E 5 0.50 1.70 $274,000 $274,000 Enhancements Day Creek Blvd to Etiwanda Ave, Wardman Bullock Rd to Cherry Ave, Wilson Ave at Bluegrass Ave Wilson Avenue Buffered Bike Lane and Ped Crossing Enhancements $1,017,000 $1,017,000 Victoria Street Ped EnhancementsE 6 E 7 East Ave and I-15 -$69,000 $69,000 East Avenue Buffered Bike Lane and New Banyan St to Philly Dr Sidewalks 0.40 $1,328,000 $1,328,000 Base Line Road Ped and Bike Enhancements Wanona Pl to Shelby PlE 8 E 9 0.27 - $486,000 $258,000 $987,000 $42,000 $486,000 $258,000 $987,000 $42,000 Coyote Dr and Duncaster Pl, Stoneview Rd and Duncaster Pl Duncaster Place Ped Enhancements Etiwanda Creek E 10 E 11 Channel Multi-Use PE Trail to Victoria St 1.80 1.90 Trail Summit Intermediate/ Etiwanda Creek Park Connection Etiwanda Creek Parking Lot Terra Vista Parkway Ped/Bike Enhancements Terra Vista Pkwy to Hampton PlCNE 1 CNE 2 1.90 - $1,443,000 $589,000 $1,443,000 $589,000 Spruce Ave at Terra Vista Pkwy, Mountain View Dr, Elm Ave Spruce Avenue Ped Enhancements Page 275 Base Line Road Buffered Bike Lane and Deer Creek Trail Crossing Haven Ave to Etiwanda AveCNE 8 CNE 9 3.00 - $1,461,000 $49,000 $1,461,000 $49,000 Elm Avenue Crossing Enhancements and Sidewalk at Coyote Canyon Elementary Spruce Ave to Church St Church Street Buffered Bike LanesCNE 10 CNE 11 CNE 13 Mayten Ave to I-15 1.80 1.90 - $856,000 $688,000 $76,000 $856,000 $688,000 $76,000 Day Creek Boulevard Buffered Bike Lanes Highland Ave to Foothill Blvd Lark Drive New Crosswalks Lark Dr at Rochester Ave, Matera Pl Miller Avenue Buffered Bike Lanes, Sidewalks and Ped Enhancements CNE 14 CNE 15 CSS 2 I-15 to East Ave 0.50 0.60 1.00 $444,000 $212,000 $3,637,000 $444,000 $212,000 $3,637,000 Garcia Dr from Etiwanda Ave toDolcetto Place and Garcia Drive Buffered Dolcetto Pl, Colcetto Bike Lanes Pl from Miller Ave to Garcia Dr Spruce Avenue and Red Oak Street Ped/Bike Foothill Blvd to Arrow Rte Enhancements 6th St Cucamonga Creek Channel to Haven Ave Bicycle Corridor ImprovementsCRH 15 CCS 3 1.58 0.55 $1,027,000 $357,500 20% 20% $1,232,400 $429,000Jersey Blvd Haven Ave to Rochester Ave Bicycle Corridor Improvements Page 276 Foothill Blvd highway to city centerDTRC 1 DTRC 5 Rochester to ECL - - $17,800,000 $750,000 25% 10% $22,250,000 $825,000 boulevard transformation Day Creek Channel Trail and Park Drive (Foothill Blvd) New signalized crossing crossing Day Creek Channel Trail 8th St to Future Etiwanda HeightsDTRC 6 CC 1 3.4 - $3,700,000 $87,500,000 $62,500,000 30% 25% 25% $4,810,000 $109,375,000 $78,125,000 Foothill Blvd AT transformation Haven Ave to Rochester Ave Haven Ave AT transformationCC 1.1 Foothill Blvd to 7th St - Haven Ave to Mayten Ave (east of Mayten in Connect RC) Church St buffered bike lanesCC 2 1.43 $929,500 20%$1,115,400 Arrow Rte buffered bike lanes Hermosa Ave to Rochester AveCC 2.1 CC 2.2 2.23 1.52 $1,449,500 $988,000 20% 20% $1,739,400 $1,185,600Hermosa Ave buffered bike lanes Foothill Blvd to 6th St Devon St terminus to Civic Center Dr terminus CC 3 Devon St extension 0.30 $397,500 50%$596,250 Rochester Ave buffered bike lanesHART 2 HART 3 HART 4 Foothill Blvd to 6th St 1.32 1.46 0.88 $858,000 $1,934,500 $1,166,000 20% 50% 50% $1,029,600 $2,901,750 $1,749,000 Azusa Ct terminus to Acacia St terminusAzusa Ct extension 7th St extension Milliken Ave to Haven Ave Page 277 Class IV bicycle corridor and complete streets improvements Foothill Blvd from Haven Ave to WCLRH 6 - - $15,300,000 $7,500,000 25% 25% $19,125,000 $9,375,000 Archibald AT transformation with buffered bike lanes CTC 1 7th St to 4th St 9th St extension (roadway) Archibald Ave and Hermosa AveCTC 6 SEIQ 2 SEIQ 2.2 SEIQ 3 SIEQ 6 0.74 1.25 0.72 1.46 - $980,500 $812,500 50% 20% 20% 50% 23% $1,470,750 $975,000Arrow Rte buffered bike lanes Rochester Ave to Etiwanda Ave 6th St buffered bike Spur line to Etiwanda $468,000 $561,600lanesAve Whittram Ave extension Etiwanda Ave to Rochester Ave $9,869,0001 $119,875,000 $14,803,500 $147,675,000Etiwanda Grade Separation (EGS) 1. Includes costs for I-15 undercrossing Page 278 DIF Project List and Project Cost Estimates FutureNew Development ContributionProject Name/Location Description/Locatio n Quantity* (Mile or Lane Mile) Total Project Cost Estimate Development Contribution Amount Project ID (Percentage) Grove Avenue/ 4th Street at Interchange improvementF 1 R 1 - - $12,000,000 $3,719,000 100.0% 100.0% $12,000,000 $3,719,000 1-10 Freeway 6th Street E/O Santa Anita Avenue RXR crossing improvement Widen existing bridge or use prefab bridge adjacent to existing structure 6th Street at Cucamonga Creek Channel B 1 -$5,625,000 100.0%$5,625,000 Arrow Route at Etiwanda Ditch Widen existing bridgeB 2 B 3 B 4 S 1 - - $7,593,750 $5,625,000 $3,900,000 $4,500,000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 29.6% $7,593,750 $5,625,000 $3,900,000 $1,332,000 Whittram Avenue at Etiwanda Ditch Construct new Bridge Construct new bridge Complete Streets Wilson Avenue at Day Creek Channel - Arrow Route Grove Ave to Baker Ave 1.00 Widen west side of Cherry Ave from Wilson Ave to Channel Cherry Avenue roadway wideningS 2 0.30 $675,000 100.0%$675,000 Church Street buffered bike lanes From Ramona Ave to Haven AveS 3 S 4 0.75 - $842,625 29.6%$249,417 East Avenue roadway Widen from 1-15 to widening north of I-Victoria Street at $1,987,500 100.0%$1,987,500 15 bottleneck locations Page 279 East Avenue extension north of Wilson Ave Wilson Avenue to North Rim Way- NewS 5 1.00 0.30 $1,987,500 $1,800,000 100.0% 100.0% $1,987,500 $1,800,000 Etiwanda Avenue roadway widening south of Arrow Rte Widen 2 to 4 lanes from Arrow Rte to Whittram Ave S 6** Widen east side of Etiwanda Ave from Miller Ave to 850' north of Miller Ave Etiwanda Avenue roadway widening north of Miller Ave S 7 1.00 $360,000 100.0%$360,000 Foothill Boulevard - Widen north side of Hellman Avenue to 700' E/O Hellman Avenue Foothill Blvd from Hellman Ave to 700' east of Hellman Ave S 8** S 9** 0.30 1.00 0.30 $292,500 $1,987,500 $795,000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% $292,500 $1,987,500 $795,000 Foothill Boulevard - Archibald Avenue to from Archibald Ave Hermosa Avenue Widen 4 to 6 lanes to Hermosa Ave Widen east side of Grove Ave from 1 to 2 lanes between 9th St and Tapia Via Dr Grove Avenue roadway widening north of 9th St S 10** Widen east side of Grove Ave from 1 to roadway widening 2 lanes between San south of Foothill Blvd Bernardino Rd and Foothill Blvd Grove Avenue S 11** S 12 1.00 0.30 $292,500 100.0% 100.0% $292,500 Wilson Avenue extension west of Day Creek Blvd Wilson Ave extension from Milliken Ave to Day Creek Blvd $3,975,000 $3,975,000 Wilson Avenue extension east of Etiwanda Ave Wilson Ave extension from Etiwanda Ave to East Ave S 13 1.00 - $1,987,500 $825,000 100.0% 100.0% $1,987,500 $825,000 (Backbone Only) 6th Street at Pittsburgh AvenueINT 1 New Traffic Signal Page 280 6th Street at Santa Anita AvenueINT 2 INT 3 New Traffic Signal New Traffic Signal Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout New Traffic Signal Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $825,000 $825,000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% $825,000 $825,000Archibald Avenue at Victoria Street Banyan Street at Rochester AvenueINT 4 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $825,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $825,000 Church Street at Ramona AvenueINT 5 Civic Center Drive at Red Oak StreetINT 6 Ridgeline Place at Wilson AvenueINT 7 East Avenue at Highland AvenueINT 8 Foothill Boulevard at Malachite AvenueINT 9 Milliken Avenue at Wilson AvenueINT 10 INT 11 INT 12 INT 13 INT 14 INT 15 INT 16 INT 17 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 Spruce Avenue at Mountain View Drive Spruce Avenue at Red Oak Street Terra Vista Parkway at Spruce Avenue Terra Vista Parkway at Town Center Drive Town Center Drive at Elm Avenue Wilson Avenue at East Avenue Wilson Avenue at Etiwanda Avenue Page 281 4th Street at Golden Oak Road - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade Traffic signal modificationINT 18 INT 19 INT 20 T 1 - - $55,000 $55,000 29.6% 29.6% 100.0% 29.6% $16,280 $16,280 Archibald Avenue at Banyan Street - Left Turn Phasing Traffic signal modification Upgrade Citywide traffic signal communication improvements Signal Interconnect System -$45,000,000 $948,750 $45,000,000 $280,830 Cucamonga Creek Channel from Base Line Road to Foothill Boulevard Trail improvements 1.1 Cucamonga Creek Channel at Base Line Road Trail crossing improvementsT 2 T 3 T 4 - - - $825,000 $825,000 $825,000 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% $244,200 $244,200 $244,200 Cucamonga Creek Channel at Foothill Boulevard Trail crossing improvements Cucamonga Creek Channel at Arrow Route Trail crossing improvements Cucamonga Creek Channel at 9th Street Trail crossing improvementsT 5 T 6 T 7 T 8 T 9 - - - - - $112,500 $825,000 $825,000 $825,000 $825,000 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% $33,300 $244,200 $244,200 $244,200 $244,200 Cucamonga Creek Channel at 6th Street Trail crossing improvements Deer Creek Channel at Foothill Boulevard Trail crossing improvements Deer Creek Channel at Arrow Route Trail crossing improvements Deer Creek Channel at 6th Street Trail crossing improvements Page 282 Day Creek Channel at Victoria Park Lane Trail crossing improvementsT 10 T 11 - - $112,500 $825,000 29.6% 29.6% $33,300 Day Creek Channel at Base Line Road Trail crossing improvements $244,200 Archibald Avenue Buffered Bike Lanes and Ped Base Line Rd to Foothill Blvd, Arrow Rte to 7th St CRH 4 1.50 $690,000 29.6%$204,240 Enhancements San Bernardino Road Stripe Shoulders Vineyard Ave to Archibald AveCRH 5 CRH 6 -$122,000 $486,000 29.6% 29.6% $36,112 Church Street Buffered Bike Lanes and Stripe Shoulders Pepper St to Ramona Ave 1.10 $143,856 Hermosa Avenue Buffered Bike Lane and New Sidewalks Base Line Rd to Foothill BlvdCRH 11 CRH 14 E 1 1.00 - $741,000 $191,000 $3,853,000 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% $219,336 $56,536Feron Boulevard Ped Enhancements Archibald Ave to Hermosa Ave Banyan Street Ped Enhancements and to Wardman Bullock Deer Creek Channel 3.70 $1,140,488 Buffered Lanes Rd Day Creek Boulevard Buffered Bike Lanes Etiwanda Ave to SR-E 2 E 4 2.20 0.50 $1,144,000 $274,000 29.6% 29.6% $338,624 $81,104 and Ped 210 WB Ramp Enhancements Etiwanda Avenue Bike Route and Ped Crossing SR-210 to Banyan St, Saddleridge Dr to Victoria StEnhancements Day Creek Blvd to Etiwanda Ave, Wardman Bullock Rd to Cherry Ave, Wilson Ave at Bluegrass Ave Wilson Avenue Buffered Bike Lane and Ped Crossing Enhancements E 5 1.70 $1,017,000 29.6%$301,032 Page 283 Victoria Street Ped EnhancementsE 6 E 7 East Ave and I-15 -$69,000 29.6% 29.6% $20,424 East Avenue Buffered Bike Lane and New Banyan St to Philly Dr Sidewalks 0.40 $1,328,000 $393,088 Base Line Road Ped and Bike Enhancements Wanona Pl to Shelby PlE 8 E 9 0.27 - $486,000 $258,000 $987,000 $42,000 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% $143,856 $76,368 $292,152 $12,432 Coyote Dr and Duncaster Pl, Stoneview Rd and Duncaster Pl Duncaster Place Ped Enhancements Etiwanda Creek Channel Multi-Use PE Trail to Victoria StE 10 E 11 1.80 1.90 Trail Summit Intermediate/ Etiwanda Creek Park Connection Etiwanda Creek Parking Lot Terra Vista Parkway Ped/Bike Enhancements Terra Vista Pkwy to Hampton PlCNE 1 CNE 2 1.90 - $1,443,000 $589,000 29.6% 29.6% $427,128.0 $174,344 Spruce Ave at Terra Vista Pkwy, Mountain View Dr, Elm Ave Spruce Avenue Ped Enhancements Base Line Road Buffered Bike Lane and Deer Creek Trail Crossing Haven Ave to Etiwanda AveCNE 8 CNE 9 3.00 - $1,461,000 $49,000 29.6% 29.6% $432,456 $14,504 Elm Avenue Crossing Enhancements and Sidewalk at Coyote Canyon Elementary Spruce Ave to Church St Page 284 Church Street Buffered Bike LanesCNE 10 CNE 11 CNE 13 Mayten Ave to I-15 1.80 1.90 - $856,000 $688,000 $76,000 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% $253,376 $203,648 $22,496 Day Creek Boulevard Buffered Bike Lanes Highland Ave to Foothill Blvd Lark Drive New Crosswalks Lark Dr at Rochester Ave, Matera Pl Miller Avenue Buffered Bike Lanes, Sidewalks and Ped Enhancements CNE 14 CNE 15 CSS 2 I-15 to East Ave 0.50 0.60 1.00 $444,000 $212,000 $3,637,000 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% $131,424 $62,752 Garcia Dr from Etiwanda Ave toDolcetto Place and Garcia Drive Buffered Dolcetto Pl, Colcetto Bike Lanes Pl from Miller Ave to Garcia Dr Spruce Avenue and Red Oak Street Ped/Bike Foothill Blvd to Arrow Rte $1,076,552 Enhancements 6th St Cucamonga Creek Channel to Haven Ave Bicycle Corridor ImprovementsCRH 15 CCS 3 1.58 0.55 $1,232,400 $429,000 29.6% 29.6% $364,790 $126,984Jersey Blvd Haven Ave to Rochester Ave Bicycle Corridor Improvements Foothill Blvd highway to city centerDTRC 1 Rochester to ECL -$22,250,000 29.6%$6,586,000boulevard transformation Day Creek Channel Trail and Park Drive (Foothill Blvd) New signalized crossingDTRC 5 DTRC 6 -$825,000 29.6% 29.6% $244,200 crossing Day Creek Channel Trail 8th St to Future Etiwanda Heights 3.4 $4,810,000 $1,423,760 Page 285 Foothill Blvd AT transformation Haven Ave to Rochester AveCC 1 - - $109,375,000 $78,125,000 29.6% 29.6% $32,375,000 $23,125,000Haven Ave AT transformationCC 1.1 Foothill Blvd to 7th St Haven Ave to Mayten Ave (east of Mayten in Connect RC) Church St buffered bike lanesCC 2 1.43 $1,115,400 29.6%$330,158 Arrow Rte buffered bike lanes Hermosa Ave to Rochester AveCC 2.1 CC 2.2 2.23 1.52 $1,739,400 $1,185,600 29.6% 29.6% $514,862 $350,937Hermosa Ave buffered bike lanes Foothill Blvd to 6th St Devon St terminus to Civic Center Dr terminus CC 3 Devon St extension 0.30 $596,250 100.0%$596,250 Rochester Ave buffered bike lanesHART 2 HART 3 HART 4 Foothill Blvd to 6th St 1.32 1.46 0.88 $1,029,600 $2,901,750 $1,749,000 29.6% 100.0% 100.0% $304,761 $2,901,750 $1,749,000 Azusa Ct terminus to Acacia St terminusAzusa Ct extension 7th St extension Milliken Ave to Haven Ave Class IV bicycle corridor and complete streets improvements Foothill Blvd from Haven Ave to WCLRH 6 - - $19,125,000 $9,375,000 29.6% 29.6% $5,661,000 $2,775,000 Archibald AT transformation with buffered bike lanes CTC 1 7th St to 4th St 9th St extension (roadway) Archibald Ave and Hermosa AveCTC 6 SEIQ 2 0.74 1.25 0.72 $1,470,750 $975,000 $561,600 100.0% 29.6% 29.6% $1,470,750 $288,600 $166,233 Arrow Rte buffered bike lanes Rochester Ave to Etiwanda Ave 6th St buffered bike Spur line to Etiwanda lanes AveSEIQ 2.2 Page 286 Whittram Ave extension Etiwanda Ave to Rochester AveSEIQ 3 SIEQ 6 1.46 $14,803,500 100.0%$14,803,500 Etiwanda Grade Separation (EGS)-$147,675,000 60.0%***$88,605,000 Total Program Costs:$587,872,000 $327,090,000 * Quantity of improved facilities in miles, or lane miles for roadways. ** Program Contribution cost shown for this project is the amount before deduction for deficiencies calculated and shown in Table 8 and deducted from DIF Program Contribution in Table 14. *** Final project cost contribution by future development reduced by 40% in anticipation of future grant funding opportunities. Page 287 Appendix D General Plan Level Of Service Assessment and Forecasting Page 288 DRAFT MEMORANDUM Date: To: May 7, 2021 Jason Welday, City of Rancho Cucamonga From:Jason Pack, P.E. Delia Votsch, P.E. Subject:City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update – Roadway Level of Service OC21-0776 As part of the ongoing City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update, Fehr & Peers has prepared roadway segment forecasts and have calculated the Level of Service (LOS) for those roadway segments. This memorandum presents those forecasts and LOS results. This information is integrated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report air quality and noise analyses, however, is summarized here for City staff. Roadway capacities used to evaluate roadway segments were developed in consultation with the City of Rancho Cucamonga staff, referencing HCM 6th edition. Table 1: Roadway Level of Service Criteria Roadway Type 2-Lane Collector 2-Lane Arterial 2-Lane Freeway 4-Lane Collector LOS C 10,000 9,700 LOS D 13,000 17,600 35,700 20,200 LOS E 15,000 18,700 40,100 23,200 28,800 18,000 4-Lane Arterial, Undivided 4-Lane Arterial Bicycle Corridor 17,500 27,400 28,900 4-Lane Arterial, Divided 6-Lane Arterial, Divided 19,200 27,100 35,400 53,200 37,400 56,000 6-Lane Arterial, Divided 4-Lane Freeway 27,100 59,500 53,200 72,800 56,000 81,400 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2017), Fehr & Peers, 2021. 101 Pacifica | Suite 300 | Irvine, CA 92618 | (949) 308-6300 | Fax (949) 859-3209 www.fehrandpeers.com Page 289 Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 2 of 9 The roadway typologies presented in the Mobility Element of the proposed General Plan Update align with the roadway capacities presented in Table 1 as follows: Freeways, which are under the juridiction of and operated by Caltrans, provide for interregional travel by automobile. They have high vehicle speeds and can provide access for transit vehicles (athough automobiles are prioritized). Bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited on freeways. Freeways in Rancho Cucamonga include SR-210 and I-15. Freeways have the roadway capacities of 2-Lane Freeway and 4-Lane Freeway Arterials provide for all modes of travel, but they acknowledge that the arterial is a primary link in the City’s vehicular transportation system. Oftentimes four to six lanes are provided with raised medians and higher vehicle speeds are anticipated. Arterials have the roadway capacities of 2-Lane Arterial, 4-Lane Arterial Undivided, 4-Lane Arterial Divided, 6-Lane Arterial Divided and 8-Lane Arterial Divided. Undivided arterials have no median (raised or striped), while divided arterials have a center median. Transit corridors, including light rail (LRT), streetcar, and bus rapid transit (BRT), promote economic development around high-quality transit service while fostering a pedestrian scale in which walking, and biking actively complement public transit. Transit corridors have the roadway capacities of 4-Lane Arterial Divided, 6-Lane Arterial Divided and 8-Lane Arterial Divided. Collectors are intended to connect neighborhoods together. They should provide accessibility for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; however, speeds should be managed to ensure that all modes safely travel together. These corridors can substantially vary in terms of width. For example, Church Street is a four-lane roadway and would include bicycle lanes as well as raised medians. In contrast, segments such as Banyan Street, are similar to local streets with smaller rights-of-way. These narrower streets would have Class III ‘sharrows’ as well as street furniture in some areas to encourage pedestrian activity. Collectors have the roadway capacites of 2-Lane Collector and 4-Lane Collector. Bicycle Corridors provide the main bicycle network for the City. Specifically, vehicle speeds should be managed to travel at 35 miles per hour or less and bicycle infrastructure should be maximized. This would typically include buffered bicycle lanes or separated bicycle lanes (otherwise known as a cycle track or Class IV bicycle facility) on the roadway (or, at a minimum, seven-foot bicycle lanes). Separation can be provided by plastic bollards, raised medians, and/or planters. Raised landscaped medians may also be included in some areas to further encourage slower speeds. Bicycle corridors have the roadway capacites of 2-Lane Collector and 4-Lane Collector. Future year forecasts representing the buildout of the General Plan Update in 2040 were prepared for the EIR using the SBTAM model. Level of service with the buildout of the proposed General Plan Update are presented below in Table 2. Page 290 Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 3 of 9 Table 2: General Plan Roadway Level of Service Existing ADT General PlanExisting Typology General Plan TypologyRoadway Segment Lanes V/C LOS Lanes ADT V/C LOS 1. Wilson Ave from Carnelian St to Archibald Ave 2. Wilson Ave from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave 3. Wilson Ave from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave 4. Wilson Ave from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave 5. Wilson Ave from Etiwanda Ave to City Limits 6. Banyan St from Carnelian St to Archibald Ave 7. Banyan St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave 8. Banyan St from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave 9. Banyan St from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave 10. Banyan St from Etiwanda Ave to Wardman Bollock Rd 11. 19th St from Carnelian St to Archibald Ave 12. 19th St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial 4 4 2 4 -- 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4,740 5,190 7,860 2,090 -- 0.16 0.18 0.42 0.07 -- A A A A -- A A B 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 7,520 8,660 0.26 0.30 0.63 0.10 0.44 0.26 0.27 0.83 0.82 0.70 0.73 0.68 A A BArterialArterial11,770 3,030ArterialArterial A A A A D D B Arterial Arterial 12,730 3,870Collector Collector Collector Collector Collector Arterial Collector Collector Collector Collector Collector Bicycle Corridor Bicycle Corridor 3,470 3,900 9,690 10,530 8,210 17,050 15,630 0.23 0.26 0.65 0.70 0.55 0.59 0.54 4,050 12,480 12,340 10,550 21,260 19,700 B A A A C BArterial 13. Base Line Rd from Carnelian St to Archibald Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 22,550 0.78 C 4 26,700 0.92 E 14. Base Line Rd from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave 15. Base Line Rd from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave 16. Base Line Rd from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave 17. Church St west of Archibald Ave Arterial Arterial Arterial Collector Arterial Arterial 4 6 6 2 21,140 25,150 22,780 5,370 0.73 0.45 0.41 0.36 C A A A 4 6 6 2 25,330 33,440 35,570 6,520 0.88 0.60 0.64 0.43 D A BArterial Bicycle Corridor A Page 291 Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 4 of 9 Existing General PlanExisting Typology General Plan TypologyRoadway Segment Lanes ADT 9,060 V/C 0.48 0.45 0.51 0.50 0.26 LOS A Lanes ADT 13,810 22,740 24,310 20,020 12,610 V/C 0.92 0.79 0.85 0.69 0.44 LOS E18. Church St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave 19. Church St from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave 20. Church St from Milliken Ave to Day Creek Blvd 21. Church St from Day Creek Blvd to Etiwanda Ave 22. Church St from Etiwanda Ave to East Ave Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Bicycle Corridor Bicycle Corridor Bicycle Corridor Bicycle Corridor Bicycle Corridor 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 16,730 19,240 14,520 9,780 A C A D A B A A 23. Foothill Blvd from City Limits to Carnelian St/Vineyard Ave Arterial Arterial Transit Corridor Transit Corridor 6 4 32,820 31,300 0.59 0.84 A D 6 6 39,400 47,410 0.70 0.85 B 24. Foothill Blvd from Carnelian St/Vineyard Ave to Archibald Ave D 25. Foothill Blvd from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave 26. Foothill Blvd from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave 27. Foothill Blvd from Milliken Ave to Day Creek Blvd 28. Foothill Blvd from Day Creek Blvd to Etiwanda Ave 29. Foothill Blvd from Etiwanda Ave to City Limits 30. Arrow Rte from City Limits to Vineyard Ave Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Transit Corridor Transit Corridor Transit Corridor Transit Corridor Transit Corridor Arterial 4 6 6 6 4 4 32,420 38,140 37,330 45,190 34,430 19,710 0.87 0.68 0.67 0.81 0.92 0.68 D B B C E 6 6 6 6 4 4 43,020 47,010 51,820 56,580 39,570 25,250 0.77 0.84 0.93 1.01 1.06 C D E F F B 0.68 0.72 0.95 0.84 B C E 31. Arrow Rte from Vineyard Ave to Archibald Ave 32. Arrow Rte from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave 33. Arrow Rte from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial 4 4 4 22,570 26,340 24,300 0.78 0.91 0.84 C E 4 4 4 26,850 35,500 31,520D D Page 292 Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 5 of 9 Existing ADT General PlanExisting Typology General Plan TypologyRoadway Segment Lanes V/C 1.34 1.08 0.59 LOS Lanes ADT 35,670 30,410 13,640 V/C LOS Varies from 4 to 2 34. Arrow Rte from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave 35. Arrow Rte from Etiwanda Ave to City Limits 36. 6th St from City Limits to Archibald Ave Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial 25,000 20,140 10,940 F F 4 4 4 0.95 0.81 0.47 E D A 3 Varies from 4 to 2 Bicycle Corridor A Varies from 4 to 3 37. 6th St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 15,080 0.81 C 4 19,190 0.66 B 38. 6th St from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave 39. 6th St from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Arterial Bicycle Corridor Bicycle Corridor 4 4 14,860 13,870 0.40 0.37 A A 4 4 22,000 18,590 0.76 0.64 C B Varies from 6 to 5 40. 4th St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave 41. 4th St from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave 42. 4th St from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial 17,780 26,570 32,760 0.48 0.47 0.88 A A D 4 6 6 23,270 36,960 36,810 0.62 0.66 0.65 B B B 7 Varies from 6 to 4 43. Vineyard Ave from City Limits to Arrow Rte 44. Vineyard Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd Arterial Arterial Bicycle Corridor Bicycle Corridor 4 4 25,820 25,160 0.89 0.87 D D 4 4 31,350 31,440 1.08 1.09 F F 45. Vineyard Ave/Carnelian St from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 29,200 1.01 F 4 33,330 1.15 F Page 293 Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 6 of 9 Existing General PlanExisting Typology General Plan TypologyRoadway Segment Lanes ADT V/C LOS Lanes ADT V/C LOS 46. Carnelian St from Base Line Rd to 19th St Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 24,790 0.86 D 4 28,060 0.97 E Varies from 4 to 2 47. Carnelian St from 19th St to Wilson Ave Collector Collector 24,260 1.62 F 4 24,400 1.05 F 48. Archibald Ave from 4th St to 6th St 49. Archibald Ave from 6th St to Arrow Rte 50. Archibald Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd 51. Archibald Ave from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd 52. Archibald Ave from Base Line Rd to 19th St 53. Archibald Ave from 19th St to Wilson Ave 54. Haven Ave from 4th St to 6th St Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 33,530 29,870 24,830 25,830 23,140 13,080 48,250 47,260 37,950 33,630 33,640 36,080 38,480 36,330 1.16 1.03 0.86 0.89 0.80 0.45 0.86 0.84 0.68 0.60 0.60 0.64 0.69 0.65 F F 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 41,990 37,010 31,910 30,130 25,070 13,190 56,660 59,790 44,730 38,950 38,890 38,230 50,800 41,420 1.45 1.28 1.10 1.04 0.87 0.46 1.01 1.07 0.80 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.91 0.74 F F Arterial D D C A D D B A A B B B F Arterial F Arterial D A F Arterial Transit Corridor Transit Corridor Transit Corridor Transit Corridor Transit Corridor Transit Corridor Arterial 55. Haven Ave from 6th St to Arrow Rte 56. Haven Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd 57. Haven Ave from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd 58. Haven Ave from Base Line Rd to 19th St 59. Haven Ave from 19th St to Wilson Ave 60. Milliken Ave from 4th St to 6th St F C B B B D C61. Milliken Ave from 6th St to Arrow Rte Arterial Page 294 Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 7 of 9 Existing ADT General PlanExisting Typology General Plan TypologyRoadway Segment Lanes V/C LOS Lanes ADT V/C LOS Varies from 7 to 6 62. Milliken Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd 63. Milliken Ave from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd 64. Milliken Ave from Base Line Rd to Wilson Ave 65. Day Creek Blvd from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial 30,370 24,310 17,150 21,030 0.54 A 6 38,950 0.70 B Varies from 7 to 6 0.43 0.46 0.38 A A A 6 4 4 34,360 20,810 25,190 0.61 0.56 0.67 B A B Varies from 6 to 2 Varies from 7 to 6 Varies from 6 to 4 66. Day Creek Blvd from Base Line Rd to Banyan St 67. Etiwanda Ave from 4th St to 6th St Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Collector Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial 21,500 31,410 22,790 22,580 11,720 7,340 0.57 1.09 1.22 0.78 0.63 0.49 A F 4 4 4 4 4 2 26,510 45,550 36,940 31,530 22,790 11,400 0.71 1.58 1.28 1.09 0.79 0.76 B F F F C C 4 Varies from 4 to 2 68. Etiwanda Ave from 6th St to Arrow Rte 69. Etiwanda Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd 70. Etiwanda Ave from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd 71. Etiwanda Ave from Base Line Rd to Wilson Ave F 4 C B A Varies from 4 to 2 Collector 2 Page 295 Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 8 of 9 Existing ADT General Plan ADT V/C Existing Typology General Plan TypologyRoadway Segment Lanes V/C LOS Lanes LOS Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2017), Fehr & Peers, 2021. Notes: 1. Roadways operating above capacity at LOS F are shown in bold. 2. Roadways with varying number of lanes across a segment are shown with the V/C ratio and LOS reflecting the capacity at the narrowest point of the roadway. 3. Roadways with an odd number of lanes are shown with the V/C ratio and LOS reflecting the capacity at the closest capacity. For example, roadways with 3 lanes are shown as having the capacity of a 2-lane roadway of that classification. 4. Italics indicates roadways where lane reductions could be considered. Page 296 Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 9 of 9 Roadway segments projected to have 20,000 ADT or less and are 4 lanes would be considered good candidates to consider for future road diets. Candidates for road diets would be: •Wilson Avenue between Carnelian Street and Haven Avenue, and between Milliken Avenue and City Limits (note: Wilson Avenue is 2 lanes between Haven Avenue and Milliken Avenue). Church Street from Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue 6th Street from City limits to Haven Avenue Archibald Avenue from 19th Street to Wilson Avenue • • • If you have any questions, please contact us at 949-308-6300. Page 297 Exhibit "B" FY2024/25 Major Projects Program Supplemental Project Listing ATTACHMENT 3 Activities During Estimated Expenditures Project Plan Period FY2024/25 FY2025/26 FY2026/27 FY2027/28 FY2028/29 FY2029/30 Transportation Impact Fee (124) 6th Street at BNSF Spur Crossing Adv Traffic Mgmt System - Phase 2 Adv Traffic Mgmt System Program Etiwanda East Side Widening Etiwanda Creek Bridges Project Whittram Extension - W/O Etiwanda Wilson & Day Creek Channel Bridge Wilson Extension W/O Day Creek Blvd D, C D, C D, C D, C D, C DEV DEV DEV $46,600 $9,754,260 $302,500 $165,000 $5,000,000 $12,000,000 $403,500 $500,000 $1,370,000 $1,200,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $4,300,000 $4,500,000 $14,203,500Totals$9,800,860 $3,372,500 $17,165,000 Page 298 Exhibit "C" Admin. Fee 2.5% Residential, Single Family Detached SF $4.05 $0.101 $4.151 Residential, Single Family Detached - HQTA SF $2.84 $0.071 $2.911 Residential, Single Family Attached SF $4.55 $0.114 $4.664 Residential, Single Family Attached - HQTA SF $3.19 $0.080 $3.270 Residential, Multi-Family (Low-Rise)SF $4.26 $0.107 $4.367 Residential, Multi-Family (Low-Rise) - HQTA SF $2.98 $0.075 $3.055 Residential, Multi-Family (Mid-Rise)SF $2.87 $0.072 $2.942 Residential, Multi-Family (Mid-Rise) - HQTA SF $2.01 $0.050 $2.060 Senior Housing Bed $4,626.00 $115.650 $4,741.650 Nursing/Congregate Care Bed $2,372.00 $59.300 $2,431.300 Commercial/Retail KSF $19,466.00 $486.650 $19,952.650 Office/Business Park KSF $11,636.00 $290.900 $11,926.900 Industrial KSF $5,227.00 $130.675 $5,357.675 Warehouse KSF $6,913.00 $172.825 $7,085.825 Hotel/Motel Room $8,576.00 $214.400 $8,790.400 Elementary School Student $2,437.00 $60.925 $2,497.925 Day Care Student $4,390.00 $109.750 $4,499.750 Self-Storage KSF $1,556.00 $38.900 $1,594.900 Service Station Pump $90,471.00 $2,261.775 $92,732.775 Notes Fees established by this resolution shall be adjusted annually, commencing on July 1, 2026, and each year thereafter, without further action of the City Council according to the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Los Angeles Area, for the 12-month period ending on December 31st of the immediately preceding year. If the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Los Angeles Area is discontinued, the replacement index in use and accepted as the industry and business standard for Souther California, as determined by the City Engineer, shall be used. HQTA - High Quality Transit Area Transportation - North Zone Development Type Unit Impact Fee (Nexus Study) Total Impact Fee ATTACHMENT 4 Page 299 Exhibit "C" Admin. Fee 2.5% Residential, Single Family Detached SF $5.88 $0.147 $6.027 Residential, Single Family Detached - HQTA SF $4.12 $0.103 $4.223 Residential, Single Family Attached SF $6.61 $0.165 $6.775 Residential, Single Family Attached - HQTA SF $4.63 $0.116 $4.746 Residential, Multi-Family (Low-Rise)SF $6.18 $0.155 $6.335 Residential, Multi-Family (Low-Rise) - HQTA SF $4.33 $0.108 $4.438 Residential, Multi-Family (Mid-Rise)SF $4.17 $0.104 $4.274 Residential, Multi-Family (Mid-Rise) - HQTA SF $2.92 $0.073 $2.993 Senior Housing Bed $6,722.00 $168.050 $6,890.050 Nursing/Congregate Care Bed $3,447.00 $86.175 $3,533.175 Commercial/Retail KSF $28,284.00 $707.100 $28,991.100 Office/Business Park KSF $16,907.00 $422.675 $17,329.675 Industrial KSF $7,596.00 $189.900 $7,785.900 Warehouse KSF $10,044.00 $251.100 $10,295.100 Hotel/Motel Room $12,462.00 $311.550 $12,773.550 Elementary School Student $3,540.00 $88.500 $3,628.500 Day Care Student $6,379.00 $159.475 $6,538.475 Self-Storage KSF $2,262.00 $56.550 $2,318.550 Service Station Pump $131,457.00 $3,286.425 $134,743.425 Notes Fees established by this resolution shall be adjusted annually, commencing on July 1, 2026, and each year thereafter, without further action of the City Council according to the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Los Angeles Area, for the 12-month period ending on December 31st of the immediately preceding year. If the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Los Angeles Area is discontinued, the replacement index in use and accepted as the industry and business standard for Souther California, as determined by the City Engineer, shall be used. HQTA - High Quality Transit Area Transportation - Central Zone Development Type Unit Impact Fee (Nexus Study) Total Impact Fee Page 300 Exhibit "C" Admin. Fee 2.5% Residential, Single Family Detached SF $5.36 $0.134 $5.494 Residential, Single Family Detached - HQTA SF $3.75 $0.094 $3.844 Residential, Single Family Attached SF $6.02 $0.151 $6.171 Residential, Single Family Attached - HQTA SF $4.21 $0.105 $4.315 Residential, Multi-Family (Low-Rise)SF $5.64 $0.141 $5.781 Residential, Multi-Family (Low-Rise) - HQTA SF $3.95 $0.099 $4.049 Residential, Multi-Family (Mid-Rise)SF $3.80 $0.095 $3.895 Residential, Multi-Family (Mid-Rise) - HQTA SF $2.66 $0.067 $2.727 Senior Housing Bed $6,127.00 $153.175 $6,280.175 Nursing/Congregate Care Bed $3,142.00 $78.550 $3,220.550 Commercial/Retail KSF $25,782.00 $644.550 $26,426.550 Office/Business Park KSF $15,411.00 $385.275 $15,796.275 Industrial KSF $6,924.00 $173.100 $7,097.100 Warehouse KSF $9,156.00 $228.900 $9,384.900 Hotel/Motel Room $11,359.00 $283.975 $11,642.975 Elementary School Student $3,227.00 $80.675 $3,307.675 Day Care Student $5,815.00 $145.375 $5,960.375 Self-Storage KSF $2,061.00 $51.525 $2,112.525 Service Station Pump $119,826.00 $2,995.650 $122,821.650 Notes Fees established by this resolution shall be adjusted annually, commencing on July 1, 2026, and each year thereafter, without further action of the City Council according to the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Los Angeles Area, for the 12-month period ending on December 31st of the immediately preceding year. If the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Los Angeles Area is discontinued, the replacement index in use and accepted as the industry and business standard for Souther California, as determined by the City Engineer, shall be used. HQTA - High Quality Transit Area Transportation - South Zone Development Type Unit Impact Fee (Nexus Study) Total Impact Fee Page 301 Page 1 of 10 On Thursday February 27, 2025, the City released drafts of the nexus studies prepared by NBS (Non-Transportation DIFs) and Fehr & Peers (Transportation DIF), proposed fee schedules for each DIF program, and the proposed Major Projects Program (CIP) amendment for the DIF programs as part of the 2025 Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program update process. In addition to statutory noticing in the Daily Bulletin, parties that had requested notification of fee updates were notified of the availability of the released drafts. During the April 2, 2025 public hearing on the DIFs, consideration of the Transportation DIF was continued to May 7, 2025 to allow for additional time to address questions and comments from stakeholders. The City has received letters from the following interested parties: •Desert Valley Builders Association dated (Non-Transportation) March 13, 2025 (DVBA- NT) •Desert Valley Builders Association (Transportation) dated March 13, 2025 (DVBA-T) •Building Industry Association of Southern California dated March 17, 2025 (BIA) •Development Planning & Finance Group (Non-Transportation) dated March 17, 2025 (DFPG-NT) •Development Planning & Finance Group (Transportation) dated March 17, 2025 (DPFG-T) •LLG Engineers dated March 17, 2025 (LLG) The comment letters designated DPFG-NT, DPFT-T, and LLG were submitted on behalf of the BIA. This memorandum provides a response to the comments and questions raised in these letters related to the Transportation DIF. The Non-Transportation related comments were addressed in the staff report and comment response memo for the April 16, 2025 public hearing on those DIFs. Since several topics overlap between the comment letters, staff has grouped comments into categories to aid in providing a clear and concise response. DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:John R. Gillison, City Manager FROM:Matthew R. Burris, Deputy City Manager – Community Development BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Zack Neighbors, Director of Building and Safety SUBJECT:2025 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM UPDATE COMMENT LETTERS FROM BUILDING INDUSTRY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; DESERT VALLEY BUILDERS ASSOCIATION; DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND FINANCE GROUP; AND LLG ENGINEERS MEMORANDUM Community Development ATTACHMENT 5 Page 302 Page 2 of 10 Transportation DIF Request to Evaluate Existing Level of Service for Existing Facilities as Required by AB 602 (BIA; LLG) The commentor suggests that the Fehr & Peers nexus study has not satisfied the requirement of AB 602 to evaluate the level of service for existing facilities to determine that the proposed new level of service is appropriate. Further, a second commentor specifically identifies bridge widening, traffic signals, and roundabout improvements as requiring Level of Service analysis. However, the nexus study has satisfied the referenced requirement of AB 602 through the inclusion of data such as the existing Transportation DIF program (Resolution No. 20-122), a comparison of facility needs benchmarked to current population (e.g., roadway lane miles per person, length of trails per person, bike lane miles per person, etc.), and references to analysis performed in recent planning documents such as PlanRC (including the Memorandum dated May 7, 2021 by Fehr & Peers entitled City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update – Roadway Level of Service on file with the City Engineer and included as an appendix in the revised nexus study dated April 30, 2025), ConnectRC, and the capital improvement programs that address existing infrastructure capacity and future needs. Further, it should be noted that Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(2) includes the phrase “when applicable”. This is important as the law references circumstances and components of fee programs not tied to capacity improvement such as Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction improvements required by PlanRC and the Climate Action Plan and which are proportionately applicable to new development. Further, existing Level of Service deficiencies identified in May 7, 2021 Fehr & Peers memorandum, the City’s Southeast Industrial Quadrant Study, the previous nexus study, and various traffic studies completed by the City have been listed and costs associated with such deficiencies have been incorporated into the nexus study (e.g., see Table 8). Request to Provide the Proposed CIP Amendment for All Projects Listed in the Fehr & Peers Study (BIA) The commentor notes the requirements of AB 602 related to adoption of a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with any DIF updates and is requesting a copy of the proposed CIP for all projects listed in the Fehr & Peers nexus study. The proposed CIP for the next 5-year cycle was posted along with the draft nexus studies and fee schedules on the City’s website on Thursday, February 27, 2025 and interested parties who had requested notification were notified of its availability. here is no requirement in State law to prepare a comprehensive multi-decade plan. Further, it would be speculative to project development cycles, revenue levels, and timing of construction for the program with any level of certainty. Furthermore, the Terner Center publication “Nexus Study and Residential Feasibility Calculation Templates in fulfillment of AB 602” supports the use of a 5-year CIP for nexus studies. Therefore, standard practice for local agencies is to project out five years for a CIP. Therefore, no additional CIP data is necessary to meet the requirements of the statute or standard practice. Request for an Explanation for the Reliance on VMT as an Appropriate Metric for the Transportation DIF Nexus Study (BIA; LLG) The commentor suggests that VMT is not a recognized metric for use in impact fee analysis but is more appropriate for analyzing greenhouse gas and other environmental impacts. A second commentor provided a similar comment related to applicability of VMT and specifically seeks to limit the contribution of new development to 0.1% of the program cost. We fundamentally disagree Page 303 Page 3 of 10 on this point based on changes in State law relating to analysis of transportation related environment impacts (e.g., SB 743), use of the metric by other public agencies, and the practical effects that VMT introduced (or needing to be reduced) by development has on the need for new transportation infrastructure. There is no authority prohibiting the use of VMT as a metric for an impact fee analysis. A nexus study is required to establish a reasonable relationship between the improvements identified and the need for those improvements. PlanRC and the Climate Action Plan establish clear goals related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions which rely extensively on VMT reducing measures. As such, the DIF improvements related to VMT reducing measures are established using a VMT nexus based on the goals and policies of the general plan. This is consistent with other VMT-based nexus studies like the City of Orange nexus study and the Westside DIF in Los Angeles County. As well, as noted in the response above, the facility need based on capacity is only required, if the nexus is tied to a capacity issue. Since the VMT-based nexus is established through the adopted GHG reduction targets in PlanRC and Climate Action Plan, the capacity component of the nexus is not applicable. With respect to the comment seeking to limit the proportional share of the VMT-reducing improvements to 0.1%, the commentor has misunderstood the 0.1% listed in Table 12 of the nexus study (Fehr & Peers, 2025, p. 23). This percentage represents the balance of VMT reduction with the implementation of the projects included in the nexus study and not the proportional share of new development’s impact as discussed earlier in this paragraph. Finally, as outlined in the nexus study, new development is only responsible for its fair share of the VMT-reduction associated with new development as there is an existing deficiency, and the improvements will reduce VMT across the City. Request to Remove the Zonal Approach to Assessing Fees Based on Estimated Trips Between Zones (BIA; DPFG-T) The commentor suggests that assessing fees based on a zonal approach creates an unfair burden on the central and south zones. Further, the commentor implies that if a zonal approach is taken, the area east of I-15 should be separated into a separate zone. It should be noted that the zonal approach was requested by the BIA during conversations after the release of the prior draft nexus studies in October, 2024. Upon review of the comment from the BIA, staff agreed that a zonal approach is appropriate and revised the nexus study accordingly The zonal approach was developed to provide a more localized and accurate rough proportionality and reasonable relationship between the development and the facility needs. Applying the zonal approach ensures that local development within each zone bears the burden for provision of new infrastructure in proportion to the likely benefit from or impact facilities based on the geographic relationship between the development and facilities. The determination to utilize three zones as proposed was made with significant modeling and analysis by Fehr & Peers and the City Engineer’s staff to identify transportation sheds utilizing recognized major transportation corridors. The selected zones align with the predominant east-west traffic patterns in the City and region as found in the countywide travel demand model and the SBCTA Travel Trends Community Profile for Rancho Cucamonga prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2022. Further, the analysis was performed in a manner that provides a distribution of cost between zones based on travel between the three zones to ensure that all new development is assessed its proportional share of costs for projects within the program. Staff met with BIA representatives as the approach was developed to share the proposed zones and did not receive any comments at that time. This approach establishes a more localized nexus than a citywide approach and achieves a heightened reasonable relationship. Further, it should be noted that while the central and southern zones bear a larger proportion of the program cost, this is a result of the majority of the program’s planned infrastructure being located within these zones to address the intensified and increased Page 304 Page 4 of 10 development in these areas as outlined in PlanRC. With respect to the implied request for a fourth zone east of I-15, this approach is not recommended as it presumes that limited or no traffic crosses the I-15 freeway within the southern zone. Since the freeway does not serve as a fixed barrier to traffic, but rather is part of the overall transportation system, it is likely that trips will be made to and from this area within the zone as well as outside of the zone to serve not only industrial land uses but also residential and commercial uses (e.g., Foothill Marketplace, and residential developments along Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route east of I-15) that currently exist or will be developed in the future. Finally, during discussions on this request with the BIA, a statement was made with respect to increasing costs for affordable housing development through the zonal approach since most of the new development will be in the central and south zones. Staff reviewed this concern and determined that the nexus study and state law address this matter through fee reductions for eligible projects. Shifting costs from these zones to pre-emptively reduce the burden for affordable housing would be speculative as to the location and volume of such housing and would potentially shift the burden onto new development in other parts of the city violating the nexus and proportionality requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Therefore, staff does not recommend making such a change but rather considers the provisions for affordable housing in state law and the nexus study to sufficiently address this concern.Request for Explanation of Project Cost Estimates in Appendix C of the Fehr & Peers Study (BIA; DPFG-T; LLG) The commentors states that the costs in Appendix C used to develop the program costs are inconsistent and inflated over documents referenced in the nexus study. Another commentor questions the veracity of the estimated cost of $750,000 for a traffic signal. Table 1, Note 1 of the nexus study states that the unit cost estimates listed do not reflect other costs associated with the project (contingency, environmental clearance, etc.) which can vary based on complexity, location, and type of the project. As such, the unit costs have been applied correctly but the total costs included in Appendix C have incorporated these other project cost components to capture the estimated total project cost. In the April 30, 2025 revision to the nexus study, a table has been provided that clarifies the assumptions made in estimating project costs with respect to contingency, environmental clearance, design, construction management and inspection, etc. Further, where staff had more refined cost estimates, such as for projects already in the process of design or construction, these refined costs estimates were utilized to more accurately reflect anticipated program costs. One such type of more refined cost estimate is for traffic signals. While each location is different, the cost for construction of traffic signals in general has increased significantly in the past. The City’s most recent traffic signal for a 3-legged intersection on Foothill Boulevard received a construction bid of $650,000 which is generally similar in scope has 25% fewer approaches than the typical traffic signal in the program and thus slightly understates the anticipated construction costs. When design, inspection, management, and other costs are conservatively accounted for, the estimated cost is nearly $850,000, therefore it is reasonable to estimate future traffic signals will cost at least $750,000 in the nexus study. Request to Reduce the Transportation DIF Program Cost Using Funding from the EIFD (BIA; DPFG-T; LLG) The commentor is requesting that the program cost for the Transportation DIF be reduced based on funding generated through the City’s Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). The EIFD was formed in 2022 to provide enhanced infrastructure needed to serve future residents and businesses in the central area of the city. Based on the funding plan adopted for the EIFD, infrastructure included under the proposed DIFs would be ineligible to be funded from the district’s Page 305 Page 5 of 10 proceeds as the funding is set aside solely for specific transit and parking related infrastructure which does not include the projects listed in the nexus study and CIP. Furthermore, the EIFD is not city-wide, includes only certain parcels, and was never expanded to add in the County. As a result, funds are extremely limited, currently are significantly under the original projects, and looking ahead at, an evaluation current funding capacity for the EIFD indicates that expansion of the planned list of eligible projects is infeasible to cover the requested offset of DIF Program costs. Request to Consider Funding Sources Identified in ConnectRC When Calculating the Transportation DIF (BIA) The commentor is requesting that the City consider possible funding sources identified in ConnectRC to reduce the fees assessed under the Transportation DIF Program. While this plan does include a list of potential State and Federal funding sources that may be able to fund certain active transportation projects within the Transportation DIF Program, without secured grant awards, the City cannot rely upon these funds to reduce the program cost. Additionally, since the fee program only funds 29.6% of the total project cost, these outside funding sources will be needed to fund the remaining 70.4% of the project cost. Assuming award of non-guaranteed, competitive grant funding from a future grant cycle that has not been applied for and most certainly is not secured, and applying such funding toward new development’s share of project costs, would be an abuse of the City’s fiduciary role and result in providing an inappropriate subsidy by existing development. The proposed approach to allocating future grant funding was addressed in the nexus study as follows: Finally, the City seeks to defray the cost of construction for public infrastructure through alternative means such as grant programs. The City proactively pursues grants and other funding mechanisms; however, the City does not have the ability to guarantee a certain percentage of grant awards toward projects within this DIF program. In order to ensure that new development funds its fair share of the improvements in this program, applicable grant awards will be first used to offset the appropriate project cost share attributable to existing development and then remaining grant awards (if any) will be used to offset the cost borne by the fee program unless the grant award is specifically made to offset new development costs. Should new development costs be offset by grant or other funding mechanisms, such offset will be accounted for in the next major update to this nexus study. (Fehr & Peers, 2025, p. 6) Request for Explanation on the Inclusion of Etiwanda Grade Separation in the Transportation DIF and Impacts from Residential Development (BIA; DPFG-T) The commentor states that the primary benefit of the Etiwanda Grade Separation Project (EGS) is to the industrial land uses in the area and that the City has received a TCEP grant in the amount of $60M that should be accounted for in the program costs. While the project lies along Etiwanda Avenue in the industrial zone, it cannot be presumed that it serves only industrial users. As the only north-south corridor east of I-15, it serves as part of the greater circulation of the south, central, and north zones included in the nexus study and proposed program. As mentioned above, the area east of I-15 consists of a combination of existing and future industrial, commercial, and residential developments. As this development increases, we anticipate that this sole corridor will be impacted by all users not just industrial users. The need for additional capacity on Etiwanda Page 306 Page 6 of 10 Avenue was identified in the May 7, 2021 Fehr & Peers Memorandum. Based on an analysis by Fehr & Peers for this location, there is an existing deficiency in capacity of 5,190 average daily trips (ADT) (22,790 ADT [existing] – 17,600 ADT [capacity]) which represents 23% (5,190 ADT / 22,760 ADT) of the total anticipated growth in this segment of the corridor of 22,760 ADT (45,550 ADT [future] – 22,790 ADT [existing]) leaving a cost share for new development of 77% of the project cost after the 23% reduction for existing deficiencies. Given the active pursuit of grants by the City for this critical project, the City included a reduction in the program cost for EGS of 40% for alternative funding sources. This reduction exceeds the 23% reduction attributable to existing deficiencies at this location. With respect to the TCEP funding referenced by the commentor, while the City had received award of funds for the project in the amount of $60M, unfortunately due to factors outside of the City’s control (i.e., significant increases in real estate and construction pricing, and utility coordination delays during design), only $23.1M of this funding was able to be utilized toward the project and the majority of the funding was not able to be extended to complete the right-of-way and construction phases of the project. The funding that was successfully captured from the TCEP grant has been accounted toward the existing deficiency in line with the statement quoted in the response above. However, as mentioned above, the City continues to actively pursue outside funding sources in order to achieve the 40% level identified in the funding plan. Request for Explanation for the Inclusion of the Signal Interconnect System in the Nexus Study at 100% Development Responsibility and Increase in System Costs (BIA; DPFG-T; LLG) The commentors question the validity of allocating 100% of the cost for construction of the Signal Interconnect System (also known as the Active Transportation Management System or ATMS) to new development and for an explanation of the increase in costs from $10.6M to $75M. The ATMS project has been included in the Transportation DIF since 2005. As such, it has been recognized that the system is needed to address the increased congestion and system infrastructure for management of the traffic signal and interconnected transportation system as the city develops and more individuals need to move through the transportation network. Given the carry-over nature of this project and the fund balance credit provided toward the DIF Program costs in the nexus study, an allocation of 100% for new development is appropriate as prior development has already paid its share toward the ATMS infrastructure. The increase in the cost for the Signal Interconnect System can be accounted for in two ways. First, the amount included in previous versions of the DIF was based on escalation of the originally estimated amount from 2005. In 2018, the City completed the Traffic Signal Master Plan prepared by Albert Grover and Associates. However, the DIF was not updated to include the updated cost estimate as the updates to the program cost were generally based on the Caltrans Construction Cost Index (CCCI) in the intervening years. Second, when escalated by the CCCI and adjusted on a per location basis to account for traffic signals that were not listed in the master plan but will require integration to address impacts from development such as Caltrans interchange signals and new signals in the Civic Center Master Plan area, the amount listed in the nexus study of approximately $75M is reasonable. However, in an abundance of caution and to avoid overcollecting fees toward this project, staff re-evaluated and reduced the project cost listed in the nexus study. This reduction was based on elimination of the traffic signals not listed in the 2018 master plan from the estimate and analyzing the nexus study share for new development based on the proportion of residential units already constructed since 2005 (the beginning of the project’s inclusion in the DIF program) to all anticipated units from 2005 to 2040 as outlined in the nexus study resulting in a reduction of the project cost to 69% of the escalated total project cost from the 2018 master plan. Page 307 Page 7 of 10 Request to Revise the Nexus Study to Expand Fee Reductions for Additional Types of Housing Developments Within ½ Mile of a Transit Priority Area (BIA) The commentor is requesting a revision to the nexus study and by extension the fee schedule to include all types of housing near Transit Priority Areas (TPAs). Given the type of residential units anticipated to be developed in the TPAs, the nexus study provided a line item in the fee calculation for typical high-density housing with the assumption that transit oriented development would be prominent in those areas (Table 18, Fehr & Peers, 2025, p. 29). However, the nexus study also anticipates that there may be development in the future that does not fall clearly into a particular land use category provided in the table and thus provides a mechanism for implementation in the section entitled, “Unique Land Use Categories”. Further, the nexus study acknowledges that changes in State law over time may statutorily provide for fee reductions for certain types of development as part of the State’s broader vision for increased housing production and states the following: This nexus study anticipated all future development in the city without considering the potential applicability of any exceptions to the impact fees applied to such development. This is because, among other reasons, it is not possible to determine whether any particular project will qualify for an exception and then to what extent. It is speculative to forecast that a certain amount of development expected in the city will be attributable to projects that qualify for exceptions. To be sure, the value of any potential exception was not re-allocated or re-distributed to other development projects. Therefore, no project will subsidize any lost revenue caused by a project that qualifies for an exception, and any shortfalls in funding for exempt or reduced fee projects will be made up through grants or other local discretionary funding sources. (Fehr & Peers, 2025, p. 6). Since the baseline calculation does not re-allocate or redistribute program costs based on unknown future fee reductions and the nexus study provides mechanisms to address scenarios not specifically identified in Table 8, a revision to the nexus study is unnecessary. However, to provide for quicker evaluation of future residential development, the nexus study revision dated April 30, 2025, includes a line item for each residential land use category which calculates the reduction for use on eligible developments. Request for Backup to Support the Total Future Trips Listed in Table 15 (DPFG-T) The commentor is requesting backup and calculations to support the total number of trips shown in Table 15 of the Fehr & Peers nexus study of 183,433 (Fehr & Peers, 2025, p. 27). The number of trips estimated comes directly from the trip assignment of the travel demand model used in PlanRC. Since the data and calculations are part of a computer model, the files are in the TransCAD model format. A request for the model files can be made to Fehr & Peers with a copy of the request to the City Engineer to provide permission for release of the data. Request for Reduction of the Program Cost Allocated to New Development as Non- Proportional to Population Growth (i.e., 46% vs. 29.6%) (DPFG-T) The commentor includes this request in conjunction with a number of other comments, questions, and requests addressed above. In another comment, the commentor asks how only $3,943,600 of the $819,669,000 program cost is considered as existing deficiency. For the first comment, the Page 308 Page 8 of 10 commentor states that that new development’s share of program costs should be based on population growth and not other factors of impact from development. However, this approach fails to recognize the complexity of transportation impact. For example, if the focus is only on roadways, the City currently has 1,152.2 lane miles of roadway or 4.333 lane miles of roadway per 1,000 people. If that same ratio to the identified growth is applied in the DIF nexus study, then the facility needs would be 1,493.7 lane miles of roadway (29.6% growth); however, the nexus study only includes 13.8 miles of roadway. It is clear that past development has delivered a lot of transportation infrastructure that benefits new development, reducing the overall program cost for new development as it was developed and paid for by others. To ensure nexus and proportionality in the nexus study, Fehr & Peers included a number of approaches specific to the geography, type, and need of the improvements included in the program. With respect to the comment related to existing deficiencies, reference is made to the response to the comment above related to existing Level of Service. Based on the analysis performed in the nexus study, further reductions to the nexus study calculation are unnecessary and would result in new development underfunding infrastructure needed to address its transportation impacts. Request for Clarification on Whether Roundabouts, Trail Crossings, and Active Transportation Improvements are Beautification, Promotion of Active Transportation, and Safety Improvements (DPFG-T; LLG) Similar to the comment above related to the use of VMT as a metric (reference is made to the response provided to that comment), the commentor is questioning the use of roundabouts, trail crossings, and active transportation improvements as mitigation for impacts of new development. Another commentor questions the inclusions of improvements such as railroad crossings, grade separations, curb extensions, traffic signal left turn phasing, and road diets are not applicable to a DIF program. The commentor makes a similar statement related to the inclusion of active transportation improvements in the program with a reduction in facilities per service population. For clarification, roundabouts are an intersection control implementation improvement (e.g. increased capacity) like a STOP sign or traffic signal and have been identified as a need to mitigate future intersection LOS degradation. In fact, several of the locations identified for construction of future roundabouts were previously identified for construction of traffic signals in the prior nexus study. After further evaluation, the safety benefits, long-term savings to the current and future residents and businesses of the city, and added capacity drove the decision to modify the recommended improvement at these locations. Since many of the project locations are carrying over from the prior DIF programs, the fund balance credit provided in the nexus study represents prior development’s contribution toward these improvements. Trail crossings and active transportation improvements are VMT reduction measures that help meet the City’s goals/policies form the General Plan and Climate Action Plan related to GHG reduction. In response to the comment related to service population, attention is directed to the analysis and conclusions drawn in the response to comment related to program cost allocation being non- proportional to population growth for the potential for significant increases in costs should the number of roadway miles per service population be included in the nexus study. Ultimately, the justification for inclusion of the types of improvements based on a wholistic approach to the transportation system and impacts of new development has been included in the nexus study and various responses in this memorandum. Further, it is noted that the cost for active transportation improvements has been allocated based on population growth and thus is proportional to the impacts of anticipated new development. With respect to presumed safety improvements identified by one commentor, reference is also made to the discussion of VMT reducing and capacity improving nexus discussed throughout this memorandum. Further, it should be noted that the nexus study does not include any finding related to safety. All of the referenced comments do improve safety, but many of them either reduce VMT or they improve capacity. Specifically, Page 309 Page 9 of 10 grade separations improve capacity by removing delays at the grade separation. Left-turn phasing, depending on the traffic volumes, also can increase capacity. Active transportation improvements reduce VMT. These are all part of the nexus study and have a reasonable relationship to policies identified by city staff. As such, they are appropriate to include in the fee program. Request for Status of the Grove Avenue / 4th Street at I-10 Freeway Project (DPFG-T) The commentor asks whether the Grove Avenue / 4th Street at I-10 Freeway Project is complete. The presumption is that if it is completed, the commentor would request it be eliminated from the nexus study project list. These improvements were incorporated into the I-10 Express Lanes Project led by San Bernardino County Transportation Authority on behalf of the City of Ontario. As part of the nexus study prepared for Measure I 2010-2040, the City was allocated a development share of the improvements based on projected traffic that would utilize the improvements. Based on Measure I policy and State law, the City is required to incorporate the costs into the City’s DIF program and must maintain the listing for the life of Measure I 2010-2040. Continued inclusion also ensures that future development continues to pay its proportionate share of the improvements at this location. Therefore, this project should not be removed from the nexus study project listing. Request for Clarity on Reimbursement for Improvements (DPFG-T) The commentor is requesting clarity on the rate of credit or reimbursement for improvements constructed in by developers as part of a development project. The nexus study includes a provision to allow for credit or reimbursement up to the amount identified in the nexus study. It should be noted that RCMC 12.08.040 requires the construction of frontage improvements related to a development to be constructed as a condition of approval. These improvements are identified in PlanRC and other adopted plans for the City’s built environment. The inclusion in the DIF Program and provision for reimbursement provides for reimbursement of the proportional benefit of new development in general toward construction at a specific location. Further, the City has long recognized that for some development projects there is mutual benefit for the developer to construct public improvements that are part of the impact fee program’s list of capital projects. In accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and other laws, the developer may be eligible for a credit against the amount of the relevant impact fee for the cost of the improvement when the development impact fee is calculated. To ensure the sustainability and equity of the program, such credits are equal to the estimated value of the improvements and/or dedicated land as outlined in the nexus study, as adjusted and in effect as of the date the fees are calculated. (Fehr & Peers, 2025, p. 6). Further, RCMC Section 3.28.050 provides a process for fee adjustments. Request to Remove Roadway Extension Projects from the Nexus Study (LLG) The commentor states that the proposed roadway extensions should be removed or significantly reduced based on a purported lack of nexus analysis. By observation, it can be seen that existing development does not create the need for these identified roadway extensions as they do not exist today. The extensions are solely to facilitate new development and accessibility to new development and, as such, the nexus study creates that finding (e.g. that new development is Page 310 Page 10 of 10 wholly responsible for the improvements). It is acknowledged that development through undeveloped land may be required to construct the extension as a project feature, but they serve other new developments that may need access sooner. As such, implementation through the fee program is logical. Should a developer construct infrastructure identified in the nexus study, reimbursement or credits are possible as outlined in the nexus study and discussed in this memorandum. ATTACHMENTS Desert Valley Builders Association (Transportation) dated March 25, 2025 Building Industry Association of Southern California dated March 17, 2025 Development Planning & Finance Group (Transportation) dated March 17, 2025 LLG Engineers dated March 17, 2025 Page 311 ATTACHMENT 6 Page 312 NBS Non-Transportation DIF Study 1. Based on the projected number of new residential units in the NBS study, a total of 75 acres of park land is required. According to Table 3.1 of the NBS study, the City has 68 acres, potentially 94 acres (see # 5 below) of undeveloped park land in inventory, yet the NBS study proposes the city charge new development $102,000,000 in fees to acquire 75 acres of new park land. Please explain why the new park land is required when the City has sufficient undeveloped park land in inventory to fully satisfy the park land requirements for new development. 2. The February 2025 NBS study arbitrarily removed 26 unimproved acres from inventory at Central Park citing the land was for non-public purposes. We believe these acres should be included in inventory as Central Park was dedicated to the City for public purposes. 3. As of June 2023, the City had over $26,000,000 of non-transportation development impact fee funds on hand. The Fehr & Peers study deducted the transportation funds on hand from the proposed transportation improvements, NBS did not. Government Code Section 66016.5 (a) (4) requires a municipality to evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee. Please explain why the non-transportation funds on hand are not being considered as a reduction when calculating the proposed fees. 4. The cost per acre ($989,000) of improving the dog park at central park was used to calculate the park improvement fees. This cost is far in excess of the typical improvements for a public park, potentially by as much as $350,000 per acre resulting in the park land improvement fee to potentially overstated by $26,250,000. Please provide reasonable evidence supporting the proposed cost of future park development. 5. The Resort project will be contributing 1.75 acres of land plus $11,000,000 to the City for construction of a Joint Use Public Facility. The total value of the contribution is approximately $13,100,000. Should the Community and Recreation Center Fee not be reduced by a like amount? ATTACHMENT 7 Page 313 Fehr & Peers Transportation DIF Study 1. Before implementing a new development fee (AB 602) Government Code Section 66016.5 (a) (1) requires a municipality to prepare and adopt a nexus study. Section 66016.5 (a) (2) requires the nexus study to identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service and explain of why the new level of service is appropriate. Based on our review of the Fehr & Peers study, it appears these requirements have not been met. Please explain. 2. Government Code Section 66016.5 (a) (6) requires a large municipality adopt a Capital Improvement Plan as part of the nexus study. The City ’s Major Projects Program (CIP) does not include a majority of the improvements proposed in the Fehr & Peers study. The Fehr & Peers study references the City has prepared a draft amendment to the CIP. Please provide a copy of the proposed CIP amendment which includes all of the projects in the Fehr & Peers study. 3. The Fehr & Peers study uses Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to calculate the impacts of new development. VMT is not recognized as an appropriate metric in the context of an impact fee analysis, only for greenhouse gas and other environmental impacts. Please explain reliance on VMT as an appropriate metric for the transportation fee study. 4. A new concept in the February 11, 2025, Fehr & Peers report is the zonal approach to assessing fees based on estimated trip interactions between zones. This novel approach creates an unfair burden on the central and south zones with fees that are 58% higher than the north zone. Residential development in the central and south zones are being allocated a disproportionate 78% share of the cost of improvements to the industrial area east of Interstate 15 without any corresponding benefit. We do not concur with this approach. 5. The total project cost estimates in Appendix C of the Fehr & Peers study are not consistent with Table 1 of the study, the City’s Active Transportation Plan (Connect RC) and the City’s Major Projects Plan. Please explain why the project cost estimates in Appendix C, used to calculate the Transportation Fees have been substantially inflated over the referenced documents. Page 314 6. In 2022 the City hired Kosmont to form an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (“EIFD”) with the expectation the City would raise over $255,000,000 over the life of the EIFD. The stated purpose of the EIFD is to fund, among other things, the cost of bridges, streets, parking facilities, parks and recreational facilities, sidewalks, streetscape improvements and bicycle lanes identified in the General Plan. The Kosmont report specifically identified the Foothill Corridor and the Cucamonga Station, Haven / Arrow focus area as potential priority projects at a cost of up to $100,000,000. Please explain why the future EIFD funds have not been taken into consideration when calculating the proposed transportation fees. 7. The City’s Connect RC, Active Transportation Plan (ATP) targets multiple regional, state and federal funding sources to address the financial needs of the projects identified in the ATP, yet none of these outside funding sources were considered in determining the proposed Transportation Fee. Please explain why these funding sources were not considered in calculating the proposed transportation fee. 8. In 2018 the City proposed the Etiwanda Grade Separation project to Etiwanda to invest in infrastructure specifically for the promotion and marketability of the industrial sector of the City. Etiwanda Avenue, at the site of the proposed Etiwanda Grade Separation currently operates at a level of service “F” per the City’s Project Baseline Agreement with the California Department of Transportation. This area of the City is known for vehicular collisions with trains and multiple traffic fatalities. The City has applied for and has been awarded significant SB1-TCEP construction funding ($60,000,000 or more) for the project. Interstate 15 separates the project from residential areas of the city, yet the Fehr & Peers study proposes new residential development pay for the majority of the cost of the proposed improvement without any direct benefit. Please explain why the Etiwanda Grade Separation project is proposed to be included in the Transportation DIF and disproportionately assessed to residential development when it has historically been excluded? 9. The Signal Interconnect System in the Fehr & Peers Study is proposed to be allocated 100% to new development. In addition, the cost of the signal interconnect system was increased over 600% from $10.6 MM to $75.0 MM. Please explain the justification for the cost increase and allocating 100% to new development when the Signal Interconnect System has community wide benefits for existing residents and businesses. 10. The Fehr & Peers study limits the fee reduction for housing developments located within one-half mile of a transit priority area to multi-family (low-rise) and multi-family (mid-rise) units. Government Code Section 66005.1 applies to a “Housing Development”, not specific types of units, thus all housing developments meeting the criteria of Section 66005.1 shall be eligible for a fee reduction based on automobile trip generation rates. Request the Fehr & Peers study be revised accordingly. Page 315 Page 1 of 3 Memorandum To: Carlos Rodriguez, BIA Southern California Chapter From: Peter Piller Date: March 17, 2025 Subject: High Level Review of the Revised Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Study CC: Nick Belshe Carlos, Per your request, we have prepared this memo summarizing our findings and results of our high- level review of the February 11, 2025, Revised Transportation Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Revised Transportation DIF Study”) prepared by Fehr & Peers for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). The purpose of the review of the Revised Transportation DIF Study is to verify and confirm the assumptions and calculations used in the study, and to make comments as necessary. The primary tasks for our high-level review of the study include the following: • Confirm mathematical accuracy of schedules in the Revised Transportation DIF Study. • Identify initial issues and comments within the Revised Transportation DIF Study. • Prepare initial bullet point findings and present to BIA and stakeholders. The observations and results of the tasks performed, and findings are outlined below. 1. Can backup be provided for how the total future trips of 183,433 (from Table 15) was calculated? 2. How can it be justified that new development is required to pay for 46.3% of the $819,668,000 in program costs (excluding DIF Account Balance) when new development only represents 29.6% of the service population at buildout? It seems many of the projects allocated to new development at 100% are either to mitigate an existing deficiency or are not increasing capacity or mitigating new development’s impacts and instead are for beautification or promoting the City’s desire to increase non-vehicle transportation (active transportation). o As an example, aside from future grant funding, new development is effectively being required to pay for 100% of the Etiwanda Grade Separation Project ($111 million). Within the Revised Transportation DIF Study itself, there is text stating: “The proposed grade separation of the railroad tracks at Etiwanda has been planned by the City for years. Additionally, it is identified in General Plan Policy ATTACHMENT 8 Page 316 Page 2 of 3 MA-4.5 which states, “Support the construction of grade separations of roadways and trails from rail lines.” This grade separation is needed to support the continuation of land use growth and associated traffic impacts, especially in the Southeast Industrial Quadrant (SEIQ), to maintain LOS goals in the area.” o If this is a project that has been in the works for years, how can it be fully attributed to new development? This project was initially anticipated to be completed by 2022, and while construction hasn’t started, it is still in process. This seems to indicate that the project would be built even if no further development were to occur. Additionally, this improvement will especially benefit the SEIQ area as defined above, so why is residential development paying into it at the same rate as non-residential? o Per a Project Baseline Agreement entered into between the City and the California Department of Transportation it is stated that as of July 2018 Etiwanda had a level of service rating of “F” and an ADT of 21,000 vehicles, and there had been 7 train/vehicular accidents resulting in 2 fatalities and injuries. Based on this, it seems like there is an existing need for this Grade Separation so how can the cost be allocated fully to new development? o It is also our understanding that $60 million in State funding has already been acquired for this project, which doesn’t appear to be reflected in the study. The study also reflects approximately $74 million in “future grant funding”. Should the total grant funding be $134 million? o Why is Project INT 20 (Citywide Traffic Signal Communication Improvements) being allocated fully to new development when it is a Citywide improvement that would benefit all residents and employees? At most, this project should be allocated to new development at 29.6%. Additionally, how were the costs for this project allocated to each zone? o Are roundabouts, trail crossings, and buffered bike lanes mitigating the impacts of new development or are these improvements just for beautification and promoting active transportation? 3. It is our understanding that the City formed an EIFD to fund parking infrastructure and related improvements between Haven Ave and Day Creek Blvd along Foothill Corridor and transportation connectivity improvements linking Cucamonga Station and Haven/Arrow focus area in the amount of approximately $60-$100 million in 2022 dollars. Should there be a reduction/adjustment to the project costs to account for this funding? Specifically, projects DTRC1, CC1, CC1.1, and RH6, all of which are related to active transportation on Foothill and Haven 4. How is it possible that of the $819,668,000 in program costs, only $3,943,600 is considered an existing deficiency? o As an example, and as referenced above, Etiwanda Avenue had a level of service rating of “F” in 2018. There are multiple projects along Etiwanda which leads us to believe that not only should the existing deficiency amount be higher, but that Page 317 Page 3 of 3 it is likely there are also additional roadways that are below the desired level of service. 5. Would it make sense to add an additional Eastern zone for the industrial area east of the I-15? o It is unlikely that residents living in the Southern zone will frequently travel east of the I-15 into the industrial area, yet the Southern zone is being allocated most of the costs for projects east of the I-15. 6. Per Table 10, there will be a reduction in quantity of facilities per 1,000 service population when compared to the existing standard for Roadways, Trails, and Sidewalk Facilities, with Bike Lanes being the only facility to see an increase. o How can it be justified that the proposed improvements are solely mitigating the impacts of new development and not just furthering the goals of the City to promote active transportation when most of the facilities are seeing a decrease compared to the existing standard? 7. Many of the project costs are inconsistent with estimates previously approved by the City and appear to have been largely inflated. Additionally, there is a disconnect in project costs between Table 1 and Appendix B. 8. Is the Grove Ave/4th Street at I-10 Freeway project already complete? (Project ID F1) 9. If a new development project constructs one of the DIF improvements, how can it be guaranteed that the developer will receive credits/be reimbursed for the full cost of work? We recently ran into a situation where a jurisdiction is claiming they will only credit/reimburse a developer for the percentage of the project costs allocated to new development (29.6% in this case) as they won’t have the funds to reimburse for the remaining percentage of costs that are allocated to existing development, and if they were to do so, they would be taking credits away from other future projects. This effectively told us the jurisdiction is not funding existing development’s share as was stated they would do in the nexus study. Page 318 MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Carlos Rodriguez Business Industry Association of Southern California, Inc. Date: March 17, 2025 From: Keil D. Maberry, P.E., Principal LLG Engineers LLG Ref: 2.24.4893.1 Subject: Peer Review of the Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program Nexus Study, Rancho Cucamonga As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to provide our review comments of the Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program Nexus Study prepared by Fehr & Peers dated February 11, 2025. In particular, this review focuses to the appropriateness and reasonableness of the DIF Project List and Project Cost Estimates contained in Appendix C of the DIF Study and the resultant DIF Program Cost Total presented in Table 14 on Page 26 of the DIF Study. It should be noted, similar to our review of the October 23, 2024 Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program Nexus Study prepared by Fehr & Peers, it is our finding that this study provides no detailed quantitative nexus analyses associated with the list of DIF improvements contained in Appendix C, which is required by the Mitigation Fee Act. Based on our detailed review of the DIF Study, we have the following comments with regards to the DIF Project List and Project Cost Estimates and resultant DIF Program Cost Total:  Active Transportation (AT) related improvements by definition do not specifically improve level of service and do not measurably improve congestion levels to mitigate the impact of new development, which is a necessary nexus required for DIF improvements to be included in the DIF calculation process. Conversely, the DIF Study does indicate that Active Transportation improvements improve vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the City as a correlation for applicability to the DIF calculation. However, the relative measure of VMT in the DIF study was calculated for the entire City and not specifically for new development, which is contrary to the DIF requirement. Nonetheless, while it is likely that AT improvements would benefit existing and future development, the application of a fair share value would be reasonable in our assertion. With that said, based on the information provided in Table 12 of the DIF study, AT improvements will provide a 0.1% Citywide VMT reduction upon implementation between 2024 and the 2040 Buildout condition commensurate with new development. Therefore, we would recommend that only a 0.1% fair share of the AT improvements be applicable to the DIF calculation. Nonetheless, it is our understanding that the City approved an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) in 2022, which was intended to cover, among other ATTACHMENT 9 Page 319 Mr. Carlos Rodriguez March 17, 2025 Page 2 things, the proposed AT improvements along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, such that these AT improvements should be eliminated from the DIF list.  Improvements related to safety, such as railroad crossing improvements/grade separations, buffered bike lanes, pedestrian enhancements, curb extensions, traffic signal left-turn phasing improvements, and road diets are not applicable to the traffic impact of new development as the traffic generated by new development does not directly impact traffic safety conditions, such that a nexus finding cannot be made between new development and these safety-related improvements and therefore should be removed from the DIF Study analysis.  The applicability between the proposed bridge widening improvements and enhanced capacity/improved level of service (LOS) therein must be presented in order for a nexus finding to be made, such that merely improving a bridge structure does not improve traffic conditions for new development.  With regards to roundabout improvements, it is not clear whether there is a enhanced capacity/improved level of service (LOS) improvement compared to the existing geometry, such that a nexus finding must be made in order for the proposed roundabout improvements to be applicable.  The proposed new traffic signal improvements (four locations) are located at intersections with local side street roadways within built out areas, such that the presumed improved level of service from constructing the traffic new signals will not likely benefit new development and it is not clear whether the proposed traffic signals are even warranted under existing or future conditions. In the event that the City provides additional evidence to justify the possible inclusion of Traffic Signals in the “fair share” cost allocation, in our experience the cost estimate for a new traffic signal appears excessive at $750,000, and would recommend a cost of $500,000.  Improvements related to trail enhancements and trail crossings are not applicable to the traffic impact of new development as the traffic generated by new development does not directly impact traffic safety conditions, such that a nexus finding cannot be made between new development and these safety-related improvements and therefore should be removed from the DIF Study analysis.  The DIF roadway extension improvements are not supported by any nexus analysis within the DIF study, such that it is not clear that any of the roadway extension improvements listed mitigate new development impacts solely because they provide additional roadway capacity within the City. Another factor to consider regarding the applicability of roadway extensions, is the fact that because Page 320 Mr. Carlos Rodriguez March 17, 2025 Page 3 the proposed roadway extensions are through or adjacent to undeveloped land, new development will be required to construct these roadway extension improvements as Project Features, thus eliminating the need to include them as DIF improvements. As a result, if not eliminated, at most these roadway extension improvement costs should be calculated at the 29.6% new development service population increase based on Table 3 in the DIF study.  The Signal Interconnect System improvement designated as a Citywide traffic signal communication improvements, in our experience, has shown to marginally improve congestion levels, but is not substantiated in the DIF study. * * * * * * * * * * * We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Please call us at (949) 825-6175 if you have any questions. Page 321 Greetings Mayor Michael and City Council, Regarding the upcoming 5/7 City Council meeting, please see the attached comment letters in opposition to the proposed Transportation DIF. Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2025-014, A Resolution of the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Approving a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study for the Transportation Impact Fee, Adopting a Capital Improvement Program as Part of the Nexus Study, Establishing the Fee Amount, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under CEQA. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-014) (CITY) Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Carlos Rodriguez Chief Policy Officer Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc. crodriguez@biasc.org ph: (909) 641-4630 w: biasc.org Mailing Address: 17192 Murphy Ave., #14445, Irvine, CA 92623 Los Angeles/Ventura • Orange County • San Bernardino County • Riverside County • Coachella Valley 2025-05-07 - REGULAR MEETING - CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM G1 17192 Murphy Ave., #14445, Irvine, CA 92623 May 6, 2025 Honorable Mayor Dennis Michael and City Council 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Opposition To Resolution No. 2025-014 adopting nexus study and capital improvement program and approving the impact fee for the updated Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program. Dear Mayor Michael and City Council: On behalf of the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation (BILD) and the Building Industry Association of Southern California San Bernardino County Chapter (BIA), we write to express concern over the adequacy of the Fehr & Peers nexus study for the proposed Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program. This report raises several issues which requires further review. By way of background, the Building Industry Legal Foundation (BILD) is a non-profit affiliate of the Building Industry Association of Southern California (BIA). BILD provides legal support, research and litigation services dedicated to increasing the production of housing in response to the State’s overwhelming underproduction of housing. BIA represents the home building community of the entire Southern California region, working to achieve housing as the foundation of vibrant and sustainable communities. BIA retained the services of the Rutan and Tucker law firm to provide a legal review of the proposed transportation impact fees brought forward by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This analysis submitted finds that the proposed Transportation DIF conducted by Fehr & Peers fails to meet legal compliance standards. These findings are further supported by the submitted technical review provided by engineering firm Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) and a review by fee consultant Development Planning and Financing Group (DPFG). The experts at LLG and DPFG also highlight several issues that need to be resolved before the City can justifiably rely on said study for the establishment of a fee system. We appreciate your immediate attention to this matter and look forward to working with the City Council and staff to resolve the issues necessitating this letter. Sincerely, Adam S. Wood Carlos Rodriguez Chief Administrator Chief Policy Officer BILD BIA Southern California David P. Lanferman Direct Dial: (650) 320-1507 E-mail: dlanferman@rutan.com May 6, 2025 Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 455 Market Street, Suite 1870 San Francisco, CA 94105 | 650 -263 -7900 | Fax 650 -263 -7901 Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | Scottsdale | www.rutan.com 2644/031455-0001 21931368.7 a05/06/25 VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL esmeralda.ruvalcaba@cityofrc.us lupe.biggs@cityofrc.us John R. Gillison City Manager CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Matthew Burris Deputy City Manager CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga 91730 Re: Proposed [New] “Transportation Development Impact Fee Nexus Study” by Fehr & Peers, dated February 11, 2025 Legal Issues and Objections Dear City Manager Gillison and Deputy City Manager Burris: On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California (“BIA”) we respectfully submit this letter updating and summarizing our comments on and objections to the revised – but still inadequate -- draft of the proposed new Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program Nexus Study, as revised by Fehr & Peers in February 2025, and “updated” as of April 30, 2025 (the “Study”).1 It is our understanding that the City Staff is planning to present this version of the Study to the City Council on May 7, 2025, for public comment and Council consideration of possibly adopting new “transportation development impact fees” to be imposed on new development in the City (“TDI Fees” or “TDIF”).2 1 Since the April 30, 2025, “updated” version of the Study was only recently provided to BIA and the public (as an attachment to the Staff Report issued on May 5, 2025) – allowing little or no time for review and comment on this new document -- most of the comments in this letter are necessarily based on the February 2025 version of the Study. We also note that the very late and untimely release of this new “update” less than ten (10) days in advance of the hearing violates the Mitigation Fee Act which requires that such information shall be provided to the public at least 10 days prior to the hearing, (Gov. Code §§ 66016, 66017, and 66019(b).) 2 This letter will refer to the proposed new transportation impact fees as “TDIF,” to distinguish them from the other non-transportation development impact fees referred to as “DIF.” John R. Gillison Matthew Burris May 6, 2025 Page 2 2644/031455-0001 21931368.7 a05/06/25 Introductory Comments and Summary of Technical Objections We appreciate that it appears that the City Staff and the fee consultants have taken some of BIA’s previous comments and objections to heart, and have attempted to correct some of the issues that were previously raised in response to the October 2024 version of the proposed Study. Nevertheless, this latest version of the TDIF Study (dated April 30, 2025), remains critically flawed, and continues to rely on unfounded assumptions and legally-inappropriate methodologies, despite the revisions. We have focused our analysis on the legal issues raised by this Study. However, there are also serious technical issues raised by the Study which are called out in more detail by the accompanying critical analyses by Development Planning and Financing Group (“DPFG”) and by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (“LLG”). Those very serious technical issues and deficiencies include (without limitation) the following: (a) Many of the new facilities included in this Study’s assumptions are not shown to be “needed” as a result of impacts caused by new residential development, i.e., no “nexus”; (b) Many of the proposed new facilities and improvements in the Study have little or nothing to do with mitigating impacts caused by new development, and are apparently sought for reasons other than increasing capacity to accommodate new traffic generated by new development, e.g. improvements desired by the City to improve aesthetics, or safety, or to meet new regulatory requirements – the costs of which cannot legally be foisted onto new development; (c) The Study fails to accurately identify the many existing deficiencies in the transportation network, and fails to exclude or accurately apportion the costs of addressing those existing deficiencies from its calculations of the proposed TDIF; (d) The Study fails to acknowledge (and credit) sources of funding other than development fees for some of the major street and overpass improvements erroneously included in the Study, and allocating full cost to new development; (e) The Study fails to accurately identify and fairly distinguish impacts caused by or reasonably attributable to new “non-residential” development, e.g., impacts from industrial, commercial, warehouse, educational, healthcare or governmental development activities and to allocate costs of mitigation accordingly; (f) The Study also raises many questions regarding the inconsistent (and apparently- inflated) cost estimates for the proposed improvements used in the Study. John R. Gillison Matthew Burris May 6, 2025 Page 3 2644/031455-0001 21931368.7 a05/06/25 LEGAL ISSUES AND OBJECTIONS A city’s enactment of “development fees” no longer enjoys any presumption of validity nor any judicial “deference” to the city’s decisions. Especially following recent United States Supreme Court decisions in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024) and Koontz v. St. Johns River Mgt. Dist. (2013), and the adoption of Propositions 218 and 26 by the voters of California, the City now bears a weighty constitutionally-imposed burden of proof – requiring the City to prove to the public and to the courts that its “development fees” are justified and valid, and based on a preponderance of “substantial evidence.” As the California Court of Appeal recently emphasized: “It suffices to state that having rate studies, and an expert who agrees with them, is not enough .” (Coziahr v. Otay Water Dist. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 785, at 803.) With regard to the legal issues and deficiencies remaining in the current version of the purported Nexus Study, we highlight the following: 1. The Study still fails to demonstrate that the proposed new TDIF would comply with the federal constitutional requirements of Sheetz, Koontz, Dolan, and Nollan. Most fundamentally, the new Study still fails to include evidence and analysis that carries the City’s burden of proof to demonstrate that the proposed new TDIF would comply with constitutional requirements limiting development fees or exactions.3 The U.S. Supreme Court has set out a two-part test for such development fees, requiring the government to show that its fees as based on both (1) a causal connection (“nexus”) between new residential development and the City’s perceived “need” to construct all of the costly new improvements, and (2) at least rough proportionality between the amount of the fees to be imposed on a new development and the estimated costs of the proposed new improvements the need for which is allegedly caused by quantifiable impacts on public facilities reasonably anticipated from new development. In April 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267, made clear that all fees and exactions imposed as conditions of development approval – regardless of how they are enacted -- must be shown to meet both of these essential constitutional 3 Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024) 601 U.S. 267; Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Mgt. Dist. (2013) 570 U.S. 595; Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Nollan v. California Coastal Comm. (1987) 483 U.S. 825. John R. Gillison Matthew Burris May 6, 2025 Page 4 2644/031455-0001 21931368.7 a05/06/25 requirements.4 Sheetz unanimously held that the County was constitutionally-obligated to demonstrate that its “transportation impact fees” were calculated on a basis showing that the amount of the fee imposed on a particular residential building permit was roughly proportional to the alleged “impact” of that single-family home. In a case challenging a county’s “transportation impact” exactions, the California Court of Appeal recently applied these constitutional requirements to hold that the exactions were invalid on their face. (See, Alliance for Responsible Planning v. Taylor (2021) 63 Cal,App.5th 1072, 1084-86. “Laudable as traffic mitigation is, ‘there are outer limits to how this may be done.’” Despite its token acknowledgment of the “Nollan/Dolan” constitutional requirements (nexus and rough proportionality), the Study still fails to actually demonstrate compliance with those requirements, and the new TDIF based on the Study would fail to withstand judicial scrutiny if the proposed TDIF were to be adopted by Council and challenged in court. 2. The Study fails to show the required “nexus” between all the new transportation improvements and alleged impacts of new residential development. Although the Study recognizes the City’s burden to demonstrate “the direct link between anticipated growth ... and the necessity for transportation infrastructure improvements” it fails to demonstrate that required direct causal link. The Study confuses the City’s “vision” for a “layered circulation network” with needs for new improvements that are “directly linked” to and caused by demands for increased capacity caused by new development. The Study fails to show that demands created by new development bear any causal connection to the enhanced quality improvements envisioned in the general plan or to the extensive list of alleged “VMT-reducing” projects.. The Study compounds this error – wrongly assuming that a city planner’s “vision” somehow provides the basis for a nexus or direct linkage to “needs caused by development” – by arguing that population growth causes a civic “need” for enhancements to the “quality” of the City’s transportation facilities. However, there is no legal authority, nor any evidence, demonstrating that the anticipated population growth justifies “safety improvements” such as “modernized traffic controls” (“AT”), “intersection enhancements,” and protected bike lanes. The Study does not even attempt to provide any evidence or analysis to show that these costs for such new AT improvements or enhanced levels of service are necessary to meet increased demands caused by new development. 4 As the Supreme Court explained in Sheetz: “A condition that requires a landowner to give up more than is necessary to mitigate harms resulting from new development has the same potential for abuse as a condition that is unrelated to that purpose.” (Emph. added.) John R. Gillison Matthew Burris May 6, 2025 Page 5 2644/031455-0001 21931368.7 a05/06/25 To the contrary, the Study purports to show only that a large part of the revenue that would be generated by the proposed TDIF would be targeted solely to address costs of qualitative enhancements that address goals other than increasing system capacity to accommodate needs caused by new development. Many of the proposed transportation improvements have no logical or causal relationship to any impacts actually attributable to growth. For example, as pointed out in the previously- provided Technical Memo by DPFG (3/14/2025), the City has long deemed the hugely expensive Etiwanda Grade Separation Project to be necessary to cure existing deficiencies. As such, it is clearly wrong for the revised Study to attribute a grossly disproportionate (60%) “share” of the costs of those improvements to new development and include them in the TDIF. 3. No showing of “rough proportionality” between the amount of the proposed TDIF and the estimated (inflated) costs of the enhanced transportation improvements. The Study fails to address and demonstrate the “proportionality” of its fees in the manner required by the Supreme Court. Dolan and the cases following hold that the relevant “proportionality” is to be demonstrated based on the relationship between (a) the amount of the fee assessed to the particular development and (b) “the extent of the impact” (i.e., the amount of cost or burden on the City to address or mitigate the impact reasonably caused by the development). This revised Study, again, fails to make that demonstration, or to provide a basis for the City to make that determination in imposing the TDIF.5 5 Other recent appellate court decisions have similarly invalidated unjustified transportation impact fees and exactions based on the same type of flaws as this Study. E.g., Alliance for Responsible Planning, supra, [invalidating El Dorada County measure imposing transportation impact exactions]; Knight v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County (6th Cir. 2023) 67 F.4th 816 [The government required property owners “to either build useless ‘sidewalks to nowhere’ or pay for sidewalks miles away. These conditions do not look all that proportional to any specific harms from their homes, so the district court concluded that Nashville likely could not meet Dolan's rough-proportionality element.] In Board of Supervisors v. Route 29, LLC (Va. 2022) 872 S.E.2d 872, the Supreme Court of Virginia similarly upheld a developer’s challenge to the county’s demand for transportation in-lieu payments because the demands “lacked an essential nexus to the impacts of the owner's commercial retail project as the commuter bus route which was established did not operate to deliver customers to the owner's commercial retail project and the payments under the transit proffer were not roughly proportional to the impacts of the commercial retail project.”] John R. Gillison Matthew Burris May 6, 2025 Page 6 2644/031455-0001 21931368.7 a05/06/25 The Study (p. 2) asserts that its “assessed fees are proportional to the development’s estimated increase to transportation demand, ....” This unfounded assertion reveals at least two (2) of the fatal flaws in the Study: (a) First, the Study wrongly implies that the fees are proportional “estimated increase in transportation demand” in all cases. That is clearly false because at least in the case of the huge costs of the Etiwanda Grade Separation project the Study arbitrarily and inconsistently allocates 60% of those estimated costs to new development by way of the TDIF – without any attempt to link that allocation to any of the “formulae” used elsewhere in the Study. For example, the Study appears (rightly or wrongly) to largely rely on the formula (on page 18) of “increased demand/total future demand”. Using this formula, the percentage increase from new development in the average daily trip rate on Etiwanda Avenue between 6th Street an Arrow Route is 38% (14,150 / 33,790). Elsewhere in the Study, it asserts that project costs should simply be allocated “proportionally” to the ratio of increased service population to the total service population, i.e., 29.6% as shown in Table 3. (b) Second, the Study wrongly implies that it allocated project costs “proportionally” to each individual development’s estimated increase in demand (“the development’s ... increase...) However, the Study does not purport to provide a basis for the City to make such “individualized determinations” of the relationship between the fees assessed and the impact of the particular proposed development. Instead, the Study merely purports to show gross “proportionality” between the amount of fee to be imposed and the type of land use classification the development is assigned (and there are only three overbroad “types” of land use classifications in the Study). This “one-of-three sizes fits all” approach is not consistent with the constitutional requirement explained in Dolan.6 6 Dolan, supra, 512 U.S. 374, at 391: “...the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.” In Dolan, the Court rejected the City’s ‘nexus study’ with the following explanation: The city estimates that the proposed development would generate roughly 435 additional trips per day. Dedications for streets, sidewalks, and other public ways are generally reasonable exactions to avoid excessive congestion from a proposed property use. But on the record before us, the city has not met its burden of demonstrating that the additional number of vehicle and bicycle trips generated by petitioner's development reasonably relate to the city's requirement for a dedication of the pedestrian/bicycle pathway easement. [Emph. added.] John R. Gillison Matthew Burris May 6, 2025 Page 7 2644/031455-0001 21931368.7 a05/06/25 4. The Study fails to acknowledge, much less comply with, the requirements of the California Constitution for lawful fees and other charges. The City has apparently failed to consider the constraints on all local governmental charges and fees imposed by the California Constitution, as amended by Propositions 218 and 26. The Study still fails to make any effort to carry the City’s burden to demonstrate that its fees and exactions are not “taxes” in disguise, nor to demonstrate that these new fees fit into any “exception” to the constitutional presumption that these charges are “taxes.” The Nexus Study failed to address either the “aggregate cost” requirement or the “reasonable allocation” requirement now mandated following Proposition 26. Such failures are also fatal to the validity of the new “fees.” See, e.g. Zolly v. City of Oakland (2022) 13 Cal.5th 780, 785-86; Carachure v. City of Azusa (2d. Dist. 4/15/25) __ Cal.App.5th ___, 2025 Cal.App. LEXIS 248; HJTA v. Coachella, supra, 108 Cal.App.5th at 508-09; Coziahr v. Otay Water Dist. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 785, 800. 5. The Study improperly uses unjustified and inconsistent methodologies. The Study appears uses or mis-uses several, internally-inconsistent, approaches in attempting to justify the proposed new TDIF: (a) novel, and unauthorized, “zone-based” allocation of costs and fees; and (b) a hybridized version of the “existing standards” or “existing inventory” approach; and (c) inapt application of the “system plan” approach. The new Study introduces a novel approach that it describes as “a zone-based fee program.” There is no legal authority, however, for this approach nor has any reported case ever approved of this type of “band approach” which purports to arbitrarily allocate the costs of new facilities to three bands based on their perceived “benefits” from the transportation improvements. No evidentiary analysis supports that approach. Moreover, fees are required to be allocated proportionally on the basis of burdens or impacts generated, not on the basis of “benefits received.” Following Dolan and Sheetz, it may be appropriate and necessary to calculate TDIF on the basis of trips (or other chargeable “impacts”) generated by particular developments, or even on trips generated by specifically-described “types” of development (where the “types” are sufficiently narrowed and the type-specific TDIF are shown to accurately quantify impacts.) However, there is no basis for skewing the calculation of the new TDIF to unduly burden one part of the City with fees while unduly sheltering another part of the City from its fair share of the City-wide costs of new facilities that will be used by, and benefit, all residents – as well as non-residents who will “benefit” from the new facilities without being charged any fees. The Study also appears to employ an unauthorized distortion of the “system plan” approach, which would normally have new development pay its share of the costs of an integrated system of facilities and improvements by dividing the costs of that system by the combined demand from both existing users and planned future development. John R. Gillison Matthew Burris May 6, 2025 Page 8 2644/031455-0001 21931368.7 a05/06/25 The various transportation projects upon which the Study is based are of two distinct types: (a) projects allegedly needed to accommodate increased demand caused by new development; and (b) projects envisioned or desired by the City in order to address its desire to reduce overall VMT generated by the City, not necessarily attributable to needs caused solely by new development. Using the Study’s own assumptions about combined future demand (Table 3), the new TDIF fees on new development should not exceed 29.6% of the total project costs.7 Even if such “VMT-reducing” project could lawfully be included in the calculation of TDIF, using the City’s own projections of future VMT increases would mean that not more than 6.1% of the “VMT-reducing” project costs could be included in the calculation of TDIF 6. The Study fails to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act (Gov’t Code §§ 66000 et seq.) establishes additional and specific requirements on development fees, beyond the broad constitutional requirements described above. Again, the Study superficially acknowledges these statutory requirements but fails to substantively comply. Gov. Code Section 66001(a) requires the City to show “how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.” The Study fails to satisfy this requirement. As described above (and in the accompanying technical memos from DPFG and LLG) the Study does not differentiate between improvements that are deemed “necessary” in order to provide increased capacity to accommodate new demands from new development and enhancements that may be deemed desirable merely in order to improve “aesthetics,” and to comply with health, safety, or environmental regulations. This latter class of desired improvements, such as the AT and ‘multi-modal’ improvements, which do not mitigate increased demands on capacity caused by growth, are generally not the type of improvements that can be financed by imposition of development impact fees. (Gov. Code §§ 66001(a), 66001(g).) The “need” – if any—for such new multimodal facilities would be driven at least in part by the existing community as well as new development, as well as the City’s desires to meet new environmental and regulatory standards – not needs caused by new development. New AT or 7 According to Table 14 in the Study, the total cost of constructing the proposed facilities included in the TDIF program is $588 million, with $327 million being allocated to new development, before credit for current TDIF account balances ($64 million) and existing deficiencies ($3.9 million). Even assuming $588 M is an accurate estimate of total costs of all proposed improvements, the Nexus Study appears to impose a disproportionate share of all such costs on new private sector development (55.6%), and merely allocates just $3.9 million to the costs of correcting existing deficiencies (i.e., allegedly the existing community’s “fair share”). John R. Gillison Matthew Burris May 6, 2025 Page 9 2644/031455-0001 21931368.7 a05/06/25 multimodal facilities involve an upgrade to the City’s existing standards of transportation infrastructure, in violation of Gov. Code § 66001(g). Therefore, the costs of those new facilities cannot legally be foisted entirely upon new development. Many of the costs of the new facilities appear to be for improvements in quality (not just capacity improvements to the existing road facilities - this creates benefits enjoyed by all users and should thus be allocated differently. Cf. Gov’t Code § 66001(g). Section 66001(g) of the Act expressly prohibits a fee from including any costs “attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities, ….” (Bixel Assoc. v. City of Los Angeles (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1208.) 7. Failure to Account for Deficiencies or Surplus Existing Capacities. The Study asserts that its analysis is intended to avoid calculating the fees on the basis of needed corrections to “existing deficiencies” in the transportation network – but still does not appear to consider or take into account the extent to which the existing network may include some, or many, segments that already provide adequate levels of service, or which may have “surplus capacity” available to maintain the existing levels of service. Fees may not be imposed on new development to reimburse the City for its prior expenditures to provide infrastructure that is sufficient to continue to provide the same level of service (“LOS”) as contemplated by the City’s established standard (LOS “D” as stated in the Study at p. 11). (Home Builders Ass’n v City of Lemoore (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 554, 572.) The Study reports, incredibly, that the costs of correcting the “existing deficiencies” in the selected elements of the City’s transportation facilities is only $ 3.9 million. That implies that the vast majority of the City’s facilities are already at or above the existing LOS. Such facilities that are currently operating at better than LOS D presumably have at least some excess capacity available to accommodate traffic from new development, before needing expansion. One extremely egregious error, which taints the entire Study, is its failure to accurately account for the huge costs of correcting the admittedly “deficient” Etiwanda Grade Separation. The City’s own consultant Fehr & Peers recognized that situation as an existing deficiency in their report to the City Engineer on May 7, 2021. As noted above, the Study wrongly allocates 60% of those costs to the TDIF program. In reality, no more than 29.6% (increased service population) or 38% (increased ADT) should be allocated to the TDIF – and probably far less than that if proper traffic studies were provided. 8. Failure to Comply with Requirements of AB 602. The Study acknowledges that AB 602 amended the Fee Act, effective in 2022, but nevertheless fails to comply with several of those new requirements: John R. Gillison Matthew Burris May 6, 2025 Page 10 2644/031455-0001 21931368.7 a05/06/25 (a) While the Study purports to identify the existing levels of service (“LOS”) as required by Gov. Code § 66016.5(a)(2) [as added by AB 602], it fails to “identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate” which is also required by the same section. (b) The Study fails to “review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the City’s original [previous] transportation impact fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee” as now required by § 66016.5(a)(4). (c) The Study refers to the City’s separate Capital Improvement Plan but does not comply with the statutory requirement that the City “shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.” (§ 66016.5(a)(6).) A CIP must at least meet the requirements outlined in § 66002. The Study is not consistent with the current CIP, which does not include many of the proposed new transportation improvements that are listed in the Study. The inconsistencies between the Study and the CIP must be resolved. In addition, the CIP must demonstrate that the City has adequate and reasonable secure sources of funding to cover that portion of the costs of new facilities which cannot lawfully be attributed to “new” development paying DIF fees. (d) AB 602 now makes clear that any “nexus study” must account for and analyze (Gov. Code § 66016.5, subd.(a)(4)) any previously accumulated facilities fees and other resources the City may have already acquired for the same purpose as the new fees being calculated (Boatworks, supra.). This Study fails to do so. 9. Unfounded Assumptions. The Study still relies on many assumptions, that are not supported by evidence in the Study or by references to authoritative or qualified sources, e.g., its assumptions about anticipated future development, both residential and non-residential; the average size of new residential dwelling units; household ‘density’ (persons/household) and trip generation. In particular, assumptions about the estimated costs of new transportation facilities and improvements appear to be largely unsourced, highly speculative, and frequently inconsistent with cost estimates in other City documents. The Fee Act requires that fees may not exceed the reasonably estimated costs of providing the identified public facilities for which they are imposed. Gov. Code § 66006. The Study refers to unidentified “City sources” of information regarding the “cost estimates” used in the Study. However, there is no indication as to the qualifications or expertise of those sources which would be necessary to validate the cost estimates John R. Gillison Matthew Burris May 6, 2025 Page 11 2644/031455-0001 21931368.7 a05/06/25 10. Improper Reliance on VMT as Justification for New Fees. As we have previously pointed out, the Study’s reliance on VMT to calculate “impacts” of new development is of dubious validity. To the contrary, VMT is a metric appropriate in the context of CEQA analysis, for assessing GHG and other environmental impacts of vehicular travel, not demands for increased capacity to accommodate new development. VMT has not been recognized as an appropriate metric in the context of “impact fee” analysis. The Mitigation Fee Act, by contrast, has always addressed the anticipated “needs” for, or “impacts on,” transportation facilities in terms of comparative usage and trip generation ratios. As noted above, however, to the extent that the City or its consultants may believe that the proposed new TDIF can be justified by using a VMT metric, it appears that those VMT-based calculations would not support allocating of estimated costs of the proposed new facilities as shown in the Nexus Study. See the Technical Memo by LLG Engineers, dated May 5, 2025, regarding possible limited application of VMT as a basis for allocating the costs of “VMT- reducing” traffic improvements, and concluding that new development would only increase 6.1% above the existing City-wide VMT. The proposed TDIF would need to be corrected and substantially reduced if the City could wants to use a VMT metric for those proposed new projects that are intended to be “VMT-reducing.” 11. Failure to Properly Account for Other Non-Fee Funding Sources. The Study acknowledges (p. 6) that the City pursues grants and other external funding mechanisms, but cannot “guarantee” what percent or amount of the new transportation facilities might be funded by sources other than TIF. In reality, however, most of the assumptions used in the Study do not purport to be “guaranteed” – but such uncertainty did not appear to preclude the Study from reaching its conclusions about the recommended fees. The Study thus fails to properly take into account – and credit – all other, non-TDIF, funding sources for the proposed facilities and improvements (e.g., State or federal grants; regional SBCTA funding, possible federal or State rail subsidies, etc.) Nor does the Study take into account or credit the probable new local tax revenues likely to generated for the City by new development, etc.) New development ultimately will be paying on-going local property, sales, and gasoline taxes, in addition to one-time TDIF fees. The Study simply suggests that in the event such non-TDIF funding sources are received in the future, they would be “accounted for in the next major update to this nexus study.” Any such future accounting and offset for non-TDIF funding received may be valuable prospectively to future TDIF fee-payers, but fails to provide any meaningful retroactive relief (as constitutionally-required) to current TDIF fee-payers who would have been “over-charged” by the Study’s absolute failure to anticipate, estimate, and include such non-TDIF funding sources in this Study and any fees that Council might adopt based on this Study. John R. Gillison Matthew Burris May 6, 2025 Page 12 2644/031455-0001 21931368.7 a05/06/25 12. Other Issues and Comments. This letter does not waive the various other legal issues raised by the City’s proposed action on these unjustified TDIF. Rather, we reserve the right to supplement our objections and comments based on the evidence, new developments, and the City Council’s actions. For example, much of the purported Nexus Study is not based on “substantial evidence,” but rather relies on assumptions and unidentified sources whose competence and expertise is not demonstrated. This is not credible substantial evidence sufficient to justify any Council action on proposed new fees. While the City’s consultant may have recognized expertise in certain disciplines (e.g. traffic engineering), the expert must still demonstrate that his or her opinions have sound evidentiary foundations, and are not based on speculation or inappropriate “sources.” “[E]ven when the witness qualifies as an expert, he or she does not possess a carte blanche to express any opinion within the area of expertise. For example, an expert’s opinion based on assumptions of fact without evidentiary support … or on speculative or conjectural factors … has no evidentiary value … and may be excluded from evidence .” (Olive v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 804, 817.) Among other possible grounds for challenge to the City’s adoption of the new TDIF is the questionable assumption that adoption of the new Capital Improvement Plan along with the Nexus Study and TDIF should be “exempt” from CEQA compliance. CEQA includes a broad definition of “projects” that are subject to its requirements (Pub. Res. Code § 21065), and Guideline § 15378(b)(4) cited by the City only excludes “governmental fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project….” Since the adoption of a CIP and new development fees both involve the City’s commitments to the specific projects identified therein, it is inconsistent and inappropriate for the City to dismiss its obligations under CEQA. CONCLUSION These are just some of the most readily-apparent flaws or errors that remain, or that have been added to, this new version of Nexus Study. The City should require its consultant to revisit the Nexus Study and to make the substantial corrections and revisions that are necessary as a matter of law. Fees based on this flawed Study in its current form would likely be declared to be invalid if challenged in the courts. John R. Gillison Matthew Burris May 6, 2025 Page 13 2644/031455-0001 21931368.7 a05/06/25 We welcome any questions from, or discussions with, the City Staff or the consultants in this regard. Thank you for your consideration of BIA’s concerns and objections. RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Very truly yours, David P. Lanferman cc: BIA of So. California MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Carlos Rodriguez Business Industry Association of Southern California, Inc. Date: May 5, 2025 From: Keil D. Maberry, P.E., Principal LLG Engineers LLG Ref: 2.24.4893.1 Subject: Peer Review of the Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program Nexus Study, Rancho Cucamonga As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to provide our review comments of the Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program Nexus Study prepared by Fehr & Peers dated February 11, 2025. In particular, this review focuses to the appropriateness and reasonableness of the DIF Project List and Project Cost Estimates contained in Appendix C of the DIF Study and the resultant DIF Program Cost Total presented in Table 14 on Page 26 of the DIF Study. It should be noted, similar to our review of the October 23, 2024 Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program Nexus Study prepared by Fehr & Peers, it is our finding that this study provides no detailed quantitative nexus analyses associated with the list of DIF improvements contained in Appendix C, which is required by the Mitigation Fee Act. Based on our detailed review of the DIF Study, we have the following comments with regards to the DIF Project List and Project Cost Estimates and resultant DIF Program Cost Total:  Active Transportation (AT) related improvements by definition do not specifically improve level of service and do not measurably improve congestion levels to mitigate the impact of new development, which is a necessary nexus required for DIF improvements to be included in the DIF calculation process. Conversely, the DIF Study does indicate that Active Transportation improvements improve vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the City as a correlation for applicability to the DIF calculation. However, the relative measure of VMT in the DIF study was calculated for the entire City and not specifically for new development, which is contrary to the DIF requirement. Nonetheless, while it is likely that AT improvements would benefit existing and future development, the application of a fair share value would be reasonable in our assertion. With that said, based on the information provided in Table 11 of the DIF study, the forecast growth in total VMT between 2024 and the 2040 Buildout condition is shown at 6.15%. Therefore, we would recommend that only a 6.15% fair share of the AT improvements be applicable to the DIF calculation. Nonetheless, it is our understanding that the City approved an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) in 2022, which was intended to cover, Mr. Carlos Rodriguez May 5, 2025 Page 2 among other things, many of the VMT reducing improvements such that these VMT improvements should be eliminated from the DIF list.  Improvements related to safety, such as railroad crossing improvements/grade separations, buffered bike lanes, pedestrian enhancements, curb extensions, traffic signal left-turn phasing improvements, and road diets are not applicable to the traffic impact of new development as the traffic generated by new development does not directly impact traffic safety conditions, such that a nexus finding cannot be made between new development and these safety-related improvements and therefore should be removed from the DIF Study analysis.  The applicability between the proposed bridge widening improvements and enhanced capacity/improved level of service (LOS) therein must be presented in order for a nexus finding to be made, such that merely improving a bridge structure does not improve traffic conditions for new development.  With regards to roundabout improvements, it is not clear whether there is a enhanced capacity/improved level of service (LOS) improvement compared to the existing geometry, such that a nexus finding must be made in order for the proposed roundabout improvements to be applicable.  The proposed new traffic signal improvements (four locations) are located at intersections with local side street roadways within built out areas, such that the presumed improved level of service from constructing the traffic new signals will not likely benefit new development and it is not clear whether the proposed traffic signals are even warranted under existing or future conditions. In the event that the City provides additional evidence to justify the possible inclusion of Traffic Signals in the “fair share” cost allocation, in our experience the cost estimate for a new traffic signal appears excessive at $750,000, and would recommend a cost of $500,000.  Improvements related to trail enhancements and trail crossings are not applicable to the traffic impact of new development as the traffic generated by new development does not directly impact traffic safety conditions, such that a nexus finding cannot be made between new development and these safety-related improvements and therefore should be removed from the DIF Study analysis.  The DIF roadway extension improvements are not supported by any nexus analysis within the DIF study, such that it is not clear that any of the roadway extension improvements listed mitigate new development impacts solely because they provide additional roadway capacity within the City. Another factor to consider regarding the applicability of roadway extensions, is the fact that because Mr. Carlos Rodriguez May 5, 2025 Page 3 the proposed roadway extensions are through or adjacent to undeveloped land, new development will be required to construct these roadway extension improvements as Project Features, thus eliminating the need to include them as DIF improvements. As a result, if not eliminated, at most these roadway extension improvement costs should be calculated at the 29.6% new development service population increase based on Table 3 in the DIF study.  The Signal Interconnect System improvement designated as a Citywide traffic signal communication improvements, in our experience, has shown to marginally improve congestion levels, but is not substantiated in the DIF study.  With respect to allocation of fair share values to the recommended DIF Improvements, it would be our recommendation to apply the 29.6% service population growth fair share to the “Capacity Enhancing” Improvements, such as street widening, traffic signals and roundabouts, for instance, and apply a 6.15% total VMT growth fair share to the “VMT Reducing” improvements, such as the new bike lanes and AT Projects, for instance. This would be the appropriate application of the nexus between the type of improvement and analysis metric, since both improvement types are represented in the analysis. Furthermore, It could be argued that all transportation projects included in the DIF Improvement list should be based on the 6.15% increase in total VMT between existing and Buildout conditions, since Table 1 in the City’s VMT Thresholds of significance (Resolution No. 2020-056) explicitly states that Transportation Project impacts are based on total daily VMT. * * * * * * * * * * * We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Please call us at (949) 825-6175 if you have any questions. Page 1 of 3 Memorandum To: Carlos Rodriguez, BIA Southern California Chapter From: Peter Piller Date: May 6, 2025 Subject: High Level Review of the Revised Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Study CC: Nick Belshe Carlos, Per your request, we have prepared this memo summarizing our findings and results of our high- level review of the February 11, 2025, Revised Transportation Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Revised Transportation DIF Study”) prepared by Fehr & Peers for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). The purpose of the review of the Revised Transportation DIF Study is to verify and confirm the assumptions and calculations used in the study, and to make comments as necessary. The primary tasks for our high-level review of the study include the following: • Confirm mathematical accuracy of schedules in the Revised Transportation DIF Study. • Identify initial issues and comments within the Revised Transportation DIF Study. • Prepare initial bullet point findings and present to BIA and stakeholders. The observations and results of the tasks performed, and findings are outlined below. 1. Can backup be provided for how the total future trips of 183,433 (from Table 15) was calculated? 2. How can it be justified that new development is required to pay for 46.3% of the $819,668,000 in program costs (excluding DIF Account Balance) when new development only represents 29.6% of the service population at buildout? It seems many of the projects allocated to new development at 100% are either to mitigate an existing deficiency or are not increasing capacity or mitigating new development’s impacts and instead are for beautification or promoting the City’s desire to increase non-vehicle transportation (active transportation). o As an example, aside from future grant funding, new development is effectively being required to pay for 100% of the Etiwanda Grade Separation Project ($111 million). Within the Revised Transportation DIF Study itself, there is text stating: “The proposed grade separation of the railroad tracks at Etiwanda has been planned by the City for years. Additionally, it is identified in General Plan Policy Page 2 of 3 MA-4.5 which states, “Support the construction of grade separations of roadways and trails from rail lines.” This grade separation is needed to support the continuation of land use growth and associated traffic impacts, especially in the Southeast Industrial Quadrant (SEIQ), to maintain LOS goals in the area.” o If this is a project that has been in the works for years, how can it be fully attributed to new development? This project was initially anticipated to be completed by 2022, and while construction hasn’t started, it is still in process. This seems to indicate that the project would be built even if no further development were to occur. Additionally, this improvement will especially benefit the SEIQ area as defined above, so why is residential development paying into it at the same rate as non-residential? o Per a Project Baseline Agreement entered into between the City and the California Department of Transportation it is stated that as of July 2018 Etiwanda had a level of service rating of “F” and an ADT of 21,000 vehicles, and there had been 7 train/vehicular accidents resulting in 2 fatalities and injuries. Based on this, it seems like there is an existing need for this Grade Separation so how can the cost be allocated fully to new development? o It is also our understanding that $60 million in State funding has already been acquired for this project, which doesn’t appear to be reflected in the study. The study also reflects approximately $74 million in “future grant funding”. Should the total grant funding be $134 million? o Why is Project INT 20 (Citywide Traffic Signal Communication Improvements) being allocated fully to new development when it is a Citywide improvement that would benefit all residents and employees? At most, this project should be allocated to new development at 29.6%. Additionally, how were the costs for this project allocated to each zone? o Are roundabouts, trail crossings, and buffered bike lanes mitigating the impacts of new development or are these improvements just for beautification and promoting active transportation? 3. It is our understanding that the City formed an EIFD to fund parking infrastructure and related improvements between Haven Ave and Day Creek Blvd along Foothill Corridor and transportation connectivity improvements linking Cucamonga Station and Haven/Arrow focus area in the amount of approximately $60-$100 million in 2022 dollars. Should there be a reduction/adjustment to the project costs to account for this funding? Specifically, projects DTRC1, CC1, CC1.1, and RH6, all of which are related to active transportation on Foothill and Haven 4. How is it possible that of the $819,668,000 in program costs, only $3,943,600 is considered an existing deficiency? o As an example, and as referenced above, Etiwanda Avenue had a level of service rating of “F” in 2018. There are multiple projects along Etiwanda which leads us to believe that not only should the existing deficiency amount be higher, but that Page 3 of 3 it is likely there are also additional roadways that are below the desired level of service. 5. Would it make sense to add an additional Eastern zone for the industrial area east of the I-15? o It is unlikely that residents living in the Southern zone will frequently travel east of the I-15 into the industrial area, yet the Southern zone is being allocated most of the costs for projects east of the I-15. 6. Per Table 10, there will be a reduction in quantity of facilities per 1,000 service population when compared to the existing standard for Roadways, Trails, and Sidewalk Facilities, with Bike Lanes being the only facility to see an increase. o How can it be justified that the proposed improvements are solely mitigating the impacts of new development and not just furthering the goals of the City to promote active transportation when most of the facilities are seeing a decrease compared to the existing standard? 7. Many of the project costs are inconsistent with estimates previously approved by the City and appear to have been largely inflated. Additionally, there is a disconnect in project costs between Table 1 and Appendix B. 8. Is the Grove Ave/4th Street at I-10 Freeway project already complete? (Project ID F1) 9. If a new development project constructs one of the DIF improvements, how can it be guaranteed that the developer will receive credits/be reimbursed for the full cost of work? We recently ran into a situation where a jurisdiction is claiming they will only credit/reimburse a developer for the percentage of the project costs allocated to new development (29.6% in this case) as they won’t have the funds to reimburse for the remaining percentage of costs that are allocated to existing development, and if they were to do so, they would be taking credits away from other future projects. This effectively told us the jurisdiction is not funding existing development’s share as was stated they would do in the nexus study. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY & FEE UPDATE PUBLIC HEARING May 7, 2025 City Council Meeting Background January 2020 New Housing Allocation December 2020 Most recent update to the DIFs December 2021 New General Plan Adopted Fall 2023 City initiates update to the DIF Program Fall 2024 BIA objected; City releases second updated Nexus Study Winter 2023 City releases an updated Nexus Study Early 2025 BIA objected again; City releases third updated Nexus Study April 2025 Approval of Non-Transportation DIF What is a Development Impact Fee? Development impact fees provide a fair, transparent mechanism for mitigating the infrastructure impacts of new growth and development. •One-time charge •Assessed at building permit issuance stage or at Certificate of Occupancy, per Senate Bill (SB) 330 and Assembly Bill (AB) 602 •Required on development projects within the City •Funds facilities to serve new development •Ensures City maintains existing levels of services •Adoption of Development Impact Fees are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines Growth Projections The General Plan projects over 18,000 new dwelling units could be built by the year 2040 which will increase the City’s population by over 40,000 residents. 1 HCD approved the City’s Housing Element on September 7, 2022. 1 Impact Fee Categories Park Land Acquisition Park Land Improvements Community & Recreation Centers Library Animal Center Police Fire Transportation Transportation What’s Changed in the Transportation DIF? Assembly Bill (AB) 602 AB 602 was passed in September 2021 and went into effect on January 1, 2022. This law created new requirements for development impact fees in California, it amends Government Code Section 65940.1 and adds Section 66016.5. Requires local jurisdictions to make certain information available on website: •Current impact fee schedule •Nexus studies •Annual AB1600 reports •Five-Year AB1600 reports Technical changes: •Residential fees should be charged per square foot, unless findings are supported that justify another metric •Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study •Nexus study should identify existing level of serviceChanges to impact fee adoption process: •Prior to adoption of development fees, an impact fee nexus study needs to be adopted with 30 days notice Zonal Approach VMT Transportation DIF Program Projects Category Projects % of Program Cost % of New Dev. Share Freeway Interchanges 1 2%4% RxR Grade Crossings/Separations 2 26%28% Bridges 4 4%7% Street Improvements/Widening 16 6%12% Traffic Signals/Interconnect System 7 8%14% Roundabouts 13 5%9% VMT Reducing Infrastructure 53 49%26% Proposed Capital Improvement Projects During the Next Five Years of the DIF Program 6th Street at BNSF Spur Crossing •Advanced Traffic Management System – Program •Advanced Traffic Management System – Phase 2 Etiwanda East Side Widening Etiwanda Creek Bridges Project •Whittram Extension – W/O Etiwanda •Wilson & Day Creek Channel Bridge •Wilson Extension W/O Day Creek Blvd Current vs Proposed Fees $0.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000.00 $14,000.00 $16,000.00 Citywide North Central South Single Family Res.Multi-Family Res. Proposed FeesExisting Fees Implementation •The City is proposing that if approved by the City Council, the proposed Development Impact Fee changes would take effect on July 7, 2025.This would meet 60 period required by State law and allow for the changes to take effect on Monday rather than Sunday. •Developers with applications submitted prior to close of business on April 16, 2025, and are subsequently deemed complete, may elect to proceed forward under the new or old Development Impact Fee Program. •Proceeding forward under the old development impact fee program will be permitted so long as entitlements are received and building permits are pulled prior to July 1, 2026. •Proceeding forward under the new development impact fee program, and the payment of fees at the initial rates, prior to issuance of a building permit, will require completion of plans to the point of knowing actual square footages. Otherwise, the option always exists to pay the fees in effect at time of permit issuance or time of certificate of occupancy. Implementation Continued •The Nexus Study will be required to be updated on an eight (8) year basis. •The amount of the development impact fees shall be adjusted annually in July of each calendar year beginning in 2026, using the Cal Trans Construction Cost Index. •The City Manager is authorized by City Council to make annual adjustments to certain fees based on inflationary factors effective July 1 of each year. Administrative Fee •The City must follow administrative, accounting, reporting, and public notice requirements under the Government Code •These responsibilities require staff time and sometimes external advisory services •To recover reasonable administrative costs, the City proposes a 2.5% Administrative Fee •This proposed fee aligns with the representative implementation costs outlined in the Nexus Study and Residential Feasibility Calculation Templates by the Terner Center at UC Berkely, prepared for California HCD (in fulfillment of AB 602). Mitigation Fee Act Findings Government Code Sections 66000-66025 •Key findings -Need: Development ≈ Need for facilities -Benefit: Development ≈ Use of revenue -Rough proportionality: Fee amount ≈ Development’s share of facility costs •Other findings -Purpose of fee -Use of fee revenue Communication •The City met the requirements of Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(7) by publishing and sending notice to interested parties 30 days prior to the adoption of the impact fee nexus (30 days prior to the advertised hearing). •The City has received letters with questions and comments from Desert Valley Builders Association, Building Industry Association, Development Planning & Finance Group and Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers and have provided responses to the questions and comments which have been published with the staff report as Attachment 8. •The City Council continued the public hearing initially scheduled for April 2, 2025, to April 16, 2025, for the Non-Transportation Nexus Study and May 7, 2025, for the Transportation Nexus Study, to provide for further communication with interested stakeholders on the fees. Since that time the City Council has approved the Non-Transportation Nexus Study on April 16, 2025, and the City has continued meeting with interested stakeholders to address the concerns regarding the Transportation Nexus Study. Staff Recommendation 1.Reopen the noticed public hearing to receive comments and testimony from the public on the proposed impact fees and nexus study for the Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee, Park Impact Fees and Fire Impact Fee; 2.Approve Resolution No. 2025-014 adopting the Nexus Study for the Transportation Impact Fee Study and approving the updated Development Impact Fee amounts, including findings in support thereof. Memo Date: 5/7/2025 To: City of Rancho Cucamonga From: Fehr & Peers Subject: DIF Calculations of Etiwanda Grade Separation (EGS) Contributions The Etiwanda Grade Separation (EGS) project is a critical capacity-enhancing improvement identified to address operational constraints and accommodate future travel demand. The Transportation DIF Nexus Study (4/30) includes a cost allocation for the EGS project based on a detailed assessment of existing and future traffic volumes on Etiwanda Avenue, consistent with the City’s General Plan buildout forecasts. The following analysis demonstrates how the project’s costs were proportionally assigned, with up to 77% of the improvement cost attributable to growth-related need and eligible for recovery through the fee program. This cost share is justified based on the calculated proportion of added traffic volumes associated with new development relative to existing and future traffic volumes, accounting for existing deficiencies.  The cost estimate for the Etiwanda Grade Separation project (EGS) is estimated to be $147,675,000. The $88,605,000 includes an assumption that 40% of the project would be funded through external sources which would include $23M of TCEP funding. The current traffic volumes on this segment of Etiwanda were estimated as part of the City’s General Plan Update to be 22,790 vehicles per day (Appendix D of the 4/30 Study). | 2  As shown in the General Plan LOS assessment, Etiwanda in this area clearly requires four lanes to serve future development and the segments to the south and to the north are generally constructed to its ultimate right of way of four lanes.  In general, the LOS D threshold for this section of arterial is 17,600 vehicles. With buildout of the General Plan, that volume will grow to 45,550. The existing deficiency is 22,790 – 17,600 = 5,190. Total growth in the corridor is 45,550-22,790 = 22,760. Dividing 5,190 by 22,760 (to identify the existing deficiency on the segment) results in a 23% reduction in cost associated with the improvement. This continues to be less than the 40% reduction built into the fee program. Based on this analysis, the fee program could be updated to include 77% of the project cost (not 60% of the project cost) to reflect this nexus finding. 101 Pacifica | Suite 300 | Irvine, CA 92618 | (949) 308-6300 | Fax (949) 859-3209 www.fehrandpeers.com DRAFT MEMORANDUM Date: May 7, 2021 To: Jason Welday, City of Rancho Cucamonga From: Jason Pack, P.E. Delia Votsch, P.E. Subject: City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update – Roadway Level of Service OC21-0776 As part of the ongoing City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update, Fehr & Peers has prepared roadway segment forecasts and have calculated the Level of Service (LOS) for those roadway segments. This memorandum presents those forecasts and LOS results. This information is integrated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report air quality and noise analyses, however, is summarized here for City staff. Roadway capacities used to evaluate roadway segments were developed in consultation with the City of Rancho Cucamonga staff, referencing HCM 6th edition. Table 1: Roadway Level of Service Criteria Roadway Type LOS C LOS D LOS E 2-Lane Collector 10,000 13,000 15,000 2-Lane Arterial 9,700 17,600 18,700 2-Lane Freeway 28,800 35,700 40,100 4-Lane Collector 18,000 20,200 23,200 4-Lane Arterial, Undivided 4-Lane Arterial Bicycle Corridor 17,500 27,400 28,900 4-Lane Arterial, Divided 19,200 35,400 37,400 6-Lane Arterial, Divided 27,100 53,200 56,000 6-Lane Arterial, Divided 27,100 53,200 56,000 4-Lane Freeway 59,500 72,800 81,400 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2017), Fehr & Peers, 2021. Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 2 of 9 The roadway typologies presented in the Mobility Element of the proposed General Plan Update align with the roadway capacities presented in Table 1 as follows: Freeways, which are under the juridiction of and operated by Caltrans, provide for interregional travel by automobile. They have high vehicle speeds and can provide access for transit vehicles (athough automobiles are prioritized). Bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited on freeways. Freeways in Rancho Cucamonga include SR-210 and I-15. Freeways have the roadway capacities of 2-Lane Freeway and 4-Lane Freeway Arterials provide for all modes of travel, but they acknowledge that the arterial is a primary link in the City’s vehicular transportation system. Oftentimes four to six lanes are provided with raised medians and higher vehicle speeds are anticipated. Arterials have the roadway capacities of 2-Lane Arterial, 4-Lane Arterial Undivided, 4-Lane Arterial Divided, 6-Lane Arterial Divided and 8-Lane Arterial Divided. Undivided arterials have no median (raised or striped), while divided arterials have a center median. Transit corridors , including light rail (LRT), streetcar, and bus rapid transit (BRT), promote economic development around high-quality transit service while fostering a pedestrian scale in which walking, and biking actively complement public transit. Transit corridors have the roadway capacities of 4-Lane Arterial Divided, 6-Lane Arterial Divided and 8-Lane Arterial Divided. Collectors are intended to connect neighborhoods together. They should provide accessibility for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; however, speeds should be managed to ensure that all modes safely travel together. These corridors can substantially vary in terms of width. For example, Church Street is a four-lane roadway and would include bicycle lanes as well as raised medians. In contrast, segments such as Banyan Street, are similar to local streets with smaller rights-of-way. These narrower streets would have Class III ‘sharrows’ as well as street furniture in some areas to encourage pedestrian activity. Collectors have the roadway capacites of 2-Lane Collector and 4-Lane Collector. Bicycle Corridors provide the main bicycle network for the City. Specifically, vehicle speeds should be managed to travel at 35 miles per hour or less and bicycle infrastructure should be maximized. This would typically include buffered bicycle lanes or separated bicycle lanes (otherwise known as a cycle track or Class IV bicycle facility) on the roadway (or, at a minimum, seven-foot bicycle lanes). Separation can be provided by plastic bollards, raised medians, and/or planters. Raised landscaped medians may also be included in some areas to further encourage slower speeds. Bicycle corridors have the roadway capacites of 2-Lane Collector and 4-Lane Collector. Future year forecasts representing the buildout of the General Plan Update in 2040 were prepared for the EIR using the SBTAM model. Level of service with the buildout of the proposed General Plan Update are presented below in Table 2. Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 3 of 9 Table 2: General Plan Roadway Level of Service Roadway Segment Existing Typology General Plan Typology Existing General Plan Lanes ADT V/C LOS Lanes ADT V/C LOS 1. Wilson Ave from Carnelian St to Archibald Ave Arterial Arterial 4 4,740 0.16 A 4 7,520 0.26 A 2. Wilson Ave from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Arterial 4 5,190 0.18 A 4 8,660 0.30 A 3. Wilson Ave from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Arterial 2 7,860 0.42 A 2 11,770 0.63 B 4. Wilson Ave from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Arterial 4 2,090 0.07 A 4 3,030 0.10 A 5. Wilson Ave from Etiwanda Ave to City Limits Arterial Arterial -- -- -- -- 4 12,730 0.44 A 6. Banyan St from Carnelian St to Archibald Ave Collector Collector 2 3,470 0.23 A 2 3,870 0.26 A 7. Banyan St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Collector Collector 2 3,900 0.26 A 2 4,050 0.27 A 8. Banyan St from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Collector Collector 2 9,690 0.65 B 2 12,480 0.83 D 9. Banyan St from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave Collector Collector 2 10,530 0.70 B 2 12,340 0.82 D 10. Banyan St from Etiwanda Ave to Wardman Bollock Rd Collector Collector 2 8,210 0.55 A 2 10,550 0.70 B 11. 19th St from Carnelian St to Archibald Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 17,050 0.59 A 4 21,260 0.73 C 12. 19th St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 15,630 0.54 A 4 19,700 0.68 B 13. Base Line Rd from Carnelian St to Archibald Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 22,550 0.78 C 4 26,700 0.92 E 14. Base Line Rd from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Arterial 4 21,140 0.73 C 4 25,330 0.88 D 15. Base Line Rd from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Arterial 6 25,150 0.45 A 6 33,440 0.60 A 16. Base Line Rd from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Arterial 6 22,780 0.41 A 6 35,570 0.64 B 17. Church St west of Archibald Ave Collector Bicycle Corridor 2 5,370 0.36 A 2 6,520 0.43 A Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 4 of 9 Roadway Segment Existing Typology General Plan Typology Existing General Plan Lanes ADT V/C LOS Lanes ADT V/C LOS 18. Church St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 2 9,060 0.48 A 2 13,810 0.92 E 19. Church St from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 16,730 0.45 A 4 22,740 0.79 C 20. Church St from Milliken Ave to Day Creek Blvd Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 19,240 0.51 A 4 24,310 0.85 D 21. Church St from Day Creek Blvd to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 14,520 0.50 A 4 20,020 0.69 B 22. Church St from Etiwanda Ave to East Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 9,780 0.26 A 4 12,610 0.44 A 23. Foothill Blvd from City Limits to Carnelian St/Vineyard Ave Arterial Transit Corridor 6 32,820 0.59 A 6 39,400 0.70 B 24. Foothill Blvd from Carnelian St/Vineyard Ave to Archibald Ave Arterial Transit Corridor 4 31,300 0.84 D 6 47,410 0.85 D 25. Foothill Blvd from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Transit Corridor 4 32,420 0.87 D 6 43,020 0.77 C 26. Foothill Blvd from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Transit Corridor 6 38,140 0.68 B 6 47,010 0.84 D 27. Foothill Blvd from Milliken Ave to Day Creek Blvd Arterial Transit Corridor 6 37,330 0.67 B 6 51,820 0.93 E 28. Foothill Blvd from Day Creek Blvd to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Transit Corridor 6 45,190 0.81 C 6 56,580 1.01 F 29. Foothill Blvd from Etiwanda Ave to City Limits Arterial Transit Corridor 4 34,430 0.92 E 4 39,570 1.06 F 30. Arrow Rte from City Limits to Vineyard Ave Arterial Arterial 4 19,710 0.68 B 4 25,250 0.68 B 31. Arrow Rte from Vineyard Ave to Archibald Ave Arterial Arterial 4 22,570 0.78 C 4 26,850 0.72 C 32. Arrow Rte from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Arterial 4 26,340 0.91 E 4 35,500 0.95 E 33. Arrow Rte from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Arterial 4 24,300 0.84 D 4 31,520 0.84 D Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 5 of 9 Roadway Segment Existing Typology General Plan Typology Existing General Plan Lanes ADT V/C LOS Lanes ADT V/C LOS 34. Arrow Rte from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Arterial Varies from 4 to 2 25,000 1.34 F 4 35,670 0.95 E 35. Arrow Rte from Etiwanda Ave to City Limits Arterial Arterial 3 20,140 1.08 F 4 30,410 0.81 D 36. 6th St from City Limits to Archibald Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor Varies from 4 to 2 10,940 0.59 A 4 13,640 0.47 A 37. 6th St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor Varies from 4 to 3 15,080 0.81 C 4 19,190 0.66 B 38. 6th St from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 14,860 0.40 A 4 22,000 0.76 C 39. 6th St from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 13,870 0.37 A 4 18,590 0.64 B 40. 4th St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Arterial Varies from 6 to 5 17,780 0.48 A 4 23,270 0.62 B 41. 4th St from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Arterial 7 26,570 0.47 A 6 36,960 0.66 B 42. 4th St from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Arterial Varies from 6 to 4 32,760 0.88 D 6 36,810 0.65 B 43. Vineyard Ave from City Limits to Arrow Rte Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 25,820 0.89 D 4 31,350 1.08 F 44. Vineyard Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 25,160 0.87 D 4 31,440 1.09 F 45. Vineyard Ave/Carnelian St from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 29,200 1.01 F 4 33,330 1.15 F Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 6 of 9 Roadway Segment Existing Typology General Plan Typology Existing General Plan Lanes ADT V/C LOS Lanes ADT V/C LOS 46. Carnelian St from Base Line Rd to 19th St Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 24,790 0.86 D 4 28,060 0.97 E 47. Carnelian St from 19th St to Wilson Ave Collector Collector Varies from 4 to 2 24,260 1.62 F 4 24,400 1.05 F 48. Archibald Ave from 4th St to 6th St Arterial Arterial 4 33,530 1.16 F 4 41,990 1.45 F 49. Archibald Ave from 6th St to Arrow Rte Arterial Arterial 4 29,870 1.03 F 4 37,010 1.28 F 50. Archibald Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd Arterial Arterial 4 24,830 0.86 D 4 31,910 1.10 F 51. Archibald Ave from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd Arterial Arterial 4 25,830 0.89 D 4 30,130 1.04 F 52. Archibald Ave from Base Line Rd to 19th St Arterial Arterial 4 23,140 0.80 C 4 25,070 0.87 D 53. Archibald Ave from 19th St to Wilson Ave Arterial Arterial 4 13,080 0.45 A 4 13,190 0.46 A 54. Haven Ave from 4th St to 6th St Arterial Transit Corridor 6 48,250 0.86 D 6 56,660 1.01 F 55. Haven Ave from 6th St to Arrow Rte Arterial Transit Corridor 6 47,260 0.84 D 6 59,790 1.07 F 56. Haven Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd Arterial Transit Corridor 6 37,950 0.68 B 6 44,730 0.80 C 57. Haven Ave from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd Arterial Transit Corridor 6 33,630 0.60 A 6 38,950 0.70 B 58. Haven Ave from Base Line Rd to 19th St Arterial Transit Corridor 6 33,640 0.60 A 6 38,890 0.69 B 59. Haven Ave from 19th St to Wilson Ave Arterial Transit Corridor 6 36,080 0.64 B 6 38,230 0.68 B 60. Milliken Ave from 4th St to 6th St Arterial Arterial 6 38,480 0.69 B 6 50,800 0.91 D 61. Milliken Ave from 6th St to Arrow Rte Arterial Arterial 6 36,330 0.65 B 6 41,420 0.74 C Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 7 of 9 Roadway Segment Existing Typology General Plan Typology Existing General Plan Lanes ADT V/C LOS Lanes ADT V/C LOS 62. Milliken Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd Arterial Arterial Varies from 7 to 6 30,370 0.54 A 6 38,950 0.70 B 63. Milliken Ave from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd Arterial Arterial Varies from 7 to 6 24,310 0.43 A 6 34,360 0.61 B 64. Milliken Ave from Base Line Rd to Wilson Ave Arterial Arterial Varies from 6 to 2 17,150 0.46 A 4 20,810 0.56 A 65. Day Creek Blvd from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd Arterial Arterial Varies from 7 to 6 21,030 0.38 A 4 25,190 0.67 B 66. Day Creek Blvd from Base Line Rd to Banyan St Arterial Arterial Varies from 6 to 4 21,500 0.57 A 4 26,510 0.71 B 67. Etiwanda Ave from 4th St to 6th St Arterial Arterial 4 31,410 1.09 F 4 45,550 1.58 F 68. Etiwanda Ave from 6th St to Arrow Rte Arterial Arterial Varies from 4 to 2 22,790 1.22 F 4 36,940 1.28 F 69. Etiwanda Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd Arterial Arterial 4 22,580 0.78 C 4 31,530 1.09 F 70. Etiwanda Ave from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd Arterial Arterial Varies from 4 to 2 11,720 0.63 B 4 22,790 0.79 C 71. Etiwanda Ave from Base Line Rd to Wilson Ave Collector Collector 2 7,340 0.49 A 2 11,400 0.76 C Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 8 of 9 Roadway Segment Existing Typology General Plan Typology Existing General Plan Lanes ADT V/C LOS Lanes ADT V/C LOS Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2017), Fehr & Peers, 2021. Notes: 1. Roadways operating above capacity at LOS F are shown in bold. 2. Roadways with varying number of lanes across a segment are shown with the V/C ratio and LOS reflecting the capacity at the narrowest point of the roadway. 3. Roadways with an odd number of lanes are shown with the V/C ratio and LOS reflecting the capacity at the closest capacity. For example, roadways with 3 lanes are shown as having the capacity of a 2-lane roadway of that classification. 4. Italics indicates roadways where lane reductions could be considered. Jason Welday May 7, 2021 Page 9 of 9 Roadway segments projected to have 20,000 ADT or less and are 4 lanes would be considered good candidates to consider for future road diets. Candidates for road diets would be: • Wilson Avenue between Carnelian Street and Haven Avenue, and between Milliken Avenue and City Limits (note: Wilson Avenue is 2 lanes between Haven Avenue and Milliken Avenue). • Church Street from Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue • 6th Street from City limits to Haven Avenue • Archibald Avenue from 19th Street to Wilson Avenue If you have any questions, please contact us at 949-308-6300. DATE:May 7, 2025 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Elisa C. Cox, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve the City Council's Mission, Vision, Values, and 2025 Goals. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council reaffirm and approve its Mission, Vision, Values, and 2025 Goals. BACKGROUND: Each year the City Council engages in team building workshops to review and develop goals and to discuss related legislative matters. On April 8, 2025 the City Council discussed its mission, vision, values, and goals. The Council reaffirmed their alignment with the existing mission and vision, made some minor changes to their values statement, and made recommendations for their 2025 goals. ANALYSIS: The following results from the April 8, 2025 team building workshop are presented for formal approval: Mission Continuously ensure and advance the quality of life for the community through inclusive decision making. Vision To create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community. Values •Providing and nurturing an excellent quality of life for all •Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all •Building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere •Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future •Creating equitable opportunity to prosper •Working together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and all stakeholders •Relentless pursuit of improvement •Actively seeking and respectfully considering all public input Page 322 Page 2 2 7 9 9 Goals •By the end of October 2025, bring a project to add lights to the Garcia Sports Field to the City Council for consideration. •By the end of December 2025, present to the City Council a plan and implementation strategy for workforce development pathways into public service. •By the end of December 2025, present to the City Council concept plans to modernize and expand the public safety facilities at the Civic Center. •By the end of June 2026, complete construction on Phase 2 of ATMS. •By the end of June 2026, finalize the site location and high-level concept design details for the 2nd RCMU substation. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Annually adopting goals and reviewing the City Council’s mission, vision, and values reflects Council’s commitment to intentionally embrace and anticipate the future. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 323 City Council Mission, Vision, Values and 2025 Goals May 7, 2025 Council's mission statement establishes our organization’s purpose and serves as a focal point for current and future endeavors. Mission Continuously ensure and advance the quality of life for the community through inclusive decision making. Council's vision statement defines the target outcomes our organization seeks to accomplish in the future. Vision To create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community. - Providing and nurturing an excellent quality of life for all - Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all - Building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere - Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future - Creating equitable opportunity to prosper - Working together cooperatively & respectfully with each other, staff and all stakeholders - Relentless pursuit of improvement - Actively seeking and respectfully considering all public input City Council Values By the end of October 2025, bring a project to add lights to the Garcia Sports Field to the City Council for consideration. Goal #1: Parks and Open Space By the end of December 2025, present to the City Council a plan and implementation strategy for workforce development pathways into public service. Goal # 2: Workforce Development By the end of December 2025, present to the City Council concept plans to modernize and expand the public safety facilities at the Civic Center. Goal # 3: Public Safety Goal # 4: Transportation By the end of June 2026, complete construction on Phase 2 of Automated Traffic Management System (ATMS) Goal # 5: Infrastructure By the end of June 2026, finalize the site location and high-level concept design details for the 2nd Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) substation. Questions