Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/02/17 - Agenda Packet CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1 st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. February 17,1999 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City Councilmembers William J. Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Bob Dutton, Councilmember Jack Lam, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, Cio: Clerk City Office: 477-2700 ..... City Council Agenda February 17, 1999 1 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call: Alexander , Biane , Curatalo , Dutton .... and Williams __ B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. 1. Approval of Minutes: December 8, 1998 (Special meeting) 2. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of 1 January 31, 1999. 3. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 1/13/99, 1/20/99, 1/27/99 and 6 2/3/99 and Payroll ending 1/7/99 and 1/21/99 for the total amount of $4,629,006.83. 4. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" 23 for the painting and exterior stucco repair to the sports facility to be funded from Account No. 24-4285-7043. City Council Agenda February 17, 1999 2 RESOLUTION NO. 99-026 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PAINTING AND EXTERIOR STUCCO REPAIR TO THE SPORTS FACILITY IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 5. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" 28 for the local street pavement rehabilitation - overlay, to be funded from Account No. 32-4637-9113. RESOLUTION NO. 99-027 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 6. Approval of the Resolutions modifying the Engineer's Report and 37 confirming the assessments to complete capital projects on 4th Street from Utica to Pittsburgh Avenues, within the boundaries of an assessment district formerly known as Assessment District No. 82-1R (6th Street Industrial District), and to appropriate $687,200 from Fund 93 (AD 82-1 R) Account No. 93-4130. RESOLUTION NO. 99-028 39 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 82-1 (6TM STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) RESOLUTION NO. 99-029 41 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE MODIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENTS, AND ORDERING THE WORK FOR CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 82-1 (6TM STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) February 17, 1999 3 7. Approval of a Resolution authorizing the destruction of City 43 records pursuant to California Government Code Section 34090 and the City's Records Retention Schedule. RESOLUTION NO. 99-030 44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS SET FORTH IN CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090 AND OTHER APPLICABLE LEGAL REFERENCES 8. Approval of request by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's West 50 Valley Search and Rescue Team to waive temporary use permit fee in conjunction with the Annual 5/1 OK Run event on April 24, 1999. 9. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and 54 Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Development Review 97-38 (modified), located on the south side of Arrow Route, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street, submitted by Public Storage, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 99-031 56 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 (MODIFIED) RESOLUTION NO. 99-032 57 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 (MODIFIED) 60 10. Approval of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for MDR 97-19, located at 10900 Fourth Street, submitted by W9/WLA Real Estate Limited Partnership. .... City Council Agenda February 17, 1999 4 RESOLUTION NO. 99-033 62 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR MDR 97-19 11. Approval of the Improvement Agreement and Improvement 63 Security for all interior street improvements, parkway improvements, and signalization at Terra Vista Drive and Church Street, Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road, Mountain View Drive and Milliken Avenue, related to Tentative Tract 15072, generally located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Baseline Road, submitted by Kaufmann and Broad of Southern California, Inc., a California Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 99-034 65 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR ALL INTERIOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND SIGNALIZATION, RELATED TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15072 12. Appropriate $200,000.00 from the Fund Balance of Local Measure 66 I Fund 32 to be placed in Local Measure I Fund Account No. 32- 4637-9707, award and authorize the execution of the Contract (CO 99-021 ) in the amount of $223,919.41 ($203,563.10 plus 10% contingency) for the construction of the Fourth Street Rehabilitation Project, from 323'_+ west of Santa Anita Street to 2277'+ east of Santa Anita Avenue to the apparent low bidder to be funded from Prop 111 Fund Account No. 10-4637-9707 ($219969.41) and Measure I Fund Account No. 32-4637-9707 ($3,950.00). 13. Approval of a Maintenance Agreement (CO 99-022) between the 69 City of Rancho Cucamonga and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and a request to summarily vacate a portion of Carnelian Street both in conjunction with the proposed realignment of Carnelian Street from Vivero Street to 1000 feet southerly. RESOLUTION NO. 99-035 73 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ~ ~'~!?~j~ City Council Agenda February 17, 1999 5 RESOLUTION NO. 99-036 74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF CARNELIAN STREET 14. Approval of License Agreement (CO 99-023) between San 78 Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the Underground Storm Drain Crossing across the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) Railroad, generally located on Etiwanda Avenue 600 feet south of Whittram Ave. for Development Review 94-16 by Ameron Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 99-037 80 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-16, STORM DRAIN INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE ON SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENT RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 15. Approval of Improvement Agreement Extension for Parcel Map 81 14376, located at the northwest corner of Rancheria and Red Hill Country Club Drives, submitted by Longwell Investments, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 99-038 82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 14376 83 16. Approval to release the Maintenance Bond for DR 96-21, located on the southeast corner of Buffalo Avenue and San Marino Street, submitted by Oltmans Construction Company. Release Maintenance Bond #B275 00 36 $11,550.00 17. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful 84 Performance Bonds, accept Maintenance Bonds, and file a Notice of Completion for improvements for Tracts 13279, 14534, 14534-1 and -2, submitted by William Lyon Homes, Incorporated, located on the southeast corner of Rochester Avenue and Victoria Park Lane. '"':'~i!:*~ City Council Agenda February 17, 1999 6 RESOLUTION NO. 99-039 86 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACTS 13279, 14534, 14534-1 AND-2, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 18. Approval to accept the Haven Avenue Rehabilitation, from Foothill 87 Boulevard to Base Line Road, Contract No. 98-043, as complete, release the bonds and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $303,361.05. RESOLUTION NO. 99-040 88 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR HAVEN AVENUE REHABILITATION, FROM FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO BASE LINE ROAD, CONTRACT NO. 98-043 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. No Items Submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. 1. CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE AND 89 NECESSITY IN GRANTING A TAXICAB SERVICE PERMIT TO ONTARIO CAB COMPANY February 17, 1999 7 2. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 90 TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING - Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 66 single family lots on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07 and 55 through 57. RESOLUTION NO. 99-041 188 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14475, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 66 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 113 ACRES OF LAND IN THE HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND THE OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS, LOCATED NORTH OF ALMOND AVENUE BETWEEN SAPPHIRE AND TURQUOISE STREETS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, AND 57. 3. HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST DESIGNATION 98-01 CITY OF 192 RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of a request to rescind Historic Landmark Designation 94-02, and redesignate as a Point of Interest, four craftsman bungalow residences located at 9618, 9626, 9634, and 9642 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-153-08 through 11. (Continued from February 3, 1999) RESOLUTION NO. 99-025 193 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CHANGE FROM A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK TO POINT OF INTEREST NO. 98-01 FOR FOUR HOUSES, LOCATED AT 9618, 9626, 9634 AND 9642 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD - APN: 208-153- 08 THROUGH 11 '~i!~ City Council Agenda February 17, 1999 8 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. No Items Submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. No Items Submitted. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. ISLE HOUSE RELOCATION - Consideration of an A,qreement 195 (CO99-024) of purchase of property for the relocation of the Isle House. 2. ROUTE 30 AD HOC TASK FORCE UPDATE 213 3. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE 215 A. PARKS & FACILITIES UPDATE 1. Rancho Cucamonga Public Library 2. R.C. Family Sports Center 3. Stadium 4. Red Hill Park 5. Etiwanda Creek Park 6. Central Park B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE 1. Seniors 2, Teens 3. Youth Activities 4. Youth Sports 5. Rancho Cucamonga Family Sports Center 6. Adult Sports 7. Proposed Boxing Program 8. Senior Transportation program 9. Trips and Tours 10. Human Services ~' ~i!:~ City Council Agenda February 17, 1999 9 11. Facilities 12. The Grapevine 13. Contract Classes 14. Community Wide Special Events 15. California Park and Recreation Society Conference 16. Park and Recreation Commission 17. Epicenter J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. L. ADJOURNMENT MEETING TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT ROCHESTER, BETWEEN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ARROW ROUTE; JERRY FULWOOD, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, NEGOTIATING PARTY, REGARDING TERMS OF PAYMENT. I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 11, 1999, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. December 8, 1998 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Central Park Task Force Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Central Park Task Force was held on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at 6:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Bob Dutton, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander (arrived @ 6:53 p.m.). Also presentwere: Jack Lam, City Manager; Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Karen McGuire-Emery, Senior Park Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director; Jim Frost, City Treasurer; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Diane O'Neal, Assistant to the City Manager; and Kathy Scott, Deputy City Clerk. B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Hugh Jackson, 10754 Edgewood Ct., said he wanted to clarify the boundaries of PD 85. He reviewed a boundary map of PD 85, pointing out that the boundary actually goes south to Foothill and covers much more than 1/3 of the city. He said he thinks this is supposed to be a benefit assessment and that means that the property owners who are paying the money for the parks on this side of town are supposed to be benefitting from those parks. He said we're not in the park district, and Central Park is not in the park district, so we don't get the benefits of any of this money. Jack Lam, City Manager, explained about the "72 Landscaping and Lighting Act" that Mr. Jackson is referring to--not a benefit assessment district. Mr. Jackson stated the point he was trying to make is that the people who live in the Central Park area don't know about PD 85. He said we're sitting next to the park, the ones mostly impacted by it, and we don't even know that we're not in the Park District. He said there has never been a packet in the mail to any of us homeowners. Jack Lain, City Manager, said there is also an assessment district newsletter that goes out to each district which identifies which district the homeowner is in. He said different parts of the city are in different various districts, and that is the way it was set up. He said Proposition 218 now requires that any modifications will require a ballot measure. He said the community parks are paid for by different portions of the community. Councilmember Williams said he should also receive a quarterly newsletter called the "Visions." Central Park Task Force Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 2 Councilmember Biane said it would be helpful for clarification purposes to get an 8.5 x 11 color-coded layout of the maintenance landscaping or lighting maintenance districts. Mr. Jackson asked if there is anything being done to get us into a park district or if anybody is taking the initiative to get this park district expanded. He said he doesn't think a park can be built until there is a park district. The Councilmembers stated that is a reason that this group is meeting and this is the first step toward that. Councilmember Dutton said it took time to acquire the property for Central Park; there was no financing mechanism in place at that time, but now we are at that next step. He said you are trying to mix these other park districts with Central Park, and they are two separate items altogether. He said PD 85 and the other park districts have nothing to do with Central Park. Mr. Jackson said at the time we bought the home from Lewis Homes it was explained that they were going to build a park, and that they sold us the park as part of our property. He said we are blaming the developer, not the City, for leading us into the idea that we were buying a master-planned community home and that they were building the parks and the shopping centers. Councilmember Dutton said he (Mr. Jackson) would need to discuss misrepresentation with Lewis Homes regarding that issue. Jack Lam, City Manager, wanted to clarify if Mr. Jackson and his neighbors wanted to join a district so they can contribute. Mr. Jackson said we would love to. He asked if there is any mechanism to expand the PD 85 boundaries or to write a new park district boundary. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated that we are trying to define through the survey process people's attitudes throughout the community to see if they are willing to establish such a district and in doing so that would probably be a city-wide district for Central Park. Mr. Jackson said we already know what the attitude would be of people who live in this third of the city, who already have their parks, as to increasing their tax bill to give us our park on this side of town. Council explained that Central Park would be a city-wide park. Mr. Jackson explained that all the people who bought those homes from Lewis Homes thought it was their park. Roy Laparry, 10323 19th Street, said he does not think that Mr. Jackson understands that he cannot get Central Park for $52 a year; it will be more like $1,000.00, depending on what is in the park. Mr. Jackson said that was not his impression at all. He said people around the park would like to have, if nothing else, a perimeter of grass just to jog around the park. Special Central Park Task Force Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 3 Jack Lam, City Manager, said the City Council committed to getting to the point where we can define a project and actually implement it. We need to get a lot of opinions so we understand what it is we are going to implement. He said there has got to be some kind of ballot measure, although we recognize that it's premature right now to define what exactly the ballot measure is, and we also have to conclude on a precise legal mechanism. We know right now there are three ways to do it: 1 ) general tax; 2) special tax; 3) maybe a mello-roos. You can't do it through the "72 Act" and we can't do it through a regular assessment district, due to legal constraints. Toni Rhodes, 10151 Arrow Rte., stated that one thing that needs to be said here is that this is not the first task force, this isn't the first effort, this isn't the first time we have been told that the City is serious about doing this. We really need to hold the thought that this is the time to do something, and to listen to what the people want, and to get it done; not just simply talk about it and wait and form another task force two, three or four years down the road. Councilmember Curatalo stated that the first task force was in 1988 and the conditions were entirely different. Toni Rhodes stated that there are a lot of people in the city who want to make sure that this just isn't another task force. She said she is part of the public and she has a right to speak her mind. C. CONSENT CALENDAR C1. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 6, 1998 MINUTES MOTION: Moved by Dutton, seconded by Curatalo, to approve minutes as modified. Motion carried, 4-0-1-1 (Alexander absent; Biane abstained). D. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION D1. UPDATE OF THE CENTRAL PARK PROJECT A. SURVEY CONSULTANT PROPOSALS Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated that at the October 6, 1998 meeting, there was discussion regarding the history, design development, development of the Central Park Master Plan, the design options, the construction, the maintenance costs, as well as the timetable that staff has projected regarding Central Park. He said staff recommended that a survey be done, that we hire a consultant to prepare a survey and the task force gave direction to hire a consultant. Mr. Gomez stated staff has received a number of proposals from consultants to be reviewed and it is anticipated that interviews will take place by the end of the year with staff selecting the most qualified, followed by a recommendation to the City Council. We can anticipate at the January meeting of the task force the consultant would make a presentation as to the methodology of the survey, etc. Central Park Task Force Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 4 Councilmember Williams asked if the consultant track record would be available on the proposal response. Mr. Gomez, Community Development Director, stated that staff would conduct the background research on the consultants. A short discussion ensued on the first survey, of which there were only nineteen responses. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated there will be a lot of involvement by different commissions, citizens, and other staff. He said they want to dispel the rumor that the City intends to sell Central Park, which was brought up at the last City Council meeting. He said there is a clause in the sales agreement that states if we ever wanted to sell the property in the first 20 years, Lewis Homes has the first right of refusal. Joanna Ingram, 10901 Manchester, stated that mailing responses from surveys inherently have the lowest response rate. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated that any methodology which the group deems the best will be used, such as, telephone, face to face, etc. Councilmember Williams stated she has attended several seminars on this subject put on by the League of California Cities, and the survey method that proved successful was the face-to-face method. Hugh Jackson, 10754 Edgewood Ct., suggested that the survey form be put on the Internet. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated we will use any kind of communication device available. B. NEWSLETTER Mr. Gomez, Community Development Director, stated staff is putting together a bulletin for the Central Park Task Force, of which the first one will be sent out in January 1999, and will be sent on a regularly-scheduled basis. He said anyone who attends the meeting or has their name on our list will receive information about the process, the status of a particular project, etc., and the ability to contact staff for information regarding Central Park. Toni Rhodes, 10151 Arrow Rte., stated she hopes that we would look at a consultant who has a sincere appreciation of this area as opposed to someone out of the area. Councilmember Dutton stated from a survey we are looking to get an honest opinion from the community as a whole as to what they want, and we might get a more objective survey if we get somebody to conduct the survey who is not attached to anyone here locally. Councilmember Dutton said the consultant we hire is strictly somebody who is going to help us do a scientific survey that we know is going to be factual and accurate, without bias. Tami Farley, 7196 Parkside PI., asked if we could check with Cal Poly University for survey assistance. Special Central Park Task Force Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 5 Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, said staff checked into that, but found that in a time crunch it is a very difficult process due to turnover in students and issues of credibility. Councilmember Dutton said perhaps we would encourage the consultant to work with students at Chaffey College, etc., to assist in the process. Jerry Guarracino, 6081 Hellman Ave., said this might be a unique opportunity for the community to set a tone and really stand out, and that perhaps the newsletter can be the tool to educate the community about what kind of park innovations have been done in other places. His concern is that the survey will be answered by people who want the typical things seen in neighborhood parks. Councilmember Williams stated that there is a mission statement that this park will have things that are not found in other parks; it would be a unique destination with unique things. She said this opportunity is not to start over, but to enhance and build on what has already been designed. Councilmember Dutton said that hopefully the survey will find the common ground to help us move forward. Mayor Alexander arrived at 6:53 p.m. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, said the master plan developed the criteria for the park development and that master plan philosophy is still intact as when it was originally developed and presented in 1987/88. He said that is the philosophy that we will move forward with, and that is the concept that will be communicated to the public. Jack Lam, City Manager, said the survey will determine which components are most important and we can always preserve other components for the future. Councilmember Williams stated that the newsletter will be to this group, but it would be a piece of public information so that anyone who wanted it could have it sent to their residence. She agreed with Mr. LaParry that there should be status updates in "The Grapevine." Tami Farley, 7196 Parkside PI., stated that she agrees with Mr. Guarracino to educate the community prior to the survey. Primo Morales, 8210 Malvern Ave., stated that we have to wait until the survey is returned before we decide what is going in at that park. Mark Graham, 11261 Baylor St., concurred that it would be very important to educate the comm unity first on what was planned for Central Park, but also include an explanation on all the city parks. Eric Vail, 11565 Stoneridge, stated it is important for this group to understand what we should be doing-either scrap the plan and start all over or accept the plan as it is, realizing that we cannot pay for it and, perhaps, modify it. He said when we get the survey information, put things together and come up with a recommendation, then we can have a citywide effort to educate the community and see if they agree with us. He said that will require a separate consultant; and, at that time, we do want a win and loss record. Central Park Task Force Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 6 Mark Graham, 11261 Baylor St., stated that Mr. Vail has a very good point. You will have a much different survey if you tell them this is what is in the plan and then ask what is your priority. Mr. Graham said, with respect to financing, we are only looking at the conventional ways of putting the burden on us. He said there is a lot of land there, and perhaps some type of governmental private partnership is something that could be looked at as well. Liz Thomas, 9009 Avalon St., suggested that we look at partnerships with Chaffey Joint Union High School District and/or the other elementary school districts wherein there is a shared burden of both the development and the continual costs of maintenance. Toni Rhodes stated that the first night we met one of the things we talked about was a partnership and the possibility of forming a coalition of non-profit organizations that have access to funds that, traditionally, municipalities don't. She said there are some different ways of doing this, but, in this day and age if you're not looking at partnerships, you are dead in the water. Mayor Alexander stated you might say you are "dead in the water" unless the community is willing to fund it. He said if you want to partner you can; but when you partner the community at large is going to give up some control in the destiny of what happens to be in that particular park. He said by scrapping it and starting at square one, you are going to have some difficulties in getting done what everybody wants to do in a very timely manner, but it is something to think about. Mayor Alexander said that the desire of everyone here is not to forestall getting going on the park. He said the time frame for what monies are going to be assessed is very important. Toni Rhodes said she is not a financial expert so she can't be more definitive on what funds are available, however she is a member of this community and she does know that in regards to grants, she has been told that there are funds available. She said we need to let the people in the community know that there are some funding options. Councilmember Dutton said he would not want to mislead the public in thinking that this $160 million project is going to be some kind of gift from the heavens. He said we need to go forward now with at least getting the infrastructure into place; we need to know what the people are willing to pay for. He agrees that there are opportunities to do partnerships for the expensive components. He said $160 million is tough to raise in pledges. We need to bring something to the voters and get them to agree to at least allow us to get the infrastructure into place so we can build something in the future when the opportunity presents itself. Toni Rhodes said since 1988 there could have been some trees planted in that park, weeds cleared and grass planted. The community could have participated in that. Joanna Ingram said as a state auditor, she has talked to the State Audit Commission and there are State funds available. Regarding Central Park, funds were applied for, but the application was withdrawn. Mayor Alexander stated that we did not withdraw--we were turned down. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated that we need to be mindful of environmental processing that needs to be done, as there are laws that we have to follow. Special Central Park Task Force Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 7 Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated we have looked at a lot of funding, but there are not a lot of free dollars out there, otherwise we would have tried to tap into that. He said we will continue to look at sources-the State, private foundations, etc. Item D3 was discussed at this time, but the minutes will remain in agenda order. D2. DISCUSSION OF THE "GREENSPACE" CONCEPTS Mr. Gomez, Community Development Director, stated at the last meeting there was discussion as to why there could not be an alternative to simply grading off some areas and preparing them with turf and irrigation for open space and development play. Staff presented the following options and discussion ensued: A) 10 acres; open space with $1,990,000 $140,000 minimal landscaping; access off of Base Line; includes parking lot for 60 cars (w/security lighting), tot lot, restroom, picnic tables and barbecues B) 15 acres; branching off $2,860,000 $200,000 Spruce Ave; parking for 90 cars (w/security lighting); two tot lots, restrooms, picnic tables and barbecues C) 20 acres; branching off $3,850,000 $270,000 Spruce Ave; parking for 120 cars (w/security lighting); two tot lots, restrooms, picnic tables and barbecues There was a question from the audience if any study had been completed regarding the crime rate in the park due to planting of bushes, shrubs, etc. Mayor Alexander said there will have to be an increased number of law enforcement for the park. Mr. Gomez stated that the diagram really does not truly represent the "planting" planned. He said our Police Department is a part of the design team and we are always respectful of view corridors and opportunities for them to have visual access into the park. Central Park Task Force Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 8 Eric Vail, 11565 Stoneridge, asked how close the City is to having funds to build any of the options. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, answered that those are projections that would have to taken a look at as development occurs. In looking at Park Development funds and other priorities, you are looking at 5 to 7+ years. A shod discussion ensued on funding and park development fees as it relates to other park projects. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, provided a recap. He said after the consultants have been evaluated by staff, staff would make a recommendation of the selection to City Council, and at that time it will be brought back to the Task Force to start looking at the survey, etc. The next meeting is scheduled for January 12, 1999. D3. DISCUSSION OF CENTRAL PARK SUBCOMMITTEE(S) Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, said if we have a core group who are willing to commit to that time, we can be more expeditious. He said staff is recommending 11 to 15 as the core group, plus two members of the City Council. He said if Council approves of that concept he is asking for direction to develop a structure and establish criteria and guidelines of how those 15 people might be selected. He said his suggestion is to establish one group, and hopefully that group would represent a broad spectrum of interest. He said it is not the intent to preclude anybody from the process; the process is open and the meetings will always be open, but this group will help to give direction so we can have continuity. Christian Hummel, 7246 Daybreak Place, stated his understanding was that this was decided at the previous meeting. He said a lot of us signed up, and a lot of us are here tonight deciding this again. Mr. Gomez said we ended up with over 38 signatures at that meeting, and staff is hoping to bring that number down. Mr. Gomez said he would remain after the meeting with a sign-up sheet for those people who are interested in being on the task force. He said the number is flexible, but if we have 38 again we would need to try and reduce it. Councilmember Williams said if we get a task force of 38, we'll have difficulty getting a quorum. ACTION: Councilmembers Curatalo and Williams selected for the Central Park Task Force as representatives of the Park and Recreation Subcommittee. Mayor Alexander stressed to the people considering being on the task force the substantial commitment it takes, and he wanted them to be sure of this commitment prior to signing up. Councilmember Williams said once the group is formed a consensus is taken of that group as to the time and place of the meetings. Mr. Gomez, Community Development Director, stated they have been fairly consistent on the 2nd Tuesday of the month. Special Central Park Task Force Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 9 E. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING 1. Set time and date for future Task Force meetings. F. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Fl. Tami Farley, 7196 Parkside PI., suggested staff contact the City of Walnut, regarding State funds. F2. Toni Rhodes, 10151 Arrow, suggested that the list of members for the Task Force signify those who choose to have the contact information made public. G. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Alexander, to adjourn meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kathryn L. Scott Deputy City Clerk Ap p roved: City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary January 31, 1999 Investments Par Market Book % of Day~ to YTM 3e0 YTM 365 Value V_~!,_._ Value ;~,~,,~,;;o Term U ~!,_,_,tty ;_~_,iv. ;_.~,_,iv. Certificates of De~r~_ $i! - Bank 8,310,532.20 8,310,532.20 8,310,532.20 9.14 365 76 5.436 5.512 Local Agency Investment Funds 19,001,719.82 19,001,719.82 19,001,719.82 20.90 1 I 5.300 5.374 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 61,515,000.00 61,867,487.50 61,508,365.60 67.66 1.703 1,371 6.037 6.121 Treasury Securities - Coupon 2.000,000.00 2,020,000.00 1,996,250.00 2.19 728 546 5.400 5.475 Mortgage Backed Securities 92,397.85 96,452.19 87,855.11 0.09 7,129 2,817 9.401 9.532 Total Investments and Averages 90,919,649.87 91,296,191.71 90,904,722.73 100.00% t,209 950 5.817 5.898 Cash Days to YTM 360 Y'I'M 365 Term Maturity Equiv. Equiv. PassbooldChecking 1.320,95375 1,320,953.75 1,320,953.75 (not included in yield calculations) 1.973 2000 Accrued Interest at Purchase 1,570.74 1,57o 74 Total Cash and Purchase Interest 1,322,524.49 1,322,524.49 Total Cash and Investments 92,240,603.62 92,618,716.20 92,227,247.22 1,209 950 5.817 5.898 Total Earnings January 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 466,732.45 3,170,686.80 Average Daily Balan ~c,~ 91,723,250.64 88,276,780.81 Effectlve~ 5.99'/v 6.10% //~ame~ Date dsurer I certity that this report accurately reflects all City pooled investments and is in comformity with the investment policy adopted October 7, 1998. A copy of the investment policy is available in the Administrative Services Department, The Investment Program herein shown provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six months estimated expenditures. The month-end market values were obtained from (IDC)-Intaractive Data Corporation pdcing service. Portfolio CITY Run Date: 02/08/1999.12:21 CP PM (PRF_PM 1) SymRep{ VS.00g City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments January 31, 1999 Average Purcheee Stated YTM 360 Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # laauer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's Equiv. M~;,urlty Date Cert;~ca{es of Deposit - Bank 243-954720 01013 CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK 03/16/1998 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 5.500 5.500 45 03/18/1999 243-954752 01023 CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK 0W09/1998 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,00000 5.400 5.400 128 06/0911999 6509-28649 #32 01012 SANWA 03/05/1998 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 5.500 5.500 36 03/09/1999 6509-28649 ~3 01014 SANWA 03/16/1998 1,810,532.20 1,810,532.20 1,810,532.20 5.400 5.400 43 03/16/1999 6509-28649 ~ 01021 SANWA 05/26/1998 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 5.400 5.400 114 05/26/1999 Subtotal and Average 8,310,532.20 8,310,532.20 8,310,532.20 8,310,532.20 5.43~ 76 Local Agency Investment Funds 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 19,001,719.82 19,001,719.82 19,001,719.82 5.374 5.300 1 Subtotal and Average 15,930,917.69 19,00t,719.82 19,001,71g.62 19,001,719.S2 8.300 1 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 31331RAA3 00988 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 03/27/1997 2,000,000.00 2,031,200.00 2,000,000.00 6.620 6 529 1,150 03/27/2002 31331RDX0 00996 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 07/17/1997 2,000,000.00 2,074,400.00 1,999,375.00 6.240 6.162 1,262 07/17/2002 31331RMSl 01002 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 01/07/1998 1,000,000.00 1,010,600.00 1,000,000.00 6.330 6.243 1,436 01/07/2003 3133IRMA0 01004 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 01/06/1998 2,000,000.00 2,018,800.00 2,000,000.00 6.220 6.135 1,435 01/06/2003 31331RPZ2 01008 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 02/05/1998 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 6.140 5.973 1,465 02/05/2003 31331RUG8 01022 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 05/27/1998 2,000,000.00 2,013,200.00 1,999,375.00 6.290 6.211 1,576 05/27/2003 31331HRC3 01027 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 08/0611998 1,515,000.00 1,518,787.50 1,514,303.10 5.500 5.472 183 08/03/1999 31331RYP4 01028 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 08/11/1998 2,000,000.00 2,005,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.130 6.046 1,652 08/11/2003 31331RQ65 01036 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 12/15/1998 2,000,000.00 1,990,600.00 2,000,000.00 5.660 5.582 1,778 12/15/2003 313393VK3 00971 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/19/1996 1,000,000.00 1,001,300.00 995,312.50 5,880 5.970 46 03/1911999 313395YK5 00989 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/02/1997 2,000,000.00 2,005,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.540 6450 791 04/02/2001 3133MOTU5 00997 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 07130/1997 1,000,000.00 1,007,200.00 1,000,000.00 6.544 6.454 1,275 07/30/2002 3133M2US4 01003 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/06/1998 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 6.230 6.145 1,435 01/06/2003 3133M2TM9 01005 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/30/1997 1,000,000.00 1,003,800.00 1,000,000.00 6.110 6.026 1,061 12/28/2001 3133M3KQ7 01011 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 02/2711998 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.50 2,500,000.00 6.100 6.016 1,122 02J2712002 3133M4HG1 01019 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/25/1998 2,000,000.00 2,005,600.00 2,000,000.00 6.130 6.046 1,212 05/28/2002 3133M5~74 01029 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 08/2711998 2,000,000.00 2,000,000,00 2,000,000.00 6.140 6.056 1,668 08/2712003 3133MSFX3 01031 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 08/26/1998 2,000,000.00 2,000,600.50 2,000,000.00 6.000 5.918 1,302 08/26/2002 3133M6NE4 01035 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/08/1998 2,000,000.00 1,988,200.00 2,000,000.00 5.530 5.454 1,771 12/08/2003 3133M7504 01038 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/21/1999 1,000,000.00 993,100.00 1,000,000.00 5.510 5.435 1,615 01/2112004 3134AILB4 00994 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 06/25/1997 3,000,000.00 3,042,300,00 3,000,000.00 6.630 6.537 1,088 01/24/2002 3134AIH45 01000 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 10/22/1997 2,000,000.00 2,038,200.00 2,000,000.00 6.320 6.233 1,359 10/22/2002 3134A14F4 01009 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 02/16/1998 2,000,00000 2,000,600.00 2,000,00000 6.160 6076 1,478 02/18/2003 3134A14R8 01010 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 02/19/1998 1,000,000.00 1,000,300.00 1,000,000.00 6.135 6.051 1,479 02/19/2003 3134A2PN2 01030 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 08/20/1998 2,000,000.00 2,005,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.050 5.967 1,661 08/20/2003 Portfolio CITY Run Date: 02/08/1999- 12:2t CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRef){ VS.00g City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Paw 3 Portfolio Details - Investments January 31, 1999 Average Purchase Stated YTM 360 Day~ to Maturity CUSIP Investment # lasuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody'a Equiv. Maturity Date Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3134A2XJ2 01033 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 11/24/1998 2,000,000.00 1,998,800.00 2,000,000.00 5.790 5.711 1,757 11124/2003 3134A2N20 01037 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 01/14/1999 2,000,000.00 1,999,400.00 2,000,000.00 5.600 5523 1,443 01114/2003 31364CRP5 00981 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 1112911986 2,000,000.00 2,015,600.00 2,000,00000 6.230 6.145 1,032 11/29/2001 31364CJ58 00992 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 05/05/1997 2,000,000.00 2,047,600.00 2,000,000.00 7.070 6.973 1,192 05/08/2002 31364FC33 01016 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 05/04/1998 3,000,000.00 3,044,100.00 3,000,000.00 6.280 6.194 1,554 05/05/2003 31364FG96 01018 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 05/1911998 2,000,000.00 2,023,800.00 2,000,000.00 6.125 6041 1,568 05/1912003 31364GBE8 01032 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 10/06/1998 2,000,000.00 1,988,800.00 2,000,000.00 5.670 5592 1,708 10/06/2003 31364GJM2 01034 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 12/01/1998 2,000,000.00 1,995,600.00 2,000,000.00 5.520 5.444 1,764 12/0112003 Subtotal and Average 64,280,422.05 61,515,000.00 61,987,487.50 61,508,365.~) 6.037 1,371 Treasury Securities - Coupon 9128274M1 01026 TREASURY NOTE 08/03/1998 2,000,000.00 2,020,000.00 1,996,250.00 5.375 5.400 546 07/3112000 Subtotal and Average 1,986,250.00 2,980,000.00 2,020,000.00 1,998~50.00 5.400 54~ Mortgage Backed Securities 313401WW7 00071 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 02/23/1987 13,391.42 13,652.55 13,29512 8.000 8.219 1,065 01/01/2(X)2 31360BJ21 00203 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 09/15/1987 54,612.14 57,675.88 50,447.98 8.500 10.018 4,230 09/01/2010 36215WX74 00002 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 06/23/1986 22,819.22 23,494.67 22,505.46 6500 8.778 831 05/12/2001 36215XZS4 00069 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 05/23/1986 1,575.07 1,629.09 1,606.57 9.000 8.547 773 03/15/2001 Subtotal and Average 91,788.05 92,397.85 98,452.19 87,855.11 9.401 2,817 Total Investments and Average 90,609,909.99 98,919,649.87 91A9~,191.71 90,904,722.73 5.817 950 (~ Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02J08/1999 - 12:21 PM (PRF_PM2) Sym~ VS.00g City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 4 Portfolio Details - Cash January 31, 1999 Average Purchaee Stated YTM 360 Days to CUSIP Investment J/ Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rata Moody's Equiv. Maturity Checking/Savings Accounts 00180 BANK OF AMERICA 1,320,953.75 1.320,9537§ 2.000 1 973 Cash Subtotal and Average 1,113,340.85 1,320,953.75 0 Accrued Interest at Purchase 1,570.74 Total Cash and Purchase Interest 1,322,524.49 Total Cesh and Investmenta 91,723,250.84 92,240,603.62 92,618,716.20 92,227,247.22 5.817 g50 '~ Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/08/1999 - 12:21 PM (PRF_PM2) SymRep~ V5.00g Portfolio Management Investment Activity By Type Page January 1, 1999 through January 31, 1999 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Sales/Maturities Ending CUSIP Investment It Issuer Balance Rate Data or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance Certificates of Deposit - Bank Subtotal 8,310,532.20 8,310,532.20 Local Agency Investment Funds (Monthly Summary) 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 5.374 5,210,347.58 2,250,000.00 Subtotal 16,041,372.24 5,210,347.58 2,250,000.00 19,001,719.82 Checking/Savings Accounts (Monthly Summary) 00180 BANK OF AMERICA 2.000 1,995,500.00 1,568,000.00 Subtotal 893,453.75 1,995,500.00 1,588,000.00 1,320,953.75 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3133M75D4 01038 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 5.510 01121/1999 1=000,000 O0 0.00 3134A13B4 01007 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG CORP 6.183 01/29/1999 0.00 999,375.00 3134A2N20 01037 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG CORP. 5.600 01/14/1999 2,000,000.00 0.00 31364FQE4 01006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 6.150 01/27/1999 0.00 3,998,12500 Subtotal 63,505,865.60 3,000,000,00 4,997,580.00 61,508,365.60 Treasury Securities - Coupon Subtotal 1,99e,258.00 1,~,258.00 Mortgage Backed Securities 313401WW7 00071 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG CORP. 8.000 01115/1999 0.00 587.34 31360BJ21 00203 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 8500 01125/1999 0.00 4,077.16 36215WX74 00002 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 8.500 01/19/1999 0.00 835.75 36215XZS4 00069 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 9.000 01/19/1999 0.00 60.17 Subtotal 93,395.53 0.00 5,640.42 87,855.11 Total 90,840,889.32 10,205,847.58 8,821,040.42 92,225,678.48 ~ Portfolio CITY Run Dale: 02/08/1999 - 12:21 CP PM (PRF_PM3) SymRep{ VS.00g CITY OF RANCliO CUCAMONQA LI~T OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 01-13-q9 (98/99) RUN DATE: 01/13/99 PAGE: mm mmm m mmmmmm mmmmmm mmmmmm m mm mmm am mime mmmme mmmmm m m ................................................................................. ................ #* CHECK# OVERLAP 1114b ROSS CONSTRUCTION BUSINEES LICENSE REFUND 133~34- 34.00- 4337 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITURE, INC. OFFICE EQUIPMENT # 13~299 ~42. 30 3448 ALL WELDINg MAINTENANCE REPAIRS t35300 1~5.00 · 73 ALPHAGRAPHICS OFFICE 8UPPLIE~ 135301 610.22 605~ /MIESICAN CABLE ENTERTAINMENT ADVERTISING FEE 13~30~ 37. 73 t~88 APOL. LO INDUSTRIES INC. M~INTENANCE SUPPLIES 13~303 657.93 5807 ARCHITERRA DEBION OROUP PROFEBSIONAC 8ERVICE8 # 135304 3,936.00 3~57 ARTCRAFT, INC. RECREATION 8UPPL;E8 # 135305 11.32 2437 ASSOCIATED OROUP, THE M(]NTHL. Y MAINTENANCE BERVICE # 135306 1,535. O0 4102 B & K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE MAINTENANCE 8UPPLIES # 135307 1,146.83 21021 BEJARANO, AN;HONY REFUND 135:308 45. O0 4323 BELLSOUTH WIRELESS DAtA COMMUNICATION CHAROE # 135309 3,705.40 1247 BLAKE PAPER CO., INC RECREATION SUPPLIES 135310 ~<< 13531! - 13531~ 4369 DRODART BOOKS L~BRARY SUPPLIES # t35313 5,864. 43 D746 BU~INE~ SPECIALTIE~ MAINTENANCE ~UPPLIEB 13D314 3,070.87 ~55~ C A L B 0 CALBO ABM MEETING 135315 295 00 577~ C.S.M.F. 0 REGISTRATION 13~316 7~ O0 441Z CALIFORNIA ELECTRONIC ENTRY MAINTEIV~E ~t. tppLIES/BERViCE t35317 316. 4735 CALOLYMPIC SAFETY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135318 1, 135. 15 58R1 CARTE GRAPH SYSTEM5 MAINTEI~CE SUPPLIE6 135319 705. O0 210~3 CECIL, JILL RECREATION REFUND # 1353~0 57. O0 b8 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SERVICE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135321 881. 7~ 6063 CHEM-PAK MAINTENANCE BOPPLIES 1353~ 953.43 3118 CHINO HILL~ TRANSMISSION VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1353~3 1, 404. 73 CITRU~ MOTORS ONTARIO, INC. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES 1353~4 84.~1 5337 COASTAL BUSINESS MACHINES SUPPLIES 1353~5 643 COMPUTERLAND COMPUTER MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES # 1353~b 210~ COPPOLA, ~OSEPH REFUND # 1353~7 ~0.00 20~73 CREATIVE BUILDING CONCEPTS DEPOSIT REFUND 1353~8 500.00 441~ CREATIVE DAT~ PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 1353~ 5349 CREATIVE MANAQEMENT SOLUTIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES # 135330 1,530.00 5748 CROSSROADS TRAFFIC SIGNAL PACKAGE TRAFFIC DESIGN PACKAGE 135331 7,854.98 <<< 135332 - 135333 85 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIS] MONTHLY WATER BILLING~ # 135334 ~, 1&8.~1 P312 D A.R. E AMERICA D.A.R.E. MATERIAL 135335 443.02 1~9! DATAVAULT - U.S. SAFE DEPOSIT CO. DATA STORAQE 135336 155.43 34'7 DAY-TIMERS, INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 135337 32.73 1~90 DEER CRF;K CAR WASH VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES 135338 75 00 &O DELTA DENTAL DENTAL INSURANCE 13533~ ~3,8~8. 00 6064 DEPARTMENT ISSUE SUPPLIES 135340 ~78.83 83~ DIETERICH INTERNAIIONAL TRUCK VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 135341 141.35 4abb DOUBLETREE HOTFL RESERVATION FEES 135342 484.47 ~767 ELITE PERSONNEl_ SERVICES, INC. PERSONNEL SERVICE8 135343 11~.88 4537 ESCOM SOFTWARE SERVICES REGISTRATION 135344 3,~48.00 ~349 E~OIL CORP. PROFEBBIONAL SERVICE8 ~3534~ 6,806,43 ~l EXPERTAN PROFEg~IONAL 9ERVICE8 135346 50,00 9917 FA~TEN~I. COMPANY MAINTENANCE 6UPPLIE8 13~347 50 89 6~7 FELIPE'; TAGUERIA REFRE'~'IMENT5 36~3B FELLOHF~ 135348 t32. tB OFFICE SUPPLZE5 135349 Cl [Y OF ~ANCHO CUCAMONOA I.IST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 01-13-99 RUN DA'IE: 01/13/99 PACE: VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT. ** CHECk# OVERLAP 124 FENCE CRAFT OF UPLAND, INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135350 50.64 5918 FLORFNCE FII.T~RS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135351 1,507.58 47~2 FOOTHILL FAMILY SHELLER FAMILY 8HELFER 13535~ 242.50 40~8 FORBES SUBSCRIPTION 135353 59.96 3&53g FORTUNE SUBSCRIPTION 135354 1082 FRANKLIN COVEY CO O~ICE SUPPLIE~ 135355 89.51 5935 0 & L CABINFTS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES/SERVICE 13535~ 6,683.00 4540 QALE RESEARCH, INC LIBRARY BOOKS 135357 443.74 4540 QALE RESEARCH, INC. LIBRARY BOOKS 135358 113.06 36540 ~ATLIN, CLAIRE RECREATION REFUND 135359 60.00 4045 OLASS, DAN INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 1353~0 25. O0 3388 ~OLDEN I~EAR ARBOrISIS, INC PROFESSION^L SERVICES # 135361 18,335 00 3646g OOMEZ, CHRISTINE RECREATION REFUND 1353&2 48.00 93 OOVERNMENY FINANCE OFF1CERS ASSOC. REGISTRATION FEE 1353~3 275 O0 3~541 OHOSS, ANN RECREATION REFUND 1353~4 52.00 137 ~TE CAI {F{}RNIA MONTHLY TELEP[JONE BILLINGS # 1353~ 45~ 71 6084 HADDON, I)AWN BUSINESS LICENSE R~FUND 1353~6 150 O0 ~855 HAVEN WINF. & t.I(iUt~l¢ (;l~ SUB'~COMMI;~EE MEETINQS 1353b! ~$4 2~5~ HI-LINE ELECI;~IC CtlI~I'ANY MAIN'[ENANCE E(~UIPMENT # ~35368 674.07 4724 HI-WAY S~FETY. INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 1353~9 9l 59 1149 HILL BROTHERS CHEMICAL COMPANY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135370 64.95 3633 HOMELESS OUTREACH PRCMS ~, EDUCATION MONTHLY SERVICES 135371 742~ O0 161 HOYT LUMBER CO , S.M. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135372 359~ 33 495 HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS, INC L^NDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135373 429.28 4~54 IBM CORPORATION MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135374 2,189.09 1121 INDEPENDENT ELECTRONICS MAINTENANCE 135375 ~5. 50 908 INLAND MEDIATION BOARD LANDLORD/TENANT DISPUTE RESOL. # 135376 1,545.83 9~ INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN SUBSCRIPTIONS 135377 31. 92 3452 INTRAVAIA ROCK & SAND MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135378 3,430.45 1941 OACOBSEN DIVISION OF TEXTRON, INC. MAINT SUPPLIES # 135379 19,551.45 175 JOBS AVAILABLE ADVERTISEMENTS 135380 8~.80 2386 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135381 85.72 5894 KELLY~ KRISTY RECREATION 13538~ 60.00 4~17 LADNER COATIN¢S EMERO£NCY INSTALLATION 135383 7,500.00 42~2 LAIDLAW TRANSIT, INC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE8 135384 433.08 193 LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICE8 # 135385 !~5 LANCE, SOLL & LUNQHARD AUDIT SERVICES 13538~ 7,000.00 849 L~W80N PRODUCTS, INC. M~INTEN~NCE SUPPLIER # 135387 610.24 5~6~ LOS ~NOELES COCA COLA BTL CO. RECREATION SUPPLIER 135388 416.57 600 LYNCH, dANIE RECREATION SUPPLIES 135389 30. ~4 47~7 MARSHALL PLUMBINO REHAB. PROQRAM # 135390 1,253. 50 5~83 MAYER, COBLE & PALMER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 135391 1,250.00 1025 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135392 114.83 ~02 MEYER, PA~ REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUPPLIES 135393 75.00 ~1~8 MICHAELS STORE8 INC. 83019 RECREATION SUPPLIER 1353~4 749 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY ALARM SERVICES 135395 390.00 2577 MINNE~O~A WESTERN MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 1353~ 420.~3 1171 MOTOROLA COMMUN. ~ ELEC., INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 1353~7 42.24 ~085 McARDLE, KEVIN BUSINESS LICENR~ RE~i~ND 1353~8 60.00 <<4 13539~ - 135403 ~48 NAP^ ~U]O PARTS VEHICLE MAINTEN^NCE # 135404 1,684.&0 CI1-Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA LIST OF WARRANTB FOR PERIOD: 01-13-~9 (98/9~)) .... RUN DATE: 01/13/99 PAOE; 3 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT. a~ CHECK# OVERLAP 4~81 NICASSIO, TRIFONE A. INSTRUCTOR-C. E.R.T 135405 1~ 51 31143 NYDETT, JOHNSON RECREATION 13540~ 37.50 4<4 135407 - 135407 5~3 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES # 135408 ~, 1~5. 54 31144 OLYMPIC TREE SALES RELEASE OF' DEPOSIT 13540~ 50000 23~ OMNITRANS BUS PASSES 135410 333.50 ~35 OWEN ELECTRIC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135411 2,549.35 5~ P & C CONCRETE CUTTIN~ CO. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 13541~ 145. O0 757 PEP BOYS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135413 57. 8~ 5597 PHOTOMAX SUPPLY CO. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135414 863.84 255 POMA DISTRIBUTIN~ CO VEHICLE MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES # 135415 1,532. 3~ 5177 PORT SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 13541& 490 ~1 3~8& PRINCIPAl.. MUTUAL. MEDICAL/DISABILITY INSURANCE 135417 6g,~6. 31 583 PROTECTION S~VTCE INDUST;~I~S PROTECTION SERVICES-LIONS CNTR # 135418 1~7 85 &5 PRUDENTIAl OV~RAI.L SUPP[ Y MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135419 1,707 1(i) 5899 GUALTIY ONE ENGRAVERS OFFICE SUPPLIES 1354~0 43 11 3&63 R & T SPECIALTY, INC. D.A.R.E. SLIPPLIES 1354~1 2~7 07 1038 R J M DESION ~ROUP, INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1354~ 750 O0 ~&00 RANCHO CUCAMON~A FIHE DISIR~C~ SALARY AND BENEFITS # 1354~3 7, 585. 15 11~31 RANCHO CUCAMON~A FIRE DISTRICT VEHICLE SALE 1354~4 ~560 50 11~29 REDD, SHERI RECREATION REFUND 1354~5 8 O0 5~14 REXEL CALCON ELECTRICAL_ SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL. SUPPLIES # 1354~6 1,161.25 11033 RHINES, STEPHANIE RECREATION REFUND 135427 5~. O0 5618 RICHARDS, WATSON, & ~ERSHON LEGAL SERVICES. # 1354~8 197 50 4438 S C A C E 0 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES 135429 150.00 1298 SAN BERN CO ASSESSOR'S OFFICE SUBSCRIPTION 135430 31~ O0 581 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CAL-ID PROQRAM 135431 ~507 SIEBE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS SERVICE/SUPPLIES 13543~ 8,~0. 5B 6V2 SIR ~PEEDY OFFICE SUPPLIES 135433 8.08 11230 SLATON, ~ARY RECREATION REFUND 135434 5000 13~7 SMART & FINAL DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 135435 ~08~ SMART MONEY SUBSCRIPTION 135436 3~4& SMITH COMPANY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135437 1,2~7. 45 ::l~:l<J 135438 - 135441 143~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON MONTHLY ELECTRIC B1LL8 # 13544~ &, 5~3. 83 3~3~ STEELWOR~ERS OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION 135443 &059 STEPHEN COOPERA~E, ~ MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135444 7~5~ STOFA, O0~]EPH REIMBURSEMENT 135445 15 51 6088 SUBWAY SANDWICH & SALADS REFREiSHMENTS 135446 0~. 40 11~1! SUNSET PO~LS & SPAS REFUND 135447 13~. O0 5551 TEMPLE. LAfl;~¥ RECREATION RE[FUND 135448 41 50 1~26 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UPS SERVICE 135449 46. O0 5891 VALLEY SLURRY SEAL CO MAINTENANCE 135450 ~31,4~. '74 478 WARREN & CO , CA~L LIABILITY CLAIM5 135451 &O~8 WEAR~UARD OFFICE SUPPLIES 13545~ 34q 53 5176 WEST END I~IDS CLUB OF THE YF1CA WEST END KIDS PRO~RAM 135453 3~0. 50 ** TOTAL 774,565.~7 CITY, OiI RANCHO CUCANONGA LIST OF MARRANTS PERXOOt 0z-20-99 mmmmmmmmmmmmmalmemmmmmmmmmllmmmmmmmmmmmmmil RUN OATES VEKOR NAME ZTEN DESCRIPTION WARE NO ~,CHECKJ Or.LAP 5089 DUTTON~ 808 REPUNO 134~9~ 10e&00- $0 A G R TIRE SERVICE VEHICLE HAliTEMAKE J 135459 ~098 A. Go ENGZ~ERXNG ~PROFESSX~L ~RVXCES I]S~O ilAeTT 2732 AiC LOCKSHXTHS ~XNTH~KE S~LZES ~ 135~2 226007 3785 ACTION ART RECREATION SU~LXES J 135~4 220.89 5231 ASP SYSTEMS CO~ULTXNG~ INC. ,PROFESSZ~L ~RVICES e 135~5 1oJO0~00 6020 A~RO X~UST~XES BUSINESS LICEKI ~EFU~ 135~6 l,OI!oSO $7 ALTA FIRE EQUXPHENT CO. SERVXCE/S~PLZES ; 135~8 6052 ANfRXC~ CALLS ENTERTAINMENT ~VERTZSZNG F~ I)S~9 5007 ARCHITERRA OESXGN ~OUP PROPESSX~L ~RVXCES f XSS4T2 11~5 AUTO S~CZALZSTS WINICLE ~ZNTENAKE 1)5474 SAIolS ZZ040 BANTAU~ VICTORIA ~CREATX~ RE.NO 13S47& 65.00 21037 8AY~Se Pf~LZ~ ~CREATXON RI~O 13547T 4BOO0 Z1030 BECKE~o 00tNA RECIEATX~ REND 135478 ~41 BEST BUY CO.. ~NC. ~FXCE SULLIES I lJS~l Z&l. Z3 5224 BMV EQUIPMENT eQUIPMENT lSS4lS 320. Y4 ZZOZ8 80AL ELECTRIC. INC. BUSINESS LXCE~E IEFU~ ZESt6 76000 ZZOZ4 8ROMN & 8ROEOOM ~SZNESS LZC~E REPU~ 135~T l~.OO S341 BUCKNAN & ASSOCIATES ~NS~TANT SERVICES lJS~i 2~042 CA/HX/~/GUAH REGISTRATION ~35~0 46~00 97 ~LXff.~ARK i RECREATION S~XETVoZNC ~GZSTIAVX~ 13549~ 2X030 CALXrOllA HAROWARE CO.ANY ~SXNESS LICENSE tepuw lSs~z 4909 CALXffORNXA TRA~HXSSZON VEHXC~ ~XNTENA~E 13J493 l.tTT.66 4735 CALOLVHPZC SAFETY HAXNTENA~E S~PLXES X35494 49010 Z~039 CASAGRaDe TMACXE RECREATZ~ tlPUNO 135495 6&60 68 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SERVICE MAINTENA~8 S~PLIES e 135496 3Z0.80 69 CHAffffEY JOINT ~XON HiS. OXSTRXCT REBTAL - AUOXTORX~ R.CoH. 3. 135497 S.280000 1061 CHAHPZ~ AkA~OS & SPECZALZTZES ENG~AVEO ffLAG~ ~ 135498 ZlOZS CHAPARRAL kEIGHTS ~EXLE ~HE PARK B~SZNESS LICENSE tfffU~ 135499 713 CNXCK'S SPORTX~ G~OS INC RECREATION SULLIES 135MO 74 CITY RENTALS ~UXffNENT RENTAL;SUPPLIeS J 135H2 610.8T S33T CQASTAL BUSINESS MKHZ~S SUPPLIES S 1)S~3 4301 COMPUSA~ XNCo ~INTENA~E S~PLXES 135~4 08.OT 643 COHPUTEfLiNO COMPUTER HAXNTEN~e/~ff~XES I XSS S06 81~.36 ~21034 CONROTS 1-800 ffLOUERS BUSINESS LICE~E REPU~ ~35~7 IS6.4T CZTV 0ts RANCHO CUCANONGA LIST O~ MARtANTS POR PERIOD: 01-20-0! R~ OATEl 01/20/99 m mumm m m mm in mmmm lB mm It me me/In I I lB m lB mm mobil m Ill lB m mmm/ilmlmlml/mlllm l millIll m lllmmmlmm loll mmmmmmomlollmmmommOlmmmm mmmmmlollmmm mm m VE~OR NAME ITEM OESCRIPTZON WARt NO MARt. A~. ~ CHECKI OVERLAP 21029 COTEo CRAIG G.. ATTORN~ AT LAM BUSINESS LICENSE REFUM 135MI 46.00 ((C IJSSIO- IJSS~O 85 CUCAHO~A ~CO ~ATER DZST ~NTHLV ~ATEI BILLINGS e &)5511 StJ66016 S401 CUSTOM fiZCROFZLH SYSTEHS~ ZNC. ~ZCE SULLIES ~ ~35512 1291 DATAVA~T -U.S. S~E OEPOSXT CO. DATA STORAGE 135514 5121 O~ VOO~T~ SCOTT J. PROPESSZ~L ~RVZCES ff ~SSlS X,eOO.00 S534 DIAL C~HUbICATZONS PROFESSZ~L ntvZces z~s.~ &l.14 5809 DIETEEtH-POST COHPANV ~fZCE SULLIES 135519 2422 ELECTR~XC3 tA~NO~E ELECTRONIC S~LXES ~ 'lJS~O 36546 EPC PU~ ~6ZSTIATXON Pile 135~4 ISO. OO 1082 PRA~LX~ COVEV CO. ~PlCE S~LIES e 13SS30 219.40 3318 GOLOIN Slit flUlilTS, INC. PROPelSIlL ~lVlCll 131~2 lOSS ~LOll UlST OZSTII~TZ~ RICRIATZ~,S~LIIS llll)l 47.52 ~JT GTE CALIFORNIA ~BTHLV TILEP~NE BILLENOS e 139~6 ~44 HAPPV KVES OECORATXNG ~SXNESS LXCE~E REffUNO 135~37 &e690000 3X~S9 HERBELXN, I~XAN ~ECREAWZON 135538 O0.OO 3125 HZ STA~ARU AUTOMOTIVE NAZNTENA~E S~PLZES I]SSJO 158 HOLLZDAV R~K COoo INC. MINTEBA~ S~PLZES g 135~1 2ZSS HOLT'S AUTO ELKTNIC ~INTINAKI S~LZES e AJS~Z .~33 HOHE DEPOT CBEOZT SERVICE ~NTI~KI S~PLXES e ~JS~ ~33 NONLESS OUTREACH ~GHS & E~CATION ~TNLV SIIVXClS 135M4 861.00 &6Z HOTT L~IER CO.o S~. ~INTB~E MPLZIS e 135MS 32z62 HUANGe ZNGRZO tECREATZ~ J 13SM6 SZOB NUFPNAN ROOF C~PANT NAZNTBNAKE IJS~T SOle00 49S HVDRO-~APE PRODUCTSe INC LANOSCAPf ~INTE~KE SUPPLIES e ~35~8 315007 Z03 Z C H A RETXREHENT TRUST-AS7 OEPERRED COHP IJSM~ TTO.00 *ZS4 IBM CO~PORATZON NAINTENA~ MPLIES ~ IBSSSO 5882 XCNA RETIREMENT TRUST - 40~ 01 f IJSSSI 6e355006 ~I~45 IDEAL ~IFOKN KeNT~ BUSINESS LXCEKE 135552 46 XNOUSTRXAL ASPHALT HAXNTENA~E S~PLXES e 135554 302.79 4650 INSTRASHRfD SECURX~ SERVXCES SE~RXTV SERVXCES ZJSSS6 31146 XNTERSTATE BRA~S CORP. 8USXNESS LZCE~E 13555T 36.00 1~41 JACOBSEN DIVISION ~ TEXTROMe XNC. HAZNT SUPPLXES 135558 22.93 CXTT OP RANCHO CUCANOIIS& LIST OP MARRANTS RUN VENOOR NANE ZTEN OESCRZPTZON NARR NO IdARRo ANT. ~ CHECKI OVERLAP 6~2 JAESCHKE INC., C.R. VEIdZCLE #AZNTENANCE 13SSS9 311S? KNXESLEY, CEERA I~ECREATZON XSSS60 88°00 60~0 KONG~, SOPHAK 8USXNE$S LXCENSE REFUND Z3S'S6~. 240°00 · 902 KORANOA CONSTRUCTION C.C.B.G. SEAS L S A ASSOCZATES~ INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 607~ LA POISE VZ~EO PRGDUCTZON~ JERRY RECREATION REFUND Z]S564 323.ZS 60,S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND RECREATION REFUND ~35~7 294.84 ~Z~60 LE~XS, OEBlXE ~ECREATXON X35S68 ~S.00 3Z147 LXTTLE CAESARS PXZZA 8USXNESS LXCENSE X35569 3XS6 LU'S LXGHT~OUS~ Z~. OXL ANALYSIS X35570 600 LYNCH~ JANXE RECREATXON SUPPLZES Z3557~ 5*9 HARZPOSA HORTZCULTURA~ ENT.ZNC. LANDSCAPE HAZNTENANCE 72 HARK CHrISt INC. VEHICLE HAZNTENANCE SUPPLZES 3~Z4d HARTZN, C.R. CONSTRUCTION INC. BUSINESS LICENSE Z3S575 ZT.~O 5148 ~CLZNTON TR~CKZNG CO.~NC~ J.C. ~ZNTE~KE S~PLZES 5885 HORITA, OUANE PtOPESSI~L ~iVZCeS ~3S582 20721000 3~iSO ~OONA~'S RESTAUI~T ~SZNIIS LZCIKE ~3S~3 60S7 NXKKX'S FLAG S~ffE RECREATX~ 4~3 NZXO~FILZ EQUXPNE~ VEHICLE ~XNT~AKE 3Zl~4 OLLAR ~NSTRUCTXON COo ZNCo ~SZNESS LICf~E Z~S~3 2Oo6S ZSS OMEN ELECTNXC HAXNTE~E S~PLZES 1823 PAGENET PASXNG. SEIVXCE )XISS PARK UNXPORN RENTAL SO CAL ~SZNeSS LXCENSE 7S7 PEP BOYS VEHICLE ~ZNTENA~E S~PLZeS 3ZZ56 PHOTO TRANSFERS AND NO~E ~SZNESS LZCIBE 3S00 NECZSZON OVNAHXCS CORPORATION RECREATZ~ SUPPLIES 13S~T 6S40~ ~83 P~OTECT~ON SERVICE INDUSTRIES PROTICTZ~ SERVICES'LIONS CNTR CITY OP RANCHO CUCANONGA LIST OF ~ABIAIITS FOR PERZOO~, 01-Z0-91 RUN DATE~ 01/20/99 PAGEz 4 V~OR NAHE ZTEN DESCRZPTZON tARN NO iARR. A~o ~ CNECK~ OVaLAP 6S PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY HAZNTENAKE SWPLZES f 13SilO 226058 5899 QUALTZY ONE ENGRAVERS ~PZCE SUrfLieS e 135611 62090 ~J~63 QUZNTAW~ PAUL NILEAGE REXNBURSENENT J35~Z 4~S0 1038 R J N OESZGN GROUPo INC. PROffESSX~AL ~RVXCES 3813 RoC. P~TOGRAPHY & ASS~ZATES ~OTO SUPPLZE$ S 13S~? 4S2055 264 RALPHS G~OCiIY COHPANV RECREATZ~ SULLIES Z1233 REEO~ JOHN ~NTRACT SERVICES 135~1 450o00 ~12~4 RENOOHo EDMARD RECREATION 13S~2 S~oO0 3314 KOBXNS~ FERTILIZER LANDSCAPE SUffiXES 13S623 626 ROBLESt RAUL P-e SR. TZRE REPAIR 13S~* &2oSO ~1235 ROSENT~L~ CH~ZSTI~ 88CREATZ~ Z3S~S 35000 Z~236 SfiffAT~ U~ZVERSAL HOTEL HEETZNG 13S~O IDZ7 SHALT L FINAL DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 13S~9 SOo4S 317 SO CALZP EDISON CO. HONTHL~ ELECTRIC BILLINGS J ZJS~I 82~0406S 4176 STATE BOARD OF EQU~XZATZON fiAZAR~US MASTE OISPOSAL Z3S632 SZioII 4176 STATE 80ARO OF EQUALXZATZON HAZAR~U$ MASTE DISPOSAL S 135633 1~143.00 ~32 STEEL~ORK~RS OLOTXnERS FOUNOATXON ~TXHERS FOU~ATZON 13S~4 TZ4.1O SZli STE~XCYCLEe INC. SHARPS ~ROG~AH S 13S635 ZSO.3O 497~ TONV'S CARPETS ~FXCE SUrfLIES ~3S~6 9.00 1i237 TOrReS, DONNA RECREATION 135637 40.00 SASS U. So BANK TRUST LEASE PATENT *SS8 U.S. G~RDS CO.o X~. ~CURXTT ~ARO SERVICE 135~O 786.85 3437 UNZFZRST UNIFORM S~VXCE UNXPORH SERVICES · 13S~1' 670.0S Z226 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UPS SERVICE ; ~3S~2 S6000 3S25 UNIVERSITY OF ~OKZOA HZSC 13S~3 .Y22 VALLEY CREST L~OS~PE LANOSCAPE ~UP~XES 13S~4 223 UAXIE~ KLEEN-LZNE ~RP ~ZNT SUPPLIES ; ~3S~S 893.00 1~239 MESTZN SANTi CLARA HEATING 13S~T 509 XEROX CORPORATION COPY MACHINE ~PPLZES/SERWICE t 13S~l 217071 371 ~EE HEOZCAL SERVICE RECREATZ~ SULLIES ~3S~ 58078 ~ TOTAL I L 15[ ;}! WARt~ANI5 FOR PI~RI(II): 01 -~7-9g (~H/'~':?) RUN DARE, 01/27/99 PAGE VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT. ** CHECK# OVERLAP 3813 R.C. PHOTOORAPHY & ASSOCIATES PHOTO SUPPLIES # 135617* 452.55- <(( 135618 - 135649 >:>> 36566 FIFTH CALIFORNIA QIS CONFERENCE REQISTRATION FEES 135650* 14500 <'J': 135651 - 135652 ~ ABC LOCKSMIIHS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135653 68 63 4347 ACCURAT~ SMOQ, AUTO, TRUCK & VEHICLE MAINTENANCe/SUPPLIES # 135654 591 84 14 ACTION TRAVEL A~ENCY AIRLINE TICKETS # 135655 630 00 4?U~ ADVANCED ENVINONMENTAL, INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 135&56 5,630.00 ~'105& AQUILERA, FERNANDO RECREATION REFUND 135657 ~-:~ 1135~58 - 135658 ~'~-~ 18~& AIRTOUCH CELLULAR CELLULAR PHONE BILLINQS # 135659 2, 108.8~ ~1060 ALCALAo MARIE RECREATION REFUND 135660 52 00 ~1051 ALLERTON, ELIZABETH RECREATION REFUND 135661 37~ 50 5~50 ALTA LOMA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 13566~ 840.00 ~106~ ALVARADO, KIMIYO RECREATION REFUND # 135663 56 00 14~0 AMERICAN BUSINESS FORMS OFFICE SUPPLIES # 1356~4 4~ AMERICAN PLANNIN~ ASSOCIATION APA MEMBERSHIP DUES # 135665 1,323 O0 5913 AMERICAN VAN E~UIPMENT~ INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135666 2Oh. 30 5~2 APWA REGISTRATION # 135667 120 00 580Z ARCHITERRA DESIGN ~ROUP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES # 135668 3,214. 83 ~1043 ARIZONA PARKS & RECREATION ASSOC RE~ISTRATION 13566~ 340.00 3~0 ARROW TRUCK BODIES ~ E~U~P ~N~ MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135670 811.70 'J<~J 135671 - 135671 66Z ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION VISA MONTt~LY BIlLINgS # 13567~ 3,439 18 ~0~ B & K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135673 2~213. l~ ~1053 BACE, DENISE RECREATION REFUND 135674 65.00 ~1057 BAILEY, LISA RECREATION REFUND 135675 37.50 803 BALDY VIEW PUBLIC/PRIVATE COALITION CLOUT MEETIN~ # 135676 105.00 ~1044 BALL TRANSPORT, INC BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135677 53 10 ~1048 DANUELOSo ROXANNE MARTINEZ RECREATION REFUND 135678 37.50 4475 BARNES & NOBLE LIBRARY SUPPLIES # 13567~ 967.83 2105~ BEDFORD, ELLEN RECREATION REFUND 135680 37.50 60~7 BERRYMAN & HENI~AR BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135681 4,800 O0 ~10~4 ~ICKLEY, KELLY RECREATION REFUND 135682 40.00 1~47 BLAKE PAPER CO , INC. RECREATION SUPPLIES 135683 18.~7 ~104g BLAKE, SUZANNE RECREATION REFUND # 135684 70.00 ~1©58 ~LASIN~AME, MARY RECREATION REFUND 135685 37.50 ?©3 DOB AND ED'S ~LASS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ~35686 273 ~i~ ~RODART BOOKS LIBRARY SUPPLIES # 135687 445. 72 4735 CALOLYMPIC SAFETY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135688 424 54 hi07 CALTAC RECREATION REFUND 13568~ 69.00 ~1046 CARL'S dR. RESTAURANT BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND # 1356~0 34. 42 ~1050 CAVANAUgh, DIANE RECREATION REFUND 1356~1 36.00 68 CENTRAL CITIES SI~N SERVICE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 1356~2 30~. '78 1061 CHAMPION AWARDS ~, SPECIALITIES ENORAVED PLA~UE # 1356~3 124. 9~ 456! CHARNSTROM CO., W A. OFFICE SUPPLIES 1356~4 280.58 74 CITY RENTALS E~UIPMENT RENTAL/SUPPi IES 1~56~5 283 05 4pTg CLARK, DEBORAH REIMBURSE FOR ~USINES5 EXPENSE 1356~6 81. 18 ~1055 COLLINS, MARCELLA RECREA~ION REFUND 1356~7 65.00 4301 COMPUSA, INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135698 124.56 633 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135699 1,024.86 .' ~ t%! OF WARRANTS FUI~ PERIOD ()1- ~7--~ ( ~8/'~V ) RUN DATE: 01/~7/~ PAGE: VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT. ** CHECR# OVERLAP ~105 CORDURA~ ALDO RECREATION REFUND # 135700 100. 13 4370 CORWIN, JAMES A. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 135701 ~0. 77 ~105~ COUCH, GLORY RECREATION REFUND 13570~ 45.00 ~'1045 CRAFTS CABINETS, INC. BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135703 21. 74 ~4~ CUCAMONOA CLASSIC DESIGN OFFICE SUPPLIES 135704 1,115.00 ~:~i'~i 135705 - 135705 85 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST MONlHLY WATER BILLINQS # 13570~ ~,707.~4 ~10~l CUMISKEY0 ILENE RECREATION REFUND 135707 5~00 ~3~ D & K CONCRETE CO STREET MAINTENANCE 135708 ~14. 18 ~6547 DANIELS, JENNIFER R~CREATION REFUND 13570~ ~ 00 ~iAs4~ DAVI~ Ao MARIA RECREATION REFUND ]35Z10 37.50 [lOS4~ DAVIS~ PAUL RECREATION REFUND 135711 5~. O0 4~ DEMCO, INC OFFICE SUPPI.IES # 13571~ 7~ '~()g DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION SIRON~ MOTION ~'E~ 135713 30845~ 00 ~05 DERBISH GUerRA ~ ASSOC CONTRACT SERVICF # 1357~4 30,89~ O0 '~550 DI)D[, DFNISt HECR~ATION R~FUND 135715 ~5 O0 ~l, gt5 DONALDSON, D[HtK RECREATION REFUND # 13571~ 53.00 :~551 DORADO, J£SUS REFUND lJ5717 ~ O0 ]~SZ DOWNEY, CtiRI~ RECREATION REFUND 135718 5~ O0 ]~53 DUBER, SNELLEY RECREATION REFUND 13571~ 5~ O0 ]~554 DURDINES, CATHY RECREATIDN 8EFUND 1357~0 38.00 3~555 DYE, LINDA RECREATION ~EEUND i357~1 40 O0 50~8 EARTN MACHINE WEST HAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 1357~ 30~ 50 ~080 EDISON £V MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES/SERVICE 1357~3 4~4 47 ~1~7 EMPIRE MOBIl F HOMF SERVICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1357~4 3,0~6 O0 3~556 ESPINOSA, MA;~ARITA RECREATION REFUND 1357~5 30 O0 5~17 FASTENAL COMPANY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 1357~ ~35. 13 3~557 FELTON, REUECCA RECREATION REFUND # 1357~7 42. 50 blO2 FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOME5 OF CALIF INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 135728 2~1. 58 36558 FOGT, JAANA RECREATION REFUND 13572~ 3~.50 lb~8~ FRASURE, MICHAEL REIMBURSEMENT 135730 50.00 6070 ~ALE GROUP LIBRARY BOOKS # 135731 4540 GALE RESEARCH, INC. LIBRARY BOOKS # 135732 422.19 5137 OAME ROOM ~ALLERY RECREATION SUPPLIES 135733 130 2~ 335b ~ARCIA, VIVIAN MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 13~34 3655~ ~ARMAN, MEOAN CASH ADVANCE 135'735 100 00 3~560 OELFAND, MIKE RECREATION REFUND # 135736 73. 75 g^5~,1 GILLI, CHRISTOPHER TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 135737 ~ 08 3~56~ QLASS, ED RECREATION REFUND 135738 47.00 4~3~ GLOBAL TELL-DATA CORPORATION PARTS & INSTALLATION 13573~ 50.00 36563 GOBAUD, FARA RECREATION REFUND # 135740 40.50 1870 gOMEZ, RICK REIMBURSEMENT 135741 80. 4~ 3507 gOVERNING SUBSCRIPTION # 135'74~ 30 00 47~6 QREEN'S TRAILER SUPPLY, INC. VEHICLE EQUIPMENT 135743 57 ~3 5387 GST TELECOM CALIFORNIA INTERNET SERVICES 135744 1,060. 00 4<< 135745 - 135745 137 gTE CALIFORNIA MONTHLY TELEPHONE BILLINGS # 135746 1,547.34 36564 GUINN, MARIA RECREATION REFUND # 135747 35.00 311&& HAFN£R, JANELL RECREATION 135748 75.00 311~7 HAGMAN, CINDY RECREATION 13574~ 45.00 569~ HARALAMBOS BEVE~AOE COMPANY RECREATION SUPPLIES 135750 5~.35 (lily Ill t~ANCtll} CUCAMON(~A I..i51 UI WANNAN[!~ RUN DATE: 01/27/99 V[iNDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT. ** CHECK# OVERLAP 51~9 HARRIS, JAMES I. REQISTRATION 135751 45.47 5909 HASTY AWARDS RECREATION SUPPLIES 13575~ ~54~ 11 465 HCS-CUTLER STEEL CO EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE # 135753 31165 HERMANCE, CAROL RECREATION # 135754 86.00 4724 HI-WAY SAFETY, INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135755 549.47 4845 HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH MONTHLY RENT 135756 1,000 O0 4811 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL RESERVATIONS 135757 158 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO ~ INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135758 1,488.65 485~ HOPKINS, LORI MILEAQE REIMBURSEMENT 135759 3~34 HOUSE OF RUTH 93/94 CDB~ CONTRACT 135760 613 00 161 HOYT LUMBER CO , S.M. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135761 3,047.89 495 HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS, INC LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 13576~ 75~. ~7 8~7 I C B.O. - CITRUS BELT CHAPTER ANNUAL MEMBERS~tIP DUES 135763 104 48 4~88 I D BURR MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 1357~4 5804 INACOM COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES # 135765 2,510 O0 3~184 INLAND CARE~IVER RESOURCE CFNTER MEETIN~ 13576& 15.00 ~031 INTEQRATED Q I S TECHNOI.[IQIF~ RECHEATII]N ~EFUND 135767 5,450 00 1471 IRON A~E CORPORATION SAFETY SHOES 135768 75 47 561~ ISA MEMBERSHIP 135769 115.00 ~1~ JAESCHKE INC , C R VEHICLE MAINTENANCE # 135770 311~ JANECEK, LINDA RECREATION 135771 40.00 31170 JONES, JAMES RECREATION 13577~ 40 00 ~0 KELLY PAPER COMPANY PAPER SUPPLIES 135773 195 33 31171 KINQ, STEPHANIE RECREATION 135774 67 50 6090 KONQ, SOPHAK BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135775 360.00 311~8 LACH, SHERI RECREATION 1357'7~ 60 00 193 LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 135777 18,343.61 3~1 LANDSCAPE WESt. INC LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE # 135778 31175 LAWRENCE, NANETTE RECREATION 135779 50 00 31174 i. AWSON, JENNI~ER RECREATION 135780 50.00 ~15 LFA~UE OF CAI IF CITIES INLAND EMPIRE DIV MEETIN~ 135781 50 00 ~17~ t. ENIJAN, SHARON ~ECREATION 135785 55.00 5~84 LILBURN CORPORATION PROFeSSIONAl SERVICES # 135783 Z~11~ I.OCKLEA~, SAND~A ~ECREA~ION # 135784 57.00 3117& LOVE, YVONNE RECREATION # 135785 4~. 50 31183 MANEKIA, ~ARAH RECREATION 135786 59.00 549 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE # 135787 40,497.55 47~7 MARSHALL PLUM~INQ REHAB PRO~RAM # 135788 403~ MEANS CO , R S , INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135789 90. 42 $0~ MEYER, PAT REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUPPLIES 135Z~0 50.00 ~198 MICHAELS STORES INC #301~ RECREATION SUPPLIES # 135791 194. 72 5&V6 MICRO FOCUS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 13579~ 694.99 585~ MIDWEST TAPE LIBRARY SUPPLIES # 135793 107.75 74~ MIJAC ALARM COMPANY ALARM SERVICES # 135794 5,495.00 ~104 MIND TO MIND RECREATION REFUND 135795 100 O0 ~8~0 MO~ILE MINI, INC S10RAQE SUPPLI£S # 13579~ 335. 11 3112Z MODEREfER, SUSAN RE(~REATION 135Z~7 5~. O0 ~117~ MONIS, QLORIA RECREATION 135798 48 O0 31180 MOORE, MARIANNE RECREATION 135799 45.00 31~78 MORALES, DAWN~LLA RECREATION # 135800 99.00 7184 MORRIS, CATHY REFUND PERS DEDUCTION 135801 165.81 LI¼l U! FOR PERIOD 01-27-99 RUN DATE: 01/27/99 PAGE VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR~ AMT. ** CHECK# OVERLAP 3)164 MOTEL ~ BUSINESS LICENSE 13580~ 35.44 2~48 NAPA AUTO PARTS VEHICLE MAINlENANCE 135803 141.07 2090 NBS-QOVERNMENT FINANCE QROUP ANNUAL MAINTENANCE 135804 2,500. O0 5473 NIQHTLINE SECURITY PATROL SECURITY SERVICE # 135805 ~09 0 C B REPROQRAPHICS, INC M~TROLINK 13580~ 4853 OCLC, INC. CORE SERVICES CHARQES 135807 38. ~5 <,J< 135808 - 135808 5~3 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES # 13580~ 3,051. ~8 579~ OFFICE SOLUTIONS SUPPLIES # 135810 ~42~ ON CALL COMPUTER SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135811 321 3~ 54~! ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 13581~ 135. ~ 235 OWEN ELECTRIC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 135813 ~,341.83 1441 PACIFIC BELL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135814 4~23 PAPER DIRECT, INC RECREATION SUPPLIES 135815 31182 PENDERQRAPH, LaDONN^ RECREATION # 13581~ 1~0. 50 ~002 PERERA, MICHELLE RECREATION REFUND 135817 3l]8! PHILLIPS, JULI~ RECREATION 1358]8 ~4. O0 31185 PlANALTO, DWANE RECREATION 13581~ 48.00 54~ PIP PRINFIN~ RECREATI0N SUPPLIES 1358~0 1~8. ~3 ~554 PITASSI, PETER .) ARCHITECTURAL PRO,)EC¥ 1358~1 2,910 85 6089 PITTS~ LISA RECREATION REFUND 135822 255 POMA DISTRIBUTIN~ CO VEHICLE MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES # 135823 395~ POMONA INL VALLEY CNCL 0~ C)(URCHES WEST END HUN~E~ PROgrAM 135824 ~5 PRUDENlIAL OVERALL SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 1358~5 37~ 479~! QUALITY SLACKS OF CALIFORNIA VEHICI. E SUPPLIES # 1358~6 301 411J ~4 M A OROUP SOIL TESTINO SERVICES 1358~! ~813 R C PHOTOQRAPHY & ASSOCIATES PHOTO SUPPLIES 135828 113. 14 ~4 RALPHS QROCERY COMPANY RECREATION SUPPLIES 1358~9 39 33 9~0 RAMIREZ, SANDRA Q COMDEX MEETINQ # 135830 100.20 &058 RANCHO SCREEN PRINT & EMBROIDERY RECREATION REFUND 135831 199.72 11~40 RATLIFF, CYNTHIA RECREATION REFUND 13583~ 18.00 545 RED WINQ SHOE STORE SAFETY BOOTS 135833 5hh5 REQULATION COMPLIANCE, INC TRAININ~ SERVICES # 135834 4,81&. 40 11~41 REMEDYTEMP, INC BUSINESS LICENSE .REFUND 135835 23.00 11~42 RHIM, CHOONHEE CLASS REIMBURSEMENF 13583~ ~0.00 11~43 RILEY, TERRENCE F , LAW OFFICES BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135837 5.00 11~44 RITE AID, THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC DUSINESS LICENSE REFUND # 135838 P7~ RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT PRINTS # 135839 105.77 11~45 ROBINSON-JULIUS, BERTHA RECREATION REFUNDS 135840 5~.00 5~4 ROQAN BUILDINQ SERVICES JANITORIAL SERVICE 135841 11~4~ RO~ERS, PAT~IC~ J , ATTORNEY AT LAW BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135842 51.00 11~47 ROTH, LANI RECREATION REFUNDS 135843 40,00 5538 SAN ANTONIO MAlERIALS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135844 53. ~7 1298 SAN ~ERN CO ASSESSOR'S OFFICE SUBSCRIPlION 135845 ~4.00 303 SAN ~ERNARDINO COUNTY ENQINEERINO OFFICE SUPPLIES 13584~ 200.00 11~48 SEALY, BERENICE STUDY WOR~ SHOP 135847 200.00 ~1101 SFFAC LIFT &FQUIPMENT CORPORATION SERVICE AND SLIPPLIES # 135848 ~,~08. 53 1H~'9 SHARED TECH FAIRCHILD TELECOM, INC lELEPHONE 512RVICES # 135849 780.4~ 11d4~ 5HAW, ~LANCA RECREATION REFUND 135850 45.00 351 SI~N SHOP, THE MAINT SUPPLIES m135851 ~05. 41 57~1 SILVERMAN & ASSOCIATES, DAVID SERVICE & SUPPLIES 13585~ 888.00 RUN DARE: 01/27/99 PAGE: VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR AMT. ** CHECK# OVERL,AP 4513 SIMON & SCHUSTER LIBRARY SUPPLIES 135S53 6884 1']27 SMART & FINAL DAY CAMP SUPPLIES # 135854 11250 SMITH BROS GLASS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135855 6.44 31~ 50 CALIF GAS CO MONTHLY GAS BILLS # 135856 5,984. 07 <<< 135857 - 135865 1432 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON MONTHLY ELECTRIC BILLS # 135866 10,597.48 57~2 SPECTRA COMPANY LABOR AND SUPPLIES 135867 830.00 11~51 SPECTRUM INTERNATIONAL MARKETING BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135868 11~52 STARKE, ~AYNE RECREATION REFUND 13586~ 50.00 2312 STATEWIDE REN~ A FENCE, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135870 973.00 5281 STERICYCLE, INC SHARPS PROGRAM # 135871 187.23 11~53 SUNRIDGE PINES RENTAL CONDOS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135872 8. 19 11~54 SUNSET POOLS ~ SPAS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135873 11255 TARBELL REALTOHS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 1~]5874 8.00 6076 TELEMANAGEMEN~ TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135875 850.00 11~56 TENNEY, NORA RECREATION REFUNDS 135876 65.00 ~4~ TERMINIX INtERNAtIONAL P MONTHLY PEST CONTROL SERVICE 135877 180 00 11~5Z THEISEN, IRENE RECREA]ION REFUNDS # 135878 42. 50 11~58 THOMAS, LA TONAYA RECREATION REFUNDS 13587~ 40.00 4351 TOBIN, RENEE RECREATION REIMBURSEMENT 135880 11~5~ TOMLINSON, KATHLEEN RECREATION REFUNDS # 135881 57 O0 I1~60 TREE OF LIFE WEST BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 135882 91 54 1~261 TROPEZ JANITORIAL SERVICE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 135883 38.74 5155 U ~ BANK TRUST LEASE PAYMENT # 135884 254,4~7 50 5155 U S BAN~ TRUST LEASE PAYMENT 135885 35~. ~5 5155 U S BANK ~RUST LEASE PAYMENT # 135886 ~,370 O0 4558 U S GUARDS CO , INC SECURITY GUARD SERVICE # 135887 1,807.34 ~077 U S IDENTIFICATION MANUAL BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 133888 58.80 350 U S POSTMASTER POSTAGE LANDSCAPE NEWSLETTER 135889 66.00 2~58 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION UMP SERVICES # 135890 ~, 144~00 3437 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORM SERVICES # 135891 44~.65 5~01 UNIGUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC MANAGEMENT SERVICES 135892 1, 188. 49 lt~2 UNITED PACIFIC PET BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 135893 10 64 48~ UPLAND, CITY OF MONTHLY WATER BILLING 1358~4 3,786.00 ~12~3 VICTORIA ANIMAL HOSPITAl_ BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 135895 11~4 VOSS, MARY RECREATION REFUNDS 135896 6000 1~265 WARREN, LAURA C BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 135897 19 60 t]~6 WATANABE, dUt IE RECREATION REFUNDS # 135898 3~. 50 ~13 WAXIE. KLEEN--LINE CORP MAINT SUPPLIES # 135899 4577 WEI.LS FARGO GUARD SERVICES SECURITY GUARD SERVICES # 135900 6,6~3.74 5526 WEST GROUP PUBLISHING 135901 482. 18 ~ 1~'~7 WHITEHEAD, SUSAN RECREATION REFONDS 135902 5& O0 11~6~ WILD, KATHY RECREATION REFUNDS 135903 55 00 47~6 WIRE WOR~S, ETC SUPPLIES 135904 50~ XEROX CORPORATION COPY MACHINE SUPPLIES/SERVICE # 135905 ~0. 53 112~ YOUNG, SALLY RENEWAL MEMBERSHIP 135~06 45. 00 1 ~70 YOUNGER, SHERYL RECREATION REFUNDS 135907 40.00 ~510 ZETTERBERG. BO~ REIMBURSEMENT 135908 34. 10 I ~44 ZUKOWS~I, CAROL RFCREATION REFUNDS 135909 45. O0 ** TOTAL 6~0,~4~.33 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 02~03-99 ¢9B/99) mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmemllmmmmmmmmimmmmmmmmmmmmlllmmmmlmmmmmmmmmmmmmlmlmmmlm RUN DATE= 02103/99 PAGE; VENDOR NAME ITEM OESCRIPTION WARR NO "'"'-----w-......,m... WARR. AMY. ~ CHECKJ OVERLAP 1135 AUTO SPECIALISTS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 135474e ((( 135475 - 135911 ))) 21063 7 UP BOTTLING COMPANY BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135912 9J.OT 4635 A ~ K PHOTOGRAPHy PHOTO DEVELOPING & SUPPLIES ~ 135913 40.45 I A A EQUIP#ENT RENTALS CO.,INC. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES 135914 115.12 2107, AAA RETAIL SALES LIBRARY SUPPLIES 135915 13.70 2732 ABC LOCKSHITHS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES · 135916 6,329.34 21065 AC! GROUPe THE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO 135917 9.00 3544 ACOUSTICAL MATERIAL SERVICES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135918 592.20 21068 AZR LZQUIDE AMERICA CORPORATION BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 235919 11075 ALONZO, SYLVIA RECREATION REFUND 135920 45°00 21066 ALTA VISTA MCBILE HOME PARK BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135921 59.98 1430 AMERICAN BUSINESS FORMS OFFICE SUPPLIES J 135922 60~2 AMERICAN RIGGING E SUPPLY CO.e INC. HAINTENANCE SUPPLIES a 135923 21067 ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES~ INC. BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO 135924 9.98 5321 APOLLO WOOD RECOVERY, INC. SUPPLIES & SERVICE # 135925 274.06 2437 ASSOCIATEO GROUP~ THE MONTHLY MAINTENANCE SERVICE 135926 155o16 · 102 B ~ K ELECTRIC ~HOLESALE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES e 135927 21069 B.G.S. COM~UNIT~ APPLIANCE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135928 21077 BARISNMANe HEIDI RECREATION REFUND e 135929 45.00 6111 BEMI$, GARY CASH ADVANCE 135930 100.00 6067 BERRYMAN & NENIGAR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 135931 5e880.00 · 441 BEST BUY CO., INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 135932 77°53 5817 BILINGUAL EOUCA?IONAL SERVICEs IaC. LIBRARY SUPPLIES 135933 1B.11 ~81 BLUE SHIELO/CARE AMERICA MEO~CAL PREMIUM 135934 4833 BOOKS ON TAPE~ ~NCo LIBRARY SUPPLIES 135935 1~0o85 536Z BOTTLE-FREE WATER C~3MPANy, INC. FILTERS $ 135936 S80.00 (¢( 135937 - 1359~7 4369 BROOART BOOKS LIBRARY SUPPLIES ~ 135938 6~033o54 21076 BRUNO, SONIA RECREATION REFUNO 135939 40°00 21070 CARNIELLO CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO 135940 21078 CAVANAUGH~ DIANE RECREATION REFUND 135941 80.00 I061 CHAMPION A~ARDS & $PECIALITIES ENGRAVED PLAQUE A 135942 346°96 488 CHEVRON U SAe INC GASOLINE CHARGES 135943 75°09 713 CHZCK'S SPORTING GoOOS INC RECREATION SUPPLIES I 135944 835°05 Z10T2 CIRCLE K STORE ~989 BUSINESS LZCENSE REFUND 135945 85.62 73 CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO, INCo VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/SUPPLZES 135946 159o02 914 CLAREMONT CAMERA [ VIDEO, INC. SUPPLIES/SERVICES 135947 266o13 3073 COLORAMA UHOLESALE NURSERY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 135948 162.63 24?0 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~ 135949 107~¢6 6~3 COHPUTERLANO COMPUTER MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES e 135950 873°50 2362 COMSERCO~ INC. SERVICE/REPAIRS # 135951 223o56 21071 CONSTRUCTION PROTECTIVE SERVICES BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO 135952 ((( 135953 - 135955 85 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST MONTHLY WATER BILLINGS I 135956 18,585~32 239 0 g K CONCRETE CO STREET MAINTENANCE 135957 315o17 Z512 DoA.R.E. A~EeICA DoA°RoEo MATERIAL 135958 337.06 3696 OAARY ENGINEERING COMPANY, IMCo BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135959 9.00 36567 DAVIS, JAMES S. BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135960 Z3.26 ~05 OERB%$N GUERRA : ASSOC. BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO 135961 5,0~ a39 O~ETE~CH ZNTERNATIONAL TRUCK VEHZCLE MAINTENANCE 135962 IA~.35 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF gARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 02-03-99 (98/99) RUN DATE: 01/03/99 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION gARR NO ~ARRo · e CHECKe OVERLAP 5744 OIRECT TV SUBSCRIPTION 135963 · g05 OTNAMIC GRAPHICSt IMCo OFFICE EQUIPMENT 135964 53.50 1421 ELECTRONICS ~AREHOUSE ELECTRONIC SUPPLIES 135965 3614 ELITE TOeiNG TOgING SERVICE 135966 90°00 36568 ETZYANO& REALTY BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 13596T 23.00 2Z9 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS IRRIGATION SUPPLIES a 135968 3Z6o89 36569 FASH, KEVIN RECREATION REFUNO ~35969 30.00 123 FEOERAL EXPRESS COPP OELIVER¥ SERVICE e ~35970 50.50 155 FILARSKT & ~ATT ~ONTHLY SERVICES 135971 262.50 3088 FIRST STOP MGTORSPORTSt ZNCo VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 135972 36570 FIRST STORY ~ORTG&GE CORPORATION BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO 135973 I00o53 36571 FISHERe #ICHAEL Ao BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135974 11o72 1840 FORD OF UPLAND, ZNCo VEHICLE MAINTENANCE $ 135~75 1t024.72 365T2 FOR#ICAt CRAIG T. BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135976 06.~0 108Z FRANKL]N COVET CO. OFFICE SUPPLIES a 135977 5~33 FRITTS FORO EQUIPMENT ~35978 15~553.7! 6074 FUKUSHIMAt JUDITH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 135979 555°00 74~ FUNOSELECT DE;ERRED COMP 135980 Zt10~oO0 57~7 GA#E RO0# GALL£R¥ RECREATION SUPPLIES 13598I 4463 GLOBAL ~QUIP~ENT C OIqPANY OFFICE EQUIPMENT ~35983 35t-S~ 3657~ GOLOEN STATE FIRE PROTECTION REFUND 135985 56.25 3507 GOVERNING SUBSCRIPTION e ~35986 30°00 650 GRAINGERt ~.~. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES Z35987 ZO.T7 38Z7 GREEN ROCK PO~ER E~UIPMENT ~A~NTENANCE SUPPLIES e ~5988 1~2o14 ~6~75 GRIFFIN ~NOUSTRIES BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 135959 ((¢ 135990 ~ 135990 ~37 GTE CALIFORNIA HONTHLT TELEPHONE BILLINGS e 135991 3t711o86 ~86 GUARDIAN MEDICAL PREMIUM 13599Z 672.00 ~6576 GaINCO CONSTRUCTION E ENGINEERING BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO 135993 5699 HARALAM~OS BEVERAGE COMPANY RECREATION SUPPLIES ~35994 634.50 31195 HOIERt SANDRA RECREATION 135995 48°00 ~611 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL RESERVATIONS 135996 329.29 48~ HOLIOA¥ INN HOTEL RESERVATIONS ~35997 329~9 ~58 HOLLIOA~ ROCK CO.t ZNCo MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~359~8 65o71 31gO0 HUANGt ROSA RECREATXON ~35999 103 ! C M A RETIREMENT TRUST-457 OEFERREO COMP 136000 755.d0 · 188 I.D. BURR MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES t ~36001 23~.11 5881 ~CMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 40! 01 a 136002 66265o~5 6114 INFO LINE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND I36003 177.00 195~ INLAND EMPIRE STAGESt LTOo TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 136004 814o00 · 747 INLANO LIBRARY SYSTEM MEMBERSHIP DUES 136005 334.70 3452 INTRAVAIA ROCK &SANO MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 136006 40°00 11064 duDON ANOERSON GENERAL CONTRACTOR BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO 136007 18.00 3t189 JOTS FOR US. INC. BUSINESS LICENSE 136008 7°42 179 KAISER FOUNOATION HEALTH PLAN MEOICAL INSURANCE I36009 3~91 KELLET BLUE BOOK NE~ CAR PRICE MANUAL # 136010 163o~0 1~8 KNOX MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 136011 57.15 6090 KgNG~ SOPMAR BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO 136011 193 LAXRO CONSTRUCTION CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 136013 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF gARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 02-03-99 (98/99) RUN OATE: 0Z/03/99 PAGE: VENDOR NAME ITEH DESCRIPTION WARP NO HARR. O0 CHECKA OVERLAP 3119& LAN&NER, CAMERON RECREATION 13601* 200.00 849 LA~SON PROOUCTSe ZNCo MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 136015 264.22 31196 LEVZt CHRISTINE RECREATION 136016 24°00 31190 LINVZLLE CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND OUSIN~SS LICENSE 136017 23.00 5662 LOS ANGELES COCA COLA BTL. CO. RECREATION SUPPLIES 136018 376o0~ 31199 LOVE, KIN RECREATION 136019 80°00 49~1 LUCKETT ROOFING CO. MAINTENANCE 136020 lt600o00 91187 MADOUXt ATTY AT LAWt JOHN C. BUSINESS LICENSE 136021 5.01 31192 MAGNON ENGINEERING, INC. BUSINESS LICENSE 136022 92°*2 549 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT.INC. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ~ 136023 31~01 MATERIAL OAMAGE APPRAISAL CLAIM SETTLEMENT 13602* 116o13 31191 MATTRESS 01SCOUNTERS CORPORATION BUSINESS LICENSE 136025 17.7, 5203 MATERe COBLE & PAL#ER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 136026 31.25 1025 MC NASTER-CARR SUPPLT COMPANY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 136027 36.03 21,6 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS MAINTENANCE 1360Z8 ~1198 MORALESt OA~NELLA RECREATION 1360Z9 60.00 1020 HOUNTAIN VIE~ GLASS & MIRaOR ~A~NTENANCE SUPPLIES ~36010 ?5°00 ZZ~8 NAPA AUTO FARTS VEHICLE HAINTENANCE I 136031 819.18 593 NATIONAL NOTARY AS$OCZATTON NNA MEMBERSHIP DUES 136032 433 NI~ON-EGLI E~UIPMENT VEHICLE MAINTENANCE e 136033 929.53 31193 NOBLE PLASTIC, INC. BUSINESS LICENSE 13603* 23.15 ~(( 136035 - 136035 523 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES ~ 136036 2,920.05 ~35 O~EN ELECTRIC HAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 136037 12.11 1441 PACZFIC BELL HAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 136038 56.81 31197 PAKt HEE JUNO RECREATION 136039 30.00 4223 PAPER OZRECT~ ~NC. RECREATION SUPPLIES 1360,0 21073 PARALLEL PRO£UCTS BUSINESS LICENSE 136041 60.7~ &*99 PARK SPECZALITIES MAINTENANCE SERVICE & SUPPLIES 136042 84t929o07 598~ PARTS PACIFIC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 1360,3 90.08 5*09 PARTS#AS?ERe ~NCo MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 13604* 134o73 757 PEP BOYS VE~ICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES · 136045 43.05 3293 PERFORMANCE AUTO BODY VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 136046 763.85 455* PITASSIt PETER J. ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT 136047 507.72 6089 PITTSt LISA RECREATION REFUND 136048 16~o00 ~91 PHI/DELTA CARE MEDICAL INSURANCE 1360,9 1~170o2, 255 POMA DZSTR19UTZNG CO VEHICLE MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES ~ 136050 1049 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES e 136051 30936 POTTERt MELISSA RECREATION 136052 100.00 758 PRAXAIR O[STRIBUTIONe [NCo MAZNT/RECREATION SUPPLIES 136053 96°30 31188 PRECISION B~DMEOICAL SERVICES BUSINESS LICENSE 136054 11o25 5688 PRIMA CALZFORNIA CHAPTER #EMBERSHIP DUES 136055 50.00 3286 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL ME:ICAL/OISABZLZTY INSURANCE 136056 65,656.18 6112 PaOMETHEUS BOOKS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO 136057 2&.77 65 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES a 136058 11.01 5599 QUALTXY ONE ENGRAVERS OFFICE SUPPLIES 136059 11272 R C CITIZENS AGAINST SUBSTANCE aBUS PROGRAH SUPPORT 136060 1,000o00 26~ RALPH$ GROCERY COMPANY ~ECREATZON SUPPLIES 136061 ~7.77 228 RANCHO CUCA REDEVELOPHENT AGENCY REIMBURSE GRANT FUNDS 136062 11271 RANCHO CUCANONG~ CARPET & VINYL BUSINESS L~CENSE REFUNOS 136063 102.9~ 70 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER HE~bEaSHZP ~EETING i 13606~ 400.00 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 02-03-99 (98/99) VENDOR NaME ITEM DESCRIPTION ' - WAR: NO dARR. AMT. ~e CHECKe OVERLAP 6058 RANCHO SCREEN PRINT [ EMBROIDERT RECREATION REFUND [36~5 65.95 ~[30 RBM LOCK & KEY SERVICE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES e [36066 tIZ74 REEO~ JOHN DA~E GRADUATION SPEAKER [36067 5914 REXEL CALCON ELECTRTCAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES # 136068 1,032.32 1[~73 REYES~ MONICA RECREATION REFUNDS I36069 ZOO.00 56[8 RICHARDS~ WATSON, [ GERSHON LEGAL SERVICES # 136070 23,51).33 11275 RIGGIO, SAMUEL RECREATION REFUNDS I360T[ 31.00 626 ROBLES~ RAUL P., SR. TIRE REPAIR e [36072 [09.00 6[[3 RgDOG PROOUCTIONS RECREATION REFUND [36073 5~6 ROESCH LINES TOUR BUS [3607~ 20.00 ~T04 RUSH, CHRIS [NSTRUCTO~ PAYMENT [36075 [')5.00 [ZgZ 5 [ S ARTS AND CRAFTS RECREATION SUPPLIES e 136076 4047 S E W PLASTICS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 138077 11276 SADDORIS, SHERRI REIMBURSEMENT [3607d 34. e5 11277 SAFEGUARD BUSINESS SYSTEMS bUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 1360T9 57~5 SAFEL[TE GLASS CORP. SERVICE AND SUPPLIES 1360~0 2~3.80 301 SAN BERN CO SHERIFFS CONTRACT SHERIFFS SERVICE # ~36081 303 SAN ~ERNARDINO COUNTY ENGINEERING OFFICE SUPPLIES 136081 200o00 581 SAN BERNAROIN3 COUNTY CAL-ID PROGRAM a 136083 58~617.2& SO[9 SAN BERNARDINO CDUNT~ FTRE DEPT. UNCERGROUND TANKS [3608~ Z~t535.ZS S~&2 SAN OIEGO PCLICE EQUIPMENT POLICE SUPPLIES I36085 11278 SANTA CLARa MARRIOTT HOTEL RESERVATIONS 136086 1~279 SAPPHIRE REALTY BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 136087 23.00 11280 SERRAIOCCOe ENIO RECREATION REFUNDS 136088 ~8o00 112~1 SETM~ NEERU RECREATION REFUNOS 136089 100.00 1829 SHARED TECH. FAIRCHILD TELECOM~ INC TELEPHONE SERVICES 136090 351 SZGN SHOP, THE MAINT SUPPLIES 136091 40.8~ ~513 SIMON & SCHUSTER LIBRARY SUPPLIES e 136092 5~8.96 692 SIR SPEEOY OFFICE SUPPLIES 136093 820.38 I~27 SMART ~ FINAL DAY CAMP SUPPLIES I 136094 247.35 11182 SMITH, CECILIA RECREATION REFUNDS 136095 ~0.00 11283 SOCRATES FINANCIAL BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 136096 10.00 (<< 136097 - 136101 1432 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON MONTHLY ELECTRIC BILLS e 136102 5722 SPECTRA COMPANY LABOR AND SUPPLIES 136103 1,563o00 1[28~ STRANAHANe WALLI JEAN RECREATION REFUNDS 136~04 ~T33 SUNRISE FORD AuTO SERVICE & SUPPLIES a 136105 68.1~ 2344 TARGET YOUTH PROGRAM & DAY CAMP SUPPL * ~36106 238.09 2344 TARGET YOUTH PROGRAM & DAY CAMP SUPPL · 136107 ~7.70 3942 TER#INIX XNTERNATZGNAL P MONTHLY PEST CONTROL SERVICE # [36[08 I65oO0 5455 TTPECARE TYPEWRITER REPAIRS [36[09 10.78 5155 U.S. BANK TRUST LEASE PAYMENT I36[[0 60,346.08 4558 U.S. GUARDS CO., INC. SECURITY GUARD SERVICE 136111 1,0Z5.03 3437 UNIFZRST UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORM SERVICES · [361[Z 482.40 4206 UNIQUE CREATIONS iST AID KITS 136113 119.97 11285 UNISOURCE APPARELE~HOOL SUPPLIES BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNOS 136114 13.59 5233 UNISTRUT SUPPLIES 136115 4,956,50 1226 UNXTEO PARCEL SERVICE UPS SERVICE · 136116 105.a~ Z6~Z UNITEO STATES POSTAL SERVICE POSTAGE METER MONTHLY SERVICES 136117 &iS00.00 489 UPLANOt CITY OF MONTHLY WATER BILLING 136118 3t7~6.00 · 99 VISION SERVICE PLAN - (CA) MONTHL~ VISION SERVICE BILLING ~36119 Bt916.95 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF OARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 0Z-03-99 C98/99) RUN DATE: 02/03/99 PAGE: VENDOR HAME ITEM OESCRIPTION ~ARR NO ~ARR,. ANT. ~0 CHECKI OVERLAP 5870 VLS¥STE#Sp INC. COMPUTER HAROMARE ~78 ~ARREN & COo~ CARL LIABILITY CLAIMS 136ZgI 55.~ &OOZ WASTE MANAGEMENT WASTE MANAGEMENT d 136122 503.70 223 WAXIEp KLEEN-LINE CORP MAINT SUPPLIES 136223 6Zo61 ~577 WELLS FARGO GUARD SERVICES SECURITY GUARD SERVICES J 136~Z~ Z,252o00 55Z6 WEST GROUP PUBLISHING 236~25 39.76 11286 ~NITTE~ORE ENTERPRISESt INC BUSINESS L~CENSE REFUNDS ~36126 ~5.70 ]~Z87 ~ORO OF LIFE MINISTRY RECREATION REFUNOS ~36~Z7 ZOODO0 509 XEROX CORPCRATION COPY MACHINE SUPPLIES/SERVICE e 136128 le605.38 ~Z88 ZELESKY PRESENTATIONSt GARY PRES~TATZON FEE ~36129 ~,500o00 ~e TOTAL CITY OF RANCHO CL."'CAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Dale B. Catton, Facilities Supervisor SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AUTItORIZE Tile ADVERTISING OF Tile "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR PAINTING AND EXTERIOR STUCCO REPAIR TO THE SPORTS FACILITY TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NUMBER 25- 4285-7043. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve plans and specifications for painting and exterior stucco repair to the sports facility and authorize the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids". BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Pursuant to evaluation by Public Works Maintenance staff, it was determined that painting and stucco repairs are necessary to extend the life of the facade of the sports facility. During the evaluation, it was noted that repair of the sealant at the windows is necessary to effectively complete this project. The Engineer's estimate for the project is $36,000 Funds are budgeted in this fiscal year budget. Respectfully su.bmitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:DC j RESOLUTION NO. '~ ¢~t~d~ ^ aZSOnU~,ON O~T.Z C~TY COUNC, L O,~.Z C~W O~ aaNC.O Ct, C^~,ONG^ ^P~'aov, r,,c P,.^NS aN,. SPECIFICATIONS FOR TIlE PAINTING AND EXTERIOR STUCCO REPAIR TO TIlE SPORTS FACILITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS Wt!EREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WtIEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council has prepared specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, TIt ERE FORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for the "PAINTING AND EXTERIOR STUCCO REPAIR TO THE SPORTS FACILITY". BE IT FURTIlER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS i!EREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council will receive atthe OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK IN THE OFFICES OF THE CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA, ON OR BEFORE Tile HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON MARCH 16, 1999, sealed bids or proposals for the "PAINTING AND EXTERIOR STUCCO REPAIR TO THE SPORTS FACILITY" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council, California, marked, "BID FOR PAINTING AND EXTERIOR STUCCO REPAIR TO TIlE SPORTS FACILITY". A Pre-Bid Job Walk is scheduled for Tuesday, March 9, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. at the stadium, 8408 Rochester Avenue, Rancho' Cucamonga, Califomia, 91730, where bidders may present questions regarding the Bid Documents: Plans, Proposals, Specifications. Tills MEETING IS MANDATORY. Verification of attendance at the Pre-Bid Job Walk will be documented by signing Resolution No. Page 2 in at the meeting. Any bidder not documented as being present at the Pre-Bid Job Walk will be excluded from the bid process. PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of Califomia Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles I and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day' or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provision of said Labod Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code conceming the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public works project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will beused in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio ofone to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 o£ its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. Resolution No. Page 3 The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, ifany shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be one hundred percent (100%)of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Resolution No. Page 4 Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess any and all contractors licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; including bt not limited to a Class "C- In accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) And rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the"California Business and Professions Code", Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council on file in the Officeof the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is nonrefundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional nonreimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, reserves the right to reject any and all bids. Questions regarding fids Notice inviting Bids for Painting and Exterior Stucco Repair to the Sports Facility may be directed to: Dale Catron, Facilities Supervisor 9153 Ninth Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2700, ext. 2094 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Lucinda E. Hackett, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE"NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT REHAB ILITATION - OVERLAY, TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 32-4637-9113. RECOMMENDATION: It is hereby recommended that the City Council approve specifications for the construction of the Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation - Overlay for various local streets and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids". BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation - Overlay for various local streets, the scope of work to be performed consists of, but is not limited to clearing and grubbing, cold planing, crack sealing, A.C. overlay, re-striping and pavement markings. The project is to be funded from Measure 'T' funds, Account No. 32-4637-9113. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt per Article 19, Section 15301(c) of the CEQA guidelines. The Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation - Pavement Overlay specifications have been completed by staff and approved be the City Engineer. The Engineer's estimate for the project is $397,000. Legal advertising is scheduled for February 23, 1999, and March 2, 1999, with bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 16, 1999. William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LEH:Ieh Attachments See "B" UPLAND ONTARIO AREAS FOR PAVEMENT REHAB - OVERLAY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~Nt 998/99PAVEMENT REHABII.ITATION LOCATION MAP N.T.~.~, ",,,,,,,,,",,,,,~ - 0.10'COLDPLANE&0.10'A.C. OVERLAY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -,--...~ ' 1998/99 PAVEMENT REHABII,ITATION ~N_-~~ MAP "A" N .T.S. ~,/ ~w~.~,~ - O.10' COLD PLANE & 0.10' A.C. OVERLAY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ 998/99PAVEMENT REHABILTTATION * MAP "B" N.T.s. ~ t HIGHLAND r ~'"~'~t ~ II ~~~ - 0.10' COLD P~NE & 0.10' A.C. OVERLY 1998/99 PAYMENT RE~ILITATION MAP "C" ~.~.~. ~ RESOLUTION NO. 9 ~- O~ 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for "THE LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - OVERLAY". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution ofthe Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the said the City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 P.M. on March 16, 1999, sealed bids or proposals for the "LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - OVERLAY" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of"LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT REHAB ILITATION - OVERLAY". PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles I and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Directorof the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the offic?,of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section t 775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, ,35 or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the pro- visions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 ofthe Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires tha Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public works project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to joumeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, Califomia, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of Califomia having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least ten percent (10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess any and all contractors licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) or Class "LICENSE" in accordance with the provisions ofthe Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code", Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications ofthe City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is nonrefundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional nonreimbursable payment ors ! 5.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractoffs sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, reserves the right to reject any and all bids. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 17th day of February 1999. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this 17TH day of FEBRUARY 1999. William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debbie J. Adams, City Clerk ADVERTISE ON: February 23, 1999 and March 2, 1999 / CITY' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF iREPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor, Members of City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Ingrid Y. Blair, GIS/Specia l)istricts Supervisor SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTIONS MODIFYING TIlE ENGINEER'S REPORT AND CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENTS TO COMPLETE CAPITAL PROJECTS ON 4t~ STREET FROM UTICA TO PITrSBURGH AVENUES,WITHIN THE BOUNDAR1 ES OF AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FORMERLY KNOWN AS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 82-1R (6'~ STREET INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT), AND TO APPROPRIATE $687,200 FROM FUND 93 (AD 82-1R) ACCOUNT NO. 93-4130. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve tile resolutions modifying the Engineer's report and confirming the assess~nents for the completion of capital projects on 4~' Street from Utica to Pittsburgh Avenues, within the boundaries of an assessment district formerly known as Assessment District No. 82- ! R (6* Street Industrial District).' BACKGROUND Prior to Assess~nent District No. 82-1R defeasance on September 2, 1998, staff audited the funds associated with tiffs district and detemfined that after the final debt service payment is ~nade, a fund balance will result. Staff contacted Bond Counsel for an opinion on utilizing the re~naining ~nonies to perform additional work that would benefit the owners of property within the district boundaries. On the recommendation of Bond Counsel, staff hired the original Assess~nent Engineer, Willdan Associates for an evaluation to determine if the proposed project was within the scope of the original intent of the district formation. Willdan Associates concun'ed that file project would not deviate from the original Resolution of Intention and under staff's instructions, prepared a Modified Engineer's Report. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT February 17, 1999 Page 2 Currently, funds within the Redemption Fund totals $687,199. This lnoney will be used to reconstruct pavement on 4th Street ti'om Utica to Pittsburgh Avenues, consisting of rmnoval and replacement of AC pavement, cold planning, curb rmnp on the northwest corner of Milliken, adjust valve covers, adjust ~nanhole covers striping and traffic control. Design of this project is scheduled to begin in February, 1999 through April, 1999. Advertise and award of contract will be in May, 1999 with the actual construction June, 1999 through August, 1999. The Engineering Depart~nent has reviewed the Modified Engineer's Report and concur on project and scope of work to be performed. Respectfully submitted, O'Neil City Engineer WJO:IYB Attaclunents: Resolution No. 99- Resolution No. 99- RESOLUTION NO. 99- ~7)fi ? A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCttO CUCAMONGA ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TItERETO CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 82-1 (6TIt STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) WHEREAS, on May 19, 1982, this Council adopted Resolution No. 82-92, A Resolution of lntention to Order the Construction of Certain Improvements known as Assessment District No. 82-1 (6th. Street Industrial Areal} hereinalter referred to as the "District"; and WHEREAS, in the proceedings under and pursuant to said Resolution, the Engineer's Report was adopted and an assessment was confirmed and levied by Resolution No. __ adopted on , 19 ; and WttEREAS, in the proceedings under and pursuant to said P, esolution, serial bonds to represeut the unpaid assessments were issued in the manner provided in the "Imp,'ovement Bond Act of 1915" being Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, the "Bond Act" the last bond payment of which was made on September 2, 1998; and WHEREAS, after the last bond payment was ~nade there were funds remaining in the redemption thnd; and WHEREAS, the Bond Act provides that funds remaining in the redemption lhnd account may be proportionately credited upon the final instalhnents due upon the assessments securing the bonds and repaid to those whose assessments have previously been paid or may be transferred to the general fi~nd; and WHEREAS, the fi. mds identified as remaining in the redemption fund were net ot'm~y amount necessary to make the final debt service payment on the bonds; and WttEREAS, such surplus funds were derived from the payments made by the owners of property within the District and interest earnings on such funds and, theretbre, this City Council determines that it is appropriate that the timds benefit the properties within the District; and WttEREAS, the legislative body has requested that any remaining fi2nds be translk:rred to the general ruud and be made available for improvements to the existing district; WHEREAS, the legislative body desires to order the changes and modifications hereinafter described in the Modified Engineer's Report which pertain to and/or effect said District; aud RESO NO. 99 .... Page 2 WHEREAS, the changes and moditications hereinafter ordered will not increase the total amount of the assessment or the amount of any individual assessment nor eliminate or add any acquisitions or work which will substantially and adversely alter or affect the benefits to be derived fi'om the work and acquisitions; and WHEREAS, the public interest, convenience and necessity require the changes and modifications hereinafter ordered: and WHEREAS, the Assessment Engineer has filed with the City Clerk proposed revisions to the Engineer's Report as preliminarily approved by this Council, to wit: a revised estimate of costs. NOW, THEREFOP, E, the City Council of the City of P, ancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve, determine and order as lbllows: SECTION 1. That changes and modifications be made in the Estimated Construction Cost Summary, and the Description of Work as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of hereof and that the costs of such changes and modifications to the improvements be paid from the surplus funds remaining in the redemption fund for the bonds of the District. PASSED, APPP, OVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of , 1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 99-~ ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADOPTING TIlE MODIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENTS, AND ORDERING THE WORK CFFY OF RANC}10 CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 82-1 (6Ttt STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) WHEREAS, on May 19, 1982, this Council adopted Resolution No. 82-92, A Resolution of Intention to Order the Construction of Certain hnprovements known as Assessment District No. 82-1 (6th. Street Industrial Area) hereinafter referred to as the "District" and in it directed the Superintendent of Streets to make and file a report in writing in accordance with and pursuant to the Municipal improvement Act of 1913; and WHEREAS, on ...... 1999, this Council adopted Resolution No. _ ..... A Resolution Ordering Changes and Modifications to the original Engineer's Report; and WHEP, EAS, the modified report was made and filed, and considered by this Council and found to be sufficient in every particular, whereupon it was determined that the report should stand as the Engineer's Report for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to the Resolution of Intention; and WHEREAS, this Council hereby acquired jurisdiction to order the improvement modifications. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Ranclio Cucamonga does hercby resolve, determine and order as follows: I. Tile public interest, convenience, and necessity require that the improvements be made. 2. The district benefitted by the improvements. 3. The modified Engineer's Report as a whole and each part thereot; are hereby approved and confirmed to wit: (a) the plans and specifications for the proposed improvements; (b) the engineer's estimate of tile itemized and total costs and expenses of the improvemc~t, and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith; (t) the diagram showing the asscss~ncnt district and the bonndarics and dimensions off tile respective subdivisions of land within the district; RESO NO. 99- Page 2 (d) the apportionment of tile total amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several subdivisions of land m the district in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by the subdivisions, respectively, from the improvements, and of the incidental expenses thereto; and 5. Final adoption and approval of the modified Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications, estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram and the apportionment of costs, as contained in the modified Engineer's Report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and al)ply to the Engineer's Report, or any portion thereof, as amended, modified, revised, or corrected by, or pursuant to and in accordance with this resolution heretotbre duly adopted or made by this Council. 6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, including the Engineer's Report, oft~red and received, this Council expressly finds and determilles (a) that each of the several subdivisions of land will be specially benefitted by the additional improvements. PASSED, APPROVED AN[) ADOPTED this __ day of , 1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA) 1, , DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and Ibregoing Resolution was duly Y () F R A N (~ H O C [..! ('A M ON G A STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council, Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager // FROM: Diane Young, Records Coordinator ~_~L~ SUBJECT: Destruction of City Records RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution authorizing the destruction of City Records pursuant to California Government Code Section 34090 and the City's Records Retention Schedule. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS These requests for records destruction come from the City Manager's Office, the office of record for the cable television reports, and from the MIS/GIS/Special Districts Division. The requests have been reviewed and approved for destruction by the Department representatives and the City Attorney. The records listed in the attachments to this report have met their retention requirements as set forth in California Government Code Section 34090 and the City's Records Retention Schedule. DMY (Attachments as noted) RESOLUTION NO. 99-*** O~ O A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS SET FORTH IN CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090 AND OTHER APPLICABLE LEGAL REFERENCES WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain City records of the City Manager's Office and MIS/GIS/Special Districts have been retained in compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local statutes; and WHEREAS, said City records have met their useful life and are no longer required for public or private purposes: WHEREAS, destruction of said records is necessary to conserve storage space, increase staff productivity, and maintain conformance with the City's Records Management Policy; and WHEREAS, said records as listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto have been approved for destruction by the City Attorney; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: j.~dQi~LI~ That approval and authorization is hereby given to destroy those records described as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Resolution No. 99-*** Page 2 That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17rd day of February, 1999 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing 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 17rd day of February, t999. Executed this 17rd day of February, 1999, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk //5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Approval and Authorization To Destroy Paper Records and/or Documents I have inspected the following records/documents and recommend/request that they be destroyed. These records have not been stored in the City's Records Center and are not listed in the City's Automated Records Management System (ARMS); therefore, destruction is requested outside the scope of the annual ARMS generated destruction process. Description of Records/Documents (Include Beginning and Ending (Inclusive) Dates of Record Title Code from Records Retention Records / Documents (Mo/Yr) Schedule when applicable) De ~artment Approval City Attorney Approval (if required) {aat re Date (~ ~,.,) ,~gnature Date Council Approval Date (if required) Destroyed by: Signature Date P, M Rcx~scd 1198 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Approval and Authorization To Destroy Paper Records and/or Documents Department: MIS Requestor: Debbie Espinosa I have inspected the following records/documents and recommend/request that they be destroyed. These records have not been stored in the City's Records C~nter and are not listed in the City's Automated Records Management System (ARMS); therefore, destruction is requested outside the scope of the annual ARMS generated destruction process. Description of Records / Documents (Include Beginning and Ending (Inclusive) Dates of Record Title Code from Records Retention Records / Documents (Mo/Yr) Schedule when applicable) 2040.1 Resource Serv. Chron Corresp. Jan. '93 - Dec. '93 MIS, Spec. Dist. & GIS Department Approval City Attorney Approval (if required) Signature Date ., ~gnature " ' Date Council Approval Date (if required) Destroyed by: Signature Date R.M. Revised 11/98 q7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Approval and Authorization To Destroy Paper Records and/or Document~ Department: MIS Requestor: Debbie Esp~nosa I have inspected the following records/documents and recommend/request that they be destroyed. These records have not been stored in the City's Records Center and are not listed in the City's Automated Records Management System (ARMS); therefore, destruction is requested outside the scope of the annual ARMS generated destruction process. Description of Records / Documents (Include Beginning and Ending (Inclusive) Dates of Record Title Code from Records Retention Records / Documents (MoP/r) Schedule when applicable) " 2040.1 Resource Serv. Chron Corresp. Jan. '94 - Jan. '95 MIS, Spec. Dist. & GIS Department Approval . City Attorney Approval (if required) Signature Date /2t~- ' Date Council Approval Date (if required) Destroyed by: Signature Date R.M. Revised [ 1/98 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Approval and Authorization To Destroy Paper Records and/or Documents Department: MIS Requestor: Debbie Espinosa I have inspected the following records/documents and recommend/request that they be destroyed. These records have not been stored in the City's Records Center and are not listed in the City's Automated Records Management System (ARMS); therefore, destruction is requested outside the scope of the annual ARMS generated destruction process. Description of Records / Documents (Include Beginning and Ending (Inclusive) Dates of Record Title Code from Records Retention Records / Documents (Mo/Yr) Schedule when applicable) 2040.1 Resource Serv. Chron Corresp. Jan. - Dec. '95 MIS, Spec. Dist. & GIS Department Approval City Attorney Approval (if required) Signature ~ Date ~'i~gnature Date Council Approval Date (if required) Destroyed by: Signature Date R.M. Revised 11/98 CI'I"Y ()F RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY TIlE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF'S WEST VALLEY SEARCII ANB RESCUE TEAM TO WAIVE TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FEE IN CONJUNCTION WITH TIlE ANNUAl, 5/10K FUN RUN EVENT ON APRIL 24, 1999. BACKGROUND: The City has received a letter from Rick Fontana, Fund Raising Coordinator and member of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's West Valley Search and Rescue Team. This non-profit organization is planning their annual special event ofa 5/10K Fun Run to be held on April 24, 1999, at Chaffey College, and is requesting the Temporary Use Permit fee of $68.00 to be waived. All proceeds fi'om this event will benefit the community during future search and rescue operations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends waiving the $68.00 Temporary Use Permit fee in conjunction with this event. Resp.kct ,fully sub~.tted, i-p-!cnt D1 cctor RG/js~ Attachment West Valley Search & Rescue 8780 19th Street #475 · Alta Loma, CA 91701 Rick Gomez City of Rancho Cucamonga 1/28/99 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 Dear Mr. Gomez, The San Bernardino County Sheriff's West Valley Search and Rescue Team will be holding their annual fund raising event April 24, 1999, at Chaffey College. This event is a 5K/10K run/walk and Safety-Fair. West Valley Search and Rescue is a non- profit, 100% volunteer organization. Our run will begin at 8:00 a.m. and the Safety-Fair will start at 9:00 a.m. The Safety-Fair will take place inside the college stadium and refreshments will be available to attendees. We would like to apply for any needed permits at this time. If any permit/use fees are required, we would appreciated if those fees could be waived. As a non-profit organization, funds are at a premium. Enclosed is our 1999 event flyer and a course map. I can be reached at (909)980-4746. Thank you, Rick Fontana, Fund Raising Coordinator West Valley Search and Rescue A volunteer organization dedicated to sauing li~'es through rescue and mountain safety education West ¥allev Search and Rescue 5/ $K & ' tO I$ Cexcepl Kiddie · Post Race Refreshments ·!OK Trophies to Top 3 IViales & Females · 5K Trophies 5 Deep pet' Diulslon · 5K U/alk is Non*Compefitiue, It's · Medals to ,gZZ'Kiddle K Parli~r~t~' For Fun! There ~i!l.be lots of re~cue items and ri~s on display. Saturday, April 24, l~J~9 Mth demonstrations .Ihrou~out the day. Charley College Campus Plan to spend some time with 5885 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. Race Times This is a 6:30 ~I.M. - Prerel~ s~acke! Pick up SANCTIONED EVENT and Race Day Re~islrafion. 8:00 ~I.M. !OK Run 8:~0 ~i.M. 5K Run/~alk Proceeds benefit the San Bernardino Count}' Sheriff's Department West Valle}, Search and Rescue Team .Entry Form Co~¥ as neede~ .Entry Fees Mail completed form with check payable to: ..5/! 8K Run ~ 5K Walk West Valley Search and Rescue, Attn: Fun Run, 8780 19th St. #475, Alta Loma, CA. 91701 If postmarked before 84/li5;/gg . After S4. on race City State Zip Kiddie K $~8.88 Phone Age on 4/24/~999 Birth date Entry Fee: Gender: [] Female [] ~aJe Tax deductible donation: $ {Optional) Event (¢heck one): ~-15K Run []~OK Run []SKWalk [-] Kiddie K TOTAL ENCLOSED: $ Division: (C~ec~ one): [-]17 & Under I-'h8 - 29 [-']30 - 39 [] 40 - 54 ['-155 & Up Waiver (Must be signed): Ir~lv~al($) from responsl~Ry for aAy k)sse8, IAlury O~ C~aOes I may ~er as a resufi of my par~c~)a:Jo~ In aa.Lc~ aChle~c event I ~ere~/t~at I have fu~ knoof ~he ftsks I~vo~v in fee Ii non re~ur~Jlble argl bib numbers are non-lraz~sfera~e. AS a Da~pa~! In ~t$ ever, I Certify t~at ~! tt~ Informatlo~ Ifi I~ fo~m Is true and correct. I ~ave ~ea~ ~e envy fom~ ~o~na~k~A fo~' Ihe ev~ ~ cedlfv my COml~a~'tce below. Signature of participant (Parent or Guardian's signature if participant is under 18 years of age) Date CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager, FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 (MODIFIED), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE, BETWEEN UTICA AVENUE AND RED OAK STREET, SUBMITTED BY PUBLIC STORAGE, INC. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Development Review 97-38, located on the south side of Arrow Route, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street, in tile General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, was approved by the Planning Commission on January 28, 1998, for the construction of a public mini-storage facility consisting of five buildings totaling 77,860 square feet on 2.96 acres of land. On September 15, 1998, tile Design Review Committee approved a modification to tile project for three buildings totaling 70,897 square feet. Tile applicant requested tile elimination of two buildings to rcconfigure the site plan to comply with ADA accessibility requirements. Tile Developer, Public Storage, Inc., is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $10,000.00 Labor and Material Bond: $ 5,000.00 Copies of the agreement and security are available in tile City Clerk's Office. A letter of approval has been received from Cucamonga County Water District. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Res ~pe~gJ,ctively submitted, cWiitI) a.¢,Jbi~cOirNCi' WJO:PV:sd Attachments PUBLIC STORAGE SITE ROU If VICINITY MAP NT$ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAYlONGA ENGINEEKING DIVISION ~ DR !) 7- 38 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 (MODIFIED) WItEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement by Public Storage, Inc. as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the south side of Arrow Route between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property referred to as D.R. 97-38 (Modified); ,and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TItE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2 That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to fom~ and content thereof by the City Attorney. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3BND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 (MODIFIED) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed ,,a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 , being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. I and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IIEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXtlIBIT "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGI:~kM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 ~ / t ARROW ..... SITE 1 CITY OF RANCliO CUCAMONGA ~.T.~. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 (MODIFIED) STREET LIGHTS: NUMBER OF [.AMPS Dist. 58001. 95001. 16,000I, 22,000I. 27,500L S1 *2 S6 LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Dist. D.G.S.F. S.F. S.F. Ea. L3B 5 * Existing items installed with original project (PM 10237). DR 97-38 (modified) will add 5 street trees only, per City Drawing No. 1340 Rev. 4. ASSESSMEN'[' UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel DU S 1 S2 L3B 1 6 3 3 Annexation Date: February 17, 1999 Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager, FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Henry Murakoshi, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR MDR 97-19, LOCATED AT 10900 FOURTH STREET, SUBMITTED BY W9/WLA REAL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving MDR 97-19, accepting the subject agreement and security and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS MDR 97-19, a proposed parking lot of old General Dynamics office Building, located on the north side of 4~h Street, between Utica Avenue and Cleveland Avenue, was approved by the Planning Commission on October 21, 1997. The W9/WLA Real Estate Limited Partnership is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements. Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's office. Respectively submitted, City Engineer WJO:HM:sd Attachments V J C J.l~ J'I'Y NJAI' PROJECT SITE I 8tl~ srrcEl:[ I~ tl CI'I'Y 01" I;,AHCIIIO CUCAMOH(;A COUN'I'Y Ol,' ~AN 1tI';It, NAIt, DINL) MDR 97-19 S'I'A'I'E G)I,' CAL, il,'OI(INIA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR MDR 9'1-19 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed by the W9/WLA Real Estate Limited Partnership as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on 4th Street between Utica Avenue and Cleveland Avenue; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to Planning Commission, Minor Development Review 97-19; and NOW, THEREFORE, TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2 That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approwd as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY Henry Murakoshi, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR ALL INTERIOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND SIGNALIZATION AT TERRA VISTA DRIVE AND CHURCH STREET, ROCHESTER AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD, MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, RELATED TO TENTATIVE TRACT 15072, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD, SUBMITTED BY KAUFMANN AND BROAD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the subject agreement and security related to Tentative Tract Map No. 15072 and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. I~ACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tentative Tract Map No. i 5072, generally located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road, was approved by the Planning Commission of the 24'h day of June, 1998, for a residential subdivision of 545 single family lots on 90 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential Designation within the Terra Vista Community Plan. The Developer, Kaufman and Broad of Southern California, Inc., a California Corporation, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the improvements in the following amounts. Faithful Performance Bond: $4,050,000 Labor and Materialmen Bond: $2,025,000 Copies of the agreement and security signed by the Developer are available in the City Clcrk's office. Respectfully Submitted, Willi("~~ah~J. O'Neil~ ~Q'~ City Engineer WJO:HM:sd Attachments VICI. IN ITY IVIAI' CI'I'Y 01,' It, AHCIIO CUCAIVIOI'q(;A COUIN'I'Y O1,' $AH I/,I'.;RFIAIt, DIHO ~5'1';\'l'1'.; 01" CAiolI"OIt, HIA RESOLUTION NO. q q- ~,~ q A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR ALL INTERIOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND SIGNALIZATION, RELATED TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15072 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 15072, submitted by Kaufman and Broad of Southern California, Inc., a California Corporation, consisting of 545 lots, generally located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on June 24, 1998; and WHEREAS, Kaufman and Broad of Southern California, Inc., a California Corporation, desire to commence construction on all interior street improvements, parkway improvements and signalization at Terra Vista and Church Street, Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road, Mountain View Drive and Milliken Avenue related to Tract 15072 prior to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City and provide an hnprovcment Agreement guaranteed by acceptable hnprovement Security, by Kaufinan and Broad of Southern California, Inc., a California Corporation, as developer; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said hnprovement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to Tentative Tract Map No. 15072. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY R[:.SOLVES that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City Clerk to attest. TAFF >" ' I)ATL:: I:cb 't ary 17. 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of lhc (lily Council .lack Lain, AICP, ('itv Manager FROM: William J. ()'Nell, City I~nginecr Michael I). I,ong, Sup¢ 'visin~ Public Works Inspoclor SUBJECT; APPliOPI/IRTI~ $30,000.00 I:I/OM TI-11~ f;IIND BAI~ANCI~ ()F IA)CRI~ MEA~! 'I;E I I:L/ND 32 T() BI'i I>I,ACEI) IN IX)CAL Mf~ASI/RI:~ I I:[JNI) ACCOIJNT NO. 32.-,1637- 9707, AWARI) ANI) AIITI t()RIZE T} IE EXECUTI()N OF TI IE CONI'RACT ]r'~ I'11E AM()IJNT ()F $223,919.41 ($203,563.10 PLUS 10% (;()NTINGENCY) FOl( 'l'llE CONS'lRIJ('TION ()F '1'1 I1:~ F()IIRTll STREI~T RI~] IAftIIATA'I'ION PRO.IECT, FR()M 2~3m WEST ()1: SAN'I'A ANITA AVENIlE TO ~77'l- I~AST ()F SANTA ANITA AVENUI~ ~1'(~)Ttlf~ APPAI{I']NT IA)W BIDI)EI~ ~1'O I3E FUNI)I~I) FROM PROI~ Ill FIIND A('('()TINI' N(). 10-.1637-9707 ($219.969.41) ANI) MEASIJRI~ I FTJNI) ACC()[INT N(). 32-,1637-.9'71)7 ($3,950.1)0) RECOMMENDATION: It is ,-¢conullcr~clcd that the City Council axx ard aild authorize Ibr execution the contract lbr the Fourth Street RehabiliTation Pr([ject, fi'on~ 32.3'~ west of Santa Anita AvenL~e to 2277'& east of Santa Anita AveliLle, to the Iowcst responsible bidder, All American Asphalt in the alnoLlnl ol'$223,919.41 lo be funded ti'om lb'. ,p 11 I Fund Account No. 10-4637-9707 ($2 J 9.g69.41 )and Measure I Fund Accotrot No. 32-4637-9707 ($3,950.00). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on Fcbruary 9, 1999, lbr thc su~jecl prqicct. The Engineer's estimate was $268,940.00. Staff has reviewed all bids received and tbund them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required baclqgrotm~l investigation and linds all bidders to meet lhe requirements of the bid docun~ents. Respect fi~llv submitted, William ~ ~'Ncil City Engineer WJO:MDI~:Is Attachment ' 4TII ~ PAVBMgNT I~ATION ~ LOCATION MAP ,,.~.~.~., CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND A REQUEST TO SUMMARILY VACATE A PORTION OF CARNELIAN STREET BOTH IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT OF CARNELIAN STREET FROM VIVERO STREET TO I000 FEET SOUTHERLY RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving a Maintenance Agreement between the City and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, authorizing the City Clerk to attest and the Mayor to sign said agreement, ordering the summary vacation of the portion of Carnelian Street, and authorizing the City Clerk to cause a certified copy of the resolution and exhibits to be recorded, both resolutions in conjunction with the proposed realignment of Carnelian Street from Vivero Street to 1000 feet southerly. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The Engineering Division is currently in the design phase of a project to improve the safety of Carnelian Street south of Vivero Street by increasing the radius of an existing curve. This realignment requires the acquisition of a small amount of right-of-way from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) shown on Exhibit "C". In return, the City will vacate a small surplus amount of street right-of-way to SBCFCD shown on Map V-162. Also, some additional slopes are being created by the realignment; therefore, the City has agreed to the maintenance of these slopes. The Maintenance Agreement allows the City access to these slopes through SBCFCD property. On January 13, 1999, the Planning Commission made a finding that the vacation conforms with the General Plan. STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 17, 1999 RE: VACATION OF A PORTION OF CARNELIAN STREET Page 2 Section 8333 of the Streets and Highways Code states local agencies may summarily vacate a public service easement, if for a period of five consecutive years, the easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired. A copy of the Maintenance Agreement is available in the City Clerk's Office. Respectfully submitted, w,2 J. City Engineer WJO:JAD Attachments: Vicinity Map Exhibits "A" and "B" - Legal description and plat Resolution (Maintenance Agreement) Resolution (Vacation) Vacation Map EXHIBIT "A" PROJECT LOCATION N.T& VICINITY MAP 7/ __ [[AS ELINE 1' C.S.M. WITH BRASS PER MB 132/78-80 CONTROL ~ OF CARNELIAN IMPROVEMENTS CURVE 0ATA R=1200.00° 2 95' 4-'I 9' R=800.00' 1292.86'I 561.47'J LOT 3 MB 21/33 / AREA TO BE DEDICATED 1~ CITY 0.13 ACRES MORE (]E L] / ~ LOT 10 \/ ~ OC Me 21/33 ~ PLAN VIEW / LOT 4 1% AREA TO BE VACATED 0.03 ACRES MORE OR LESS OF TERMINATION DATE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12/23/98 FII~ NO. CARN~!,IANST. / CUCAMONG~ C]~kNNEL~,,,~..o. PI, .TMAP - EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has for its consideration a Maintenance Agreement between the City and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD), in conjunction with the proposed realignment of Carnelian Street from Vivero Street to 1000 feet southerly; and WHEREAS, the Maintenance Agreement is for the construction, operation and maintemmce of slopes for portions of the proposed Carnelian Street realignment project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that said Maintenance Agreement be hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Maintenance Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. RESOLUTION NO. ? ¢ - 0 ~:~ ~' ^ council RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF CARNELIAN STREET WHEREAS, by Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 8333, of the Streets and Highways Code, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is authorized to summarily vacate a portion of Carnelian Street in conj unction with the proposed realignment of Carnelian Street from Vivero Street to 1000 feet southerly; and WHEREAS, the City Council found all the evidence submitted that the portion of Carnelian Street being vacated is unnecessary for present or prospective purposes, has not been used for more than five (5) consecutive years, and has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1: That the City Council hereby makes its order vacating the portion of Carnclian Street, as shown on the Map labeled "V-162" on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which has been further described in a legal description and plat which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and "B", and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2: The subject vacation shall be subject to the reservations and exceptions, i fany, for existing utilities on record. SECTION 3: That from and after the date the resolution is recorded, said portion of Carnelian Street will no longer constitute public service easement. SECTION 4: That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution and exhibits to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. SECTION 5: That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution, and it shall thereupon take effect and be in force. __ ~ASELINE ROAD, 1" C.S.M. WITH BRASS DISC, PER MB 1,32/78-80 CONTROL LINE ~, CENTERL OF CARNELIAN IMPROVEMENTS CURVE DATA CURVE A I R 2 oT. 95' 4-1.L89' F IO2'O0'00" R= 12OO.OO' 0 ,40' 12'44" R=800.00' 292.86' 561.47' LOT 3 MB 21/33 PLAN VIEW LOT 4 1 "= Me 21/33 1" C.S.M. WITH BRASS DISC, STAMPED P.I. PER MB 1,32/78-80 AREA TO BE VACATED 0.03 ACRES MORE OR LESS lINT OF TERMINATION DATE FILE NO. CARNEI,IAN ST. / CUCAMONGA CHANNEL D,c. ,~o. VACATION MAP V- 162 EXHIBIT "A" That portion of Carnelian Street as shown on Red Hill Subdivision, as per plat recorded in Map Book 21, page 33, records of San Bernardino County, lying Westerly of a line that is parallel with and 63.00 feet Westerly of the following described control line: Commencing at a one-inch County Surveyor's Monument with brass disk, as shown on Tract 9157, as per plat recorded in Map Book 132, page 78, records of said County, said monument being on the centerline prolongation of Carnelian Street, distant South 0°10' 10" East, 1827.26 feet from the centerline intersection of said Carnelian Street with Baseline Road as shown on said Tract Map 9157; Thence South 01 °10'10" East, 30.36 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Easterly, having a radius of 1200.00 feet, said point being the Point of Beginning; Thence Southerly 41.89 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 02000' 00"; Thence South 03 o 10' 10" East, 453.33 feet; Thence Southwesterly 561.47 feet along a tangent curve, concave Easterly, having a radius of 800.00 feet and a central angle of 40° 12'44" to the Point of Termination, said point being distant, South 44°36'38" East, 140.93 feet from a County Surveyor's Monument with brass cap stamped "P.I" as shown on said map of Tract 9157. Containing 0.03 acres more or less. I __ ~ASELiNE R_.OA0 I' C.S.M. WITH BRASS ,lSC. PER MB 1:32/78-80 CONTROL LINE-- OF CARNELIAN IMPROVEMENTS CURVE DATA lCURVEI ~' I R 2~9s' ,~,.~89' I F 102'0o'oo" I R- 1200.00' LOT ,3 [ G I40'12'44" I R=800.00' 292.86' 561.4T MB 21/33 / PLAN VIEW LOT AREA TO 8E VAC 0.03 ACRES MORE OR LESS INT OF TERMINATION DATE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FII~ NO. CARNEI,IAN ST. / CUCAMONGA CHANNEL DWG. NO. PT,AT MAP - EXHIBIT B CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS (SANBAG) AND THE CITY OF RANCltO CUCAMONGA FOR THE UNDERGROUND STORM DRAIN CROSSING ACROSS THE SOUTttERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (SCRRA) RAILROAD, GENERALLY LOCATED ON ETIWANDA AVENUE 600 FEET SOUTH OF WHITTRAM AVENUE FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-16 BY AMERON INCORPORATED RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, accepting the subject License Agreement and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said License Agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS A special Improvement Agreement, with terms to complete within specific times certain Etiwanda Avenue street and master planned storm drain improvements, was approved by the City Council on November 2, 1994. A one-year extension to said Agreement for the construction of the street and storm drain improvements was approved by the City Council on May 21, 1998. A separate standard Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security to guarantee the construction of the said Etiwanda Avenue improvements for Development Review 94-16 was approved by the City Council on April 19, 1995. The developer, Ameron Incorporated, is required to construct the master planned storm drain on Etisvanda Avenue between Arrow Route and 6'h Street. The developer is planning to begin construction after this year's rainy season. SANBAG requires that the City enter into a License Agreement for the storm drain installation and crossing at the railroad right-of-way and for any future maintenance of the storm drain. The developer will furnish all labor and materials and bear all costs for the storm drain construction, including a one time basic license fee of $1,000.00. Copies of the License Agreement is available in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully Submitted, City Engineer WJO:PV:sd Attachments RESOLUTION NO. ~- ~.~- 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-16, STORM DRAIN INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE ON SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENT RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration a License Agreement by San Bernardino Govemments (SANBAG) for the improvement of public right-of-way on, over, under, across and along the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on Etiwanda Avenue and SANBAG railroad property 600 feet south of Whittram Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California entered into a special Improvement Agreement on November 2, 1994, with Ameron, Inc., as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on Etiwanda Avenue between Arrow Route and Sixth Street; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements described in said special agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with and subject to the terms of the Improvement Agreement Extension approved by City Council on May 21, 1998, and the standard Improvement Agreement approved on April 19, 1995, all tbr Development Review 94-16; and WHEREAS, said License Agreement is required by SANBAG for the construction and future maintenance of that portion of storm drain improvements crossing under SANBAG railroad right-of-way, which are identified in said License Agreement and Improvement Agreements; and WHEREAS, said License Agreement requires payment of a one time license fee in the amount orS1,000.00, which Ameron, Inc., as developer, agrees to pay as consideration for the right granted and identified in said License Agreement. NOW, TIlEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that said License Agreement is hereby approved, and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement Extension on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City Clerk to attest thereto. CITY ()F RANCHO CI JCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Michael D. Long, Supervising Public Works Inspector SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 14376, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCItI';RIA AND RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVES, SUBMITTED BY LONGWELL INVESTMENTS, INC. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, accepting the subject Improvement Agreement Extension, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Improvement agreement and improvement security to guarantee the construction of the public improvements for Parcel Map 14376, was approved by the City Council on November 20, 1991, in the following amom~t: Faithful Performance Bonds: $16,200.00 Labor and Material Bonds: $8,100.00 The developer, Longwell Investments, Inc., is requesting approval ofa 12omonth extension on said improve~nent. The project is located at Rancheria and Red Hill Country Club Drives. Copies of the Improvement Agreement Extension are available in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, City Engineer WJO:MDL:is 7/ A I~.ESOI 2JT1ON ()F THE CITY COUNCII, ()1: TI tE CITY OF RANClIO ('IJCAMONGA. ('AI,IFORNIA. A pl~ I~,(')V] N (~ 1M i~1{() V!:;MEN'I' A(; RI~;EMI:,NT I~XT[!NSION f:OR I'ARCF~I. MAP 14376 W! tEREAS~ the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Calitbrnia. has ibr its consideration an hnprovcment Agreement Extension executed on January 20, 1999, I.ongwell im,estments. lnc. lbr the improvclncnt of public right-ol~way ac[~accnt to the real property specifically described therein. and generally located at the northwest comer of Rancheria and Red I lill Country Club Drives and WttI~REAS. the installation of such improvements. described in said hnprovement Agreement and suhiect to the terms thetooL is to be done in co~}unction with the development of said Parcel Map 14376: and WI IEREAS. said Improvement Agreelnent Extension is secured and accolnpanicd by good and sufficient improvement security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement Extension. NOW. Tt 1E R EF() R IL the City Council of the City o ['Rancho C ucamonga, Cal ilbrnia, hereby resolves. that said lmlmwCmCnt Agreement Extension and said improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said hnprovement Agreement Extension on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City Clerk to attest thereto. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICF', City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer / SUBJECT: RELEASE THE MAINTENANCE BOND FOR DR 96-21, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUFFALO AVENUE AND SAN MARINO STREET, SUBMITTED BY OLTMANS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City CLerk to release the Maintenance Bond for DR 96-21. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Developer: Oltmans Construction Company 10005 Mission Mill Road Whittier, CA 90608 Release: Maintenance Bond B275 00 36 $11,550.00 Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB:Is C1'1'",' ()F RANCI 1() S T A F F R E P O R T DATI'.': February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council .lack Lain. AICI), City Manager lrROM: William J. ()'Ncil, City Engineer BY: I,inda R. Beck, Jr. Engineer ~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT IMIH~()VI{MI]NTS, I{ELEASI] TtlF: FAITIll:Ill, P[~RFORMANCE BONDS, ACCI]I'T MAINTI:.NANCI~ BONDS AND FII,I{ A NOTICE OF COMPIAZTION FOR IMI'ROVEMENTS FOR 'I'RACTS 13279, 14534, 14534-1 AND -2, SUBMITTf~I) BY WILLIAM I,YON 11OMES, INCORPORATED, I,OCATED ON TI IE S()[JTI lEAST C()I{NILI{ ()F' ROCI 1t~STER AVF;NUI] AND VICTORIA PARK I,ANI~, RECOMM EN DATION: The rcquircd improvements Ibr Tracts 13279, 14534.14534. - I and -2 have bccn completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City 15~ginccr to file a Notice ol'L'omplction and authorize the ('ity ('lcrk to release the Faithtiff l~crtbrmancc l~onds and accept N, laintcmmcc lionds. BACK(; RO UNI)/A NA LYSIS: As a condition ofapproval o{'complution of'l'racts l~7g 14~4, 14__~4-I alld -2 thc applicant was required to complete street improvements. The improvements have bccn completed and it is recommended that City Council release the existing Vaithfifi l>crtbrmancc Bonds and accept Maintcnancc Bonds. DI~VEI,OIH]R: William I,yon Ilomcs, Incorporated 4490 Von Karman Avenue Newport llcach. CA 92660-2008 REI,EAS[2 Tr 4534 Faithlhl l~crlbrmancc Bond 3SM9106490() $234,300.00 Tr 4534-1 Faithlhl l~crlbrmancc tlond 3SM9081()90() $108,300.00 Tr 4534-2 I:aithlhl Pcrfimnancc tgond 3SM9081100() $ 609.1()0.00 Tr 4534-2 Faithlhl l~crlbrmzmcc litrod 3SM90811300 $ 125,700.00 Tr 4534-2 Faiththl l~crfi)rmancc }gond .~SM908112(}0 $ I )4,.~00.00 Tr .~.7 ? I"aiththl t)crfi)rmancc l~ond 7132212-M $ 1 ~S,040,00 MAYOR. MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL..lACK LAM FEBRUARY 17, 1999 PAGE 2 RE: TRACTS 13279, 14534, 14534-1 AND--2 ACCEl'T: ,6_.0>5.00 Tr 13279 Faithful Pcrfimnancc Bond 7132207-M $ ? ~ ' Tr 13279 l:aitht~l Pcrlbrmancc I~ond 71 .~,,0g-M $ .~0.~,>> ).00 Tr 14>.~4 Maintenance Bond 3SMgl0649(}0 $ _.~,4.~0.00 Tr 143.~4-1 Maintenance I~ond oSM )081090(} $ 10,go0.00 '['r 14304-2 Maintenance [~ond .~SM )081 I()()0 $ 60,910.00 " * ' ' 9 ' ).4~0.00 Tr 143.~4-_ Maintenance Bond .~SM 0811200 $ It ' Tr 14>M-_ Maintenance Bond 3gMt)()81 I.~()() $ 12,570.00 Tr 13279 Maintenance Bond 7132212-M $ 15,504.00 Tr 13279 Nlaintcnancc Bond 71 a~_()7-NI $ 36,205.00 Tr 13270 Maintenance l~ond 7 I.~__08-NI 5 .~(),o. ). )0 Respectfully submitted, Wi ~,u, ~ W.I():I,RB:Is SO ,UnON NO. q ?.- t03 q A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACTS 13279, 14534, 14534 -1 AND -2, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Tracts 13279, 14534, 14534-1 and -2, have been completed to the satisfaction ofthe City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Lucinda E. Hackett, Associate Engineer Michael D. Long, Supervising Public Works Inspector,?/,4~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE HAVEN AVENUE REHABILITATION, FROM FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO BASE LINE ROAD, CONTRACT NO. 98-043, AS COMPLETE, RELEASE THE BONDS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND APPROVE THE FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $303,361.05 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the Haven Avenue Rehabilitation, from Foothill Boulevard to Base Line Road, Contract No. 98-043, as complete, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, and retain tile Faithful Performance in tile amount of $297,743.20 to be used as tile Maintenance Bond and authorize tile release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of $297,743.20 six months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received. Also, authorize the release of the retention in the amount of$30,336.11,35 days after the approval ofthe final contract amount of $303,361.05. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to tile satisfaction of the City Engineer. The final contract amount, based on project documentation, is $294,794.35, which includes 2 contract change orders in the amount of $715.00 for additional striping and permits from other agencies. The original amount approved by Council was $327,517.52. Respectfully submitted, Willi~(.~/J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LEtt/MDL:Is Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 9 q "~)/'//0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR HAVEN AVENUE REHABILITATION, FROM FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO BASE LINE ROAD, CONTRACT NO. 98- 043 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for the Haven Avenue Rehabilitation, from Foothill Boulevard to Base Line Road, Contract No. 98-043 has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bemardino County. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: WITHDRAWN APPLICATION FOR TAXICAB SERVICE PERMIT BY ONTARIO CAB COMPANY Advertised for tonight's City Council meeting was a public hearing to consider an application from Ontario Cab Company for a taxicab service permit. Ontario Cab Company has since withdrawn their application and has not indicated a date at which to have the matter considered. Because the application has been withdrawn, there is no need for the City Council to hold the hearing. Should Ontario Cab Company request another hearing, the matter will be re- advertised and brought to a subsequent meeting. Respectfully submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475- ALLARD ENGINEERING -Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map, including design review, for the development of 66 single family lots on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - ^PN: 200-051-07 and 55 through 57. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council deny the applicant's appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the requested time extension. BACKGROUND Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 and its Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) were originally approved in November of 1992. Since that time, the project received several time extensions which extended the approval of the map until November 18, 1998. In February of 1998, the Planning Division notified the applicant that the subject property is within a habitat which may be affected by federally listed endangered or threatened species. Therefore, a time extension would be a discretionary action, subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and would require a new Initial Study, including a habitat assessment of the site by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The applicant requested and received clarification of the process in July of 1998. The applicant submitted a time extension request in October of 1998, but did not include any biological information. The complete biological report was not received until January 11, 1999, just a few days pdor to the Planning Commission hearing on January 13, 1999. At that headng, the applicant requested a 90-day extension to address environmental issues. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TE FOR TT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING February 17, 1999 Page 2 The Planning Commission headng focused upon two critical concerns: 1. There was evidence that environmental impacts may be substantially more severe than previously identified in 1992. 2. The developer waited too long to address environmental issues, which caused insufficient time to carry out procedures and respect the CEQA and the State Subdivision Map Act time limits. The Planning Commission expressed concern that the developer did not make a responsible effort to address, in a timely manner, the endangered species and habitat issues raised in February and to comply with procedures. Commissioners indicated they did not feel 90 days would be sufficient time to address all the issues. Commissioners also felt a 90-day time extension would set an undesirable precedent. The Planning Commission adopted the Resolution of Denial on a 5-0-0 vote. The Resolution and Minutes from that meeting are attached as Exhibits "C" and "D." The applicant filed an appeal on January 14, 1999 (Exhibit "A"). He contends that the Planning Commission's decision was not based upon fact or a legal basis adequate for denial. The applicant states that staff was not adequately prepared in their presentation, items that could have been clarified were not, and input and testimony was allowed that was not pertinent to the map extension. ANALYSIS A time extension request is a discretionary action subject to CEQA. The Planning Commission determined there were unresolved environmental issues and that the CEQA process was not completed. The Planning Commission's Resolution of Denial includes a series of facts supporting their decision. Denial for lack of compliance with CEQA is appropriate and legally adequate. The applicant's contention that staff was not prepared, items were not clarified, and irrelevant testimony was allowed, mischaractedzes staff's efforts and the public's interest in the project. Staff provided the developer notice of habitat and species issues nine months before the map was due to expire. The citizens that submitted correspondence and testified before the Planning Commission were exercising their right to express concerns at a public hearing. The appeal letter is vague and does not cite any specific information that needed clarification, does not indicate what public testimony the applicant feels was irrelevant, and does not challenge any specific findings of fact in the Resolution of Denial adopted by the Planning Commission. OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The subject site is located at the northwestern comer of the City, with the City limits line on three sides. The site consists of an upper mesa, lower mesa, and the Cucamonga Canyon wash. Residential development was approved on the upper and lower mesas; the wash was to remain as permanent open space. The greatest issue concerns approximately 58 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat on the mesas which would be eliminated by development. Coastal sage scrub habitat is considered a sensitive habitat in the State of California. The applicant's biologist testified in writing and orally that the loss of the 58 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat would be a significant environmental impact. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TE FOR TT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING February 17, 1999 Page 3 Significance of the Habitat The coastal sage scrub habitat on this site differs from other sites in the City in a number of unique and significant ways. The significance is derived from various factors, including: Linkage to Permanent Open Space: The habitat on this site is connected with permanent open space land in the San Bernardino National Forest and Cucamonga Canyon. The site is actually a private-inholding within the boundaries of the national forest. One-fifth of the site (24 acres) is within the Cucamonga Canyon, which is located within the Open Space District of the City. Major Landform Features: The site has major slopes, cliffs, and water features of rare caliber in the City. There is a 750-foot elevation difference between the northeast and southwest corners of the site. Properties with slopes exceeding 8 percent are considered hillside. On this site, 26 percent of the land area (23.7 acres) has slopes between 15 and 30 percent and another 11.6 percent (10.6 acres) has slopes greater than 30 percent. There are 150-foot high, near vertical cliffs along the canyon walls. The site includes a portion of Cucamonga Creek, a natural water source which makes the habitat more valuable for wildlife resources. Flora and Fauna: The site contains pristine (undisturbed by agriculture or weed-abatement) coastal sage scrub habitat, particularly on the upper mesa. The January 1999 Final Biological Report shows the habitat supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife and plants and notes it is considered to be high quality. Although the federally listed gnatcatcher and kangaroo rat were not found on the site, the report identifies that the site is occupied by three sensitive species classified as California Species of Special Concern: · Ashy rufous-crowned sparrow · Bell's sage sparrow · San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit In addition, the report identifies six other California Species of Special Concem that have a moderate to high occurrence probability on the site: · Plummer's mariposa lily · Parry's spineflower · San Diego banded gecko · San Diego horned lizard · Coast patch-nosed snake · Vaux's swift · Loggerhead shrike In all, there are three confirmed sensitive species and potentially as many as nine sensitive species occupying the site at this time. Regional Importance: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states in its letter dated January 13, 1999, that the project site possesses high value for multi-species reserve design. The property supports several unlisted sensitive species proposed to be covered under the Multi- CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TE FOR 'IT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING February 17, 1999 Page 4 Species Habitat Conservation Plan, which was initiated in 1995 and which the City is a participating agency. The Service believes this project may preclude preservation options for proposed covered species and for viable contiguous reserve design. Though recent surveys have not detected the endangered California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat, the Service feels suitable habitat remains on the site to benefit these species in the long term. The Service concludes that the effects to the regional planning of habitat preserves and the possible long-term effects to listed species have not been adequately addressed (Exhibit "H"). Final comments by the Service were not available at the time this report was prepared. Completeness of Biological Information The California Department of Fish and Game states "the confirmed presence of several bird and reptile species that are California Species of Special Concern suggests the Department needs to fully evaluate the project, as these species meet the CEQA definition of "rare" pursuant to Section 15380" (Exhibit "G"). This causes a particular concern, since CEQA guidelines require that impacts to rare or threatened species be addressed in an environmental document and significant impacts to them be mitigated. No mitigation is approved or proposed for these newly-identified sensitive species. Gerald Braden, a biologist for the San Bernardino County Museum, submitted a letter which provides a different biological opinion of the site than presented by the applicant's biologist. Mr. Braden suggests the biological report submitted for the project is incomplete and may be misleading. Mr. Braden cites more recent sightings of the endangered kangaroo rat and gnatcatcher based upon the Museum's research and study plots on this matter. He states the proposed project is within the known and histodc distributions of the endangered kangaroo rat. Mr. Braden disagrees with statements that the coastal sage scrub habitat on the site is marginally suitable for the California gnatcatcher. He states a successful Valley Multi-Species Plan will have obvious benefits in reducing conflicts between the environment versus development issues while reducing the need for Federal and State involvement in local issues. However, the plan is becoming more problematic because of the fact that critical habitats are steadily being lost, one project at a time. In summary, Mr. Braden feels misleading and incomplete biological information could lead to the illegal take of endangered and/or threatened species, the loss of a significant biological resources, and damage to the development of a successful Valley Multi-Species Plan. The Planning Commission acknowledged there may be diffedng opinions on what species are present on this site. However, the Commission was concerned that there was no tangible, defined mitigation for their consideration. Chan.qed Circumstances Since 1992 When the Subsequent EIR was prepared in 1992, the circumstances were quite different than what is presented above. Most importantly, both the California gnatcatcher and the San Bernardino kangaroo rat were listed as threatened and endangered species, respectively,after the Subsequent EIR was certified as adequate. Further, the area of remaining sensitive coastal sage scrub habitat in the region has shrunk from development dudng the intervening seven years. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TE FOR TT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING February 17, 1999 Page 5 In the 1992 project, the Planning Commission specifically wanted to know what the project impacts would be on sensitive species. The biologists conducted additional field surveys in the spring of 1992. The sensitive California gnatcatcher (now endangered) was not found; but one scat from the sensitive San Diego horned lizard was found. The July 8, 1992, Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit "E") summarizes the findings of the spring surveys and indicates the presence of the lizard on the mesa is not felt to be significant because the primary habitat of the lizard would be within the Cucamonga Wash. The report states "In addition, no other sensitive/endangered plant or animal species was observed on the mesas." The "inventory" of species on the mesas was again studied at the City Council headng, where the environmental consultant prepared a point-by- point response to assertions of sensitive species on the mesas. The biologist's conclusion at that time, was the only sensitive species on the mesas which would be negatively impacted by development is the aforementioned lizard and that these impacts would not be significant because of available lizard habitat nearby. Ultimately, the project was granted approval based upon evidence, at the time, which supported that all significant environmental impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Based upon the contrast between the 1992 and 1999 biological information and circumstances, and the lack of proposed specific mitigation measures by the applicant, the Planning Commission felt habitat and sensitive species issues were not adequately addressed. There is a question of whether mitigation should include preservation of sensitive habitat onsite or providing replacement habitat elsewhere. Other Potential Environmental Issue Areas At the Planning Commission headng, members of the public raised concerns about other environmental impacts. Many residents were not involved in the 1992 project and essentially were inquiring how major impacts were to be addressed. Residents expressed concern that the site is located in a high hazard area which exceeds Fire Department and Police response times. Residents questioned the water reservoirs proposed for the development, which are located adjacent to an earthquake fault. Several residents said they were fearful of flooding if the water tanks rupture in an earthquake. The 1992 Subsequent EIR analyzed natural hazards, public safety, and water reservoirs in great length. The document calls for numerous mitigation measures, including fuel modification zones, a helipad for forest service fire suppression, fire-related building upgrades, two water reservoirs, and a pump station. The water reservoirs described in the 1992 document are above-ground steel tanks, 24 feet in height, one with a 1.0 million gallon capacity and the other with a 0.5 million gallon capacity. The Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD) felt seismic impacts could be addressed with proper construction techniques and containment areas. However, the body of knowledge about earthquakes and construction techniques has increased tremendously since 1992, and particularly since the 1994 Northridge quake. It should be noted that CCWD currently envisions water tanks somewhat different than those previously described. The present vision is for two tanks with 2.0 million and 0.5 million gallon capacities, respectively. The larger reservoir would be constructed primarily below grade. CCWD also indicates that the recently collapsed reservoir in the City of Westminster was a "sectional" constructed concrete facility, where concrete sections are individually poured and placed in a framework. CCWD does not utilize this method for construction; reservoirs planned for the site would be pre-stressed concrete. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TE FOR TT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING February 17, 1999 Page 6 It is likely the Planning Commission would recommend that other environmental issue areas be updated or possibly revisited in an environmental document if the time extension were to be approved. Staff recommends that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared. PROJECT REVIEW MEETING In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding for the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, the City held an "interim project meeting" on January 5, 1999, to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Fish and Game, and the County of San Bernardino on this project. The Service and Department indicated that the site appeared to have high value for multi-species reserve design and that it may be an important wildlife corridor. Both agencies requested copies of the Final Biological Report, which was not completed at that time. The County did not respond; however, as previously mentioned, the County's biologist did comment upon the Final Biological Report. CORRESPONDENCE This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. The Planning Commission received a neighborhood petition signed by over 50 residents in the tract immediately south of the project site ("Skyline Estates") requesting the time extension be denied, the petition is included herein as Exhibit "1." In addition, staff received numerous letters just before the Planning Commission headng which are included as Exhibits "J" through "O" in this report. On January 20, 1999, the City received correspondence from a resident adjoining the subject property expressing support for the Planning Commission decision to deny the time extension (Exhibit "P"). City Planner BB:RVB/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter of Appeal dated January 14, 1999 Exhibit "B" Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 13, 1999 Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-03 Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Minutes dated January 13, 1999 Exhibit "E" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 8, 1992 Exhibit "F" - California Dept. of Fish and Game Letter dated April 2, 1998 Exhibit "G" - California Dept. of Fish and Game Letter dated January 13, 1999 Exhibit "H" - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Letter dated January 13, 1999 Exhibit "1" - Neighborhood petition dated January 11, 1999 Exhibit "J" - Letter from Gerald Braden dated January 11, 1999 Exhibit "K" - Letter from Spidt of the Sage Council dated January 13, 1999 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TE FOR TT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING February 17, 1999 Page 7 Exhibit "L" Letters from Arthur Bridge dated January 13, 1999 and April 1, 1992 Exhibit "M" - Letter from Matthew Price dated January 13, 1999 Exhibit "N" - Letter from Chris and James Kenny dated January 13, 1999 Exhibit "O" - Letter from Charles Buquet dated January 13, 1999 Exhibit "P" - Letters from Frank Schiavone dated January 19, and February 2, 1999 Resolution Upholding the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny the Time Extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 A copy of the Final Biological Report (by LSA, dated January 8, 1999, 25 pages) was forwarded to the City Council and is available upon request to any other interested party by contacting the Planning Division directly. ALLARD ENGw!EERING Civil Engineering Surveying Land Planning January 14, 1999 City of Rancho Cucamonga up R,q,~C' ' '-'*~ City Clerks Office 10500 Civic Center Ddvc ,-,, t Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 The purpose of this letter is to request an appeal to the City Council for the denial of environmental assessment and time extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475. The item was heard at the January 13, 1999 Planning Commission, as Item D. under public hearings. The reason for this request that the decision was not based on fact or a legal basis, adequate for denial. We felt staff was not adequately prepared in their presentation. Items that could have been clarified were not, and input and testimony was allowed that was not pertinent to the map extension. We feel that if the Commission were adequately informed, a different result would have been achieved. We are enclosing a check in the amount of $251.00 per your instructions to process this request. Should you need any additional information to process this request, please contact me at (909) 899-5011. Sincerely, Raymond J. Allard, P.E. Principal kat cc: Prakash Sakraney Chuck Buquct Stephanie Schcr (909)899-5011 FAX (909)899-5014 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: January 13, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTINN TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 66 single family lots on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07 and 55 through 57. BACKGROUND: On November 18, 1992, the City Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 and certified a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). Since that time, the State granted two automatic time extensions and the City granted a one-year time extension which ultimately extended the approval until November 18, 1998. In February of 1998, the Planning Division notified the applicant that the subject property is within habitat which may be affected by federally listed endangered or threatened species. Therefore, a request for a time extension would be a discretionary action subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and would require a new Initial Study including a habitat assessment of the project site by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The applicant submitted a request for a time extension on October 26, 1998, prior to the November 18, 1998, expiration of the map; however, biological protocol surveys were not completed until mid- December. The final biological report was not available at the time of preparation of the Initial Study and the noticing of the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Since 1992, substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken. Two species have been listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act which are associated with coastal sage scrub habitat present on the site (threatened California gnatcatcher and endangered San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat). The California gnatcatcher occurs almost exclusively in coastal sage scrub habitat. The small population size remaining is estimated at around 2,000 pairs in Southern California. The project site consists of 113 acres, of which 58 acres are coastal sage scrub habitat. The project will result in the loss of essentially all of the coastal sage scrub habitat and 23 acres of chaparral due to development and fire mitigation. The coastal sage scrub habitat on this site differs from other sites in that it has potential linkage value, compared with the isolated pockets of lesser quality PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VTT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING January 13, 1999 Page 2 habitats amidst urbanized areas in the City. The habitat on the project site is connected with permanent open space land in the National Forest and Cucamonga Canyon. In fact, 24 acres of the site are in the Open Space Distdct itself. The site also contains part of Cucamonga Creek, a natural source of water which makes the coastal sage scrub habitat nearby more valuable for wildlife resources. Few sites include such proximity to permanent open space and a natural water element. The "draft" biological report (LSA, December 15, 1998) states: Project impacts to coastal sage scrub (loss of 58 acres) may be considered significant as this loss may substantially diminish habitat for wildlife and plants. Although no listed species are present on the site, coastal sage scrub is considered a sensitive habitat type. Further, as is reflected by the attached species list and sensitive species table, the site supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife and plants and is, therefore, considered to be high quality habitat. Thus, impacts of the proposed project to habitat (i.e. coastal sage scrub) may be considered significant. In an April 2, 1998, letter regarding sensitive habitats in the City, the California Department of Fish and Game stated it is very concerned with continued, unmitigated loss of habitats and sensitive species populations. This is a particular concern with projects that have been dormant for years which are being reactivated utilizing old CEQA documentation. The Department of Fish and Game feels reliance upon the use of environmental approvals more than five years old raises serious questions regarding their adequacy and compliance with CEQA due to a number of factors: · Biological survey information is generally only valid for one to three years. · Changes in habitat conditions, site use, and species listing status is common. · A large preserve in the Etiwanda area was established with the Route 30 freeway project, which provides mitigation opportunities that were not available several years ago (expansion of this preserve). Since a "final" biological report was not available, staff, the Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have not had the opportunity to review updated biological information. A meeting has been scheduled for January 5, 1999, to obtain comments from these agencies. An oral update of this meeting will be provided at the Planning Commission hearing. Staff feels it is imperative we provide the responsible agencies an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the prior mitigation measures and to recommend any revisions necessary to reflect changed circumstances. In completing the Initial Study Part II, staff recommends a Supplemental EIR be required for the project to comply with provisions of CEQA. ANALYSIS: The State Subdivision Map Act provides that a tentative map is automatically extended for 80 days or until the application for a time extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the City, whichever occurs first. The 60-day time period on this project expires on January 17, 1999. The City Attorney's office advised Staff there is no means to extend this map approval beyond the 60-day period without CEQA review. In other words, the map will expire long before a Supplemental EIR can be completed and reviewed by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VTT14475-ALLARD ENGINEERING January 13,1999 Page 3 Staff considered the possibility of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. However, during the preparation of the Initial Study, the final biological study was not available and there were too many unknowns to write habitat mitigation measures. CEQA requires mitigation measures be clearly identified and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. It is not known what habitat lands are available and what replacement ratio is warranted for the project. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide any mitigation proposals for consideration. Even if the applicant were to propose mitigation at this time, there is still insufficient time to carry out the 20-day public review and comment period of the Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration before the map expires. Since it is not feasible to complete the CEQA review within the applicant's time constraints, there appears to be no altemative but to deny the requested time extension. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. On January 4, 1999, the Planning Division received correspondence from a resident adjoining the subject property expressing concerns regarding biological issues (Exhibit "H"). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the time extension request for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Denial. City Planner BB:RVB/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant dated October 20, 1998 Exhibit "B" Notice of Endangered or Threatened Species dated February 9, 1998 Exhibit "C" - Local Vicinity Map Exhibit "D" - Project Location Map Exhibit "E" ~ Site Utilization Natural Features Map (from 1992 SEIR) Exhibit "F" - Vegetation Map (from 1992 SEIR) Exhibit "G" - Initial Study Part II Exhibit "H" - Correspondence Received Resolution of Denial - Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 Time Extension ALLARD ENGINEERING Civil En~neering Surveying Land Planning October 20, 1998 Dan Coleman City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 VIA FACSIMILE (909) 477-2849 Re: Tentative Tract 14475 - Request for Extension As the duly authorized agent of the owners of the above tract (see enclosed letter of authorization), I am writing to request a one year extension of the Tentative Tract No. 14475 for the property located directly north of Almond Avenue between Crestview Place and skyline Drive. The partnership is nearly under contract to sell this,property and the purchasers are currently processing the map but will not have the approvals by the time this current map expires. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you need any additional information please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Raymond J. Allard, P.E. Principal cc: Prakash Sakraney lC <HII IT 6101Cherry Avenue Fontana, CA 92336 (909)899-5011 FAX (909)899-5014 //.9 / T H E C I T Y 0 F CUC ONCA February 9, 1998 Prakash Sakramey Sahama Development Watanmal (UK) Ltd. 53A George Street Richmond, Surrey TW9 1HJ United Kingdom SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - NOTICE OF ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES - PROJECT EXPIRATION Dear Mr. Sakramey: · ' Your property is within habitat which may be affected by the U.S: Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) listing of the following endangered or threatened species: California Gnatcatcher and San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat What does the federal listing.mean? Under the listing, the habitat is protected under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the "take" of any federally listed species. "Taking" not only means killing or disturbing, but also means disturbance of habitat, including but not limited to, grading, mowing, discing, trenching, and other construction activities. "Habitat" may also include areas which have been graded or disced and which left undisturbed, could revert back to its natural state, or which could be restored to its natural state. Take of endangered species may be authorized by one of two procedures. The Service may issue an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act. Alternatively, the Service may determine, based upon an adequate biological survey, that the property does not fall within their definition of habitat. The goal of these procedures is to protect the natural environment by ensuring that projects are adequately mitigated and that avoidance, minimization, or mitigation be used to reduce all biological impacts to a level below significance. For further information about federal listing and the take permit process, contact the Service's Carlsbad Field Office at (760) 431-9440. How does this affect my project? Your project, T-I- 14475, will expire on November 18, 1998, unless extended by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Time extensions and modifications to the approved project plans are discretionary actions subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. To request a time extension of your project, you must submit a written request at I~,~~ys prior to expiration, a S549 extension fee, PROJECT EXPIRATION N,~ ,ICE TT 14475 - SAHAMA DEVELOPMENT February 9, 1998 Page 2 a completed Initial Study Part I (including a habitat assessment' of the project site), and a $225 + S22/acre Initial Study fee. Modification of your approved development plans, such as changing significantly, the square footage or rearranging buildings, will require submittal of full development plans with fees, and a new Initial Study and fees (including habitat assessment of the project site). Development of your project, including grading, will require an incidental take permit from the Service unless it has been previously determined that the site is not habitat based upon an adequate biological survey. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -- City Planner BB:DC:taa ~ Habitat Assessment must be prepared by a biologist of the soils, vegetation, and species composition on the site. Biologist shall be permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to perform such surveys and the permit number listed on the cover of the report. The biologist should prepare an evaluation determining whether the soil and vegetation provide habitat within range known to support sensitive species. --'~~ '~'- ';~% '~ SITE , -, ~'~-~ ' . ~ , ~ ' ': o - , ,. ~ _ ~/~ · ~ '4~ ', , , ,~)';~-,/..-;,~ ~/ '~ ,'%- ~,. '.. . . - 7 :' ..-... ' ~ ,'.' ~ ~M z~9~ C .... t~' '. ,,~ -~. ... - .7 .. _ _'- ...... : ' ' ~7...~. ,~--~ -~ ~t' ~ · , _ .~ ., ,~ ~ ..' .,._ , ~o~ ~_. ......... , ~ ~ ...... · ._..' . ' , - ~- ~ ~ --- __ ~-~" -~-. ' Water - ,;- ___~-- .7-~2~ : . - "-._ --~- .Tank .~,x ,.~ ~_/_~ ,'. ~ ~ ~ ' .. · ....>..~-,,,, __ _ ~, ,_.,~ -~ ....... '--'I .~ '~,, '~ .- '~ ."-i~ '~.:-'::~,~,>:~ ~ / ./- ~ ,~;~:,Well 0768TM01 1/91 Local Vicinity Map · :.. ] '~'l:_l'l'l:l:l:l'l''' '~'" 0 1000 20(X) Feet T.T. 14475 Subsequent EIR IT Exhibit2 HI LLS I DE RD PLAN~'IN.,.,C~~ION ITrLE: doC_,~,,,7~,,v' ~/~p ~ i ~"~ :' -'. . . --,~-- £XHZBn': d~ SCAL£: ~ Vegetation Map T.T. 14475 Subseqc City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 Time Extension 2. Related Files: Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 and Tentative Tract 12376 (denied 1985). On November 18, 1992, the City Council certified a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475. The SEIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program are used as earlier analysis in completing this initial study. 3. Description of Project: A request for an extension of a previously approved vesting tentative tract map including design review for the development of 66 single family lots on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and the Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07and 55 through 57. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Prakash Sakraney, Watanmul (UK) Ltd, 53a George Street, Richmond, Surrey TVV9 1H J, United Kingdom. Project Sponsor's Contact Person: Raymond Allard, Allard Engineering 6101 Cherry Avenue, Fontana CA 92336 (909) 899-5011 5. General Plan Designation: Project Site: Open Space and Hillside Residential North: San Bernardino National Forest South: Hillside Residential East: County of San Bernardino (West Foothills Planned Development) West: County of San Bernardino (Cucamonga Canyon Wash) 6. Zoning: Project Site: Open Space and Hillside Residential North: San Bernardino National Forest South: Hillside Residential East: County of San Bernardino Zoning: WF/PD-1/10 (West Foothills Planned Development one dwelling unit per 10 acres) West: County of San Bernardino (Cucamonga Canyon Wash) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located at the northwest corner of the City, with the City limits line on three sides. It is bounded to the north by the San Bernardino National Forest, to the west by the Cucamonga Canyon Wash, to the east by a U.S. Forest Service access road and vacant land in the unincorporated County beyond, and to the south by a partially-constructed single family hillside residential tract. The site is the last developable parcel before entering the San Bernardino National Forest. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page ? The property slopes to the south/southwest, as evidenced by the on-site elevations that range from a high of 2,910 feet in the northeastern corner to a low of 2,160 feet in the southwestern corner (a 750 foot elevation difference). Cucamonga Wash is a significant drainage area running north-south through the western portion of the site that represents a major landform feature. The bottom of the Cucamonga Wash is approximately 150 feet below the top banks. The canyon walls are nearly vertical. Another distinctive feature of the site is the escarpment that runs from north to south through the project. Probably created by activity on the Cucamonga Fault, this escarpment divides the site into a lower and an upper mesa. Prevailing ground slopes on the lower mesa range from 6 to 10 percent between the top of the Cucamonga Canyon wall and the escarpment. East of the escarpment, on the upper mesa, the prevailing slopes range from 10 to 30 percent, with the slopes approaching 100 percent at the site's northeast corner. The site is located on an alluvial fan in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. Three plant communities dominate the site, including coastal sage scrub (52 percent of the site, roughly 58 acres), chaparral (30 percent of the site, 34 acres), and alluvial scrub (5 percent of the site, 6 acres). An abandoned citrus orchard and Eucalyptus windrow make up the balance of the site. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Service Cucamonga County Water District California Regional Water Quality Control Board Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page ,3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (x) Land Use and Planning (X) Transportation/Circulation (X) Public Services (X) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources (X) Utilities and Service Systems (X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics (X) Water (X) Hazards (X) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise (X) Recreation (X) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. (X) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an eadier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: ~.~ ( ('C~.. U~I~..~ Rebecca Van Buren Associate Planner December 22, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page ,I EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. I I Signifmant ! I Impact Less IP°tentiellyIUn~I Than I I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: JSignifir. ant J Mitigation JSignif~.ant J No J I ;,~,~ l lncc"~'re*~I impactI impactI 1.LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The General Plan Land Use Plan indicates the upper third of the project site is Open Space, where approximately 15 residential lots are plotted on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) states: The project is generally consistent with the land uses shown for this parcel in the adopted General Plan. However, it may conflict in terms of the defined boundary between open space and hillside residential uses. A review of the City's General Plan Land Use Plan indicates that development in the open space district is limited to one residence per 40 acres. The northeastern quadrant of the site lies appears (on the Land Use Element map) to be in the open space district, and is also shown (on the Public Health and Safety Policy Map) to have high development constraints due to the combined influences of slope instability, fire hazards and flood hazard. The General Plan discourages but does not prohibit development of areas included within this designation, subject to mitigations that can reduce public health dsks to an acceptable level. (SEIR, p. 37) b) Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, SEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring program were approved in 1992. Subsequently, in 1995, the City of Rancho Cucamonga became a participating agency in a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) being prepared by the County of San Bernardino based on a Memorandum of Understanding between the County, the California Department of Fish and Game, participating cities, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The intent is to develop a MSHCP that is consistent with the Federal Endangered Species Act, the California /// Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 5 Endangered Species Act, and the Natural Community Conservation Planning program, and ensure conservation and protection of currently listed, proposed and candidate species, and species of concern and their habitats within the designated plan area. Correspondence received from the California Department of Fish and Game on April 2, 1998, states that habitats of particular concern include Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (state-ranked S1.1 rated, very threatened natural community). The proposed tentative tract map involves loss of approximately 58 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat which supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife and plants, identified in a "draft" biological report dated December 15, 1998, by LSA Associates. The coastal sage scrub habitat on the project site is high quality and connected with permanent open space land associated with the National Forest and the Cucamonga Creek wash area which is in the Open Space District. The coastal sage scrub habitat on this site is unique in that it is good quality and has potential linkage value, compared with the isolated pockets of lesser quality habitats amidst urbanized areas in the City. The elimination and uncompensated loss of this habitat area may preclude preservation strategies contemplated in a MSHCP. Additional information regarding the significance of the coastal sage scrub habitat on the project site, its potential role in a MSHCP, and identification of potential mitigation measures is necessary to determine if the loss of the habitat is a significant impact which can be mitigated or avoided. Additional information which is necessary as a part of CEQA review of the proposed time extension includes a '¥inal" biological study indicating the presence or absence of listed threatened or endangered species, consultation and comments from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and County of San Bernardino pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding adopted for the MSHCP project c) The SEIR identifies potential land use incompatibilities associated with residential developments abutting the National Forest. The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to address conflicts between residential and recreational interests. In order to comply with provisions of CEQA, it will be necessary to provide the U.S. Forest Service an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the prior mitigation measures and to recommend any revisions necessary to reflect changed circumstances, including the' need to provide fully enforceable mitigation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other means. I I s=n~ ~ J Impact Less IP°ter"ial~Y I Un~*ss I Than I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~Signifmant J Mitigation ~S~gnirmant ~ No I impact I lnceqx)ratedI Impact I Impam 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. VVou/d the proposa/: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page I I Significant I I Impact Less IP°tentially I Unless Than Issues and Supporting Information Sourcas: ISignificent I Mitigation JSignificent J No I ImpactIInc~q-~-t~'dJ ImpactI Impact b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: b) The proposed project provides two stub-out street connections to the property east of the site, which is in the unincorporated County. The County General Plan and Zoning allow for residential development in this area pursuant to its West Foothills Planned Development. As a result, the implementation of this project may facilitate development and induce growth in the unincorporated land east of the project. I I s~nific=~t Issues and Supporting Information Sources: I I Impact Less IP°tendally I Unless Than ,S~gnificant , M,igation Is~nificent I No | ImpactI lncerP°ratedI ImpaclJ Impact 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) Comments: a-g) The project site is located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone for seismic activity (Cucamonga Fault). The project contains a seismic exclusion zone in which human-occupied structures are prohibited. The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to address seismic conditions with the project site. A water storage reservoir (CCWD Reservoir 6A, with a 1 million gallon capacity), is anticipated within or adjacent to the seismic exclusion zone to serve the project. The Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 7 SEIR indicates a separate review and approval of the water storage reservoir will be conducted at the time it is proposed by the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). In order to comply with provisions of CEQA, it will be necessary to provide CCWD an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the prior mitigation measures and to recommend any revisions necessary to reflect changed circumstances, including the need to provide fully enforceable mitigation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other means. e & i) The project site includes significant landforms including the Cucamonga Canyon Wash and central site escarpment. The elevation of the project site ranges from 2,160 to 2,910 feet above sea level (a 750 foot difference). The Cucamonga Creek is a major water course conveying drainage originating in the mountainous area north of the site. The creek is unimproved and subject to sloughing and erosion of the banks, including potential landslides. The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to address geologic conditions. I I SignFir. ant I I Impact Less IP°tentially I Unless Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ISignificant , Mitigation Isdn.cant I No I I Impact I Irxxxp°ratedI Impact J Impact I 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 8 Comments: a) The project involves development of currently vacant land into a residential subdivision on approximately 80 acres of the 113 acre project site. The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed. All runoff will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. This impact is not considered to be significant. b) The project site includes land area within the Cucamonga Canyon Wash. The Cucamonga Creek is a major water course conveying drainage originating in the mountainous area north of the site. The creek is unimproved and subject to sloughing and erosion of the banks as well as on-site debris and deposition during major storm events. The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to address hydrology issues, including a 150 building setback along the Cucamonga Canyon Wash. Lot A encompasses Cucamonga Creek, which is a special flood hazard area (Zone A) subject to canyon flows. Building setback requirements have been established by San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Since portions of the site are located in an area for which flood hazards are undetermined, a condition of approval requires the developer to prepare the necessary studies to have the current Zone D designation removed from the project area. W~th such mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. A water storage reservoir (CCWD Reservoir 6A, with a 1 million gallon capacity), is anticipated within or adjacent to the seismic exclusion zone to serve the project. In the event of seismic activity which exceeds the construction design of the reservoir and its containment area, people may be exposed to water related hazards. The SEIR indicates a separate review and approval of the water storage reservoir will be conducted at the time it is proposed. In order to comply with provisions of CEQA, it will be necessary to provide the CCWD an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the prior mitigation measures and to recommend any revisions necessary to reflect changed circumstances, including the need to provide fully enforceable mitigation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other means. e) The project will not alter the course or direction of water movements. Surface runoff currently reaching the site from off site areas will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. I I ~ I Impact Less IP°tentially I Unless Than I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ISignificant I Mitigation Signif*mant I No I Impact I Incorporated mpact I Impact 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 9 I I Significant I I Impact Less IP°tentially I Unless I Than I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~Significent ! Mitigation ~Significent J No | Impact IlncerP~ra;~"~'i| Impact! Impact c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-d) The SEIR provides an explanation for the no impact response regarding air quality on page 7 of the Executive Summary. I I Signifmant I I Impact Less IP°~entiaity I Un~,ss I Than I I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~Significent ! Mitigation ISignif'mant I ~rnpa~ Hncerix~ted I ~rnpact I ,rnpact 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The project will not increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion in excess of projections for the adopted land use, for which the street widths were evaluated at a build-out condition. The project will be required to pay Transportation Development Fees. This impact is not considered to be significant. b) The circulation design features conform to our Street Design, Driveway and Intersection Line of Sight policies. A condition of approval requires 30 mph stopping distance for all vertical curves. With such mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 10 c) The project did not have adequate emergency access at the time of approval. The conditions of approval require the construction of off-site street improvements on Almond and Turquoise Streets. With such mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. The conditions of approval also include mitigation measures to modify the location and improvement status of U.S. Forest Service Road 1N34 (Big Tree Road), which exists along the eastern boundary of the project site. e) The required frontage improvements include sidewalks on one side of streets. I I Significant I I Impact Less IP°tentially I Unless I Than I Issues and Supporting Inforrnatio~ Sources: ITM I Mitigation Isignificant I No I I Impact I lncoq~oreted ! Impact I Impact 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., hedtage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a, c, & e) The original project (VTT 14475) was approved in 1992. Since that time, there have been changes in species listings and habitat status pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project involves the elimination of 58 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, which comprises nearly all of the coastal sage scrub habitat on the project site. Federally listed animals known to occupy coastal sage scrub habitat include the threatened California gnatcatcher (federally listed on 3/30/93), endangered San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat (emergency listed on 1/27/98), and endangered least Bell's vireo (federally listed 5/2/86; state listed 10/2/80). (Source: Mary Meyer, CA Department Fish and Game, letter dated April 2, 1998). At the time of writing of this initial study, a "final" biological report, including the findings of protocol surveys, was not received by this office. Under the listings, the habitat is protected under the federal ESA. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the "take" of any federally listed species. "Taking" not only means killing or disturbing, but also means disturbance of habitat, including grading, mowing, discing, trenching, and other construction ,!1 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 11 activities. The elimination of this habitat may have a potentially significant impact. Additional information regarding the presence or absence of listed species on the project site, the implications and significance of the coastal sage scrub habitat on the project site, its potential role in a MSHCP, and identification of potential mitigation measures is necessary to determine ff the loss of the habitat is a significant impact which can be mitigated or avoided. Additional information which is necessary as a part of CEQA review of the proposed time extension includes a '?inal" biological study, consultation and comments from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and County of San Bernardino pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding adopted for the aforementioned MSHCP project. b) The project involves removal of 34 Eucalyptus trees located along the base of the escarpment. In 1992, the trees were determined to be in poor physical condition and located in line with street and Community Trail improvements. Replacement trees are required on a one-for-one basis in the conditions of approval. d) The Cucamonga Canyon is within the Open Space District and is not proposed to be developed or altered. Significant Imt~act Less Potentially Unless J Than J Issues and Suplxxting Information Sources: ISignifrcant i Mitigation Isignirmant I No | Impact I Incorporate~ I Impact J Impact 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Wou/d the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless I Then I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ITM I Mitigation ISignificant I No I Impact I Incorporated [ Impact J Impact 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 12 I I Significant ! I Impact Less JPotentia~ly J Unless ~ Than J ~ Issues end Supporling Information Sources: ~Significant I Mitigation ~Significant J No ~ I ImpactIlnc°rP°ratedI ImpactI ImpactJ c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: e) The SEIR indicates the project site is located in an area of known high-to-extreme fire hazard. The project approval will add to the cumulative demand placed on fire protection agencies responsible for this area, will increase the potential for brush rites, and will place residents and property in a recognized high-to-extreme fire hazard area. This represents a significant, unavoidable adverse impact that would be associated with the project if approved. Additionally, the response time to this site may exceed the Fire Distdct's standard. The conditions of approval included mitigation measures to address fire protection including retention of a wildland fire consultant during project design, compliance with structural fire protection standards in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, fire protection water systems and fire hydrants, deed restrictions and CC&R requirements, emergency vehicle turn-around diameters at dead-end streets, completion of a Phase Two Wildland Fire Safety Report prior to final map recordation, installation of a helipad for use by the U.S. Forest Service, and a 100 by 100-foot safety zone with no flammable vegetation. Even with these measures, the potential adverse impact associated with placement in an area of high-to-extreme fire hazard may remain significant. In order to comply with provisions of CEQA, it will be necessary to provide the U.S. Forest Service and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the prior mitigation measures and to recommend any revisions necessary to reflect changed circumstances, including the need to provide fully enforceable mitigation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other means. In the Phase One Conceptual Wildland Fire Safety Report, which was adopted by reference as a part of the mitigation measures for the project, the helipad and safety zone are required, but their location is not determined. The Report generally references a possible site in the northeast portion of the project, but the tract map indicates this area contains steep slope conditions. Another possible site referenced is on Lot F, subject to water tank location; this lot is adjacent to residential dwellings. The potential impacts of necessary fire-protection installations, such as the helipad, safety zone, and water reservoir should be identified and discussed as part of CEQA review of the project. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga V'FT 14475 Time Extension Page 13 I ~ Significant I I Impact Less JPotentially I Unless ! Than ! Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ITM I Mitigation ~Signif*~.,ant J No I Impact IIr'c~'~uratedI Impact ! Impact 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-b) The SEIR provides a basis for the no impact response regarding noise on page 7 of the Executive Summary. Signif'mant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless I Than I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Is~nir~'antI Mitigation ISignif'vcantI No I Impact I;r, co~-i-~--~,d! ImpactI Impact 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) c) Schools? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) The SEIR indicates the project site is located in an area of known high-to-extreme fire hazard. The project approval will add to the cumulative demand placed on fire protection agencies responsible for this area, will increase the potential for brush rites, and will place residents and property in a recognized high-to-extreme fire hazard area. This represents a significant, unavoidable adverse impact that would be associated with the project if approved. Additionally, the response time to this site may exceed the Fire Distdct's standard. The conditions of approval included mitigation measures to address fire protection including retention of a wildland fire consultant during project design, compliance with structural fire protection standards in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, fire protection water systems and fire hydrants, deed restrictions and CC&R requirements, emergency vehicle turn-around diameters at dead-end streets, completion of a Phase Two Wildland Fire Safety Report prior to final map recordation, installation of a helipad for use by the U.S. Forest Service, and a 100 by 100-foot safety zone with no flammable vegetation. Even with these measures, the potential adverse impact associated with placement in an area of high-to-extreme fire hazard may remain significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 1~1 In order to comply with provisions of CEQA, it will be necessary to provide the U.S. Forest Service and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the prior mitigation measures and to recommend any revisions necessary to reflect changed circumstances, including the need to provide fully enforceable mitigation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other means. In the Phase One Conceptual Wildland Fire Safety Report, which was adopted by reference as a part of the mitigation measures for the project, the helipad and safety zone are required, but their location is not determined. The Report generally references a possible site in the northeast portion of the project, but the tract map indicates this area contains steep slope conditions. Another possible site referenced is on Lot F, subject to water tank location; this lot is adjacent to residential dwellings. The potential impacts of necessary fire-protection installations, such as the helipad, safety zone, and water reservoir should be identified and discussed as part of CEQA review of the project. b) The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to address impacts on police services including consultation with the appropriate police agency to assess the need for additional department personnel and equipment, and to obtain information on crime prevention measures that can be incorporated into project design. c) The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to address school impacts. Prior to recordation of the map, a meeting shall be held between the City, school district officials, and the applicant to determine whether additional assistance will be required to serve students generated by the project. Such measures, if needed, could include supplemental funding agreements or participation in a community facilities district. d) The project includes a 20-foot wide community trail system which will be the responsibility of the City to maintain. The trail will be located adjacent to the steep banks of the Cucamonga Creek Wash, with a minimum 25-foot setback from the edge of cliff. The banks of the wash are subject to erosion and sloughing in storms. The conditions of approval acknowledge the banks may change over time due to erosion, landslides, or other natural forces of nature, and establish a 150-foot building setback from the banks of the cliff. In order to provide for the continued existence of the trail in the event of damage due to channel wall failure, the conditions of approval also establish a "blanket easement" to relocate the trail on private property within this designated building setback. Failure to adequately maintain trail against erosion may contribute to erosion of pdvate rear yard areas. The financial implications of Proposition 218 has caused the City to reevaluate long- term costs and maintenance responsibilities of publicly-maintained areas, including Community Trails. The potential impacts of Community Trail maintenance within the project site should be identified and discussed as part of CEQA review of the project. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 15 ~ ~ Significant J ! Impact Less Issues and SuppoSing Information Sources: IP°tentially I Unless I Than J ~Significant ! Mitigation ~Significant I No J ! Impact Ilnco,T-~aied ! Impact J Impact 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) Comments: d) The project proposes use of septic systems for all residential lots. The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to require review and approval by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. This review will require the applicant to perform percolation tests to establish the suitability of on-site soils for septic leaching, and to determine if potential water quality impacts would result from use of an on-site septic tank system e) Storm drain improvements will be necessary to accommodate the project. This does not result in substantial alterations to the master plan of storm drainage. This impact is not considered significant. g) A water storage reservoir (CCWD Reservoir 6A, with a 1 million gallon capacity), is anticipated within the project site to serve the project. The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to provide water storage and distribution facilities in accordance with CCWD requirements and the requirements of the Phase Two Wildland Fire Safety Report, and to provide on-site pump and pressure tank systems for several lots to ensure adequate water pressures for fire safety. In order to comply with provisions of CEQA, it will be necessary to provide CCWD an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the prior mitigation measures and to recommend any revisions necessary to reflect changed circumstances, including the need to provide fully enforceable mitigation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other means. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 16 I I S~gnificant ! J Impact Less I Potentially I Unless I Than I J Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ! S~gnificant ! MitigatK~n ISignificant ! No J Impact Jlncorporaled I Impact ! Impact 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? () () () (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-c) The SEIR provides a basis for the no impact response regarding aesthetics on page 7 of the Executive Summary. I I Significant I I Impact Less IP°tentlelly I Unless I Than I I Issues and Supporting Information Sources: I ~mpa~ llnc~r~ormd I ~mpa~ 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: b) The conditions of approval include mitigation measures which require a qualified archaeologist to monitor clearing and grading operations in the northwest portion of the site. I I Signirmant I I Impact Less Ip°tentlelly I Unless I Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Is~gnificant I Mitigation ISignify'ant I Impect I lnc°q3°ratedI Impact 15. RECREATION. Wou/d the propose/: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga V'I-[' 14475 Time Extension Page 17 Comments: a) Conditions of approval include a standard condition regarding payment of park fees to offset impacts on park facilities prior to issuance of building permits for new residential dwelling units. This impact is not considered to be significant. b) The project involves development of residential use abutting a national forest. The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to address conflicts between residential and 'recreational interests. Mitigation measures include maintaining the connection to Big Tree Road (the forest access road) and posting "No Recreational Vehicle Parking" signs within TT 14475 where necessary. I I s~.,~cen~ I I Impact Less IP°tentially I Untess I Than I I issues and Suppo~g Information Sources: ISignificant J Mitigation ITM I No I I ~mpac~ I~ncc~poratedI Impam I Impact I 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goa!s? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive pedod of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 18 Comments: a) Based upon the responses contained in the Sections on Land Use and Planning and Biological Resources, there is insufficient information to refute that the project will NOT substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. d) Based upon the response contained in the Section on Geologic Problems, Water Hazards 9(e), Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, there is insufficient information to refute that the project will NOT have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly due to potential geologic, water, or fire hazards. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (X)Tentative Tract 14475 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH ~0021132, certified November 18, 1992) (X) Tentative Tract 12376 & Conceptual Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (Certified January 23, 1985) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: h\FINAL\PLNGCOM M\ENVDOC\VTT14475.wpd 0768TM01 1/91 Local Vicinity Map ~ }"'" ........ '"' : : . . ; · '1 ......... _'~- ..... 0 1000 2000 Feet T.T. 14475 Subsequent EIR ExhiNt 2 /~ HI LLS IDE RD ION _ EXHIBIT: SCALE: ~ /4~ 7 December 30, 1998 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive R I:: C E I ¥ E D Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 JAN 0 4 1999 Subject: Proposed Extension of Tract # 14475 City o! Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Dear Sirs and Madam: I am writing to you to express several concerns I have with the proposed development of 66 single-family homes on 113 acres of alluvial sage in Cucamonga Canyon. Several arguments could be put forth against this project, not the least of which are: · This area is critical habitat for wildlife (including the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and quite possibly the Coastal Gnatcatcher) and, therefore, is subject to the Endangered Species Act; · This area has important historical significance; · This area provides watershed for the western portion of the City; · The canyon is an important water source for the City and, as such, this proposed development may be subject to the Clean Water Act; · This area is a critical buffer to the Cucamonga Wilderness that is home to a rare and endangered population of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep; and · The project will certainly impact water pressure in the area. (Water pressure in Skyline Estates is currently only 45-501bs at the street). But I think the most compelling reason to reconsider this project is this: The rugged beauty of this canyon is unmatched in the area. It is a rare and priceless gem that should be a source of pride to our community. It should be conserved for our children and for future residents of the City. My prayer is that future generations will look back to this time and be grateful that our leaders had the foresight and the courage to save it from encroaching and relentless development. I implore you not to put the desires of this developer ahead of our children's legacy and the public's interest. I would ask each of you, before making your final decision, to personally visit the area being proposed for development and reflect on the beauty of this creation. If you are untouched, then at least consider scaling this project down or rethinking it entirely. An alternate proposal might be to develop the area immediately behind Skyline Estates (roughly 60 acres), but leave the plateau and virgin sage just west of Big Tree road as permanent open space. The area behind Skyline was at one time a ranch and does not have the same ecological and aesthetic significance as the upper plateau. This proposal is consistent with a map we have of the City that shows Crestview Place continuing in a northeastern direction with two small culdesacs branching off. Thank you for your careful consideration. I would be happy to speak to you in more detail about this proposed project. I may be reached at (323) 889- 2994 on weekdays. Frank Schiavone 8060 Crestview Court Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 c. Larry McNeil, Chairperson Rich Macias, Vice-chairperson Pam Stewart John Mannedno Peter Tolstoy RESOLUTION NO. 99-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14475, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 66 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 113 ACRES OF LAND IN THE HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS, LOCATED NORTH OF ALMOND AVENUE BETWEEN SAPPHIRE AND TURQUOISE STREETS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 200-051-07 AND 55 THROUGH 57. A. Recitals. 1. On November 18, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution 92-288, thereby certifying the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 14475. 2. On November 18, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution 92-290, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Vesting Tentative Tract 14475. 3. On March 30, 1993, the Califomia gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica) was listed as a threatened species pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). 4. On January 27, 1998, the San Bernardino Merdam's kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merfiami pan/us) was emergency listed as an endangered species pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). 5. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14475 was eligible for and received State-granted time extensions pursuant to SB 428 and AB 771 which automatically extended the expiration date of the map until November 18, 1997. 6.. On August 6, 1997, the City Planner granted a one-year time extension for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14475, which extended the expiration date of the map until November 18, 1998. 7. Ray Allard, as the duly authorized agent of the owner of the subject property, filed an application on October 26, 1998, for the extension of the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 14475, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the application.' 8. On January 13, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded the hearing on that date. 9. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-03 VTT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING January 13, 1999 Page 2 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public hearing on January 13, 1999, including the information contained in the Environmental Initial Study Part II, written and oral staff reports, togetherwith public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The federally-listed California gnatcatcher and federally-listed San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat are associated with, and rely upon, coastal sage scrub habitat. b. Federally-listed species and their habitats are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended); and c. The project site consists of 113 acres, of which 58 acres are coastal sage scrub habitat; and d. The project will result in the loss of essentially all of the coastal sage scrub habitat and 23 acres of chaparral due to development and fire mitigation. e. The California Department of Fish and Game submitted a letter to the City dated Apdl 2, 1998, which indicates it is very concerned with continued, unmitigated loss of habitats and sensitive species populations. The concem includes projects that have been dormant for years which are being reactivated utilizing old CEQA documentation. The Department feels reliance upon the use of environmental approvals more than five years old raises sedous questions regarding their adequacy and compliance with CEQA due to a number of factors including (1) biological survey information is generally only valid for one to three years; (2) changes in habitat conditions, site use, and species listing status is common; and (3) a large preserve in the Etiwanda area was recenfiy established which provides mitigation opportunities that were not available several years ago. f. The Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program which were approved in 1992 are more than five years old. g. At the time of preparation of the Initial Study Part II and the noticing of the public headng, a final biological report was not available to provide evidence to indicate the presence or absence of the aforementioned federally-listed species and to render conclusions on the significance of the coastal sage scrub habitat on site. Further, a "draft" biological report indicated the project impacts to coastal sage scrub (loss of 58 acres) may be considered significant as this loss may substantially diminish habitat for wildlife and plants. h. There is potential that significant effects previously examined may be substantially more severe than shown in the SEIR. i. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth provisions to require Subsequent and Supplemental Environmental Impact Reports when, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken which may cause a substantial increase in the sevedty of previously identified significant effects; and j. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that based upon the information in the Initial Study Part II, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the project is required to analyze biological impacts identified in the Initial Study. Also indicated in the Initial Study, responsible agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-03 V'i-I' 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING January 13, 1999 Page 3 Cucamonga County Water District, may be aware of changed circumstances since 1992 which impact the project. Responsible agencies would be provided an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of prior mitigation measures and, if applicable, recommend expanding the scope of analysis, in a Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The decision-makers and the public are entitled to the completion of the environmental review of a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pdor to the rendering of a decision in favor of the project. b. A Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report has not been prepared nor made available for public review for the project. Therefore, the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act has not been completed for the project. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the requested time extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475. The Vesting Tentative Tract is therefore deemed expired by its own terms. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY:~ ATTEST: Bra I r~.~~~~~~~ I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Moved by Mannedno, seconded by Macias, carried 5-0, to adopt the Consent Calendar. RINGS B. ENVlR( IENTAL ~MENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15207 - B, LAIRD - A ~bdivision of 5.5 acres of land into one parcel and a remainde in the General Distdct (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Specific Plan, on the east side of Chades Avenue at San Marino Drive - APN: 229-321-0' Dan James, Senior ( lineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened .ublic hearing. There were no Is, and he closed the headrig. Motion: Moved by Mannedno, ~d by Macias, a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Parcel Map 1~ Motion by the following vote: AYES: MAClAS, MANNERINO, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL D T :EL MAP 15234 - JOY'S FOR US, IN(~, - A subdivision of I acres of land into two par in the General Industrial Distdct (Subarea 10) of the In Area Specific Plan, on the north side of 7th Street between Utica Avem Toronto Avenue - APN: Dan James, Senior Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNi, the public hearing. There were no and he closed the headng. Motion: by Tolstoy, seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Decla ind adopt the resolut approving Parcel Map 15234. Motion carried by the following vote: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NONE ~BSENT: NONE - carded D. ENVIRONMENTALASSE$SMENTAND TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTIN(~ TENTATIVF TRA(~T 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 66 single family lots on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07 and 55 through 57. Planning Commission Mi~l~tes -2- January 13, 1999 Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and showed slides of the property. She discussed the additional materials which had been placed in front of the Commission for their information. She indicated that an Apd11998 letter from the Department of Fish and Game referenced in *the staff report was provided as well as the final Biological report which had been received on January 11. She pointed out that the Biological Report stated that neither the California gnatcatcher nor the San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat were found on the site; however, three species listed by the State of California as Species of Special Concern were found to be present and the loss of 58 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat may be considered significant. Ms. Van Buren referred to a petition opposing the project which was signed by over 50 residents of the tract to the south of the project which had been undeveloped at the time this project was approved. She noted the letter submitted by Gerald Braden, field supervisor for the Biology Section of the San Bemardino County Museum, expressed the opinion that the biological study was vague and inaccurate. She provided a January 13, 1999, FAX from the Department of Fish and Game expressing the desire fora Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR), especially since several California Species of Special Concern were detected on the site and the previous EIR was conducted over six years ago. Also included was a January 13, 1999, FAX received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintaining that the property contains suitable habitat for the California gnatcatcher and supports several unlisted sensitive species proposed to be covered under the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). She provided a copy of a FAX from the Spidt of the Sage Council opposing land development or habitat destruction within the Cucamonga Canyon including the mesa and wash area. She provided a letter from Charles Buquet indicating he had been retained by the applicant and requesting a 90-day extension to address and attempt to mitigate concerns raised by the City, other agencies, and neighboring residents. She reported that Arthur Bridge had requested that the letter he submitted in 1992 be added to the record as being still relevant. Ms. Van Buren indicated a letter had been received immediately before the meeting from Matthew Price indicating that last summer he found a kangaroo rat in his swimming pool which is south of the proposed tract and expressing concems about the wildlife in the area. She stated a letter had also just been received from Chris and James Kenny who live in the tract to the south of the project. She said the Kennys asserted that significant changes have occurred since the project was approved and expressed concerns about public safety issues of water quality, fire dangers, and the danger of the proposed water tank being damaged by a potential earthquake. Ms. Van Buren stated the agenda included a resolution of denial based upon information staff had at the time of preparation of the staff report and recent information received indicates that the potential of significant impacts previously examined may be more severe than previously thought. She said staff feels the decision makers and the public are entitled to a complete California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review which had not been completed. Commissioner Mannerino asked for confirmation that there are species that were not listed as endangered in 1992 and therefore were not studied for this site at the time of the initial EIR. Ms. Van Buren responded that the San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat was listed after 1992. She said the final Biological Report dated January 8, 1999, states the rat is not present; however, the report indicates that three species were observed that are listed as California Species of Special Concern. Commissioner Mannerino asked if the applicant would have to start over if the time extension were denied. Ms. Van Buren replied that was correct. She said the project could be re-filed and would be processed as a new tract map. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 13, 1999 Commissioner Madas questioned if there have been changes in required CEQA protocols between when the project was initially approved and the present time. He asked if methodologies for looking for species have changed meaning that a comparing results from 1992 and the present time might be similar to comparing apples to oranges. Ms. Van Buren replied affirmatively. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Chades'Buquet, Chades Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had been hired a week ago to try to find a reasonable solution. He commented that he was familiar with the project because he had been on the City Council when the project was originally approved. He stated that the Planning Commission has the responsibility to make findings based upon substantial information on the entire record. He acknowledged that staff had not had an opportunity to review the final Biological Report prior to preparation of the staff report because the report was not delivered to the City until after the staff reports were distributed. He commented that the map had previously been extended by the City and there had been no issues with regard to CEQA until this evening. He indicated that the applicant had previously reduced the number of acres to be developed to 60 acres with another 20 acres subject to grading. He stated there had been an effort to be sensitive to the concerns raised in 1992 when the project was approved and nothing has changed on the site since then. He said the developer and City knew about the coastal sage in 1992 and a study was done at that time before the City Council certified the EIR with the requirement that a significant portion of the site be preserved. He noted that staff had suggested a Supplemental EIR be prepared but said that a Supplemental EIR should not be required because there is no substantial evidence that changes have occurred and he stated that public controversy does not constitute substantial evidence. He acknowledged that the Biological survey reports were given to staff late and that was an inconvenience. He suggested a portion of the site could be sold to the County for inclusion in the County preserve if the County would place some funds in escrow for that purpose. He indicated the biologist who prepared the report was present. He said the changes to the final biological report were minor compared to the draft report which had been presented to the City prior to preparation of the staff report. He reported the survey was a 19-week process and that was why the report took so long. He felt the City should be fair and he requested a 90-day extension to allow the developer to address .the concerns. He said he had talked with the City Attorney late in the afternoon and found that it would be permissible to ask for a 90-day extension. He said the 90-days would not be used for any development of the site and the developer would be willing to indemnify the City for the extension. Jack Easton, LSA Associates, Inc., 3403 10th Street, Suite 520, Riverside, stated he is in charge of the Biological Department for LSA's Riverside office and he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Stewart observed that the City had notified the applicant that further studies may be necessary in February and asked why there was such a long time lag. Mr. Buquet replied he could not answer that question. Mr. Easton stated that focused surveys were performed to look for evidence of the California gnatcatcher and the San Bernardino Merdam's kangaroo rat and that the biologists who performed the studies are permitted by the California Department of Fish and Game. He pointed out that neither species was observed on site, which was consistent with the results of the previous survey conducted in 1992. He reported that the surveys were concluded in December 1998. He said they also studied the habitat and concluded that the loss of 58 acres of coastal sage scrub may Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 13, 1999 be considered a significant impact. He stated the final study report outlined suggested mitigations for the loss of the sage scrub including possible purchase of off-site land or contribution of funds toward a MSHCP. He disagreed with points raised by Gerald Braden from the San Bernardino County Museum and said that observation of the species on nearby sites is irrelevant. He stated that the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife have not issued objections to the surveys. He noted that the letter provided by the Fish and Game refers to the presence of several species which are listed as California Species of Special Concern but noted that those three do not meet the requirements for preservation as they are not listed as rare or endangered. He acknowledged they are on the sensitive species watch list but said they are on the bottom of the watch list. Commissioner Macias said there may well be diffedng opinions on what species are or are not present. However, he observed the Biological report does indicate the impact to the coastal sage scrub habitat may be significant. He asked if it was the biologists's professional opinion that it would be significant. Mr. Easton replied that it up to the lead agency's discretion. Commissioner Macias again asked his professional opinion. Mr. Easton replied that he felt it would be significant. Commissioner Macias asked the possible mitigation measures. Mr. Easton said the possible mitigations range from preserving the habitat on site, to preserving habitat off site, or participation in the MSHCP. Commissioner Macias thought that Mr. Easton would routinely coordinate with Fish and Wildlife and Fish and Game and he asked his professional judgment on the process of formally coordinating with those agencies. Mr. Easton replied there is no formal protocol requiring coordination with those agencies when no threatened or endangered species are found on site. Commissioner Macias pointed out that there would be a significant loss of habitat and he thought that would require formal coordination with those agencies. Mr. Easton said it would be the lead agency's decision and they would have discretion to seek council from Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife. He observed that Fish and Wildlife had indicated suitable habitat for the gnatcatcher was located on site, and he agreed there may be suitable habitat on site but he reiterated that the bird was not found on the site. Commissioner Macias stated that the biologist had indicated the loss of habitat could be significant and he asked what mitigations the developer is proposing. Mr. Easton did not know if mitigations had been discussed. Commissioner Macias stated he did not consider himself a champion of endangered species; however, he is a champion of the appropriate processes and avoiding potential violations of CEQA. He asked where the CEQA process was. He noted that staff had done an initial study which identified potential impacts and the biological study had identified a potential significant impact. He asked where and when the proposed mitigations would be considered. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 13, 1999 Bill Cudy, Deputy City Attorney, stated that normally the Commission would have that documentation before it when being asked to make a decision. He acknowledged that the Commission had an incomplete package for consideration because the final study and proposed Negative Declaration are typically subject to circulation, comment, and professional critiquing. He noted there may be mitigation measures and a monitoring process which should be reviewed by the Commission. He stated that map extensions are subject to the CEQA process and the City has been following that practice for the last year. He observed that the applicant was asking for a 90-day extension to pull together those documents. He stated the lead agency is charged with determining the satisfaction of CEQA requirements and may determine that an addendum to the EIR or a Negative Declaration should be required. He said the analysis is drawn from fact and professional opinions and the Commission needs to have that documentation before it because the action may be subject to challenge if the Commission did not consider that documentation. He stated the Commission could deny the extension without that documentation. He believed there was also adequate authority for the Commission to continue the matter but recommended the Commission preserve the discretion to act if it should continue the matter. Commissioner Macias commented that if the Commission granted the continuance, and the developer mitigated all impacts to a level of insignificance, there was a potential for a mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Mannerino asked when LSA was retained to perform the study. Mr. Easton replied they were retained in August 1998. Richard Bddge, 917 Butte Street, Claremont, stated he was representing his parents Art and Catherine Bddge who live at 8715 Banyan Street. He presented a letter from his parents requesting denial of the extension and asking that a new master plan be prepared for the area. The following residents also spoke in opposition to the project: Frank Schiavone, 8060 Crestview Court, Rancho Cucamonga Ronald Mikus, 4918 Crestview Place, Rancho Cucamonga Bret Hartman, 4910 Skyline Road, Rancho Cucamonga Otis Rodford, 4928 Skyline Road, Rancho Cucamonga Bdan RidIon, 7712 Henbane Street, Rancho Cucamonga Chris Kenny, 5036 Crestview Place, Rancho Cucamonga Eula Mae Henderson, 5073 Crestview Place, Rancho Cucamonga Craig Berres, 10913 Manchester, Rancho Cucamonga Cynthia Nichols, 5018 Crestview Place, Rancho Cucamonga Madode Kelsey, 7730 Arroyo Vista, Rancho Cucamonga They expressed concerns regarding adequate notification, in that the property was posted on December 24, but some wdtten notices were not received until January 2 because they had been erroneously sent to Upland addresses. They asked that the upper mesa and coastal sage scrub be spared from development and pointed out that the developer's own biologist had indicated it is high quality habitat. It was pointed out that a portion of the project is located in the Open Space District and it was requested that it remain open space. They reported that the studies were not conducted at night even though the kangaroo rat is a nocturnal animal and that traps had not been set on either the upper mesa or the mesa directly north of existing development. Fears were raised that the 1,000,000 gallon water tank may rupture in the event of an earthquake because it is to be built along a fault line. Concerns were raised regarding increased traffic, response time by fire emergency vehicles, and the protection of wildlife. One resident felt that circumstances and processes have changed and something acceptable in 1992 is not necessarily acceptable today. Another resident indicated that the project is located within the San Bernardino National Forest. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 13, 1999 Mr. Buquet stated that National Forest property cannot be privately owned. He acknowledged there are concerns that need to be addressed and requested that the applicant be given 90 days in which to address those concerns. He said that he was not an expert regarding the trapping of animals but stated that professionals conducted the surveys. Headng no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public headng. Commissioner Stewart observed that the project has been approved for six years. She did not feel the applicant had made a responsible effort to be compliant. She noted that a letter was sent to the applicant in February but the biologist was not contracted until August. She thought the issues could have been resolved without asking for a 90-day continuance. She expressed concerns regarding mitigations, CEQA requirements, police and fire response times, biological issues, community trail maintenance, the water tank, and whether the project is in compliance with the General Plan with respect to Open Space Districts. She did not feel 90 days would be sufficient to address all of the issues. She feared granting a 90-day extension would set a precedent. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that staff had notified the applicant in February of the requirements and the biological issues should have addressed prior to this time. He did not support an additional 90 days. He felt that the protection of natural habitat and protected species is critical and he thought a significant amount of coastal sage would be lost. He did not think buying habitat in another area would be acceptable because there is not much left. He did not feel the proposed mitigations would work. Commissioner Mannerino stated he had walked in the canyon numerous times as a child and again with his son. He said he would have voted for denial of the project in 1992 as he does not think it is suitable. He observed that staff had sent a letter in February 1998 advising of the biological requirements. He reported that he had spoken with Mr. Buquet earlier in the day. He noted that the applicant's own biologist had indicated the impact on the coastal sage may be significant. He did not support the 90-day extension. He did not feel there would be satisfactory mitigations for the loss of the sage scrub and said that he would not find it an acceptable mitigation to purchase land in another area. Commissioner Madas agreed. He felt that trying to prepare environmental documentation in the 90-day pedod would not be adequate time and would violate the spidt and intent of due process under CEQA. He thought there would not be adequate time to evaluate the old and new information. He noted that staff had prepared the initial environmental assessment and determined that an EIR should be prepared. He felt it would be damaging in the administrative record in the event of a lawsuit if the Commission were to ignore staff's recommendation. He acknowledged that as the lead agency, the decision is up to the City. He said he felt that due process must be followed. He thought there has been enough new information to warrant the preparation of an EIR or focused EIR. He agreed that an extension of 90 days would not be appropriate. Chairman McNiel concurred with the rest of the Commissioners. He agreed that the process must be followed. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias0 to adopt the resolution denying Time Extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MAClAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carded Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 13, 1999 "--CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 8, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A public hearing on the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, a residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Staff recoumtends certification of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. BACKGROUND: On April 8, 1992, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the adequacy of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 113-acre residential project. At that time, public input on the project raised several concerns about sensitive plant and animal species, discharge of storm drain waters into the Cucamonga Wash, archeological resources, alluvial fan scrub habitat, etc. (see Exhibit "C"). Additionally, the Commission raised concerns about adequate water pressure for fire protection. As a result, the Commission continued the public hearing to allow additional studies and revisions to the EIR to address these comments. ANALYSIS: While not required to respond to the comments raised at the meeting of April 8, 1992, the Commission felt it important to consider those comments in the EIR. As a result, the Mitigation Monitoring Program of the EIR has been amended to address the drainage to the Cucamonga Wash, archaeological standards to be used, protection of native oak trees, and fencing/posting along the wash. Additionally, special attention was paid to sensitive/endangered species and fire protection as follows and as noted in the EIR: A. Sensitive S~ec[es: The Commission requested that a "spring survey" be conducted to determine if sensitive or endangered species were present on the buildable portion of the site. Exhibit "F" of this report contains the results of the spring survey. Generally, the biologists conducted field surveys on three separate dates over a two-week period. During these surveys, no gnatcatchers were observed and one scat from the San Diego horned lizard was found. While this indicates the presence of a lizard on the mesas, it is PLANNING CO~L~ISSION ~TAFF REPORT EIR FOR VTT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS July 8, 1992 Page 2 felt that this is not significant because the primary habitat of the lizard would be within the Cucamonga Wash. In addition, no other sensitive/endangered plant or animal species was observed on the mesas. It is expected that they would also be found within the wash. B. Fire Safety.: As noted in the EIR, water pumps or pressure tank systems may be necessary to achieve adequate water pressure and flows for fire suppression. This concept is utilized in other areas of the City and has been found to be safe. The minimum standards outlined in the Wildland Fire Study meet the standards of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and must be met prior to construction of the project. Since the public hearing, staff has received a letter from the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services (see Exhibit "D"). The Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) is primarily concerned with the preservation of coastal sage scrub habitat. It indicates that 70 species, either listed or proposed as endangered or Federal candidate species, habitat the coastal sage. In speaking with the City's consultant, these 70 species are state-wide and no signs of these species (except the horned lizard) were detected on this site. While the Planning Commission is not required to address the letter because it was received after the public comment period, the Commission may wish to consider the information as part of their deliberations. CEQA PROCESS: A.. Mitigation Monitoring: As noted in the staff report of April 8, 1992, the EIR contains a Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Program (see attached). The program identifies the particular mitigation measures, who is responsible for their implementation, and the timing of implementation. This program provides for checks and balances, not just at the initial stages but through the life of the mitigation measure. The program incorporates the mitigation measures recommended by the Commission at their meeting on April 8, 1992, plus all previous mitigation measures. B. Time Limits: As previously mentioned, under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), action must be taken on an EIR within one year from the date the project application was deemed complete, with the possibility of one 90-day extension of time. At the April 8, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, the processing of the EIR had reached the one-year mark. With the hearing tonight, the 90-day extension has been exhausted. As a result, the Planning Commission must take action tonight to either certif~ the ade~uac~ of the EIR or determine that the EIR is not adequate. PLANNING COMMISSIO~ ~TAFF REPORT EIR FOR VT~ 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS July 8, 1992 Page 3 If the Commission determines the EIR adequately addresses the environmental issues and certifies the document, the EIR will then be used in reviewing the design of any tentative tract map application. By certifying the EIR, the Planning Con~nission is not obligated to approve the project, but rather, the Commission must determine whether the project complies with all mitigation measures outlined in the EIR to reduce the environmental impacts to a "less than significant" level. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the site, and the site was posted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify the adequacy of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 through adoption of the attached Resolution. ir~~ uller~ City Planner BB:SM/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 8, 1992 Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission minutes dated April 8, 1992 Exhibit "C" - Sage Friends Letter dated April 5, 1992 Exhibit "D" - United States Department of Interior Letter Exhibit "E" - Biological Survey dated June 26, 1992 Mitigation Monitoring Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (previously distributed) Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report 04113i19~8 18: 1~ ~85~19 H~EYER P~GE 03 State o~ Cal~ornia - The R~urces Agen~ P~ W~LSO~, Ga~r~or DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME http://~.~g.ca.gov Eas~ ~ - In.rid ~ R~on 330 ~den S~m, Suite 50 Long ~a~, Cal~m~ g08~ (5e2) 59~5~ 13 April 2, 1998 Mr. Brad Bullet City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 1500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Dear Mr. Brad Buffer: Project Planning for Sensitive Habitats in the City of Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino County The Department of Fish and Game (Department) is writing to follow up on biological resource issues raised at our recent meeting with your office. As you are aware, the Department, the United States F~sh and Wjddlife Service, and others, are very concerned about continued losses of sensitive habitats located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and neighboring areas. Habitats of particular concern include Rivemidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, (state-ranked Sl .1 rated. very threatened natural community), Alluvial Chaparral, Riversidean Coastal Sage Scrub (state-ranked S2.1, very threatened), and various riparian commun'~. Conversion of ruderal grasslands and areas of past agricultural use to urban uses is also a concam. These habitats support an array of sensitive plant and animal species. Federally listed animals known to occupy these areas include the threatened California gnatcatcher (federally listed on 3/30193), endangered San Bemardino Merriam's kangaroo rat (emergency listed on 01/27/98), and endangered least Bell's vireo (federally listed 5/2/86; state listed 10/2/80). As many as twenty-five sensitive species of plants and animals, may occur in these habitats. Sensitive rodent and reptile species also occur in ruderal grassland and agricultural areas, and these sites are important foraging and nesting areas for numerous raptors and rare species of bats. Where riparian and aquatic habitats ara found sensitive/listed species of riparian birds and amphibians may be present. 04/13/1999 18:19 B056,'~S'~)19 ~'~E~ER ~ PAGE 04 Mr. Brad Buller April 2, 1998 Page Two These listed and/or sensitive species generally meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definitions of rare and endangered species. CEQA Guidelines, § 15380 requires that impacts to these species be addressed in an environmental document and significant impacts to them be mitigated. Further, where a project may have a significant impact on such species and habitats by reducing their numbers or range, CEQA Guidelines, § 15065 Mandatory Finding of Significance requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Department is very concerned about continued, unmitigated losses of these habitats and sensitive species populations. We are particularly concerned about projects going forward without current biological surveys and adequate CEQA compliance. On several recent occasions, projects that have been dormant for a number of years are now going forward utilizing old CEQA documentation, including Negative Declarations. Generally, reliance upon the use of environmental approvals more than five years old raise serious questions regarding their adequacy and compliance with CEQA requirements. It is important to note that biological survey information is generally only valid for a three year period at the maximum. Changes in habitat conditions, site use, and species listing status are common. Additionally, several large preserves in the North Eftwanda area have been established over the last few years. and protection of habitat connectivity and wildlife movement between these areas is currently a critical planning issue. The Department often finds that these older environmental documents do not adequately address current biological resource concems and fail to address cumulative impacts to these resources. For approved projects more than three years old, the Department advises the City of Rancho Cucamonga that substantial changes have occurred with respect to biological resource values in many of the undeveloped portions of the City's sphere. CEQA Guidelines, §15162 directs that the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent environmental document, where new information of substantial Importance comes to light that indicates: a) one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration could occur; b) substantially Impacts are more severe than previously shown; or c) mitigation measures or alternatives different from those previously analyzed would substantially [educe impacts. These changed conditions also create additional CEQA compliance responsibilities for the Department. CEQA Guidelines, §15381 states that '...the term 'responsible agency' includes all public agencies other than the lead agency which have discretionary approval power over the project." The Department, therefore, is a responsible agency where a project requires issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish and Game Code §1603) or a California Endangered Species Act 84/13/1998 18:19 88564m~19 MMEYER ~ PAGE 85 Mr. Brad Buller Apdl 2, 1998 Page Three Permit (Fish and Game Code § 2081). Consequently, the Department may be required, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(e), to prepare a subsequent environmental document where the Lead Agency does not prepare one. It is important to note that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding for development of the San Bemardino Valley-wide Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Unfortunately, progress toward development of this plan has been slow. This planning effort provides for interim review of projects and requires evaluation of cumulative impacts to species and their habitats. The recent need for emergency listing of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service occurred, in part, due to continued habitat loss and a number of CEQA projects which are imminently close to approval and do not currently have adequate project mitigation. If the MSHCP effort is to be successful, and if we are to avoid the need for future species listings. it is critical that we have sufficient flexibility to develop a meaningful conservation strategy and effective reserve system. As piecemeal development projects eliminate more habitat and remaining areas are fragmented, it may become difficult to achieve this goal, therefore, we ask for your support in implementing the afore-mentioned measures for projects that are more than three years old, The Department is available to work with the City to ensure that projects comply with CEQA, CESA and Fish and Game Code § 1603 and to develop appropriate mitigation for any impacts to the biological resources. We are also available to assist in ensuring that any issues pertaining to the older proposed projects are incorporated into the MSHCP effort where appropriate. The Department recommends that the City contact us to set up a meeting as action reeumee on the older projects. We request that you provide us with a few weeks notice so as to coordinate the appropriate Department staff that needs to participate in the meeting. The Department appreciates the effort the City has shown in looking at interim project planning issues. Your support in moving ahead on the valley-wide MSHCP is important. Should you have any questions please direct them to Ms. Mary Meyer, Plant Ecologist at (805) 640-8019; Mr. Rail Rodriguez, Fishery Biologist at (909) 597-9823, or Mr. Liam Davis, Natural Communities Conservation Planning at (760) 467-4207. Sincerely, Glenn Black, Supervisor Natural Heritage copy: see attached list 01/13/].999 15:52 8056408019 Iv~-YER P~3E 01 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ffo~ol 01/13/1999 15:52 B05640B019 I.,1HEYER P/~E 02 01/13/1999 15:52 805~408019 MMEYER PAGE 03 United States Department of the l t tlilt ! ¥ E Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services JAN I~ 0 19~ Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2730 Loker Avenue West City of Rancho Cucamol Carlsbad, California 92008 Plar~r~/rtg DMsJon Brad Buller, City Planner JAN 1 3 1999 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91727 Re: Environmental Assessment and Time Extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, Allard Engineering Dear Mr. Buller, We are in receipt of the biological assessment report dated January 8, 1999, and your staff report on the above referenced project. While we received these documents on January 11, 1999, and have had little time for a thorough review, these comments are provided at this time for the benefit of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, which we understand will hear this requested time extension this evening. We provided comments on this project in a letter dated May 6, 1992. These comments remain valid, and the following new information also applies. This project contains suitable habitat for the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptilla californica californica) and may contain suitable habitat for the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriamiparvus). Both of these species were listed since the August 1991 subsequent environmental impact report for this proposed project. The proposed project possess high value for multi-species reserve design. The property supports several unlisted sensitive species proposed to be covered under the San Bernardino Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and is contiguous with extensive habitat areas on the Etiwanda Fan Complex and the San Bernardino National Forest. The City of Rancho Cucamonga signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to participate in the development of the MSHCP in June 1995, and resigned this MOU in December 1997. This MOU establishes a set of interim project review guidelines intended to deter projects that would preclude preservation and reserve design options for the MSHCP. This project may preclude preservation options for proposed covered species (including the gnatcatcher and kangaroo rat) and for viable contiguous reserve design. Though recent surveys have not detected listed species, suitable habitat remains to benefit these species in the long-term. These affects to the regional planning of habitat preserves, and the possible long-term affects to listed species have not been adequately addressed. Mr. Brad Buller In accordance with the MOU, we support the Planning Staff recommendation to deny this requested time extension. If you have any questions, please contact Scott Eliason of this office at (760)431-9440. Sincerely, Assistant Field Supervisor To: City of Rancho Cucamonga FI £ C £ ! ¥ £ Planning Commission dAN 1 1 1999 From: The Undersigned Residents of Rancho Cucamonga City of Rancho Cucamonga Subject: The Proposed Extension of Tract 14475 Planning Division We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, are opposed to the approval of a time extension for tentative Tract 14475. Our opposition is voiced for the following reasons: 1. This proposed development will significantly impact one of the most beautiful scenic vistas in the area; 2. The construction of a one million gallon reservoir on or near a known earthquake fault will endanger life and property; 3. This area is a critical wildlife corridor; 4. This proposed development does not comply with the City's General Plan Land Use Plan which states that an open space district is limited to one residence per 40 acres (The Northeastern quadrant of the site lies in an open space district); 5. The proposed development does not comply with the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) of which the City of Rancho Cucamonga is a participating agency; 6. This site is comprised of roughly 60 acres of irreplaceable and pristine coastal sage scrub; 7. This property abuts the San Bernardino National Forest and the Cucamonga Wilderness and is a critical buffer to these protected lands; 8. This property is potential habitat for currently listed and proposed endangered species including the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, the Coastal Gnatcatcher, the Quino Checker Spot Butterfly (listed in 1993), and the Santa Aria Sucker (about to be listed); and 9. The developer's own draft Biological Assessment Report prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. states "the site supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife and plants and is, therefore, considered to be high quality habitat. Thus, impacts of the project to habitat (i.e. coastal sage scrub) may be considered significant." There are many environmental questions and issues left unanswered by both the City's study and the developer's Biological Assessment Report. We further believe that many new environmental concerns have arisen since the project's initial approval and must be adequately addressed. We respectfully request that the extension of Tract 14475 be denied. City o! Ranclno ¢ucar~ng)a Planning Division- further believe that many new environmental concerns have arisen since the project's initial approval and must be adequately addressed. We respectfully request that the extension of Tract 14475 be denied. ~ ,-~- . . JAN 1 l 1999 City,of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division further believe that many new environmental concerns have arisen since the project's initial approval and must be adequately addressed. We respectfully request that the extension of Tract 14475 be denied. City of Rancho Cuca~nga Planning Division /~ further believe that many ne~ environmental concerns have arisen since the project's initial approval ajfd must be adequately addressed. We respectfully request that ~he extension of Tract 14475 be denied. further believe that many new environmental concerns have arisen since the project's initial approval and must be adequately addressed. We respectfully request that the extension of Tract 14475 be denied. JAN 1 1 1999 ~-¢~ '~~ ' City ot Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division further believe that many new environmental concerns have arisen since the project's initial approval and must be adequately addressed. We respectfully request that the extension of Tract 14475 be denied. ].. further believe that many new environmental concerns have arisen since the project's initial approval and must be adequately addressed. We respectfully request that the extension of Tract 14475 be denied. RECEIVED J/~N I 1 1999 City o4 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 3'g~--12-I999 11:30 P.~I January 12, 1999 To: Rebecca Van Buren City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission _ / -------- ; 8060 Crestview Court );9~'- ' : Alta Loma,.CA 9I 70 ""Subject: Ten, rive Tract 14475 As requested, I am faxing you Gerald Braden's letter disputing the fin 'chngs of LSA's Biological Assessment Report. Also, I would St~n~y urge that the City r6~i~ the S~a~ of Califomia's Natreal Communities Cons~n'vation Planning Program that was enacted by the NCCPP Act. This legislation prohibits the destruction. of RECEIVED " JANI'~I~3 . City o,.,t. Rancho Cucarno ~ ~'tanning Division nga RECE.[¥ED; ~ ~12-99; lO:23AU; => R CUCAMONGA COi~ DEV; #2 ~.0. Box 8~ Ra~ Cu.~ CA 91~7 ~igati~s of the ~o~ ~d ~una ~f~he ~~ Unk~ States a~ ~pedalIy S~ ', moum~ '~, ~~ ~ ~ ~b, and r~ ~ ~ h~ ~d ~.~s in ;~d ~d ~ ~ ~~ V~!~. So~ of~ Munro's on ~ r~ ~el~ fife- - .'hiSfO~ ~ ~t ~~ ~the f~!y thmatm~ CaJi~n ~m~ (~[~ C~I~) ~d ~e ~]ly ~an~md San B~ardb~ ~n~aroo ~t ( ~e.'~ =~), ~ ~ol0~ ~ ~: ~e S~ ~r~ Vdl~ ~u~S~m ~m Con--ion Plan. 'As a profe~on~ biology. ~rch dicot ~ ~eld m,~r ~ t~ Biolo~ : of the 5~ ~i~ C~n~ Mu~. a~ ~ ~mh ~tist ~m the ~fi~i~ a~ :: a~s ~biolo~ dam for ~ Vdl~ ~~ H~ 1 ~J~ ~b~t ~ ~11o~n8 ~ Assault ~" ~ I5 ~~, I~" ~ ~$A ~ciat~. ~e co~s are ;. su~itted to ~ the ~o ~ongs P!~ni~ Commi~on in t~ as~m~t ofpot~tial ~ bie]p~ .i~ ~ the pr~ ~ ~d in ~n6 ~d u~ p~n8 d~d~s ~ th~ ~~. ' h~=~: ~t r~ tO ~:~k~ ~. 8~ b ~cted to the ~lu~ f~s~ ~hes. and. semb ~tats o~t~ S~ ~d~ V~ ~ ~ ~o.s ~e~de'C~nty fMeK~an !~. ~ ~i~'~, p~ ~dion, ~d ~n~c dillon of SBKR E REC IVED. , ..... .... , ......,., '~ ' ," r J' ,~f[¢ - ~./L.~ * "' ' '~ '. ~ Z~'"~U~ , '. :Gity of Ranc~.Guca~nga " '" Jlql+-12-1999 11:31 '! : the S~m Bernardino Valley. For these reasons, the Ico8 term survival arid recovery of the SBKR ., ...' i~'a. re&jot componem of t~e Valley Multi-species Plan. The pg0peeed pmje0t iS, wila~m t!~ knm~ aed historic dist~buticms otS~BKR, The · ' d~, '~-r~n ~appro~ ~ ~ in the bioloSiM tep(m is va~e and inoonsismnt wi~h R4'u~um research on tlm ql~eies. $p.eeiffeal!y.~ the occurrence of'seedy soil ~ not a,p .re:~lulak¢ teor.oo~upml~: as Slilq:l[ are.keown to occur a~'oss a wide v~rie~ oLr substrate types found within · atlu .v~l 9ystera~ auch u occurs cm. the p~poscd I~t dtc. Tile de~ption.o£suitable ve~taticm cover ~ S!~IG~. is similarly vasue and inaccurate. · Specifically, the ternl ~iodest ~o~,eltjcm covet~* in pltr~ph tbre~ otr pase ~out is contradicted .. "by the .tcrm.".. ,where the v~ Js dense eno~sb,.,'* in para&~aph R)ut. Museum research .51~1~ ~ fbund that $pecixqc amoullts of vaseration cover are not prerequisite to occupation by SBKR are knew, to exist in the Day Cn~k Channel, as stated ~n the. ~9. ~t. Ro,,,e,e' ,he rep~ does not mention that ~ ate me known to penJar several miles to the west in San Arrt .oilJo w~lt ~tear ]~tleli~le avenue atKl that carrent studJea by the Mu~.um continue to capture SgY,.ft:on ~udy plou. throuShout the £dwam:la ~. 'fherelS~ alfilou~ the biolo~cal ~'eport ~ that trappitt[! ~ssions were conducted, · ' vitgue and potentially mi. lleadt~ Iratruants of'SBKR biology, alon8 with out otrdate information : ' ' The f:)iologi~ report states on d~e top. ofps~ three that the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat · . '...ca the site 'a ma~.'naJly suitable in terms of'both pkysiognonTy. and tloristic composition. This is , simply not correct. Studies by the ]~t~trn (!~raden et aJ, 1997) have found that florlsitic .composition is not a fa~tor in habitat ~uitabtlky for the CaliFornia gnatcatcher within coastal sage .. scrub Itebitats. TI~ same study also found that, contnuT. to statements in the bioloBical report. ' habitat suitability ~or California (:taate. atchet tn4a'eeses with ir~'eued habitat density. and ~tuctuntl The re9ort iz~iea ott pe&e three,.secortd pat~raph, that California Gnatcatcher detection is higher outside oFthe breedin~ season. This too is it~ortect. Alan. studies by the Museum ,,~ .raden.. and,wau~ 1995m and 199'Jb). o~ wtdd~ the current USFWS aurvcy pr9t. ocel is based.. . indir, nte tbnt ,Caltf. omie Geateatcherlm. c bala detectable om.~ide of the bre. gdin8 season, That is the ' ' .prJm!b=g, reesot~ tl~ non-b'eedtng season am'rays require nine survey days while !~.eeding scaaon ..:, " sut~. bray tequke stx survey days ~d also the wason the survey' protocol for California : "Cmatcsa:ber wa~ updated fram three.d~ys. *' . Etiwancta tim in ,Rdm~ Cuca.~ea~pt in 1994. This is incorrect,. The' mo~t recent sishfin~ was the RtiwimdaFan in the 1996 breedin& season. . .The report sullSests that theelevaion of the proposed project area project area mayt~e too high for Callf0mia On~,ber.' This is incoi'rect. The alerational study by Atwood and Bolsinge' (1992) d'td not include most areas ofSnn F/emsrdino County. ttor does the stu~ty "'" 'ipL) RECEIVED; 1-12-99; 10:24A~a; => R CUCAMONGA COU DEV; #4 .U:~N- 12-1999 11:31 "* *~X/.i~/~999 15:,4e~ 989,~,._, ~529 $,~ Bl~a'd 03 ~j .... ,.~ Fr~.~E 04 'ccmc~de.tb~ ~ ie an inclicgor of'hd:~at suit~il;('y For the ~e~, Fu~h~ Si~ t~ ~ On ~ '~~, ~ ~ d~e ~c~ on the room r~t the.~l ~ ~y ~ ~ ~e ~i~ t~ ~ p~s thit fl~ du~ns s~ng and · Tbe'Smghem Gra~l~pl~' Mouse (Onyc,~om~ ton, f~t$ romona) is not ~.sily cmlght proj~ ~ '~ ~ ~~ th~ ~ld o~ on the pr~ proj~ rite, ~t were - ~A,qimld rdovemeDts m'e constrained by ~ p~ ~ as mminB, ~spcr~l, ~ weR u ~,.t~ ~mc o~d~y, ~ ~1 m~ ~d ~re co~4or ~cti~s ~nnot ~ u~ ~ a'~ ~ ~ a ~. ~ps the ~ inifi~ ~fimnt~ of~e ~lue oran area as a 4 : r~~~. · ';' ~. United States. Iournai oflr)dd OnddjoJosy. 6]:t59-168. i Braden,.O.T. and M. B. WottlreI 1995a. Observations on breeding season det~tabllity znd ! , ~u~eys for the Celi~rni~ C-~tmemeher (Po/t .¢~pt/~ c;~/t~c~ calt~twtc;). Unpubli~ed ' mlauscs'ipt submittal to Weitern ~ County Multi $peei~ Mann~ement Committee. i:' Rtaden~ O. T. amt M, B. Wotdrei 1995b. Observations on non-breeding sea,son detectabi[ky and · ~r~/~' R~r the California Gnateat~ber (PoI~t~/~ ea/i~ca ~,l~.~r~/ca). Unpublished " ~ ~ t,~ '.We~s~ITI Rivefllide COullty MuJ~ 5J:)e(:~ ,:. B,ra,,den, O. T., R. L. M~an~ ired S. M. Powell. 1997a. Asso ,ciatlon ofwithiu~territory Ventron char~etisti~ sad ~ components of C~lifomi& Gnatcatchers. Auk I~.K, .~.R, L. 1997, $tntus and knm~m clistribtrdon of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (D'~,,~,~,~/,~t .pa~$): lqetd Surveys co~bJC~a~ between 1987 and 1996, RWon prqamxl for the U.a. lqah aml Wildlife ,Service, Cadsbed Piehi Office. September. "McKemln, ILL. I994a. Sensitive biological resources ofthe North Etiwanda Open Space '~ Area. Report by the San !)ernardi~ Coup. M),lseum to the San Bernanl~ i. M¢I~ :¢rnan~ R.L. 1994b. Sensitive mammals of'the San gevaine Creek Project. Report by the BioloSicai $cienc~ Division, $~n 8eroetdino County Museum to Southwestern Field 01/~3/.~999 18:02 6267~49931 F__~ NETI~IORK ~~ . .. 81/13/1999 18:02 G267,:I. 49931 E.S~ NETrt4~RK Pd~:]E 02 RECEIVED: 1-13-99; 5:11PM; 6267449931 => R CUCAMONGA COM DE¥; #3 01/13/1999 18:82 G26744qci3! ESA NET~ PAGE 03 RE: 1T 1447S, EA tad ~ F, xmmim 4. n,,*l should be chartBed to refleot dmt there wou!d be a"Polmfidly Sisnificant l .rapocr' 7. a-e should I~ dmnS~ ~) faber ~hat atom would be a "Pommial~ $'~.~nt ~ 8 and9. should b~ c~mg~l to re~i~t thsa thsm would be a"Po~mtla!ly Stgnlfi¢mt lml~' 12. ¢-e and $ nho~d be ¢~an~ to r~!~t that d~re would I~ a '~Pol=ntin!lY Si~t ~' 13. a-~shouldbedmsnsmdmmns~tdmtthn~.~uidbem"Pom~tidl~ 's~=iflc~~ 15. a-b ~hould b~ e. hs~ed m ~ ~at t!mm wouM be a "Pu~aaidl~ ~'~,aaa T .m?ad:~'~ 16. ,~. ~ be ehnna~ ~a re~ ~lmt ~tmre would ~e a"Pm=mia!~ $t~nRl~mt lmPn~ RECEIVED; 1-13-99; 5:'~2PM; (~2§7449931 => R CUCAMONGA CDM DEV; #4 ~., 01./1_3./_i..9..9.9. i8:02 G267449q3! ESA NETWCRK PAGE 84 C~ ~.mam C=~=~sm,'mmmm~ _C,,-~mm~ It.E: 'Fl' 1447.4, EA md ~ ~ ~m F~mm~ Arthur H. Bridge 8715 Banyan St. Alta Loma. CA 9170 January 13, 1999 Mr. Larry McNeil Chairman, Planrang Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga Re: Tract 14475, Alta Loma Dear Mr. McNeil and Members of the Planning Commission, Tonight, the Planning Commission, City of Rancho Cucamonga will hear a request by Allard Engineering to approve an extension of the plan for Tract No. 14475 in Alta Loma. As owners of twenty undeveloped acres lying just south of the project under discussion and north of Almond Street at Turquoise we support the recommendation of denial of this request by the Planning Staff for several reasons: -- The unanswered environmental concerns in light of recent State laws; -- the concentrated pattern of the residential lots unrelieved by internal open spaces; -- the recording of 66 lots on 113 acres with a claim to a density of "less than two per acre, when a large percent of those unbuildable acres lie over the Cucamonga Wash. Where lie the environmental issues of sage and wildlife? There or on the mesa? -- the inattention of the owners to their permit issued in 1992 -- over six years ago; -- the resulting unequal treatment in improving Turqoise. Today our property would have to support of street improvements for about one mile on at least one side of Turquoise Street. We do not own any property on either side of Turquoise. We increased the density of our proposed plan to 10 homes on 20 acres to pay for Almond St. improvements. Thus the traffic generated by our 10 homes is today assumed to be equal to that of 66 homes plus the other tracts in the area.. In our opinion, the area requires a new master plan. The exceptional beauty of the mesa offers unique planning opportunities. Views of the mountains and valley should be featured, open corridors, horse trails and paths could be brought throughout the tract with concerns for endangered species, while garages and streets could take second (third?) place in residential designs. As many have pointed out, this site could be so much more -- another jewel in the crown of Rancho Cucamonga. In 1992, we wrote the Planning Commission, "We have been very disappointed that the City has not grasped the opportunity in its master planning to protect this fragile and beautiful mesa. On one hand. there have been laudable but expensive attempts to preserve the City's historic homes. On the other, rare opportunities for the creation of unique !and use designs in this location have not been pursued while they were possible. We hope the City in the near future will protect with higher standards the few remaining undeveloped areas along the foothills in Rancho Cucamonga." We hold that hope today. Sincerely, 'X'H IBIT 17 9 CITY OF P ~';CHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION APR 0 1199Z Arthur H. Bridge ~ ~l 87t5 Banyan Street Alta Loma, California ~1701 April I, I~ Larry McNeil, Chairman Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, California ~1730 RE: TT IA~?5: Sahama Investments, Inc. Dear Mr. HeNell and Members of the Commission, Sahama Investments (TT 1~75) is expected to come before the Planning Com- mission on April 8, 1~ foc a hearing to consider action on its Environmental Impact Report. It is stated that the Planning Staff recommends approval of this EIR. It is reported that this certification ~iI1 be granted on grounds of in- vestment c,f time and money in the process so far. If this approval indeed takes place, we as o~ners of the propetty directly south of this project, ~ish to suggest several design considerations: I. The equestrian trail on the southern boundary of the project site is elevated to some degree above our property on the south. This elevation ~ilt infringe on the privacy of future property o~ners on the south, even if future development there provides for a six foot ~all along the northern perimeter. Suitable irregated landscaping outside the trail fencing ~ould help to mitigate this problem. In addition, an open view of the backyards of Lots 1 to 5 from future home owners on the south is far from desirable. Homeowners on these lots can be ex- pected to erect a variety of walls and barriers north of the trail fencing. Could this become the eyesore experienced in other locations? For large, expen- sive homes such as these are projected to be, would not a meandering trail, ,alled on the north and andscaped on both sides be a true amenity to the entir.e tract? ~. A dirt utility road continues north from the Cucamonga County Water District reservoir 5A (just north of the ~estern terminus of Almond Street) t.:, the southeast corner of TT 1~75 (at Lot 5). This has been used in recen~ years by both dirt bikers and horse riders. A strong barrier should be estab- lished at this point to prevent trespassing do~n this road from the equestrian trail. Perhaps CCWD should be consulted on this point. 3. The drainage from Lots 17 to 5 flo~s directly down a pipe into the Cucamonga Wash just above this point within TT IA~?5. Adequate safeguacds should be provided at this point to protect children~ (adults?)~ animals, rocks~ trash~ etc. from dropping down the pipe to the floor of the Wash. A. The "Seismic Exclusion Zone" (p~O) sho~s an earthquake fault from eas'~ to ~est which ends at Lot D. (Does it go underground?) A geological study made by Moore and Taber for the property to the south sho~s this same fault line; however, it does not end. Rathat, the fault line continues in a straight line to the south west, through Lots ~3, ~, ~1~ 5, and & and across the north~es[ corner of the southern property. The Hocre & Taber study included siesmological soundings while the Sahama study used only trenching. In additioz~ Moore and Taber identified these faults during a seismological study for the Cucamonga County Water District and ~gain by a subsequent study for ourselves. As a mat-. ter of the safety of future home o~ners of those lots~ should not this dis- crepancy be seriously analyzed? 5. As the US Forest Service letter suggested, street lights and lights in open spaces should be adequately screened not only within the tract but als~ from surrounding properties. 6. Structures should take advantage of the outstanding view both to the north and to the south. Buildings should be planned to avoid obstructing thi~ view, not only within the property but also to surrou~ding properties. We ap- preciate the fact that the heights of the homes has been reduced to twenty-~ eight feet. ?. The homeowners~ association agreements should make strong provisions for high quality trail and open space maintenance and for continuous fire~ protection practices. The response time for the Fire District is stated to be seven minutes. In high wind periods, the District could be too busy. Perhap~ internal fire protection measures could be included in the homeowners agree- ments. TT 14475 is in an exceptionally beautiful location. The architectural designs are for spacious and expensive homes. This site promises to be a. choice place to live. It will be a nice tract and a nice neighborhood. On the other hand, it could be so much more -- a true jewel in the crowr~ of Rancho Cucamonga. Each of the Planning Commissioners have become aware of our hopes for the twenty acre parcel to the south. Our original plans were for four lots of fi~e acres each. As we became aware of the increasing off-site im- provements we would be required to provide because of the traffic projections based on the de~sity projections of two homes per acre, we had to increase de~- sity on our plan to ten lots in order to cover the increased on and off-site requirements the City has added. Thus we have asked for a density of one home per two acres; we would prefer a ratio of one to three. We are extremely disappointed that the City has not seen the opportunity in its master planning to plan and protect this extremely fragile and beautiful mesa. There are on going, expensive but laudabls attempts to preserve the City's historic homes. However, it is regretable that the rare opportunities for the creation of unique land use designs have not been pursued ~hile they were possible. We hope the City in the near future ~ill protect with higher standards the few remaining developable areas along the foothills in Rancho Cucamonga. Sincerely yours, Arthur H. Bridge If¸ Chris Kenny James Kenny 5036 (.'restview Place Rancho Cucamonga. CA 9170 I t ~.S.A. Phone (9(19) 941-9421 Janua~ 13. 1999 (;it3' of Rancho Cucamonga ¢'itv Planning Commission Dear Commission Members: Sub. jccl: Tracl # 14475 / Request for Extension of Tract Map I live in a residence located approxima(cly 3511+/- fccl soulh of tract #14475. My husband and I have observed the Kral on our property last spring on Iwo diflbrcnl occasions, I firsl obse~ the Kml. last spring. when one came out o[a deep wartung pipe for some nexvl3 planted box Irccs. The second time was when wc cleared a parlially dclcriomling pallel of s~ and found a nesl of Krals xxilh 3 babies. Fo~unately, ~e babies were old enough Io Iblloxv more and we lel them travel s~ely to a ncu local ion. ! have ~so obse~ed the California Coastal Gnalcalchcr on my pmpe~y near some of my bird feeders and also on the subject pm~ (~act ~14475). For ~er refe~nce, I have obsen,cd lhc following animals either on or n~ ~e ~bject prope~'. Mounlain lion (once), bo~ (Iwice), deer (numerous limes). coyotes (numerous times), hawks, falcons. owls. and many other song birds, not to mention a few rallieshakes along the way. The ~el sup~ a healthy and divergent plaut life. I f~l that this pamel of land has an abundance of prime habitat w~ch shoed ~ prese~ed It is also extremely valuable because il abutIs Ihc Ranch Cucan~onga creek. as well as F~eml and State open spaces. This particular piece of !and is not an island surrounded b) urbanizalion. The "draft" biological report from LSA dated [)ecelnber 15. 1998 states: Project impacts to coastM ,va,~.e scru/~ (/oss ~?/ 5,~' acres) nmv be considered ,vi~n~ficant as this loss m~v xubshmliai(v t/i.ti~dxh h(~him/ {i.' wl/d/~fi. and plants. A/though no listed ,vpec:ie,v are present on the ,vile, con.vital sa~c,e scrub is considered a sensitive habitat type. f;~rther, as is rqfiecled /0: rhr: attached ,~pecies list and .vensltive species table, the site supports a diver,re ~,xxv~'.th/cL~e qf wilctl~fi' and plants and is, therefore, considered to he hi,c~h qtta/iO: htihilal. 7I~us, impacts qf the proposed prqlect to habitat fl. e, coastal sage ,vcrtth) t11(1~~ h(, cm'~.~uh,red significant. The California Dep~ment of Fish anti Game. in lollers. bas stated ~al lhey have p~icnlar concern for prqjccls Ihat have b~n dom~t for years xvbich arc now being maclivaled utilizing old CEQA documenlation. The Depamnent has gone on the record making known real concerns with ~e ummfigated loss of ~bitals and sensitive species popffiafions using enviromncnlal rcporls more Ihan 5 yem old. ~s proj~t fits the Depa~menl's profile o£concern, Due to the Icnglh of lime Ihal lhis I)rqiecl has laid dormant it ~ld lead to the illegal lake o1' cndangcrcd an~or t~eatened spccies, along wilh Ihe loss oF prime proleered habilal. I do not believe that the cib~ has been provided with cnough information. Fu~her, the environmental rcporls prepared back in 1992 are ohsoleic, cm'rcnl environmental protocols have not ~en done to provide sufficicut i~ormation to enable Ihe Plauning Commission to make an informed decision given current laws and significaul changes in cir~slances wincc 1992. Compliancc x~ilh the ci~'s request for a new CEQA and bnrdcn of pr~f of negative impact within Ihc required time was on the develo~r. ~e deveio~r was given sufficienl and timely notification by the cilv to comply The developer's ~e extension cxpircd on Novcmbcr 18, 1998. the planuing commission requesled a CEQA repofl due to sig~fic~t chauges, Since i~ is nol feasible io complete the CEQA review within the applicanl's remaining time constmims, Ihcrc appcars to bc no allcrnative but to deny ~e requested time exlension. Thcrclbrc. my hushed ~d I fifily snpporl lhc slafl~ rcconunendalion 1o Ihe Planning Commission. Below please find a lisl items and/or violations. in addition Io the foregoing, that my husband and m~self bclicvc need to be consider~ regarding said proper'l); 1. The develo~r's ~mc to bring said Ii'~ct i~1o compliancc has expired 2. There have ~en significant changes smcc this prqjccl~s SEIT certification 3. Timely notice to a~jacenl properly owner's xvilh requisilc time for pnblic review may not have been done properly wi~ ~lple respousc time. 4. The Gnatcatcher has been added Io ~l~c endangered lisl. 5. The S~ Bem~dino Mereams Kangaroo ra~ has been added to the en~ngered list. 6. 4 & 5 a~ve ~e associated wilh coastal sage scrub habitat which is premnt on ~e site. 7. Quino Checke~t Butteffiy is on the endangered list. 8. Possibili~ of pre~nce of olher lhrealencd an~or endangered wildlife. 9. ~DES I 0. MSHCP Multi ~ecies ~bitat was crealcd and the Cily of Rancho Cncamonga sign~ ~d agreed to participate in it in 1995 ~d agaiu signed the MSHCP m 1998. this prqjects' success de~nds on projects such as tract 14475 ~t ~e no~ islands ~'ilhin urbanization, lo be partially or completely included. AI the least to be eval~ under the MSHCP guidelines for ils complele and tolal value. 11. Proposition 218 limits LMD, clc. (financial implications should cause the Cid' to reevaluatc Iong-lcm~ costs, and mmntenance of publicly maintained areas such as community ~ls, slo~s. etc.) 12~ Densi~ & Design Although the proposed developrecta appears on Ihc surface to comply with the maximum denslb' of lwo mmcs per nel buii~ble acre, it is iuconsistcnl wi~h Ihc cilv's general plan policies related to open space and grading. The intent of~e general plan is lo limit dcvclopmcnl in scnsilive enviro~en~ ~eas and to present Ihc nalnral order to prese~e ~e integfily ol' Ihc hillside. mimmizc disruption of the natural ground form and shonld concentrat~ to preseme o~n spaces and scenic value. Further, the size, height and design o~ lhc proposed homes. also ap~ars to not co,ore to current guidelines and policies for hillside site residcncc. i 3. Sensitive Habilal There is a large coastal ~age scrub and Allm'ial Fan sage scrub ecoamere on ~s parcel. This panicnlar lypc of sage is home to ~e Calilbrnia Gnalcatchcr and more Ihan 90 lhr~qtened or endsgered species in the Slate o1' California. According to the Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review panel (S~), apprommaleb 100 spccics (planIs and animals) considered rare, sensilivc. Ihrcalcncd. or endangered by Fede~ ~d State resource agencms arc associated wifli coast! sage scrub. I believe Ihis is Ihc 13pc o1' highly sensitive habi~t which current laws were designed to protect. /75 14. Functional wildlife ~_orridor It appears that this parcel of land fimctions no~ onh' a possible home for breeding and feeding of many sensitive and or threatened species, but it is also a corridor for olhcr aninmls. It fi~nctions as a passageway for olhcr large animals as they have been observed on said parcel either Iraveling to or from the creek. Deer have been observed laying the shade of the trees on lhe properb', I believe from fl~e number and ~es of animals l have seen lale al night, tirol this parcel is a timelionel ~llld COilIt[ [)e ~1 critical wildlife corridor. 15. Public S~e~ Pnblic S~eW is at risk. Ingress and egress I(~r tiffs prqiccl is insu~cienl and would create a serious problem should there be a fire, earthquake or offmr disasler necessitating rapid evacuation of the site and other already occupied adjacent homes. The Coun~ of S~ Bernardino Sheri Ws E)q3art mere is concerned about the potentially serious traffic problems which co~d ~ if access inlo Rancho Cuca monga Ca nyon is routed through ~e proposed residemiai m~ct. I live in the residenfi~ tract through which Big Trcc Road ~m~c cu~enfly ~vels ~d my neighbors and myself can tell you ~t w~kend recreatioual Iralfic is beavx,. Manly accidents occ~ ~ong Big Tree Road due to excessive speeds ~d d~ drivers. The ShcriWs Dcpartmcnl will concur with this, r~d internal re~ns regarding the same. Due to road co~ration and Io~ s~zes. wc are minimally eff~, but present co~guration o1' Tmcl 14475 would ~ seriously effecled and would pul small children and pets at ink. How can you m good conscience allow the ~c of Big Tree Road go Ibrough a residential neigh~rhood ~ the densi~, suggesled for Tracl 14475? 16. Pro~sifion 218 and Pnblic SafeIx' Trail at top of hi, behind the homes and beyond Ibe mmmmm 150*sel back could be considered an -:~llraclix'e nniscience". Worse yet il conld be come Ihe biggest liabililv lhe City could have. hnagme small children walkiug the path ~d lossing rocks over tim edge. (The bikers and water dep~ent employees below could be seriously h~, the c~ldren could slip and fall ellbet Io be seriously bun or worse yet killed. Nmv lels go one beirut, hnagine a horseback rider comes upon a snake and Ihe horse and rider go over ~e side). The frail needs to be relocated in from fl~c edge of lhe lop of lhe bluff Io a safe dislance and thereby reduce the deplh of the rear yards. The enginee~ ~ggcst that this sbonld be approximately 150' as the canyons cl~luffs are suhiecl to movcmem aud sioug~ng due to erosion from the flow of Ihc slrcan~ bclo~v. 17. Water ~iB, Some of the proposed residences have a 15{}' non-buildable zone ~hind their homes. This does not provide for any improvemen~ on some of lbese lots includiug bnl not limited to pla~ment of ~etics and leach lincs. If this set-back is ~ly suspect to erosion and sliding Ihen a ~ptic ~ and leach lines located within this 15()' casemenl could ~emselves be subjecl Io erosion and sliding thereby jeopardizing ~e water qualiW of lhe st rcam below. 18. ~fian ~bital Damage to ~e strem below duc to grading. dcx'clopmcnl or erosion slong~ng could be a violalion of lhe Riparian Habital laws. 19. Hydrolo~' lnadeq~te hydrolo~ repo.. Thc cxisliag conccnlralcd runoff form the streets in tract ~10210 dimctl3 bclow the proposed tract ~14475 is already unsafc. Often small children. small animals ~d ~ts are caught in the dccp and fast moving ~er waler. uot to mention lhll irash cans are often washed away in ~e rapid moving xxmcr). The intersection of Creslview Place and Inspiration floods badly. The mnoff~om ~s project would only increase the ~offand flo~ng. n~ing Ibe cnrmnlly dangerous siluation more trmcherous. I m also coucemed ~bonl the erosion from t~s mount of ranoff. 20. Water ~s &/or Resem'oirs on Eanhqnakc Faults Water m~s ~d or rese~oirs being built wilhm su~ect Iract am proposed to be built on an existing carlhquake fault. This is not only unacccplable~ il is irresponsible and iu direct co~ict ~ the Ci~"s general plan. J 21. Fire This is an extreme fire hazard area. I do nol believe that lhc original plan addressed the question whether Ihc one-million gallon water reservoir necessar)' to serve lhe water and fir protection needs of this project ,a'as Ikasibly on an earthquake fault. There does uot appear to be a CEQA for this and no data as to the size of a comamnlent area or what types of impact this might have on tract//14475 or other surrounding tract. Some surronnding tracts are now built and occupied. nmch different than when originally proposed. l believe that economic development and environmental protection can and indeed must go hand m hand Thcrc should be a degree of cenain~', predictability and ralioEmlity to development, but that argument works lo punic's benefit also. We need to know wifll ccrtaimx. prediclabilily and rationality that there is a poml when a lcntalive tract map is so old and the CEQA so om of datc the permit will expire, due to the significant changes that have taken place in the law and/or bnilding codc. The public nccds lo know that there is a vehicle wherebx lhc Icad agency can require a project be redesigned ~o conl0rm wil h Ihc current needs, safety and benefit of Ihe public il serves. This thinking was fi~rther supporlcd by CSS on march 25. 1993, when it went on the record st;rang: "only thoxe prq/ectx apl.'oved h): ( '/~1,'(; a.d ! 'NI:II ;~' prior to March 5, 1993 and explicit(v meetm,~ the requtrements of the Endangered ,h~ecies Ac! ,vhouhl hc exc/uded. Jhom the baseline." This parcel does not quality ! Reducing urban sprawl. increasing open space and improving the "quality of life" has become both nation and slate wide goals. Rancho Cucalnonga is listed as one of the safest and most desirable cities in A~nerica. "Quail!3.' of Life" is a big ticket item here. So iels send the developer back to design review and preserve the quality of life. No one is saying lie shonldu't develop the !and. only that it needs to be done within the guidelines of lhc current laws. more specifically the enviromnental one and oilier current city hillside ordinances. The lower mcsa is nowhere as sensitive as Ihe upper half of Ihc properly. A denial of the request for extension of time could possibly help protect endangered species and prevent lhcir depletion and possible illegal taking My husband and myself urge you to follow the law. your staffs advise and Ihat of the San Bernardino County Museum Biologisls and deny tbc request for extension so this prqiecl can be rc-xvorked to be one that serves both mall and ilalure ill Ihc bcsl possible way. Thank you for your time and consideration Sincer; ~ Charles Joseph Associates PUBLIC/PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES January 13, 1999 Brad Buller, City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Time Extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 Dear Mr. Buller: As you are well aware, our firm was retained last week for the purpose of facilitation of favorable approval of the referenced time extension. During our discussions and meetings with your office and the City Attorney this past week, we determined there are a number of perceptions concerning project issues that may warrant follow-up and clarification as may be appropriate, as part of a good faith effort by the respective parties of interest. As suggested last week, please consider this our formal request for a 90 day time extension of Tract 14475. Our purpose and intent for this extension is to obtain sufficient time that will be necessary to propedy address and attempt to mitigate concerns that City staff, Fish and Wildlife and neighboring property owners may currently have with the time extension before the Planning Commission. Our client has agreed that as a condition of granting the 90 day extension, they will not final the map at issue. This additional time period will be solely for the purpose of facilitating public review and input necessary for City consideration of a subsequent time extension that would include appropriate mitigation determined as part of that process. Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter. Should you have any questions or need of additional information, please contact me at your eadiest opportunity. Sincerely, Charles J. Buquet Charles Joseph Associates Offic/~909'481' 1822 800' 240' 1822 Fax 909'481' 1824 etli~er. 10681 Foothill Blvd., Suite 395' Rancho Cucamonga, CA-91730 January 19, 1999 Honorable William J. Alexander, Mayor Honorable Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tern Honorable Paul Biane, Councilmember ..~ Honorable James V. Curatalo, Councilmember R £ C Honorable Bob Dutton, Councilmember 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 dAN II 0 City of Rancho Cucamonga Subject: Tentative Tract 14475 Planning Division Dear Sirs and Madam, On January 13, 1998 the Planning Commission denied the extension of Tentative Tract 14475, the development of 66 homes on 113 acres in the Cucamonga Canyon. The property owner will undoubtedly appeal this decision through his agents Allard Engineering and Chuck Buguet of Charles Joseph Associates. As a deeply concerned member of this community and an adjacent property owner I urge you to respect the decision of your Planning Commission. The project, as it is currently proposed, and the property owner's questionable timing is very troubling to me. The property owner's application for extension was made on October 26, 1998 and notice was posted 60 days later on December 24, 1998 (Christmas Eve). One has to wonder why this date was chosen, when the landowner was notified by the City in February 1998 that this project would be subject to the Federal Endangered Species Act. Additionally, adjacent property owners were not notified by mail until January 2, 1998 providing us with tess than eight (8) business days to respond to the project. I oppose this project for several reasons, but I will limit this letter to the following three: Significant Environmental Impacts During the Planning Commission meeting on 1/13/99, the landowner's biologist (Mr. Jack Easton with LSA Associates, Inc.) was asked "Are impacts by the project on the environment considered to be significant or not?" He responded reluctantly, but affirmatively. The State of California ranks the habitat on this property as "S 1.1 rated, very threatened natural community and S2.1, very threatened ". The property owner's own Biological Assessment Report prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. indicates that the property supports a diverse and abundant plant and animal community and calls the Coastal Sage Scrub found on the property "high quality habitat". This property is a significant biological and environmental asset. It has special status because it is located on an alluvial fan, it includes over 58 acres classified as Coastal Sage Scrub, it is adjacent to the San Bernardino National Forest and Cucamonga Wilderness, and is near a year-round water source. Such properties are becoming increasingly rare along the foothills of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountain ranges. The State of California had this type of habitat in mind when it enacted the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program (NCCPP). This program seeks to protect rare and threatened natural communities, especially those deemed to be high quality habitat. The LSA report states that no federally endangered species are present on the property, specifically the San Bernardino Merriam Kangaroo Rat and the California Coastal Gnatcatcher. The report does indicate,. however, that species of special concern to the State are present. Nonetheless, the LSA report is strongly refuted by Gerald Braden (See Attached Letter to the City dated 1/11/99). Mr. Braden is the Research Director at the County Museum and is the senior research scientist for the collection and analysis of biological data for the Valley Multi-species Plan. He writes in his letter "this misleading and incomplete biological information could lead to the illegal take of endangered and/or threatened species, the loss of significant biological resources, and damage to the development of a successful Valley Multi-species Plan". Further, the US Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS (in a letter to Brad Buller dated 1/13/99) has stated that "The proposed project possesses high value for multi-species reserve design. The property supports several unlisted sensitive species proposed to be covered under the San Bernardino Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and is contiguous with extensive habitat areas on the Etiwanda Fan Complex and the San Bernardino National Forest." USFWS further states that, "Though recent surveys have not detected listed species, suitable habitat remains to benefit these species in the long term. Theses affects to the regional planning of habitat preserves, and the possible long-term affects to listed species have not been adequately addressed." The California Department of Fish and Game writes (in a letter to Rebecca Van Buren dated 1/13/99), "The confirmed presence of several bird and reptile species that are California Species of Special Concern suggests the Department needs to fully evaluate the project, as these species meet the CEQA definition of"rare" pursuant to Section 15380." The property owner's Biological Assessment Report indicates that the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly is absent from the site, saying it is outside the known range for this species. Mr. Braden strongly disagrees, in his letter to the City dated 1/13/99, and provides strong evidence to the contrary. Mr. Braden states, "Quino surveys need to be performed, as per USFWS survey protocol, before potential adverse impacts can be assessed." It is easy to see why the property owner would like you to believe that the property does not lie within known ranges for this species since protocol surveys take two full years to complete. Preservation of Open Space The C ity's Master Plan indicates that the upper third of the project lies in an Open Space district. The City's Land Use Plan indicates that an Open Space district is limited to one home per 40 acres. These material facts were taken into consideration when we purchased our home in Skyline Estates. There seemed to be an economic benefit associated with living near an Open Space district. Why have these Open Space district designatio_ns if they don't mean anything? Civic Pride We are blessed as a community to live below these inspiring mountains, canyons and foothills. They are a source of civic pride to all of us. The rugged beauty of the Cucamonga Canyon and its mesas are unparalleled in the area. People come from all over to enjoy the Canyon. Just has the City's parks and library are important resources, resources that people use 3 and rely on, resources that contribute to quality of life, so to is the Cucamonga Canyon. To conclude, this property is a very special place. The legacy we leave our children is in your hands. You need not put the property owner's interests over the interests and safety of the public. You have just cause to affirm the decision of the City's Planning Commission regarding this project and I believe the community would support this decision. Of the 62 people we talked to about this project 59 signed the attached letter asking the City to deny the requested extension. There is a real potential with this project for violating the spirit, if not the intent, of environmental law. Given the information that has been provided to you concerning the significant environmental impacts of this project, any approval of an extension, at this time, may be construed by reasonable people as an abuse of your discretionary powers. I'll be plain. Had the property owner been forthcoming, had he limited his project to the lower mesa staying well clear of the canyon, had he respected his neighbors and the members of this community, and had he taken into consideration the wealth of plants and animals that live on the property, then, we would not be at this juncture. I deeply resent the hiring of Chuck Buguet to muscle this project through the Planning Commission just one week prior to the meeting. A reasonable person might consider Mr. Buguet's actions to obtain favor with the Planning Commission and the City Council a conflict of interest, since he served on the City Council during the time this project was originally approved in 1992. I have always expected the property behind my house to be developed. From existing City maps it looked like anywhere from 10 to 20 homes. I never believed for one minute that our views of the mountains and Canyon would be unobstructed forever. Clever NIMBY arguments, therefore, do not wash. I would appreciate talking with each of you about this project and would welcome the opportunity to personally show you how very special this place is. I would also respectively suggest that the City investigate the possibility of acquiring this property. Grants may be available through NCCPP, the Wildlife Conservation Board, and/or various land conservancies. Please keep in mind that this property would be a critical element in a City multi- species reserve since it is connected to the Etiwanda Fan Complex through the San Bernardino National Forest. Acquisition of this property would constitute a good faith effort on the part of the City to develop a viable Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan. I may be reached during the day at (323) 889-2994 or at home at (909) 987-6805. rely, , Frank Schiavone 8060 Crestview Court Alta Loma, CA 91701 c. Scott Eliason, USFWS Gerald Braden, San Bernardino County Museum Planning Commission, City of Rancho Cucamonga Maria De Bro, The Nature Conservancy of California Attachment February 2, 1999 Honorable William J. Alexander, Mayor Honorable Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Honorable Paul Biane, Councilmember Honorable James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Honorable Bob Dutton, Councilmember 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Subject: Tentative Tract 14475 Dear Sirs and Madam, This letter is a follow-on to my letter to you dated January 19, 1999. I would again ask that the City pursue acquisition of the property and develop a plan to do so. I propose that the acquisition plan contain the following elements: · Form a task force, comprised of City officials and private citizens; · Invite representatives from USFWS and California Fish and Game to participate; · Purchase a one to two year option to buy the property from Mr. Sakraney; · Oversee the formation of a private land conservancy or trust (501C3); · Solicit tax-deductible donations from residents, businesses, and others through the Grapevine and other sources available to City; · Seek matching State money (possible source might be the Wildlife Conservation Board); · Enter into conversations with the US Forest Service regarding their help (The Forest Service could obtain /:;¥ congressional appropriations through the Land and Water Conservation Fund); · Talk to major land conservation groups such as The Nature Conservancy; and · Deed the property to the Forest Service after acquisition. A variation to this approach would be to be to purchase the services of an established land trust such as The Trust for Public Lands. The conservation of the Canyon is of paramount importance as it is a public resource. It is visited by thousands of people each year. Most long-time City residents are familiar with the Canyon. Many have experienced its beauty firsthand, having hiked, hunted, or fished in the Cucamonga Wilderness area with their children. The 113 acres in question is a threshold property to the San Bernardino National Forest, providing easy public access via Big Tree Road and Crestview Place. Such access is not available at Day Canyon. There, the Forest boundary is roughly one mile away from the nearest dirt access road that is not maintained and in very poor condition. For the cost of 113 acres, the City would essentially be buying its residents a 700,000-acre park. Parking and an interpretive center could also be considered. The interpretive center could be as simple as a small covered kiosk containing a map of'the area, pictures of prominent animals and plants, and a brief discussion of the natural history of the Canyon. The interpretive center could also commemorate the Native Americans who previously occupied the area and the City's forward thinking in preserving the land. Such an acquisition would be a wonderful legacy to leave to our children. Acquisition would be a win-win for the City and its residents, the current property owner, and the environment. Acquisition is also viable since Mr. Sakraney is a willing seller and the community would certainly support the conservation of this property. I believe that many people would volunteer their time and talents to make this happen. I, myself, am willing to give my time to this very worthwhile endeavor. If we are successful, the Land Trust could be used to obtain additional properties that would become part of a greater Multi- species reserve. There's one more issue I would like to address in this letter. The property owner's biologist states in his Biological Assessment Report that, "Although there is a significant amount of relatively undisturbed vegetation on the site, it is bordered to the south by extensive suburban development, with some of this development also encroaching to the east. Thus, it is unlikely that this peninsula of habitat on the southwestern bench will be an effective refugium or corridor for wildlife movement." "The Cucamonga Creek drainage provides the only realistic wildlife movement corridor on the site, as it travels from the national forest in the north through suburbia to various islands of natural vegetation in the south. Although much of the creek is channelized or otherwise developed throughout its length, it likely still functions as an effective corridor." LSA further writes, "The project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. With the exception of Cucamonga Creek, habitat on the site is essentially a peninsula and thus, is not an effective wildlife movement corridor..." Anyone even vaguely familiar with the Cucamonga Canyon area or the migratory behaviors of animals knows these statements are simply not credible. Deer, coyotes, bobcats, and even mountain lions use the property to move southward and eastward. Evidence of this is easily found. Deer are frequently seen moving through the Bridges' property. Coyotes are frequently seen at night crossing into the Edison and DWP easements and moving south from there. They are also frequently seen moving east using the many dirt trails that traverse the property. Bobcats are frequently seen by Skyline residents. And, yes, mountain lions have been seen and heard. One was televised on the roof of a home in the Belle Vista tract below the Edison/DWP easements. As far as animals using the Cucamonga drainage as a wildlife corridor, I have never seen a deer in the wash. The reason for this is simple. They do not move through this "corridor" because they are essentially boxed in without any cover and are easy prey. Given the location and topography of this property, development will effectively cut off existing wildlife corridors and force animals into the wash where they simply will not thrive. Undoubtedly, there will be those who will say to me that this matter is "none of your business", but they will be mistaken. A fundamental tenet of environmental law is that wildlife are the property of the people and that their conservation is a proper responsibility of the state. In my last letter to you I implicitly invited you to speak to me about this project. To date, I have not received a response. I again ask that you call me regarding the development of this property at (323) 889-2994 during the day or (909) 987-6805 during evening hours. Trank Schiavone 8060 Crestview Court Alta Loma, Ca 91701 4 /',?7 RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~- ~) ~2// A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENYA TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14475, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 66 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 113 ACRES OF LAND IN THE HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (LESS THAN 2 DVVELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND THE OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS, LOCATED NORTH OF ALMOND AVENUE BETWEEN SAPPHIRE AND TURQUOISE STREETS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 200-051-07, AND 55 THROUGH 57. A. Recitals. 1. On November 18, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution 92-288, thereby certifying the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 14475. 2. On November 18, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution 92-290, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Vesting Tentative Tract 14475. 3. On March 30, 1993, the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) was listed as a threatened species pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). 4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14475 was eligible for and received State-granted time extensions pursuant to SB 428 and AB 771, which automatically extended the expiration date of the map until November 18, 1997. 5. On August 6, 1997, the City Planner granted a one-year time extension for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14475 which extended the expiration date of the map until November 18, 1998. 6. On January 27, 1998, the San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami pawus) was emergency listed as an endangered species pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species ACt of 1973 (as amended). 7. On February 9, 1998, the City of Rancho Cucamonga notified the applicant that the subject property is within habitat which may be affected by federally endangered or threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and that detailed biological studies would be required with any time extension request. 8. Ray Allard, as the duly authorized agent of the owner of the subject property, filed an application, without the biological studies, on October 26, 1998, for the extension of the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 14475, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." 9. On January 11, 1999, the applicant filed a biological report. 10. On January 13, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and, following the conclusion of their review, adopted Resolution No. 99-03, thereby denying said application. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING February 17, 1999 Page 2 11. On January 14, 1999, Ray Allard filed a timely appeal of the decision represented by Planning Commission Resolution 99-03 to the City Council. 12. On February 17, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 13. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public headng on February 17, 1999, including the information contained in the Environmental Initial Study Part II, wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The federally listed California gnatcatcher and federally listed San Bernardino Merdam's kangaroo rat are associated with, and rely upon, coastal sage scrub habitat; and b. Federally listed species and their habitats are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended); and c. The project site consists of 113 acres, of which 58 acres are coastal sage scrub habitat, that is located in the area proposed for development; and d. The project will result in the loss of essentially all of the coastal sage scrub habitat and 23 acres of chaparral because of development and fire mitigation; and e. The California Department of Fish and Game submitted a letter to the City dated April 2, 1998, which indicates it is very concerned with continued, unmitigated loss of habitats and sensitive species populations. The concern includes projects that have been dormant for years which are being reactivated utilizing old CEQA documentation. The Department feels reliance upon the use of environmental approvals more than five years old raises serious questions regarding their adequacy and compliance with CEQA due to a number of factors including: (1) biological survey information is generally only valid for one to three years; (2) changes in habitat conditions, site use, and species listing status is common; and (3) a large preserve in the Etiwanda area was recently established which provides mitigation opportunities that were not available several years ago; and f. The Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program which were approved in 1992 are more than five years old; and g. The Final Biological Report prepared by LSA and dated January 8, 1999, indicates the project impacts to coastal sage scrub (i.e., the loss of 58 acres)may be considered significant as this loss may substantially diminish habitat for wildlife and plants; and h. The Final Biological Report prepared by LSA and dated January 8, 1999, indicates the habitat supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife and plants and is considered to be high quality CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING February 17, 1999 Page 3 habitat. Although the federally listed gnatcatcher and kangaroo rat were not found on the site, the report identifies that the site is occupied by three sensitive species classified as California Species of Special Concern which are the Ashy rufous-crowned sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow, and the San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. In addition, there is a moderate to high probability that six other California Species of Special Concem occur on the site, which are the Plummer's mariposa lily, Parry's spineflower, San Diego banded gecko, San Diego horned lizard, Coast patch-nosed snake, Vaux's swift, and the Loggerhead shrike. In all, there are three confirmed sensitive species and potentially as many as nine sensitive species occupying the site at this time; and i. Gerald Braden, a biologist for the San Bernardino County Museum, submitted a letter dated January 11, 1999, which cites more recent sightings of the endangered kangaroo rat and gnatcatcher based upon the Museum's research and study plots. Mr. Braden disagrees with statements in the LSA Biological Report that the coastal sage scrub habitat on the site is marginally suitable for the California gnatcatcher. Mr. Braden feels misleading and incomplete biological information could lead to the illegal take of endangered and/or threatened species, the loss of significant biological resources, and damage to the development of a successful Valley Multi- Species Plan; and j. The California Department of Fish and Game submitted a letter dated January 13, 1999, which states "the confirmed presence of several bird and reptile species that are California Species of Special Concern suggests the Department needs to fully evaluate the project, as these species meet the CEQA definition of 'reare' pursuant to Section 15380." CEQA guidelines require that impacts to rare or threatened species be addressed in an environmental document and significant impacts to them be mitigated. The applicant has not submitted specific proposed mitigation measures; and k. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submitted a letter dated January 13, 1999 which states the project site possesses high value for multi-species reserve design. The property supports several unlisted sensitive species proposed to be covered under the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, which was initiated in 1995 and in which the City is a participating agency. The Service indicates the project may preclude preservation options for proposed covered species and for viable contiguous reserve design. The Service feels suitable habitat remains on the site to benefit the endangered California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat in the long term. The Service concludes that the effects to the regional planning of habitat preserves and the possible long-term effects to listed species have not been adequately addressed; and I. The 1992 project was approved under the findings that the development and its loss of coastal sage scrub habitat would not create any significant adverse impacts to sensitive or endangered species or their habitats; and m. There is potential that significant effects previously examined may be substantially more severe than shown in the SEIR, particularly as the result of federal listing of the California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat as threatened and endangered species, respectively, after the Subsequent EIR was certified; and n. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth provisions to require Subsequent and Supplemental Environmental Impact Reports when, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken which may cause a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 99-03 on January 13, 1999, which determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report should be prepared; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING February 17, 1999 Page 4 o. The City Council hereby finds and determines that based upon the information in the Initial Study Part II, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the project is required to analyze biological impacts and other impacts identified in the Initial Study. Also indicated in the Initial Study, Responsible agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and Cucamonga County Water District, may be aware of changed circumstances since 1992 which impact the project. Responsible agencies would be provided an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of prior mitigation measures and, if applicable, recommend expanding the scope of analysis, in a Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public headrig and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The decision makers and the public are entitled to the completion of an environmental review for a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act prior to the rendering of a decision in favor of the project. b. A Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report has not been prepared nor made available for public review for the project. Therefore, the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act has not been completed for the project. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested Time Extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475. The Vesting Tentative Tract is therefore deemed expired by its own terms. 5. The City Clerk of City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to certify to the adoption of this Resolution and forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return- receipt requested to Ray Allard at the address identified in City records. CITY OF RANCHO C U CAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST DESIGNATION 98-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Consideration of a request to rescind Historic Landmark Designation 94-02 and redesignate as a Point of Interest for four craftsman bungalow residences, located at 9618, 9626, 9634, and 9642 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-153-08 thru 11. Related File: Development Review 93-15. At the last City Council meeting, this item was continued to allow Mayor Pro Tern Diane Williams, Paul Biane and staff to meet with Jim Frost. A meeting was held on February 10, 1999, however, Mr. Frost was unable to attend. The City Planner was able to speak with Mr. Frost later the same day. An oral update will be provided by Mayor Pro Tem Diane Williams and Paul Biane to the City Council regarding the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bull~ "' City Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" February 3, 1999 City Council Staff Report Resolution of Approval RESOLUTION NO. ~- ~:~ '~' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CHANGE FROM A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK TO POINT OF HISTORIC INTEREST NO. 98-01 FOR FOUR HOUSES, LOCATED AT 9618, 9626, 9634, AND 9642 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD - APN: 208-153-08 THROUGH 11. A. Recitals. 1. Anna Campos has requested a Point of Historic Interest designation as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Point of Historic Interest is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 13, 1999, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and adopted their Resolution No. 99-01 recommending approval. 3. On February 3, and continued to February 17, 1999, the City Council of the City or Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on the latter date. 4. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The application applies to approximately 1 acre of land, basically four parcels of rectangular configuration, located at 9618, 9626, 9634, and 9642 Foothill Boulevard. 3. The application applies to four houses which were designated as a local Landmark on October 5, 1994. Landmark Alteration Permits 94-04 and 96-02, and Development Review 93-15 were approved to convert the houses into commercial uses. 4. The Building Official has inspected the four houses and determined that the current condition has become deteriorated and unsightly due to a lack of maintenance and an on-going problem with vandalism. 5. The application is in conjunction with a request to allow demolition of all four houses. 6. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on February 3 and 17, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, this Council hereby makes the following findings and facts: a. Historical and Cultural Significance: Finding 1: The proposed Point of Historic Interest is particularly representative of an historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. POI 98-01 - ANNA CAMPOS February 17, 1999 Page 2 Finding 2: The proposed Point of Historic Interest is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now rare. Fact/s: The four houses were built between 1916 and 1927 in the area known as "Old Cucamonga" which comprised the downtown area. The structures are Craftsman bungalow style architecture common to the era and region in which they were built. The homes are located within a block bounded by Foothill Boulevard (Historic Route 66), Archibald and Klusman Avenues, and Estacia Street and is one of the few remaining intact neighborhoods from the late 1910s and the 1920s. Finding 3: The proposed Point of Historic Interest was connected with someone renowned or important or a local personality. Fact/s: The houses are located in an area that was within the sphere-of-influence of John Klusman, a prominent local businessman~ b. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: Finding 1: The proposed Point of Historic Interest benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. Finding 2: The proposed Point of Historic Interest, in its location, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city. Fact/s: The houses were constructed pre-World War II in the Craftsman architectural style. Their prominent location along Foothill Boulevard, Historic Route 66, makes them a dominant part of the neighborhood character and a familiar sight to the tens of thousands of people who drive by each day. 7. This Council hereby finds and determines that the project identified above in this Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Article 19, Section 15308. 8. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 above, this Council hereby resolves that pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves the requested redesignation from Local Historic Landmark status to Historic Point of Interest subject to each and every condition set forth below: Planning Division 1) Provide on-site, a commemorative plaque consistent with the standard City model with future development of the property. 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. CITY O}: RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, City Manager, AICP FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner, AICP SUBJECT: ISLE HOUSE RELOCATION - Consideration of an Agreement of Purchase of property for the relocation of the Isle House. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached agreement for the relocation of the Isle House to a permanent location on Eftwanda Avenue. BACKGROUNDIANALYSlS: On February 4, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution 98-022 (see Exhibit "B") declaring their intent to retain and relocate the historic Isle House. On February 17, 1998, the Isle House was moved from the northwest corner of Highland and Etiwanda Avenues, to a temporary location on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, within the vacated railroad right-of-way. In early 1998, Woodside Homes presented to the City the possibility of purchasing one of their future lots for the permanent home of the Isle House. This was viewed as an excellent opportunity because of the close proximity to other historic structures on Etiwanda Avenue. The lot being considered was also given strong support from the Eftwanda Historical Society. Woodside Homes submitted Tract 15915 for the subdivision of their 21 acres into 38 lots located to the west of Etiwanda Avenue and south of Victoria Street. Tract 15915 was approved by the Planning Commission on January 27, 1999. The parcel chosen for the Isle house is located between the subdivision and Etiwanda Avenue (see Exhibit "C"), directly north of and adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. The attached Agreement of Purchase and Sale provides for the purchase of that parcel for the proposed relocation of the Isle House. The purchase will be made through fee credits applied to the processing of the applicant's subdivision of Tract 15915. BB:TG:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Agreement of Purchase and Sale Exhibit "B" City Council Resolution 98-022 Exhibit "C" Assessors' Map 227-10 AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE THIS AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of this day of February, 1999, and constitutes an agreement by which WOODSIDE HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California Corporation ("Seller"), agrees to sell, and THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a public body organized and existing under the Laws of the State of California ("Buyer" or "City"), agrees to purchase on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth that certain real property (the "Property") in the corporate limits of the City of Rancho Cucamonga legally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, together with all and singular tenements, hereditaments, easements, rights-of-way and appurtenances belonging or appertaining to the same, all improvements, structures and fixtures, if any, now or hereafter located thereon, and any and all right, title and interest of Seller in and to all streets, alleys, easements, and rights of way benefitting or serving such real property. If the legal description of the Property is inaccurate, then this Agreement shall not be invalid and the legal description shall be corrected to meet the requirements of North American Title Company (the "Title Company"), which Title Company shall issue the title policy hereinafter described. The terms and conditions of this Agreement are as follows: 1. Purchase and Sale. For valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Seller agrees to sell the Properly to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to purchase the Property from Seller, upon the terms and conditions herein set forth. 2. Purchase Price. Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 6.1.3, the purchase price ("Purchase Price") for the Property shall be the sum of One Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Dollars ($135,000). The Purchase Price includes full compensation for the Property. 3. Payment of Purchase Price. 3.1 Seller has submitted an application for a tract map and related development approvals for the development of approximately 37 homes in an area encompassed by proposed Tract Map 15915 (the "Project"), on file with the City. The padies have estimated that the various fees (the "Cily Fees") due the City for processing of the Tract Map and related approvals and development of the Project will exceed the amount of the Purchase Price. The Purchase Price shall be paid as a credit (the "Credit") in an amount not to exceed One Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Dollars ($135,000), applied towards the City Fees. 3.2 As Seller incurs City Fees for the Project, the first One Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Dollars ($135,000), less any off-set of property taxes pursuant to Paragraph 9, shall be charged against the Credit. If City Fees in an amount less than One Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Dollars ($135,000) are incurred for the Project, for any reason including but not limited to the Project being terminated by Seller, Buyer shall pay the difference to Seller within sixty (60) days after the earlier of (a) the last of the applicable City Fees have been incurred or (b) Seller notifies Buyer in writing that Seller has withdrawn its application for the Project. Page 1 of 12 3.3 For purposes of this Paragraph 3, "City Fees" includes the various fees assessed by the Planning Department, Engineering Division, and Building and Safety Division of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the review and approval of the Project, which shall be the City's usual and customary fees for all developments within the City that are similar to the Project. However, the Credit only applies to in-house fees payable directly to the City for services provided by City staff, and not to any fees charged by consultants or other third parties engaged by Seller or City. City shall have no obligation to incur any' out of pocket expenses on behalf of Seller or the Project. Further, "City Fees" does not include the Beautification Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, or Underground Utilities Fee. 3.4 Buyer agrees to process all applications submitted by Seller relating to the Project as expeditiously as possible. 3.5 Buyer's obligation to pay or credit Seller for the Purchase Price as provided herein shall be secured by a deed of trust ("Trust Deed") to be recorded against the Property upon Seller's conveyance of the Property' to Buyer. Upon satisfaction in full of Buyer's obligations to Seller set forth in this Section 3, Seller shall reconvey the Trust Deed. 4. No Escrow; Close of Transaction. For purposes of this Agreement, the "Close of Transaction" shall be defined as the date that the Grant Deed (to be in a customary form subject to Buyer's reasonable approval) (the "Grant Deed") conveying the Property to Buyer, and the Trust Deed have been recorded by Buyer in the Official Records of San Bernardino County, State of California. This Transaction shall close on or before the date that is thirty (30) days after the date of this Agreement (the "Closing Date"), or as soon as possible after the satisfaction of all of the "Conditions to Close of Transaction" set forth in Paragraph 6 hereof. If the Conditions to Close of Transaction are not satisfied or waived by the Closing Date, then this Agreement shall terminate. If this Agreement shall terminate because of a party's default, then the non-defaulting party shall then have all remedies available to the non-defaulting party provided in law or in equity, and such rights shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 5. Title. 5.1 Title shall be evidenced by a CLTA Owner's Form Policy of Title Insurance ("Title Policy") in the amount of the Purchase Price showing title to the Property' vested in Buyer subject only to the Approved Title Exceptions (as defined below). Seller shall receive a standard coverage lender's policy in the amount of the Purchase Price subject to the same exceptions ("Lender's Policy"). 5.2 Buyer has obtained from Title Company a preliminary title report dated July 27, 1998, Order No. 32-88407-03 (the "Title Report"), and two legible copies of each instrument identified as exceptions on the Title Report. The Title Repod and the copies of the instruments noted as exceptions therein, are referred to herein as the "Title Documents." Buyer has delivered a copy of the Title Documents to Seller. It shall be a condition to the Close of Transaction and a covenant of Seller that title to the Property be conveyed to Buyer by Seller by the Grant Deed subject only to the following title exceptions ("Approved Title Exceptions"): 5.2.1 Exceptions 1 through 8, inclusive, of Schedule "B" of the Title Report, and the Trust Deed. Page 2 of 12 5.3 Seller covenants and agrees that prior to the Close of Transaction, it will not create, cause or permit exceptions to title to the Property other than the Approved Title Exceptions described in sub-paragraph 5.2.1. Any liens, encumbrances, easements, restrictions, conditions, covenants, rights, rights of way or other matters affecting title which may appear of record or be revealed after the date of the Title Report shall also be subject to Buyer's approval and must be eliminated or ameliorated to Buyer's satisfaction by Seller prior to the Close of Transaction as a condition to the Close of Transaction for Buyer's benefit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Seller may need to reserve in favor of the Project a sewage drainage easement across the Property and such easement shall be deemed an Approved Title Exception so long as it is located in an area that will not materially adversely impact Buyer's ownership of the Property. 6. Conditions to Close of Transaction. 6.1 Conditions to Buyer's Obligations. The Close of Transaction and Buyeds obligation to consummate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement are subject to the satisfaction of the following conditions for Buyer's benefit on or prior to the dates designated below for the satisfaction of such conditions, or if no date is specified, then prior to the Close of Transaction: 6.1.1 Title. Buyer shall have approved any exceptions of title as disclosed by the Title Documents, pursuant to the provisions of Subparagraph 5.2.4 and the Title Company has committed to issue the Title Policy subject only to the Approved Title Exceptions. 6.1.2 Inspections and Studies. On or before 21 days after the date of this Agreement, Buyer shall have approved the results of any and all inspections, investigations, tests and studies (including, without limitation, investigations with regard to engineering tests, and soils, seismic and geologic reports) and any environmental site assessment tests and studies with respect to the Property as Buyer may elect to make or obtain. Such environmental site assessment may include invasive inspection of the land, soils, and groundwaters on or beneath the Property and the improvements and taking such samples as may be required to ascedain that the physical, environmental, and geological conditions of the Property and all improvements thereon meet the requirements of Buyer. Buyer shall provide Seller with true and correct copies of all such reports, studies or investigation conducted by Buyer within 10 days of receipt by Buyer. The failure of Buyer to disapprove the results within 21 days after the date of this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute Buyer's approval of the results. If Buyer disapproves the result of any such inspection, investigation, test, assessment, or study, Seller may, within thirty (30) days after its receipt of Buyer's notice of disapproval, elect to eliminate or ameliorate to Buyer's satisfaction the disapproved matter. If Seller does not elect to eliminate or ameliorate Io Buyer's satisfaction any disapproved matter, or if, despite its best efforts, Seller is unable to eliminate or ameliorate to Buyer's satisfaction all such disapproved matters prior to the Closing Date, then Buyer shall have the right, by a writing delivered to Seller, to: (1) waive its prior disapproval, in which event the disapproved matters shall be deemed approved; or (2) terminate this Agreement, in which event this Agreement and the rights and obligations of the padies hereunder shall lerminate. The cost of any such inspections, tests and studies shall be borne by Buyer. During the term of this Agreement, Buyer, its agents, contractors, engineers, and subcontractors shall have the right upon prior notice to Seller to enter upon the Property, at reasonable times during ordinary business hours to make any and all inspections and tests as may be necessary or desirable in Buyer's sole judgment and discretion. Buyer shall use care and consideration in connection with any of its inspections. Buyer shall indemnify and hold Seller and the Property harmless from any and all damages arising out of or Page 3 of 12 resulting from the actions of Buyer, its agents, contractors and/or subcontractors in connection with such entry and/or activities upon the Property. 6.1.3 Finished Lot. The Property must be a Finished Lot. Seller shall cause the Property to be a "Finished Lot" prior to the Closing Date. For purposes of this Agreement, "Finished Lot" shall mean that the Property is graded and in compliance with the approved soils report and approved grading plans. All parkway and street improvements, including but not limited to rock curbs, seven foot wide bike path and new driveway approach, must be completed, in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department. Notwithstanding any contrary provisions contained in this Agreement, Buyer may elect to purchase the Property and have the Close of Transaction occur prior to Seller commencing the work necessary to may the Property a Finished Lot. Buyer may do so by giving at least the 30 days prior written notice to Seller. In that event, the Purchase Price for the Property will be $123,542.50, and all references in this Agreement to $135,000,00 shall be changed to $123,542.50. 6.1.4 Representations, Warranties and Covenants of Seller. Seller shall have duly performed each and every agreement to be performed by Seller hereunder and all of Seller's representations, warranties and covenants set forth in this Agreement shall be true and correct as of the Close of Transaction. 6.1.5. No Material Changes, At the Closing Date, there shall have been no material adverse changes in the physical condition of the Property except as contemplated in Section 6.1.3. 6.2 Conditions to Seller's Obligations. For the benefit of Seller, the Close of Transaction shall be conditioned upon the occurrence and/or satisfaction of each of the following conditions (or Seller's waiver thereof, it being agreed that Seller may waive any or all of such conditions): 6.2.1 Representations, Warranties and Covenants of Buyer. Buyer shall have duly performed each and every agreement to be performed by Buyer hereunder and all of Buyer's representations, warranties and covenants set forth in this Agreement shall be true and correct as of the Close of Transaction. 6.2.2 Permits. Buyer shall have issued to Seller its approval of Seller's tentative tract map application, its approval of Seller's grading and improvement plans, and all permits and approvals necessary to allow Seller to commence grading of the Property and in order to allow Seller to cause the Property to be a Finished Lot pursuant to Section 6.1.3. 7. Delivery of Documents. 7.1 At least one (1) business day prior to the Close of Transaction, Seller shall deliver to Buyer the following documents and instruments: 7.1.1 Grant Deed. A copy of the original Grant Deed conveying the Property to Buyer, duly executed by Seller, acknowledged and in recordable form in the form approved by Buyer. 7.1.2 Seller's Certificate. Certificates of non-foreign status ("Seller's Certificates"), duly executed, by Seller, as required by California Revenue and Taxation Code 18805, and Internal Revenue Code Section 1445. Page 4 of 12 7.1.3 Authority. Such proof of Seller's authority and authorization to enter into this transaction as the Title Company may reasonably require in order to issue Buyer's policy of title insurance. 7.2 By Buyer. At least one (1) business day prior to the Close of Transaction, Buyer shall deliver to Seller the Trust Deed, duly executed by Buyer acknowledged and in recordable form in a form approved by Seller. 8. Costs and Expenses. The cost and expense of the Title Policy and the Lender's Policy shall be paid by Buyer. Buyer shall pay all documentary transfer taxes payable in connection with the recordation of the Grant Deed. The amount of such transfer taxes shall not be posted on the Grant Deed but shall be supplied by separate affidavit. 9. Proration of Taxes. Real and personal property taxes and assessments on the Property shall be prorated as of the Close of Transaction on the basis that Seller is responsible for (i) all such taxes for the fiscal year of the applicable taxing authorities occurring prior to the "Current Tax Period"; and (it) that portion of such taxes for the Current Tax Period determined on the basis of the number of days which have elapsed from the first day of the Current Tax Period to the Closing Date, inclusive, whether or not the same shall be payable prior to the Closing Date. The phrase "Current Tax Period" refers to the fiscal year of the applicable taxing authority in which the Closing Date occurs. In the event that as of the Closing Date the actual tax bills for the year or years in question are not available and the amount of taxes to be prorated as aforesaid cannot be ascertained, then when the actual amount of taxes and assessments for the year or years in question shall be determinable, such taxes and assessments that are the prorated share of taxes of Seller shall be offset against the Credit and Purchase Price, as described in Paragraph 3. 10. Authorization to Record Documents. Buyer is hereby authorized to cause the Grant Deed, and any other documents which the parties hereto may mutually direct, and either party is authorized to cause the Trust Deed, to be recorded in the Official Records of San Bernardino County, California, upon the Close of Transaction, and order the Title Policy, provided each of the following conditions has then been fulfilled: 10.1 Title Policy. Title Company can issue in favor of Buyer a CLTA Owner's Policy of Title Insurance and the Lender's Policy in favor of Seller with liability equal to the Purchase Price, showing the Properly vested in Buyer or its assignee, subject only to the Approved Title Exceptions. 10.2 Assessments. All assessments against the Property for periods prior to Close of Transaction shall remain a lien against the Property and Buyer shall receive a credit against the Purchase Price in the amount of the assessments. Any prior assessments against the properly which are payable in installments shall be prorated between Buyer and Seller based upon the due date of the installments with Seller paying all assessment installments due prior to Close of Transaction and a pro-rata portion of any installment due after Close of Transaction for the period prior to Close of Transaction. 11. Seller's Representations and Warranties. Seller makes the following representations and warranties, each of which is material and is being relied upon by Buyer in entering into this Agreement (and the continued truth and accuracy of which shall constitute a condition precedent to the Close of Transaction), except for any and all matters to which the Buyer has actual knowledge: Page 5 of 12 11.1 Authority. Neither this Agreement nor anything provided to be done hereunder including the transfer of title to the Property to Buyer, violates or shall violate any contract, agreement or instrument to which Seller is a party, or which affects the Property or any part thereof and the sale of the Property herein contemplated does not require the consent of any party not a signatory hereto. Seller has the full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and consummate the transaction contemplated hereby. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement has been duly and validly authorized, and no other action by Seller is requisite to the valid and binding execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by Seller. 11.2 Hazardous Materials. Seller has no knowledge or belief, without any duty of inquiry or investigation, of any Hazardous Materials on, under or about the subject Property, including but not limited to the following: 11.2.1 Any buried or partially buried storage tanks or other vessels of any type or description located on the Property. 11.2.2 As of the Close of Transaction Seller has received no notice, warning, notice of violation, administrative complaint, judicial complaint, or other notice alleging that conditions on the Property are or have been in violation of any Environmental Law, or informing Seller that the Property is subject to investigation or inquiry regarding Hazardous Substances on the Property or the potential violation of any Environmental Law; 11.2.3 There is currently no monitoring program required by any Agency concerning the Property; 11.2.4 No toxic or hazardous chemicals, waste, or materials of any kind have ever been spilled, disposed of, or stored on, under, or at the Property, or discharged into any body of water other than a sanitary sewer system established for that purpose, whether by accident, burying, drainage, or storage in containers, tanks, or holding areas, or by any other means, not in compliance with applicable laws; 11.2.5 The Property has never been used as a dump or landfill; 11.2.6 Seller has disclosed or made available for inspection and copying to Buyer all information, records, files, and studies maintained by Seller in connection with the Property concerning Hazardous Materials. 11.3 Possessory Rights and Commitments. Seller has no actual knowledge, without any duty of inquiry or investigation, that anyone will, at the Closing, have any right to possession of the Property or any portion thereof. At the Closing, there will be no contracts, licenses, commitments, or undertakings respecting maintenance of the Property or equipment on the Property, or the performance of services on the Property, or the use of the Property or any part of it by which Buyer would become obligated or liable to any person. 11.4 Representations at Closino. The representations and warranties of Seller set forth in this Agreement shall be true on and as of the Close of Transaction as if those representations and warranties were made on and as of such time. Page 6 of 12 12. Buyer's Representations at Closinq. In consideration of Seller entering into this Agreement and as an inducement to Seller to sell the Property to Buyer, Buyer makes the following representations and warranties, each of which is material and is being relied upon by Seller (the continued truth and accuracy of which shall constitute a condition precedent to Seller's obligations hereunder): 12.1 Neither this Agreement nor anything provided to be done hereunder including the transfer of title to the Property to Buyer, violates or shall violate any contract, agreement or instrument to which Buyer is a party, or which affects the Property or any part thereof and the sale of the Property herein contemplated does not require the consent of any party not a signatory hereto. Buyer has the full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and consummate the transaction contemplated hereby, The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement has been duly and validly authorized, and no other action by Buyer is requisite to the valid and binding execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by Buyer. 12.2 The representations and warranties of Buyer set forth in this Agreement shall be true on and as of the Close of Transaction as if those representations and warranties were made on and as of such time. 13. DamaRes or Condemnation Prior to Closinq. Seller shall promptly notify Buyer of any casualty to the Property or any condemnation proceeding commenced prior to the Close of Transaction. If any such damage or proceeding relates to or may result in the damage or condemnation of any material portion of the Property, Seller or Buyer may, at their option, elect either to: (i) terminate this Agreement, in which event neither party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder; or (ii) continue the Agreement in effect, in which event upon the Close of Transaction, Buyer shall be entitled to any compensation, awards, or other payments or relief resulting from such casualty or condemnation proceeding. 14. Notices. All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered or sent by registered or certified mail, postage pre-paid, return receipt requested, telegraphed, delivered or sent by telex, telecopy or cable and shall be deemed received upon the earlier of: (i) if personally delivered, the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice; (ii) if mailed, four (4) business days after the date of posting by the United States post office; or (iii) if given by telex, telecopy, or faxed, when sent. Any notice, request, demand, direction or other communication sent by cable, telex, telecopy or fax must be confirmed within forty-eight (48) hours by letter mailed or delivered in accordance with the foregoing. To Buyer: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91720 Attn: Larry Henderson Telephone: (909) 477-2750 Fax: (909) 477-2847 With a copy to: Richards, Watson & Gershon 333 South Hope Street, 38th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Attention: Michael Estrada Telephone: (213) 626-8484 Fax: (213) 626-0078 Page 7 of 12 To Seller: Woodside Homes of California, Inc. 30211 Banderas, Suite 130 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Attention: Tim McGinnis Telephone: (949) 858-4980 Fax: (949) 858-4984 With a copy to: Samuels & Steel, LLP 18881 Von Karman Avenue Suite 1400 Irvine, CA 92612 Attention: William L. Steel Telephone: (949) 224-0140 Fax: (949) 224-0141 Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner detailed in this Paragraph. Rejection or other refusal to accept or the inability to deliver because of changed address of which no notice was given shall be deemed to constitute receipt of the notice, demand, request or communication sent. 15. Brokers. Seller and Buyer each represent and warrant that no real estate brokerage commission with respect to this transaction will be payable on the sale of the Property. If any claim for brokers' or finders' fees for the consummation of this Agreement arise, then Buyer hereby agrees to indemnify, save harmless and defend Seller from and against such claim(s) if it (they) shall be based upon any statement or representation or agreement made by Buyer, and Seller hereby agrees to indemnify, save harmless and defend Buyer if such claim(s) shall be based upon any statement, representation or agreement made by Seller. 16. Legal Fees. In the event of the bringing of any action or suit by a party herelo against another party hereunder by reason of any breach of any of the covenants or agreements or any inaccuracies in any of the representations and warranties on the part of the other party arising out of this Agreement, then in that event, the prevailing party in such action or dispute, whether by final judgment, or out of court settlement shall be entitled to have and recover of and from the other party all costs and expenses of suit, including actual attorneys' fees. 17. AS-IS Purchase. Except as set forth in Paragraph 11, Seller and its agents, attorneys, employees and representatives have not made any and make no statements, agreements, representations or warranties to Buyer regarding the Property, its condition or its suitability for any uses, purposes or development, whether intended Buyer or otherwise ("Promises"). Buyer is acquiring the Property in "AS-IS" condition, with all faults and based solely upon Buyer's investigations. Buyer is not relying upon any Promises. Seller shall have no obligation to correct or take any other actions with respect to any alleged conditions or defects as to the Property, the title thereto or any improvements thereto. 18. Use. Buyer represents and warrants that Buyer is acquiring the Property for the purpose of relocating to the Property the "Isles House," which is an historic home with cultural significance to the City. Seller believes that such use of the Property will be more beneficial to Seller's Project than other uses of the Property. Therefore, if Buyer does not relocate the Isles House to the Property within six (6) months after the Close of Transaction, then Seller shall have the right, but Page 8 of 12 Property within six (6) months after the Close of Transaction, then Seller shall have the right, but not the obligation, upon written notice to Buyer to repurchase the Property for that portion of the Purchase Price paid or credited to Seller as of such date pursuant to this Agreement. In addition, for so long as Seller or any successor in interest of Seller (other than members of the home buying public) own any part of the Project, Buyer shall not use the Property or allow it to be used for any purpose-other than as the location of the Isles House without the prior written consent of Seller or such successor, which may be given or withheld for any reason or no reason in that party's sole and absolute discretion. 19. Miscellaneous. 19.1 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted under, and governed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California. Any action at law or in equity brought by either of the parties hereto for the purpose of enforcing a right or rights provided for by this agreement shall be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, and the padies hereby waive all provisions of law providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other county. 19.2 Amendment to this Aqreement. The terms of this Agreement may not be modified or amended except by an instrument in writing executed by each of the parties hereto. 19.3 Captions. Any captions to, or headings of, the paragraphs or subparagraphs of this Agreement are solely for the convenience of the parties hereto, are not a part of this Agreement, and shall not be used for the interpretation or determination of the validity of this Agreement or any provision hereof. 19.4 Construction. The parties agree that each party and its counsel have reviewed and revised this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendments or exhibits thereto. 19.5 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterpads, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. 19.6 Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior agreements, negotiations and communications, oral or written, and contains the entire agreement between Buyer and Seller as to the subject matter hereof. No subsequent agreement, representation, or promise made by either party hereto, or by or to an employee, officer, agent or representative of either party shall be of any effect unless it is in writing and executed by the party to be bound thereby. 19.7 Exhibits. All exhibits attached hereto and/or referred to in this Agreement are incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 19.8 Fees and Other Expenses. Except as otherwise provided herein, each of the parties shall pay its own fees and expenses in connection with this Agreement. Page 9 of 12 19.9 Interpretation. In this Agreement the neuter gender includes the feminine and masculine, and singular number includes the plural, and the words "person" and "party" include corporation, partnership, firm, trust, or association wherever the context so requires. 19,10 No Obligations to Third Parties. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the execution and delivery of this Agreement shall not be deemed to confer any rights upon, nor obligate any of the parties thereto, to any person or entity other than the parties hereto. 19.11 Remedies Not Exclusive and Waivers. No remedy conferred by any of the specific provisions of this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy and each and every remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. The election of any one or more remedies shall not constitute a waiver of the right to pursue other available remedies. 19.12 Required Actions of Buyer and Seller. Buyer and Seller agree to execute such instruments and documents and to diligently undertake such actions as may be required in order to consummate the purchase and sale herein contemplated and shall use their best efforts to accomplish the Close of Transaction in accordance with the provisions hereof. 19.13 Successors and Assiqns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 19,14 Survival. The provisions hereof shall not terminate but rather shall survive any conveyance hereunder and the delivery of all consideration. The covenants, representations and warranties of both Buyer and Seller set forth in this Agreement shall survive the recordation of the Grant Deed and the Close of Transaction. 19.15 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of each and every term, condition, obligation and provision hereof. 19.16 Waiver. The waiver or failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any future breach of any such provision or any other provision hereof. 19,17 Non-Recordation. It is understood and agreed that the parties to this Agreement do not intend to record this Agreement in the official records of San Bernardino County or elsewhere. Accordingly, each of the parties to this Agreement covenants and agrees that it will not record this Agreement. 20. Default. In the event of a breach or default under this Agreement by either Buyer or Seller, the non-defaulting party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for the purchase and sale of the Property, by delivering written notice thereof to the defaulting pady. Such termination of the purchase and sale of the Property by a non-defaulting party shall be without prejudice to the non- defaulting party's rights and remedies at law or equity, as provided herein. Page 10of 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first-above written. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a public body, corporate and politic By: Jack Lam, City Manager ATTEST: Debra Adams, City Clerk WOODSIDE HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California Corporation, By: .'~/~ /-vl//~,~"~ Its: .t~F/'. $~'~:. . _ pt4,~. By: Its: Page 11 of 12 EXHIBIT A (LEGAL DESCRIPTION) THAT PORTION OF LOT 8, BLOCK "J" ETIWANDA COLONY LANDS, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 2 PAGE 24 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE NORTH 200 FEET; THENCE WEST 200 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 200 FEET; THENCE EAST 200 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 80 FEET BY THE CERTAIN RIGHT OF WAY CONVEYED BY ETIWANDA FRUIT COMPANY TO PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, BY DEED DATED FEBRUARY 7, 1913 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 523 PAGE 2O4 DEEDS. Page 12of 12 RESOLUTION NO. 98-022 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANIONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE INTENT TO RETAIN AND RELOCATE THE HISTORIC RESIDENCE KNOWN AS THE CHAFFEY /ISLE HOUSE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND ETIWANDA AVENUE AT 6490 ETIWANDA AVENUE - APN: 225-171-14. 1. The House located at the northwest comer of Highland and Etiwanda Avenues is commonly called the Isle House because it was owned for most of the twentieth century by descendants of James C. And Martha E. Isle. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject structure is referred to as the 'House.' 2. The House was built by the Chaffey Brothers, George, William, and Charles for their mother, Ann and sister, Emma. Ann and Emma did reside in the House during and after the Chaffey Brothers' founding of Etiwanda, Ontario, and Upland (Model Colonies). The House is the only residence built by the Chaffey Brothers in these Model Colonies. 3. The Chaffey Brothers were determined to be among the most important pioneers of Southern California. George provided the inspiration, leadership, and engineering skill, William provided the agricultural skills, and Charles possessed management and financial skills. Not only did they develop communities, but they charted a course which was followed throughout California and beyond. Accomplishments of the Chaffey Brothers include: · Ship construction patents · Formation of the first mutual water company in California · Inspiration for the first mutual telephone company in California · First electric light in Southern California · First hydro-electric powered light in Western United Sates ·One-time holders of the record for the longest distance telephone call · Irrigation engineering feats in the gathering and delivery of water from mountain sources to agricultural land Resolution No. 98-022 Page 2 · Founders of a bank which, through many mergers, still exists today · Founders and benefactors of Chaffey College · Donors of land to many churches and educational facilities in Ontario and Upland · Founders of Eftwanda, Ontario, Upland, Renmark and Mildura in Australia, Manzara and involved in the establishment of Mexicali and Calexico · Chief Engineer for the first electdc street light system in Los Angeles which became the first major city in the wodd to be lit exclusively by electricity · Builder of the Imperial Canal taking water form the Colorado River through Mexico and back into the Imperial Valley of California, enabling it to become a major agricultural region · Created Model Colonies with foundations in agriculture, commerce, education, and the arts; establishing a balanced beginning for many communities still in existence and benefitting more than 100 years later, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The Isle House is located within the Route 30 Freeway Corridor. The Route 30 Freeway is important to the transportation needs of the region. It is not feasible to reroute the Freeway alignment around the House. The Isle House must be moved or destroyed. 2. The Isle House is an important histodc resource because of the association with the Chaffey family from 1881 to 1884. 3. Because of the historic importance of the House, and in keeping with cultural preservation values of the community, the relocation and preservation of the structure is a high pdodty. The relocation and rehabilitation of the House will assure that future generations will have the opportunity to share in the City's heritage. 4. Although the City is a property tax-limited municipality, great strides have been made in the areas of parks, recreation, library, streets, public safety, and historic preservation through the use of a vadety of resources. The resources utilized have included special tax districts, state and regional grants, and voluntary contributions of funds and labor. The preservation of the Chaffey/Garcia House is an excellent example'of the City and the Etiwanda Historical Society working together to preserve historic resources. Resolution No. 98-022 Page 3 5. Because of the Histodc impodance of the House, the City of Rancho Cucamonga pledges to work in cooperative capacity with the Etiwanda Historical Society to move, rehabilitate, and use the structure for historic preservation purposes. 6. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4,, and 5 above, the City Council hereby resolves as follows: a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will provide moral and technical support in the effort to preserve the House. b. The City of Rancho Cucamonga needs and will solicit the support and interest of local residents including private groups to assist in the preservation and retention of the House. c. Contingent upon sufficient support from the community and the availability of financial resources, the City will acquire the House, move it to an available site, and secure as best as possible from wind, rain and vandalism. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of February, 1998. AYES' Alexander, Biane, Curatalo. Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: Debra J. Adam~'~MC, City Clerk Resolution No. 98-022 Page 4 I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby cedify 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 4th day of February, 1998. Executed this 5th day of February, 1998, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk o";.)L,:% ~ Hor. r r~wanaa (;olony Lanas ~ ,~ ,~ :. Rancho Cucamongo City 227-10 ' ~ _~ ~ ._. M.B. 2/24 Tax Rote Area :J' '"-- ¥-'~' .~ '"- 15022, 15055 - VICTORIA STREET ~---:-- ,~ I , ® - ® ~l"l~"mI ~lll~t IIIIIIIIIIll · · ? ' 8 ~.. ..... . ,-~.~ .~ Boo~ 227 Poqe . v I:*~'~.{ ~.~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: Febmay 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City E:ngineer SUBJECT: ROUTE 30 AD HOC TASK FORCE UPDATE The Route 30 Ad Hoc Task Force meeting was held on February 16, 1999, at 6:00 p.~n. in the Tri-Co~nmunities Room in Rancho Cucamonga City Hall. Ten members of the Task Force were in attendance. The Task Force received an update on the sound wall, east of East Avenue on Highland Avenue and the status of the Highland Avenue at East Avenue street connection. These issues have apparently been resolved to the satisfaction of the residents. City Planner, Brad Buller gave an update on the landscaping issues indicating that a workshop on landscaping will be held on March 9 in the Tri-Commmfities Room at City Hall. City staff reported the Archibald/Highland Avenue interchange problem has apparently been solved. Caltrans has agreed to install a signal at this location to allow west bound traffic from the freeway to go either north or south on Archibald Avenue. The Task Force requested if anything changes on this situation that it be brought back to their attention. Gary Moon frmn SANBAG gave an update on the current construction schedule, the early bridge schedule on Milliken and Haven Avenue and Business Support Program. Mr. Moon indicated a community meeting for the Carnelian Street bridge will be held on February 23, 1999 at Alta Loma High School starting at 6:30 pro. Residents and businesses in the area have been notified. Continuation of the Task Force was discussed with Chairman Alexander recmmnending the Task Force go to quarterly meetings with the provision there be sufficient justification for the meeting. The first scheduled meeting would be June 8 followed by meetings in September and Dece~nber of this year. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ROUTE 30 UPDATE February 17, 1999 Page 2 The Task Force members discussed the construction near Vineyard Junior High School requested staff send a letter to the school districts advising them of the Route 30 Freeway the potential impact on children and to remind children and parents of the construction work and additional safety is required. Respectfully Submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:dlw CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director BY: Karen McGuire-Emery, Senior Park Planner Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II SUBJECT: PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE BACKGROUND In accordance with the City Council's request to become more informed of park and recreation facility issues, programs, projects and events, this report is provided to highlight pertinent issues, projects and programs occurring in both the Community Services Department and the Park Design/Development and Maintenance Sections of Engineering. A. PARKS AND FACILITIES UPDATE Rancho Cucamonga Public Library: · The project was completed earlier this month. RC Family Sports Center: · Cable Television was installed in the Teen Center, the Game Area, and the Child Care Area. Stadium: · Quakes opening day is April 8, 1999. Red Hill Park: · Renovation of the south tot lot fbr ADA/CPSC compliance was completed and it was reopened to the public on February 3rd. Etiwanda Creek Park: · The costs estimates have been completed by staff for the addition of two scoreboards. Once the financial arrangements have been completed, the project will be submitted to City Council for approval. · It was necessary to re-aim the field lights because they were blown out of position during the last wind storm. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE February 17, 1999 Page 2 Central Park: · A Task Force meeting was held on Tuesday, February 16th at 6 p.m. Agenda items included a report on the Focus Group Sessions held in January and discussion regarding the questions for the telephone survey. B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE Seniors: · A special day was set aside on January 21, 1999, by the Community Services Department and the VIP Club to honor Clair Norbury a VIP Club member celebrating her 100th birthday. Over 140 of Clair's friends and City officials celebrated the occasion with a festive surprise party at the Senior Center. Mayor Pro Tem Williams presented a proclamation from the City to Clair recognizing her 100th birthday · At the February 3, 1999, City Council meeting a proclamation was presented to the VIP Club recognizing their 20th anniversary and the many accomplishments that group has made to the senior citizens of our community. · A special Valentine's Day party washeld at the Senior Center onFebruary 11, 1999, at 10:00 a.m.. The celebration on this favorite day of love and kindness featured magical entertainment, refreshments, games, m~d a special appearance from cupid. · The Senior Advisory Committee will hold its next meeting on February 22, 1999. At the time this report was prepared the agenda for the February meeting had not been set. The 4th Annual Senior Fine Art Show will be held at the Senior Center on March 6th and 7th. This is a non-juried art competition featuring oil/acrylic, watercolor/pastel, mixed media, sculpture, photography and graphite. Participation in the Show is open to all seniors age 50 and over. Numerous groups will be involved in the planning of this very popular two day program. · Plans are currently being undertaken for the Senior Center's participation in the 10th Annual Golden Follies Talent Showcase. The event will be held on March 27, 1999, from 2:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. at the Montclair Community Center. This senior citizen talent show features individuals from 5 cities (Chino, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland) performing song, dance, instrumental and novelty acts. The Rancho Cucamonga Senior Chorale will represent our City at the event. Teens: · The Teen Center hosted a successful all-night "who-dun-it" mystery on Friday, January 29th. The event was a "sell out" with 50 teens participating. This event is part of a series of once a month special activities for teens. In February, "That 70's Dance," will pay homage to the disco era at Lions Community Center West. March will feature a "March Madness" sports challenge at the RC Family Sports Center. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE February 17, 1999 Page 3 In February our Teen Trips program will hit the slopes (weather permitting) with a ski trip to Mountain High. These annual trips are planned for school holidays. The trip this month is scheduled for President's Day Holiday which this year is on February 15th. · On January 22, 1999, over 80 teens attended our Babysitter's Workshop. Presentations by Police, Fire and Community Services Department gave teens valuable information and babysitting tips. The next workshop in the series, the Job Skills Workshop is scheduled for March 27th . · In February, early enrollment will begin for the summer program, the Teen Leaming Center. Last summer over 50 teens volunteered over 2,500 hours of service and gained invaluable on the "job" experience. Youth Activities: · Playschool is beginning new classes in early February. The program has added classes at the Mulberry Learning Center to meet the needs of the community. In addition, a brand new class, "Ready Readers" has begun. This class is for children already enrolled in the "Fabulous Fours and Fives" classes who are ready to move on to early reading skills. Each child interested in participating in the Ready Readers class was assessed by the teacher on their social and academic levels before being admitted to the program. Over 60 children were assessed for 20 class spots. More classes may be added if there are enough qualified students. Youth Sports: · The Winter session of Youth Basketball will complete their regular season on February 20, 1999. Playoffs begin on February 27th and should conclude by March 13th. Nearly 1,000 boys and girls, ages 5-17 are participating on 120 teams. · Pee Wee Basketball began on February 1st. Two hundred and eighty-eight (288) boys and girls, ages 3-5 are currently participating on 24 teams. The season will conclude on Saturday, April l0th. · Youth Roller Hockey playoffs began on January 25th for the Fall program. Three hundred and five (305) boys and girls, ages 5-17, are participating on 37 teams. Registration for the Spring program currently has 150 children registered. The Spring program begins practice games in early March. Rancho Cueamonga Family Sports Center: · Staff was recently notified that the application submitted to California Parks and Recreation Society (CPRS) has been selected as the award winner for the 1998 CPRS Facility Design and Park Planning Award. The formal presentation of the award will take place on February 20th at the CPRS Conference in Santa Clara. 7 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE February 17, 1999 Page 4 · Staff is meeting with Tim Jenkins, one of Rancho Cucamonga's Deputy's, regarding the Computer Room at the Center. Mr. Jenkins is interested in teaching teens the ins and outs of computer programming. Staff is also researching a collaborative effort with our library. · Youth Indoor Soccer has over 115 children ages 5-14 registered in the indoor soccer program. Practice games will begin on February 24th. · Adult Basketball Leagues continue league play through March. Over one hundred and forty- four (144) men and women are participating in eighteen (18) full court teams. · The installation of cable television for the facility has been completed. · The doors to the racquetball rooms are being locked when not in use to enhance building security. · Fourteen (14) players are currently participating in two Adult Racquetball Leagues. · The facility continues to be extremely busy. During the month of January, 1999, facility usage for open/drop-in play was as follows: Adult Basketball - 1310; Youth Basketball - 699; Adult Racquetball - 585; Youth Racquetball - 53; Adult Volleyball - 82; Youth Volleyball -9. Adult Sports: · The Adult Softball Program has two thousand, three hundred and thirty-six (2,336) men and women participating on one hundred and forty-six (146) teams. · Two hundred and forty (240) men and women are participating on 24 Adult 6 Aside Soccer Teams. · Four hundred and thirty-two (432) men and women will be participating on 24 Full Field Adult Soccer teams this season. · Adult Flag Football has 120 men participating on 15 teams this season. Proposed Boxing Program: · An update memorandum was recently sent to City Council discussing various options available pertaining to the proposed boxing program. Staff is waiting to hear from the YMCA concerning their interest in sponsoring the program. Senior Transportation Program: · All necessary paperwork, including the transfer of title for the vehicle from the City to the YMCA and confirmation of public liability insurance naming the City as additionally insured on the YMCA's policy has been completed. The 15 seat passenger, para transit bus has been turned over to the YMCA. The program is scheduled to commence on Tuesday, February 16, 1999. To date, the YMCA has 16 senior citizens interested in utilizing the service. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE February 17, 1999 Page 5 Trips and Tours: The following trips are scheduled during the reporting period: · The Price is Right - February 24, 1999. Participants will "come on down" to enjoy the popular TV game show, The Price is Right with Bob Barker. (Sorry, all seats are sold out.) · Medieval Times - March 5, 1999. Guests will travel back in time to the year 1093 AD to visit the royal family inside an imposing 11th century castle. Great food and tournament games are included. (Seats are still available.) · The Glory of Easter- March 27, 1999. Guests will view this spectacular pageant at the world famous Crystal Cathedral. Over 100 actors and special effects recreate the story of Passion Week. (Seats are still available.) · The Flower Fields of Carlsbad - April 7, 1999. Participants will view one of the most spectacular flower displays in the world. These fields attract visitors from all over the world who are amazed by this unique sight. (Seats are still available.) Human Services: · Tax Preparation Assistance - Beginning February 2nd, a free tax service will be available to assist seniors and low income residents with their tax preparation. This service, which is conducted by AARP and the IRS, will be available each week at the Senior Center until April 13th. Interested participants need to call for an appointment. · Arrangements have been made through Heritage Hospital to offer weekly health and wellness programs for seniors at the Senior Center. Included in the series will be monthly seminars on women's health issues presented by Dr. Anita Kundi, of their Women's Health Center. These lectures will begin during the month of March. · Commodity Distribution - First Monday of the month from 1:30 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. at the Senior Center. USDA surplus food products are distributed to low income Rancho Cucamonga residents on a first come, first serve basis. Next distribution date is: March 1 · Elder Law Seminars - Seminars on important senior issues are presented monthly at the Senior Center. The next presentation will be on February 26th; the topic being presented is "Does Long Term Care Insurance Make Sense for Me?" · The Doctor is In - Free monthly seminars on topics of interest. All seminars take place at the Senior Center between 12 noon and 2:00 p.m.. March 16 - "High Cholesterol: The Good and the Bad." Featured speaker: Dr. Harvey D. Cohen. Facilities: · Cable television access for the RC Family Sports Center and the Teen Center has been established. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE February 17, 1999 Page 6 · Staff is currently in the process of implementing a new computerized facility reservation system. This system will streamline the facility reservation process. As part of this change over, staff is reviewing and revising the current facility reservation policies and procedures. · Staff is in the process of exploring providers for special events, clinics and safety workshops for the Spruce Avenue Park Skate Facility. Staff is targeting Spring for the first program. The Grapevine: · The Spring issue of The Grapevine, which began production in late December went to print on February 4~ and is scheduled to be delivered to residents in early March. This issue, in addition to the recreation schedule, features the City' s Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Division. The emphasis is on community parmerships in emergency management. Contract Classes: · The Winter session of contract classes began in early January. Over two hundred (200) different class opportunities are available for community members - from Playschool, teen activities, sports, cultural arts, ceramics, arts and crafts, dance, music, house and garden, parenting, personal growth, gymnastics, martial arts, fitness, health and safety, special interest, computer, trips and tours, human services, to senior citizen activities, classes and programs. Early registration for summer camps begins with the release of the Spring issue of The Grapevine. Staff is currently evaluating the contract class program with the goal of streamlining the program and providing greater emphasis on successful marketing techniques. Community Wide Special Events: · Amusing Children's Theater (ACT) will again be offered one Saturday per month from February through April, 1999. The line-up of entertainment includes: On Saturday, February 20, 1999, a magical balloon illusionist show starring Majiloon (Kelly Duro) will be held at 2:00 p.m. at Alta Loma High School. The Majiloon Show provides an afternoon of magic and comedy for the whole family. All seats are $5.00. Tickets are available at the Community Services Department at the Civic Center and at Lions Community Center East. The Franklin Haynes Marionettes will perform on Saturday, March 20th. This program will provide comedy and puppet entertainment through a variety of characters. The performance begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Fillipi Room at Lions Community Center West. Tickets are $5.00 and will be available at the Community Services Department and at Lions Community Center East. Internationally known Jay Leslie will present a comedy/magic show that includes audience CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE February 17, 1999 Page 7 participation on Saturday, April 17th. The performance is at 7:00 p.m. in the Fillipi Room at Lions Community Center West. Tickets are $5.00 and will be available at the Community Services Department at the Civic Center and at Lions Community Center East. California Park and Recreation Society Conference: As mentioned under the RC Family Sports Center item, representatives from the Community Services Department will be attending the Annual California Pacific Southwest Recreation and Park Training Conference in Santa Clara between February 18-21, 1999. In addition to attending educational sessions, the staft'is preparing to co-host the conference in March,2000 in Ontario. Several staff are on the committee that is coordinating the year 2K conference. Park and Recreation Commission: · The Park and Recreation Commission met on January 21, 1999 and the following items were discussed: -Update and establishment of future items for the Senior Advisory Committee. -Update and establishment of future items for the Sports Advisory Committee. -Review of Sports Advisory Committee request for City park sports fields. -Consideration and discussion of request for direction to the Sports Advisory Committee to project future attendance trends for youth sports groups. -Consideration and discussion regarding Community Services Department's amendments to the City's comprehensive fee schedule. -Consideration and discussion regarding Park and Recreation Commission representation at the 1999 California and Pacific Southwest Recreation and Park Conference. -Consideration of a change to the Park and Recreation Commission meeting date of February 18, 1999. Epicenter: · Staff is working with the following representatives for future events at the Epicenter: -Community Services Department - Children's Concert (April 3, 1999) -Calvary Chapel Chino Hills - Easter Sunrise Services (April 4, 1999) -California Association of School Transportation Officials - School Bus Roadeo (April 16/17, 1999) -Hillside Community Church - Soapbox Derby and Community Fair (May 30/31, 1999) -Rancho Cucamonga High School - Graduation Ceremony (June 17, 1999) CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE Febmary 17, 1999 Page 8 · Staff is in the process of preparing marketing information concerning the Epicemer for inclusion on the Intemet. · Staff is working on the developmere of guidelines to address co-sponsorship of community events at the Epicenter. Ri~ :G' e~ K Co tmunity~Development Director Community Services Director RG:KM:KME