Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012/06/06 - Agenda Packet - Regular
~ ANtyCHU (iUC:AMCJNGA 10500 Civic Center Drive ~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3801 City Office: (909) 477.2100 AGENDAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS 1St and 3~ Wednesdays ~ 7:00 P.M. JUNE fi, 2012 ORDER OF BUSINESS CLOSED SESSION Tapia Conference Room . Call to Order Public Communications Conduct of Closed Session City Manager Announcements REGULAR MEETINGS Council Chambers......... .... 5:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS MAYOR MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCIL MEMBERS L. Dennis Michael Sam Spagnolo William Alexander Chuck Buquet Diane Williams CITY MANAGER CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK John R. Gillison James L. Markman Janice C. Reynolds r,. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC .. TO ADDRESS THE FIRE BOARD. AUTHORITY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL The Fire Board, Authority Board and City Council encourage free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the Agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Fire Board, Authority Board or City Council by filling out a speaker card and submitting it to the City Clerk. The speaker cards are located on the wall at the back of the Chambers, at the front desk behind the staff table and at the City Clerk's desk. If as part of vour presentation, you would like to dispiav audio or visual material. please see the City Clerk before the meeting commences. Any handouts for the Fire Board, Authority Board or City Council should be given to the City Clerk for distribution. During "Public Communications," your name will be called to speak on any item listed or not listed on the agenda in the order in which it was received. The "Public Communications" period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any remaining "Public Communications" which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. If you are present to speak on an "Advertised Public Hearing" item or on an "Administrative Hearing Item(s)," your name will be called when that item is being discussed, in the order in which it was received. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. AGENDA BACK-UP MATERIALS -Staff reports and back-up materials for agenda items are available for review at the City Clerk's counter, the City's Public Library(-ies) and on the City's website. A complete copy of the agenda is also available at the desk located behind the staff table during the Council meeting. LIVE BROADCAST -Fire Board, Authority Board and City Council meetings are broadcast live on Channel 3 for those with cable television access. Meetings are rebroadcast on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 11:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The City has added the option for customers without cable access to view the meetings "on- demand"from their computers. The added feature of "Streaming Video On Demand" is available on the City's website at www.cityofrc.us/cityhall/council/videos.asp for those with Hi-bandwidth (DSUCable Modem) or Low-bandwidth (Dial-up) Internet service. The Fire Board, Authority Board and City Council meet regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire District Board and the Public Financing Authority Board. Copies of the agendas and minutes can be found @ www.citvofrc.us If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. Please tum off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 6, 2012 A. 5:00 P.M. -CLOSED SESSION ~ CALL TO ORDER - TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM 1. Roll Call: Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tem Spagnolo Council Members Alexander, Buquet and Williams CLOSED SESSION CALLED TO ORDER AS THE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, SUCCESSOR AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM S C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM S D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION - TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM D1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR CHRIS PAXTON PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, THE MID-MANAGER, SUPERVISORY/PROFESSIONAL AND GENERAL LABOR GROUP AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES -FIRE, CITY D2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION PURSUANT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(6} - TWO POTENTIAL CASES - SUCCESSOR AGENCY, CITY D3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) - BEAR GULCH, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DBA BEAR GULCH, INC. V. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND DOES 1 100 INCLUSIVE. CASE NO. CIVRS 1203421 -CITY E. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS F. RECESS CLOSED SESSION TO RECESS TO THE REGULAR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA C~~ FJi ~'. i ~ ~ (IJCAhlONGA JUNE 6, 2012 G. REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL WILL BE CALLED TO ORDER. IT IS THE INTENT TO CONCLUDE THE MEETINGS BY 10:00 P.M., UNLESS EXTENDED BY CONCURRENCE OF THE FIRE BOARD, AUTHORITY BOARD AND COUNCIL. G1. Pledge of Allegiance G2. Roll Call: Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tem Spagnolo Council Members Alexander, Buquet and Williams H. ANNOUNCEMENTSIPRESENTATIONS H1. Recognition of Officers Involved in Edible Arrangement and Radio Shack Robberies- H2. Announcement of the 2012113 Season at the Lewis Family Playhouse. 1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Fire Protection District, Public Finance Authority Board and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Fire Protection District, Public Finance Authority Board and City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Fire Board, Public Finance Authority Board and City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Fire Board, Authority Board or City Council not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AND 3 ~,~,~~,, ~,:,~~,~~h,~,v~;~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 6, 2012 The CONSENT CALENDARS: following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-oonboversial. They will be acted upon by the Fire Board/Authority Board/Council at one time without discussion. Any ifem maybe removed by an Fire Board/Authority Board/Council Member for discussion. .J. CONSENT CALENDAR -FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT J1. Approval of Minutes: May 16, 2012 (Regular Meeting) J2. Approval of Check Register dated May 9, 2012 through May 29, 2012 for the total of $210,702.71. ~ J3. Approval to proceed with the Biennial review of the Conflict of Interest Code for the Fire Protection District, Successor Agency and City Council. 7 K. CONSENT CALENDAR -SUCCESSOR AGENCY K1. Approval to proceed with the Biennial review of the Conflict of Interest Code for the Fire 8 Protection District, Successor Agency and City Council. K2. Approval of Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules CROPS) for the time periods of 9 January to June 2012 and July to December 2012. L. CONSENT CALENDAR -PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY L1. Approval of Minutes: May 16, 2012 (Regular Meeting) M. CONSENT CALENDAR -CITY COUNCIL M1. Approval of Minutes: May 16, 2012 (Regular Meeting) M2. Approval of Check Register dated May 9, 2012 through May 29, 2012 and payroll ending 22 May 29, 2012 for the total amount of $4,252,843.99. M3. Consideration of a Light Variance requested for Minors, Majors, Juniors and Senior Divisions All-Star Tournament hosted by District 71 Little League during June 23 -July 28, 76 2012, at Heritage and Red Hill Community Parks. M4. Approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Joint Trade 81 Agreement (CO 12-048) for June 1, 2012 -May 30, 2013. M5. Approval to award a contract (CO 12-049) to Applied Planning, Inc. to create an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Foothill Walmart Super Store project 84 located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Avenue (DRC2012- 00049), in accordance with request for proposal No. 11/12-109, in the amount of $348,762 to be funded from Account Number 1001314-5303 (Contract Services Reimbursable). M6. Approval to proceed with the Biennial review of the Conflict of Interest Code for the Fire gg Protection District, Successor Agency and City Council. M7. Approval to award the purchase of one (1) CNG Powered Conventional Cab Log Loader 87 Truck to Nixon-Egli Equipment Co., of Ontario, California, in accordance with Request for Bid ("RFB") #11/12-014 in the amount of $228,659.00 from Acct. No. 1105208-5604 (A62766 Air Quality Improvement Fund). FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 6, 2012 4 M8. Release of Faithful Performance Bond retained in lieu of Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Parcel Map 17594 (Street Improvements), located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, submitted by F 8 F, LLC. M9. Release of Maintenance Guarantee Bond for DRC2006-00580, located on the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Route, submitted by Smash, LLC. M10. Approve the Purchase and Installation of Play Equipment from Landscape Structures, Inc., for the Etiwanda Creek Park Playground, utilizing a competitively bid Cooperative Agreement awarded by Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC Contract No. PR 11-10), and authorize the expenditure of $275,823.73 plus a 5% Contingency to be funded from Account No.1120305-565011802120-0. 89 91 93 N. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY COUNCIL The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Mayor will open the meeting to receive public testimony. N1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND 94 USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DRC2010-00157 -The review and adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport-Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). Related Files: Industrial Area Speck Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 94 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 5.3.2. of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Related Files: LA/Ontario Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. RESOLUTION NO. 12-079 186 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING DRC2010-00157, THE LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. RESOLUTION NO. 12-080 194 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHING THE ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - INTER AGENCY COLLABORATIVE (ONT-IAC) TO ESTABLISH A COOPERATIVE PROCESS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS AND POLICES OF THE LA/ONT AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP); AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ~,~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~,.~„,~~,, JUNE 6, 2012 5 ORDINANCE NO. 854 (FIRST READING) 217 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (IASP) SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685, AMENDING SECTION 5.3.2 OF THE IASP SUBAREA 18 BY ADDING LANGUAGE REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. O. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. 01. Update on post-Redevelopment dissolution. (Oral) --- P. COUNCIL BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. P1. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES 222 SUBCOMMITTEE REGARDING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY & ARTS FOUNDATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS. P2. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE'S 223 RECOMMENDATION REGARDING APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION. P3. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council --- Member.) P4. LEGISLATIVE AND REGIONAL UPDATES (Oral) --- Q. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING R. ADJOURNMENT I, Debra L. McKay, Assistant City ClerklRecords Manager, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 31, 2012, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. May 16, 2012 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, CITY COUNCIL CLOSED 5ESSION MINUTES The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Successor Agency and City Council held a closed session on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 in the Tapia Room at the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Present were District/Council Members: Bill Alexander, Chuck Buquet, Diane Williams, Vice President/Mayor Pro Tem Sam Spagnolo and President/Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda Daniels, Assistant City Manager and Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager. The following closed session items are being considered: D1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR CHRIS PAXTON PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, THE MID-MANAGER, SUPERVISORY/PROFESSIONAL AND GENERAL LABOR GROUP AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES -FIRE, C1TY D2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION PURSUANT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(B) -ONE POTENTIAL CASE -FIRE D3. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9059 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. NEGOTIATING PARTIES: LINDA DANIELS, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND ORCHARD CAPITAL LP, REGARDING AN EXISTING LEASE. -SUCCESSOR AGENCY D4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A). CASE: APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY TO ESTABLISH MARGINAL COSTS, ALLOCATE REVENUES, DESIGN RATES AND IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL DYNAMIC PRICING RATES. CASE NO. APPLLICATON (A) 11-06-007. -CITY D5. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, NORTH OF BASE LINE ROAD, IDENTIFIED AS 7150 ETIWANDA AVENUE; NEGOTIATING PARTIES: LINDA D. DANIELS, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; AND GWEN FROST, PRESIDENT OF THE ETIWANDA HISTORICAL SOCIETY- CITY D6. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, NORTH OF BASE LINE ROAD, IDENTIFIED AS 7086 ETIWANDA AVENUE; NEGOTIATING PARTIES: LINDA D. DANIELS, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; AND GWEN FROST, PRESIDENT OF THE ETIWANDA HISTORICAL SOCIETY- CJTY *DRAFT* Fire Protection District, Financing Authority, City Council Minutes May 16, 2012 -Page 1 of 11 No persons were present wishing to speak. E. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements were made. The closed session recessed at 6:45 p.m. with no action taken. The meetings of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Financing Authority and City Council reconvened in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. PresidenUChairman/Mayor L. Dennis Michael called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Board Members/Board Members/Council Members: Bill Alexander, Chuck Buquet, Diane Williams; Vice PresidentNice Chairman/Mayor Pro Tem Sam Spagnolo and PresidenUChairman/Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda Daniels, Assistant City Manager; Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager; Bill Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director; Robert Karatsu, Library Director; Veronica Fincher, Animal Services Director; Mark Steuer, Director of Engineering Services; Jeff Bloom, Interim Planning Director; Trang Huynh, Building 8~ Safety Services Director; Fire Chief Mike Bell; Debra McKay, Records Manager/Assistant City Clerk; Adrian Garcia, Assistant City Clerk and Shirr'I Griffin, Deputy City Clerk. H. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS H1. Recognition of Sam and Alfreda Maloof Compound as one of "America's Hidden Gems" for National Historic Preservation Month Mayor Michael recognized the Sam and Alfreda Maloof Compound and presented a proclamation for National Historic Preservation Month to Beverly Maloof, Board Member of the Sam and Alfreda Maloof Foundation for Arts and Crafts. H2. Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Celebrates Emergency Medical Services Week Chief Bell reported on Emergency Medical Services Week and received a proclamation from Mayor Michael. H3. Recognition of WLC Architects, Inc. for joining the Rancho Cucamonga Green Business Recognition Program Mayor Michael presented a certificate of appreciation to Jim DiCamillo, President of WLC Architects. *DRAFT* Fire Protection District, Financing Authority, City Council Minutes May 16, 2012 -Page 2 of 11 H4. Certificates of achievement to the Los Osos High School Speech and Debate Team for winning the Southern California District Championship Mayor Michael presented certificates of achievement to the Los Osos High School Speech and Debate Team and congratulated them on their achievements. H5. Proclamation declaring May, 2012, as "Water Awareness Month". Mayor Michael presented a proclamation for Water Awareness Month to Oscar Gonzalez, Vice President of the Cucamonga Valley Water District. 11. Rick Creed invited the City Council and the audience to the Memorial Day BBQ on May 26, 2012 from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at Central Park. 12. Jim Russell thanked the City Council, Senator Dutton, Supervisor Rutherford and staff for their support of the Black and White Gala. He announced that Mayor Pro Tem Spagnolo won the iPad and noted that the event raised over $13,000.00. 13. Delores Martin introduced her new online business, That's A Hat, which can be accessed at www.thatsahat.net. 14. Dr. William Martin II thanked the City Council for their support of the National Day of Prayer and presented background information on this event. 15. Sandra Dietl and Luana Hernandez invited the City Council and the audience to the Historic Rancho Cucamonga Tour on June 16, 2012 from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 16. Mark Steuer, City Engineer, announced the upcoming street closure of East Avenue from Base Line Road to Chataeu Drive from May 29, 2012 to July 4, 2012. 17. John Lyons spoke about Sam Maloof and indicated that he had watched Rolling Thunder depart this morning from Rancho Cucamonga. Also, Mr. Lyons stressed the importance of the Black and White Gala, which provides much needed services to the elderly. He appreciated the formation of the Speech and Debate Team, as it gives students the confidence to speak in public. Lastly, Mr. Lyons indicated that he attended a car show last weekend. 18. Jim Moffatt spoke about the Rancho Cucamonga High School's veteran's event on May 3, 2012. He noted that their work was outstanding and suggested that the City Council honor the students at a future meeting. The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-raontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Fire i3oard/Successor Agency/Authority Board/Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Fire Board/5uccessor Agency/Authority Board/Council Member for discussion. J. CONSENT CALENDAR -FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT J1. Approval of Minutes: May 2, 2012 (Regular Meeting) "'DRAFT` Fire Protection District, Financing Authority, City Council Minutes May 16, 2012 -Page 3 of 11 J2. Approval of Check Register dated April 25, 2012 through May 8, 2012 for the total of $186,150.67. J3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of April 30, 2012. J4. Adoption of a Resolution declaring results of a Special Election in Community Facilities District No. 85-1, Annexation No. 12-3 and ordering the annexation of such property located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Baker St. to Community Facilities District No. 85-1 (Homescape Cucamonga, LLC, Owner -APN: 0207-201-22) RESOLUTION NO. FD 12-024 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILTIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1, ANNEXATION N0.12-3 AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF SUCH PROPERTY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 J5. Approval to adopt an annexation map showing Assessor Parcel Number 0210-062-08 (Beazer Homes), located on the southwest corner of Archibald Ave and 6th St. proposed to be annexed into CFD 85-1. RESOLUTION NO. FD 12-025 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85- 1, ADOPTING AN ANNEXATION MAP (ANNEXATION NO. 12-4) SHOWING PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 J6. Approval to adopt a Resolution of Intention to Annex Territory referred to as Annexation No. 12-4 (APN: 0210-062-08, Beazer Homes, Owner), located on the southwest corner of Archibald Ave. and 6th St. into Community Facilities District No. 85-1, specifying services proposed to be financed, to set and specify the special taxes proposed to be levied within the annexation territory and set a time and place for a public hearing related to the annexation. RESOLUTION NO. FD 12-026 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY (ANNEXATION NO. 12-4) TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Spagnolo, to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports. Motion carried 5-0. *DRAFT* Fire Protection District, Financing Authority, City Council Minutes May 16, 2012 -Page 4 of 11 K1. Release of Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 6698079, in the amount of $4,514.61, for the Acoustic Panels and Window Shades at Paul A. Biane Library, Contract No. RA10-007. MOTION: Moved by Spagnolo, seconded by Alexander, to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports. Motion carried 5-0. L1. Approval of Minutes: May 2, 2012 (Regular Meeting) MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Williams, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 5-0. M. CONSENT CALENDAR -CITY COUNCIL M1. Approval of Minutes: May 2, 2012 (Regular Meeting) May 2, 2012 (Joint Meeting with Planning Commission) M2. Approval of Check Register dated April 25, 2012 through May 8, 2012 and payroll ending May 8, 2012 for the total of $2,920,834.63. M3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of April 30, 2012. M4. Approval of Resolutions Pertaining to the November 6, 2012 Election RESOLUTION NO. 12-071 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY THE 6th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012 FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES, AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAME DATE RESOLUTION NO. 12-072 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADPTING A CHARGE TO CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE, FOR PREPARATION OF MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE COSTS OF THE CANDIDATE STATEMENT FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012 M5. Approval of a License Agreement (CO 12-035) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), for the construction of storm drain in Hellman Avenue under the Metrolink Tracks, located north of 8th Street at SANBAG Mile Post 98.2 and SCRRA Mile Post 39.60 (RR). *DRAFT* Fire Protection District, Financing Authority, City Council Minutes May 16, 2012 -Page 5 of 11 M6. Approve renewal of the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Agreement (CO 12-036) with the County of San Bernardino Service Area 70 Consolidated Fire District (CSA 70 CFD). M7. Accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $114,730.00, to the lowest responsive bidder, New Legacy Development Corp., and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $11,473.00, for the FY 2011-2012 ADA Access Ramps at Various Locations and Konocti Street Cul- de-sac Street Improvements west of Avenida Leon to be funded from Measure I Funds and Proposition 42 Funds, Account Nos. 1177303-565011150177-0 and 1190303- 5650/1794190-0. M8. Accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $6,489,849.00, to the lowest responsive bidder, Belczak & Sons Inc., and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $648,984.90, for the Hellman Avenue Master Planned Storm Drain and Street Improvements -Phase 2 (from Cucamonga Creek Channel to 1200' north of 8th Street) project to be funded from General Drainage and Citywide Infrastructure Funds, Account Nos. 1112303- 5650/1 5531 1 2-0 and 1198303-5650/1553198-0 and appropriate $1,500,000.00 to Account No. 1112303-5650/1553112-0 and $6,000,000.00 to Account No. 1198303- 5650/1553198-0 from General Drainage and Citywide Infrastructure Funds, respectively, for a total of $7,500,000.00 (Contract award of $6,489,849.00 plus 10% contingency in the amount of $648,984.90 and remaining for soils and materials testing, construction survey services, inspection, engineering support and incidentals). M9. Accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $242,517.00, to the lowest responsive bidder, G. Hurtado Construction, and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $24,251.70, for the Manzanita Drive Storm Drain Improvements to be funded from General City Drainage Funds, Account No. 1 1 1 2303-565011 81 31 1 2-0 and appropriate $393,000.00 to Account No. 1 1 1 2303-5650/1 81 31 1 2-0 from General City Drainage Fund, for a total of $393,000.00 (Contract award of $242,517.00 plus 10% contingency in the amount of $24,251.70 and remaining for soils and materials testing, construction survey services and incidentals). M10. Approval of map, Improvement Agreement, improvement securities, monumentation cash deposit and ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract Map 18804, located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 6th Street, submitted by Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., A Delaware Corporation RESOLUTION NO. 12-073 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT FOR TRACT 18804 RESOLUTION NO. 12-074 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR TRACT 18804 *DRAFT* Fire Protection District, Financing Authority, City Council Minutes May 16, 2012 -Page 6 of 11 RESOLUTION NO. 12-075 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS) FOR TRACT 18804 RESOLUTION NO. 12-076 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 FOR TRACT 18804 M11. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Replacement of Pedestrian Bridge Decks Crossing Over Deer Creek Channel to be funded from Citywide Infrastructure Funds. RESOLUTION NO. 12-077 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "REPLACEMENT OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DECKS CROSSING OVER DEER CREEK CHANNEL", IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS M12. Accept the bids received, award and authorize the execution of a contract in the amount of $69,800 to the apparent low bidder, Trueline of Corona, California and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $6,980 for the "Resurfacing of Tennis Courts at Various Locations" to be funded from Account Number 1025001-5607 (Capital Reserve). M13. Accept the bids received, award and authorize the execution of a contract in the amount of $89,449 to the apparent low bidder, Macadee Electrical Construction, Inc. of Chino, California and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $8,950 for the "Illuminated Street Name Sign Replacement Phase 3 - FY 11112" base bid plus additive bid one per the attached bid summary to be funded from Account Number 1170303-5300 (Gas Tax). M14. Approve plans and specifications for "Public Safety Locker Room Carpet Replacement" and accept bids received and award and authorize the execution of a contract in the amount of $14,481 ($13,164 plus a 10% contingency of $1,317) to the apparent lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Mike's Custom Flooring of Redlands, California for the "Public Safety Locker Room Carpet Replacement" to be funded from 1025001-5602 (Capital Reserve). RESOLUTION NO. 12-078 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY LOCKER ROOM CARPET REPLACEMENT AND AWARDING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,481 ($13,164 PLUS A 10% CONTINGENCY OF $1,317) TO THE APPARENT LOWEST RESPONSIVE, RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, MIKE'S CUSTOM FLOORING OF REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA. MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Spagnolo, to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports. Motion carried 5-0. *DRAFT* Fire Protection District, Financing Authority, City Council Minutes May 16, 2012 -Page 7 of 11 N. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have been introduced for first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non-controversial. The Fire Board, or Council will act upon them at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion by a Board Member, or Council Member. N1. Approval to adopt Ordinance 853 revising purchasing procedures pertaining to the publication of formal bids, and amending Title 3, Section 3.08.080, of Chapter 3.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. ORDINANCE NO. 853 (SECOND READING) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA REVISING PURCHASING PROCEDURES PERTAINING TO THE PUBLICATION OF FORMAL BIDS, AND AMENDING TITLE 3, SECTION 3.08.080, OF CHAPTER 3.08 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE The Assistant City Clerk/Records Manager read the title of Ordinance No. 853. MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Alexander, to adopt Ordinance No. 853. Motion carried 5-0. The following items have been advertised andlor posted as public hearings as required by law. The President will open the meeting to receive public testimony. 01. Adoption of a Resolution making determinations regarding the proposed annexation of territory (Jaime Campos, Owner - APN 0201-902-16 -Annexation No. 88-12-1) located on the south side of Lemon Ave. west of Hermosa Ave.to an existing Community Facilities District, calling a special election and authorizing submittal of levy of special taxes to the qualified electors. RESOLUTION NO. FD 12-027 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY (ANNEXATION NO. 88 12-1) TO AN EXISTING COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD 88-1) AND CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF SUCH TERRITORY Rob Ball, Fire Marshall, presented the staff report. Chairman Michael opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Chairman Michael closed the public hearing. MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Spagnolo to adopt Resolution No. FD 12-027. Motion carried 5-0. *DRAFT* Fire Protection District, Financing Authority, City Council Minutes May 16, 2012 -Page 8 of 11 The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. P1. Consideration of a Communications License Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Linkline Communications, Inc. which allows the installation of wireless technology equipment at city facilities in order to provide internet access to the City and the community. Sig Dellhime, Information Services Project Coordinator, presented the staff report. In response to Council Member Buquet, Mr. Dellhime addressed the proposed lease of four strands of fiber optic cable, and confirmed that the lease of this cable does not negatively affect City operations or its ability to lease cable to other entities. Mayor Michael noted the concerns surrounding FiOS and inquired if this license agreement would meet the community's needs. In response, Mr. Dellhime indicated that it would partly meet the community's needs as it would provide internet service. It was also noted that Linkline's goal is to provide Internet service to the entire community. The project should be online in the fall. MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Spagnolo, to approve the recommendations in the staff report. Motion carried 5-0. Speaker cards may be submitted for all those who wish to speak on the following topic(s). The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals wishing to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Fire Board, Authority Board or City Council, not to members of the audience. Q1. Approval to implement an Action Plan to protect private and public property rights on lands bordering Cucamonga Canyon. Fire Chief Bell and Operations Lieutenant Steve Smith presented the staff report. In response to Council Member Buquet, Operations Lieutenant Smith addressed the calls for service, which has shown an increase due to more proactive enforcement. Chief Bell confirmed to Mayor Michael that most of the private property owners have given their written permission for the City to place no trespassing signs on their property. Before signs are installed, written permission must be obtained. Also discussed was the proposed closure of the parking lot and its impact. Council Member Buquet noted that the effect of the closure would be to shift the burden to Skyline. Discussion was held regarding parking and signage, with Chief Bell noting that the situation would be closely monitored and adapted so as to discourage people from illegally accessing the canyon. Mayor Michael opened the administrative hearing. Marty Zvirbulus, representing the Cucamonga Valley Water District, noted that the District owns property in that area and has been tasked with being the steward of the watershed. He indicated that hundreds of people on a daily basis are frequenting the canyon and stated that the impact to the watershed is significant. He supported the recommended action and pledged to work with the City to find a long term strategy. *DRAFT* Fire Protection District, Financing Authority, City Council Minutes May 16, 2012 -Page 9 of 11 Carolyn Hemmick inquired how restricting the access will stop the graffiti and trash. Chief Bell noted that the intent was to regain some control over the situation. Phil Compeon stated that there is a tremendous amount of graffiti and trash in the canyon. He encouraged the City Council to unshackle the police and allow them to address the situation. Otis Radford noted that he chose to live on Skyline Road. He expressed concerns with all the traffic being diverted to Skyline and the resulting trash and debris that will be created. In response, City Manager Gillison reported that the Public Works Services Department will continue to maintain the streets. John Lyons expressed the need to ensure access to the canyon and suggested that a Mountain Commission be created. A member of the audience inquired why the City is not policing the canyon instead of punishing the residents by denying access. In response, Operations Lieutenant Smith reported that the Department would be partnering with the Forestry Service to police the canyon. However, he noted that the Forestry Services has limited funding at their disposal. It was suggested that a citizens on patrol group be formed. A member of the audience noted the need to patrol the canyon and make the people clean up their mess. In response to a member of the audience, Operations Lieutenant Smith noted that there was not a legal way to access Cucamonga Canyon from Almond. The speaker indicated that he walks the trails every day and suggested that an access point be built at Turquoise and Jennet. Carol Douglas, representing Alta Loma Riding Club, noted that the club is very saddened by the problem. She noted that the ride from the end of Almond is much better than riding up Skyline. The Alta Loma Riding Club has been good stewards of the canyon, and she looked forward to resolving this problem. Mrs. Douglas noted that the club would like to partner with the City to restore resident access to the canyon and supported enforcement of the laws. Mayor Michael closed the administrative hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Spagnolo noted the need to protect private property rights has become more problematic as the population increases. He recognized that closing the parking area will result in more problems in another area. However, it was necessary to control the situation. Mayor Pro Tem Spagnolo noted the need to put up no littering signs and suggested that the Department document the people breaking the laws so that the rules can eventually be enforced. Council Member Buquet concurred that a plan and enforcement was needed. He expected that the plan would be monitored and once the situation is under control, then we can look at opportunities to relax the restrictions. Council Member Buquet noted that this will be an inconvenience to the community and hoped that we can be patient in our approach. Council Member Alexander concurred with the recommendations. He supported the imposition of fines and other regulations and suggested that a tow truck be placed in the area. Council Member Williams noted that the situation is heartbreaking and hoped that if it were unpleasant enough, the people vandalizing the area would stay away. She suggested forming a canyon watch group, where people can call a number if they see something that is illegal. Mayor Michael pointed out that 16 meetings have been held since 2009, during which time the City Council and staff have been struggling to come up with a solution. He noted that the situation will continue to evolve and hoped that the recommended steps will begin to reduce the problem. Mayor Michael thanked everyone for their comments MOTION: Moved by Spagnolo, seconded by Alexander, to approve the recommendations in the staff report. Motion carried 5-0. *DRAFT• Fire Protection District, Financing Authority, City Council Minutes May 16, 2012 -Page 10 of 11 R1. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) Mayor Pro Tem Spagnolo commended Deputy Jeremy Jackson, who was honored at the International Blue Ribbon Breakfast. S. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING No items were identified. Mayor Michael adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra L. McKay, MMC Assistant City Clerk/Records Manager Approved: *~"`*" *DRAFT* Fire Protection District, Financing Authority, City Council Minutes May 16, 2012 -Page 11 of 11 V: z~ w ~ ~~ ° `~' w ~~ ~••• t Q ~-' ~ ~ w~ ~~ c~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ w ~ ~ ~' ~~ ~~ ~-.~ ~' .~~.. ~__ ~'~ - '- : -. ,~~ ir" .r .. . ' ~ = ` `~ ~ s - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~--, _ 1r ~-- ~~ .. d ~ ~-~,~ r ~~ t ~_ ~~ = ~ ~_~ ~ ~ ~ - 4 ~ ~~ ~ __ ,~~ _a ,~~ i ~ ~~ ~~ :~ s s ~ ~ / ~, ~ '~ - .a w y •' ~' • -- ~ ~ ~ 4~'y s.'~R ~ . ~~ y .~ ~" ~ _. • ~- -~ • c Q ` ac , a~ i r ~., ~~: W ; ~ ~ • !-~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ 1 € --. ~ S~ _ ~ Co ~ ~ C ~ Z Z~ 1~ ~~ ~ _" .~ c •° o`?S I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .' ~. 1 W . ~ .r. .. Z' .~ ~ :~ ti "~ ~ ~~- `Y _ •- ,. _~ 1 '~ y` ~' t y,~. ' ~~ R ~, ~ ~ -~~ Q ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ • a. r~~ ~~ i ^ ~ ~ yy~r _ ~ ~~' ~' ,: i t ~.~ .` :~ ~ ~. ;~ ~_. i Z~ ~g ~~ ~~ i '~s t -~ c ~ - i ~.. ., .. .~; , - ~` ~~ ~ ~' / I ~ ~ ^ i D ~~ ~I !1 v _ ~_ - ~ _. ~.. =.1 ~c ~~ ~1 ^ C"J C ~.~. .._.. ~ . ...~ .~ ~ c ~ o "° r~ l e ~+~ ;7 ~1 ,,,_ =1 ^ ~., . Y ~.. ~•w- ~ w ~~ ,t - µti~•. 1 • O :9 ~~ 1 ~~ ,, ~~ ~. ~~ !~ ~~ f s ~. • ~° i v 1 ~_ ~s .~ Mr -~~ t .~ a ., ~, ~ . ~r -. .~ ~_ .~• ^ a!4" ~~ ,t ~ _ t+ etir -~:-~ ~ -s= ~I~ 1 .-o 1 ~:.~! ~~ .~ r ~ .,. .. ~ ~~"'. *`- ..~;~x ~j •~_.~~ I w w _ tk. h• y .., i ~d ~~ ~ f' .f 3 ~. .. t ~_ t*wt ~~ ~~ Y 11' r t 4 • • N "~ ~ ~~ *~ - r~ W.... rJ !~ w~ ~ ..~. f J ~~ w~ ~~ t ~~ a1 ~~ ~`~. ,~-~ . . ~..~ r~+ r... ~,,: ~~ S ...: ~ ~ rr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ d ~ _..~ >~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ " cn .~. RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Agenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amount AP 00324630 2012/05/24 ( CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC 71.80 AP 00324630 2012/05/24 ( CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC 201.06 AP 00324630 2012/05/24 ( CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC 77.17 AP 00324630 2012/05/24 ( CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC 67.10 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 58.20 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 222.58 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 55.20 pP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 169.37 pP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 92.00 pP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 270.43 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 708.67 AP 00324643 2012/05/24 ( INTERSTATE BATTERIES 402.12 AP 00324645 2012/05/241 LN CURTIS AND SONS 103.24 AP 00324646 2012/05/241 SUNRISE FORD 894.01 AP 00324646 2012/05/241 SUNRISE FORD 383.15 AP 00324624 2012/05/241 KILMER, STEPHEN 1,098.64 AP 00324161 2012/05/16 ( ALSCO 44.61 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 97.17 AP 00324161 2012/OS/16 ( ALSCO 51.11 AP 00324161 2012/05/16 ( ALSCO 80.68 AP 00324161 2012/05/16( ALSCO 55.39 AP 00324161 2012/05/16 ( ALSCO 56.49 AP 00324157 2012/05/16 l ADAPT CONSULTING INC 498.28 pP 00324157 2012/05/16 l ADAPT CONSULTING INC 215.12 AP 00324157 2012/05/161 ADAPT CONSULTING INC 481.97 AP 00324161 2012/05/16 ( ALSCO 74.01 AP 00324161 2012/05/16 ( ALSCO 83.03 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 83.03 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 38.31 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 40.67 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 127.87 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 42.16 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 65.83 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 66.45 AP 00324161 2012/OS/161 ALSCO 71.45 AP 00324161 2012/05/16 ( ALSCO 118.37 AP 00324161 2012/05/16 ( ALSCO 43.91 AP 00324161 2012/05/16 ( ALSCO 66.25 AP 00324161 2012/OS/l6 ( ALSCO 46.59 AP 00324161 2012/05/16 ( ALSCO 46.59 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 42.04 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 42.04 AP 00324166 2012/05/161 ARROW, JASON 50.00 pp 00324165 2012/05/16 I ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 1,657.50 P1 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 1 Current Dale: 05/30/: Repor[: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Aeenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324161 2012/05/16 ( ALSCO 42.65 AP 00324161 2012/05/16 ( ALSCO 41.38 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 43.63 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 91.70 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 101.12 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 205.29 AP 00324161 2012/05/161 ALSCO 120.33 AP 00323980 2012/05/09 ( CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 6.27 AP 00323980 2012/05/09 f CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 26.39 AP 00323976 2012/05/09 ( BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC. 158.90 AP 00323976 2012/05/09 ( BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC. 188.78 AP 00323961 2012/05/09( AIRDRAULICS 1,133.29 AP 00323956 2012/05/09 ( ADAPT CONSULTING INC 368.65 AP 00324179 2012/05/16 ( BURNS, BRYAN 50.00 AP 00324177 2012/05/16 l BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC. 28.32 AP 00324177 2012/05/161 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC. 158.90 AP 00324177 2012/05/161 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC. 160.46 AP 00324166 2012/05/16 l ARROW, JASON 200.00 AP 00324047 2012/05/09 l MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 2,241.12 AP 00324044 2012/05/09 ( LIFE ASSIST INC 3,921.33 AP 00324044 2012/05/09 ( LIFE ASSIST INC 210.75 AP 00324043 2012/05/09 ( ZEAL, MICHAEL 20.00 AP 00324029 2012/05/09 ( INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY 298.00 AP 00324026 2012/05/09 l HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 30.50 AP 00324026 2012/05/09 ( HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 43.61 AP 00324011 2012/05/091 GALLS INC 646.18 AP 00324008 2012/05/09 ( FEDERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION 106.47 AP 00324200 2012/05/161 COMMERCIAL DOOR COMPANY INC 906.25 AP 00324192 2012/05/161 CARSON, DANIEL 175.00 AP 00324126 2012/05/091 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 112.26 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 l VERIZON CALIFORNIA 112.26 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 I VERIZON CALIFORNIA 19.72 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 19.73 AP Ob324122 2012/05/09 I VAN GAALEN LOCK & KEY 193.79 AP 00324115 2012/05/09 ( UNIFIRST iJNIFORM SERVICE 60.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 584.87 AP 00324462 2012/05/231 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 14,100.00 AP 00324462 2012/05/23 1 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 1,894.24 AP 00324441 2012/05/23 1 DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTEC 1,048.00 AP 00324436 2012/05/23 l DARTCO TRANSMISSION AND SALES 365.51 AP 00324436 2012/05/23 ( DARTCO TRANSMISSION AND SALES 592.63 AP 00324430 2012/05/23 ( COSTELLQ MIKE 125.00 AP 00324427 2012/05/23 ( CONSUMERS PIPE-FONTANA 55.46 AP 00324427 2012/05/23 ( CONSUMERS PIPE-FONTANA 55.77 AP 00324427 2012/05/23 ( CONSUMERS PIPE-FONTANA 518.93 P2 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 2 Current Dale: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Agenda Check Re¢ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. AP 00324421 AP 00324421 AP 00324415 AP 00324415 AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP 00324415 00324415 00324415 00324392 00324388 00324386 00324385 00324384 00324369 00324369 00324369 00324369 00324358 00324355 00324355 00324355 00324355 00324348 00324348 00324348 00324348 00324348 00324348 00324338 00324338 00324331 00324331 00324331 00324331 00324329 00324329 00324315 00324313 00324279 00324268 00324268 00324255 00324255 00324255 00324255 00324255 Check Dale Vendor Name 2012/05/23 l CHIEF SUPPLY 2012/05/23 ( CHIEF SUPPLY 2012/05/23 ( CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 2012/05/23 ( CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 2012/05/23 ( CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 2012/05/23 l CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 2012/05/23 1 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 2012/05/23 I ALLIANCE PLASTICS 2012/05/23 ( ALL CITIES TOOLS 2012/05/23 ( AGILINE INC 2012/05/23 ( AFSS 2012/05/23 ( ADAPT CONSULTING INC 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2012/05/17 l CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 20]2/05/16 ( WINZER CORPORATION 2012/05/161 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 2012/05/16 ( WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 2012/05/16 f WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 2012/05/16 ( WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 2012/05/16 l VERIZON CALIFORNIA 2012/05/161 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 2012/05/16 I UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 2012/05/16 ( UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 2012/05/16 l TERMINLY PROCESSING CENTER 2012/05/16 ( TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER 2012/05/16 ( TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER 2012/05/16 ( TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER 2012/05/16 ( SUPPLY CACHE INC., THE 2012/05/16 ( SUPPLY CACHE INC., THE 2012/05/16 l SOUTH COAST AQMD 2012/05/16 ( SMART AND FINAL 2012/05/16 1 PORT SUPPLY 2012/05/161 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA 2012/05/16 l OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 2012/05/16 l LOWES COMPANIES INC. P3 Amoum 98.91 17.98 28.55 -5.41 51.46 65.95 24.13 150.74 447.16 200.00 75.00 199.61 2,312.63 588.19 59.77 121.35 186.98 358.44 1,075.31 1,075.31 18.40 473.73 531.19 42.52 18.65 38.59 111.18 58.79 58.79 71.00 81.00 65.00 48.75 10.75 70.00 113.88 33.78 320.05 162.66 89.57 234.19 188.28 63.51 50.51 10.06 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 3 Current Date: 05/30/: Report CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Agenda Check Re¢ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name ~ Amoum AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 643.97 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 143.00 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 49.00 AP 00324251 2012/05/16 l LIFE ASSIST INC 235.95 AP 00324251 2012/05/16( LIFE ASSIST INC ~ 771.05 AP 00324251 2012/05/16 ( LIFE ASSIST INC 1,040.16 AP 00324248 2012/05/16 ( LARKIN, DAVID W 360.36 AP 00324239 2012/05/16 l INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY 303.00 AP 00324235 2012/05/161 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 41.08 AP 00324234 2012/05/16 I HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 9.18 AP 00324234 2012/05/16 I HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 44.82 AP 00324234 2012/05/16 ( HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 20.69 AP 00324234 2012/05/16 ( HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 39.37 AP 00324214 2012/05/16 ( EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 7,220.00 AP 00324202 2012/05/16 ( CONFIRE JPA 4,536.67 AP 00324202 2012/05/16 ( CONFIRE JPA .18,146.69 AP 00324202 2012/05/161 CONFIRE JPA 22,683.37 AP 00324201 2012/05/16 I COMPRESSED AIIi SPECIALTIES 288.96 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1,364.63 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 672.13 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 83.51 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 582.80 AP 00324084 2012/05/09 ( RESCUE RESPONSE GEAR LLC ~ 653.60 AP 00324079 2012/05/09 ( RAYNE WATER CONDITIONING INC 26.25 AP 00324047 2012/05/091 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 2,004.74 AP 00324047 2012/05/09 ( MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 2,555.24 AP 00323996 2012/05/09 ( DTSC-REA PROGRAM 100.00 AP 00323992 2012/05/09 ( DAVENPORT, JAY E. 50.00 AP 00324147 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 191:33 AP 00324147 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 334.59 AP 00324138 2012/05/10 ( AIRGAS WEST 36.16 AP 00324138- 2012/05/10 ( AIRGAS WEST 147.79 AP 00324138 2012/05/10 ( AIRGAS WEST 19.09 AP 00324138 2012/05/10 ( AIRGAS WEST 523.94 AP 00324625 2012/05/241 WALKER, KENNETH 320.43 AP 00324462 2012/05/23 I FISHER SCIENTIFIC 6,630.13 AP 00324463 2012/05/23 1 FLEET SERVICES INC. 34.96 AP 00324463 2012/05/23 ( FLEET SERVICES INC. 251.43 AP 00324463 2012/05/23 ( FLEET SERVICES INC. 457.38 AP 00324468 2012/05/23 ( GENERAL SERVICES ADMIN. 3,094.28 AP 00324477 2012/05/23 ( GT ENGINEERING 1,246.50 AP 00324485 2012/05/23 ( HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 5.76 AP 00324506 2012/05/23( LIFE ASSIST INC 375.38 AP 00324534 2012/05/23 ( NEXTEL 39.99 AP 00324570 2012/05/23 1 SAN BERNARDINO CTY 3,168.50 P4 User: VLOP$Z -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 4 Current Date: 05/30/: Report; CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Asenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324563 2012/05/231 RRM DESIGN GROUP 2,587.20 AP 00324557 2012/05/23 1 RELM WIRELESS CORPORATION 8.80 AP 00324557 2012/05/23 1 RELM WIRELESS CORPORATION 20.53 AP 00324550 2012/05/23 l QUALITY TRUCK ELECTRIC INC 210.11 AP 00324539 2012/05/23 ( OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA 146.76 AP 00324539 2012/05/23 ( OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA 17.00 AP 00324534 2012/05/23 ( NEXTEL 51.66 AP 00324534 2012/05/23 ( NEXTEL 86.34 AP 00324616 2012/05/23 1 WESTPAC HEAVY DUTY OF CALIFORNIA LLC ~ 62.91 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 550.02 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 175.80 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 181.35 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 76.18 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.42 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 43.69 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1,200.48 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 690.84 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1,588.69 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 782.48 Ap 00324578 2012/05/23 ( SOAPTRONIC LLC ~ 351.61 AP 00324570 2012/05/23 ( SAN BERNARDINO CTY 633.70 AP 00324570 2012/05/23 ( SAN BERNARDINO CTY 2,534.80 AP 00324506 2012/05/23 l LIFE ASSIST INC 1,350.74 AP 00324485 2012/05/23 ( HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 4.84 AP 00324485 2012/05/23 1 HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 17.93 AP 00324473 2012/05/231 GRAINGER 1,520.08 AP 00324468 2012/05/23 ( GENERAL SERVICES ADMIN. 523.20 AP 00324463 2012/05/23 ( FLEET SERVICES INC. 51.14 EP 00002546 2012/05/24 ( AHUMADA, ALEXANDER R 1,774.52 EP 00002547 2012/05/24 l ALMAND, LLOYD 752.86 EP 00002548 2012/05/24 ( BANTAU, VICTORIA 392.29 EP 00002549 2012/05/24 ( BAZAL, SUSAN 1,341.54 EP 00002550 2012/05/24 I BERRY, DAVID 819.26 EP 00002551 2012/05/24 l BB,LINGS, ESTER 225.99 EP Ob002552 2012/05/24 ( CARNES, KENNETH 631.44 EP 00002553 2012/05/24 ( CLABBY, RICHARD 819.26 EP 00002554 2012/05/24 ( CORCORAN, ROBERT 1,700.78 EP 00002555 2012/05/24 ( COX, FAYE 165.81 EP 00002556 2012/05/24 ( COX, KARL 752.86 EP 00002557 2012/05/24 ( CRANE, RALPH 2,215.40 EP 00002558 2012/05/241 CROSSLAND, WILBUR 443.62 EP 00002559 2012/05/24 I DAGUE, JAMES 1,700.78 EP 00002560 2012/05/241 DE ANTONIO, SUSAN 794.39 EP 00002537 2012/05/10 ( BANTAU, VICTORIA 834.53 EP 00002561 2012/05/24 ( DOMB~lICK, SAMUEL A. 1,700.78 P5 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 5 Current Date: 05/30/: Repord CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Agenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount EP 00002562 2012/05/241 EAGLESON, MICHAEL 2,244.61 EP 00002563 2012/05/241 FRITCHEY, JOHN D. 819.26 EP 00002564 2012/05/241 HEYDE, DONALD 1,700.78 EP 00002565 2012/05/241 INTERLICCHIA, ROSALYN 754.09 EP 00002566 2012/05/24 ( LANE, WILLIAM 2,244.61 EP 00002567 2012/05/24 ( LEE, ALLAN 1,405.36 EP 00002568 2012/05/24 f LENZE, PAUL E 1,251.72 EP 00002539 2012/05/10 ( MCMILLEN, LINDA 313.49 EP 00002538 2012/05/10 ( BAZAL, SUSAN 873.86 EP 00002569 2012/05/24 ( LONGO, JOE 165.81 EP 00002570 2012/05/241 LUTTRULL, DARRELL 631.44 EP 00002571 2012/05/241 MACKALL, BENJAMIN 165.81 EP 00002572 2012/05/24 ( MAYFIELD, RON 2,913.62 EP 00002573 2012/05/24 ( MCKEE, JOHN 2,182.35 EP 00002574 2012/05/24 ( MCMILLEN, LINDA 456.97 EP 00002575 2012/05/24 ( MCNEIL, KENNETH 2,215.40 EP 00002576 2012/05/24 ( MICHAEL, L. DENNIS 1,700.78 EP 00002577 2012/05/24 ( MORGAN, BYRON 2,010.82 EP 00002578 2012/05/24 ( MYSKOW, DENNIS 819.26 EP 00002579 2012/05/24 l NAUMAN, MICHAEL 819.26 EP 00002580 2012/05/24 ( NEE, RON 2,913.62 EP 00002581 2012/05/24 ( NELSON, MARY JANE 165.81 EP 00002582 2012/05/241 PLOUNG, MICHAEL J 819.26 EP 00002583 2012/05/241 POST, MICHAEL R 1,575.82 EP 00002584 2012/05/24 I SALISBURY, THOMAS 1,774.52 EP 00002585 2012/05/24 I SMITH, RONALD 819.26 EP 00002586 2012/05/241 SPAGNOLO, SAM 443.62 EP 00002587 2012/05/24 ( SPAIN, WILLIAM 631.44 EP 00002588 2012/05/24 ( SULLIVAN, JAMES 913.52 EP 00002589 2012/05/24 ( TAYLOR, STEVE 1,215.87 EP 00002590 2012/05/24 ( TULEY, TERRY 1,700.78 EP 00002591 2012/05/241 VANDERKALLEN, FRANCIS 1,774.52 EP 00002592 2012/05/241 WOLFE, DUANE 2,2]5.40 EP 00002593 2012/05/24 l YOWELL, TIMOTHY A 2,913.62 Total for Entity: 210,702.71 P6 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ. Page: 6 Current Date: 05/30/: Report CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RANCHO Date: Jurie 5, 2012 C,UCAMONGA To: President and Members of the Fire Board Mayor and Members of the Successor Agency/City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager, Executive Director/City Manager From: Debra L. McKay, MMC, Assistant City Clerk/Records Manager Subject: APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH THE BIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, SUCCESSOR AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Fire Board/Successor Agency/City Council direct staff to proceed with the biennial review of their Conflict of Interest Code. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Pursuant to the Political Reform Act, all local governments and agencies must update their Conflict of Interest Code in 2012. Prior to July 1, 2012, all Fire District/City staff will be notified of the pending update and will be requested to review any changes to designated positions, such as changes in title or duties, or creation or elimination of positions. Pursuant to state law, after a thorough review has been made, the City Clerk's office will bring this item back to the Fire Board/Successor Agency/City Council prior to October 1, 2012 to propose any appropriate amendments as needed. If amendments are needed, they must be approved by the Fire Board/Successor Agency/City Council prior to December 30, 2012. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitted, ,~ ~ ~ De ra L. McKay, MMC Assistant City Clerk/Records Manager P7 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date: Juhe 5, 2012 To: President and Members of the Fire Board Mayor and Members of the Successor Agency/City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager, Executive Director/City Manager From: Debra L. McKay, MMC, Assistant City Clerk/Records Manager P8 RANCxo CUCAMONGA Subject: APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH THE BIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, SUCCESSOR AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL It is recommended the Fire Board/Successor Agency/City Council direct staff to proceed with the biennial review of their Conflict of Interest Code. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Pursuant to the Political Reform Act, all local governments and agencies must update their Conflict of Interest Code in 2012. Prior to July 1, 2012, all Fire District/City staff will be notified of the pending update and will 'be requested to review any changes to designated positions, such gas changes in title or duties, or creation or elimination of positions. Pursuant to state law, after a thorough review has been made, the City Clerk's office will bring this item back to the Fire Board/Successor Agency/City Council prior to October 1, 2012 to propose any appropriate amendments as needed. If amendments are needed, they must be approved by the Fire Board/Successor Agency/City Council prior to December 30, 2012. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitted, ;; De ra L. McKay, MMC Assistant City Clerk/Records Manager STAFF REPORT SUCCESSOR AGENCY ~~`'~' 1 RAN~CHOI DATE: June 6, 2012 CUCAMONGA TO: Chairman and Members of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency John R. Gillison, City Manager FROM: Linda Daniels, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULES CROPS) FOR THE TIME PERIODS OF JANUARY TO JUNE 2012 AND JULY TO DECEMBER 2012 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Successor Agency approve the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules CROPS) for the time periods of January to June 2012 and July to December 2012. - BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: This agenda item addresses an outcome of the California Supreme Court's decision in California Redevelopment Association, et al. v Matosantos, et a/.(Case No. S194861), the litigation challenging AB X1 26 ("AB 26") and AB X1 27 ("AB 27"). As required under AB 26, the Successor Agency and Oversight Board to the Successor Agency must approve a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule CROPS) which lists enforceable obligations of the Successor Agency. The ROPS covers six month time periods - January to June 2012 and July to December 2012, and every six months following until all obligations of the Successor Agency are concluded. January to June 2012 ROPS: The Successor Agency approved a ROPS for the time period of January to June 2012 and submitted it to the Oversight Board for approval. The Oversight Board approved the January to June 2012 ROPS at its meetings on April 4'" and April 11`" and transmitted it to the State Department of Finance (DOF). On April 27, 2012 staff received a letter from the DOF rejecting approximately 80 line items on the ROPS, which totaled more than $84.7 million. Included in the items that were rejected were 4 capital projects (completion of the Corporate Yard, Base Line and I-15 Interchange, Foothill Boulevard Phase 2, and Hellman Avenue storm drain Phase 2) that were to be funded by bond proceeds, however the work had not as yet been awarded at the time AB 26 was signed. The balance of the items that were rejected were for either contracts with third parties which the State felt were not enforceable obligations (RC Family Sports Center Lease, RC Chamber of Commerce, Generator work for the Public Safety Facility), or for expenses which DOF felt were administrative costs and should be part of the administrative allowance. Staff has sent supplemental information supporting the items rejected by DOF and has requested their reconsideration of the ROPS for January to June 2012. To date, staff has received no feedback from DOF regarding the supplemental information or of any reconsideration of the rejected items. P9 P10 APPROVAL OF ROPS FOR Jr1NUARY'1'O JUNE AND JULY TO DECEivIBER 2012 PAGE 2 JUNE 6, 2012 On May 23, 2012, the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency met to consider amending the ROPS for the time period of January to June 2012. At that meeting, the Oversight Board approved a revised ROPS which deleted many of the items that DOF considered to be administrative expenses, but retained 20 items which DOF had previously rejected. These items are identified on the attached ROPS with an asterisk, and consist of capital projects (completion of the Corporate Yard, Base Line and I-15 Interchange, and Foothill Boulevard Phase 2), and contracts with third party's (examples include: RC Family Sports Center, RC Chamber of Commerce, Generator work for the Public Safety facility, and bond trustee services). Staff also wants to call attention to the SB 211 payments that appear on the last page of the May 23rd ROPS. Line item 178 - SB 211 Payment to Metropolitan Water District -has been added to the ROPS as a result of direction given to us by HdL, a consultant retained by the County Auditor Controller to calculate pass through payments. HdL has also revised the amounts of the SB 211 payments so they reflect only that portion of the revenues received by the Agency between July 2011 and January 31, 2012. July to December 2012 ROPS -The ROPS covering the time period for July to December 2012 has been approved by the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency. It is appropriate for the Successor Agency to approve the ROPS for this time period as well. Feedback from DOF for this ROPS time period has been limited, however staff is interpreting the statements made as including rejections of bond trustee services, RC Family Sports Center lease, and the RC Chamber of Commerce Agreement. Staff will continue to work with DOF to provide documentation and explanation for the rejected items and request DOF's reconsideration. Respectfully submitted, ~4f,o(aJ ~, o~-~' Linda Daniels Assistant City Manager Attachments: January to June 2012 ROPS July to December 2012 ROPS P11 O W F 0 J Z ~ O W w a J N = O ~ N w a = c U t/1 ~ r $ Z ~ n Y ~ a a 1; z o= ~a J V- OW O J N w Z (7 O w T u C m m a N N u N 0 u E z ~ d~ ~ m ~ ,Y ~ ~ ~ t 1 c r r _•f~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~, .a i; ~- .~ ,, I ~ $ ~fi~ k X02, ~ h N~ d „A;i 5 a °' n rv ° °' u o c ~ i E o m te ' ^ _ ~ ~ •:1 ~ r y e ' .~ ~ ~ p o ,. . m 00 O 0 N ~ra ~ 'I d6 ~ 1- O ~~ ~ ~ d O ~ w A ~ F NM ww ~ w ~l f ~ ' 1 r,. 'f of 3 a 1 y,. s ~•• , ~ LL ` S a ~E ~ ~ do ' ~, i'; 2 I. k ,~ ' & ~ ..~ ~ ~ < ~ "~ 9_ i e I.< iw ~ F, e rc '.. ~I „ q yLL LL ~ t ~.• ~~ ~ ( V '~ ~ I ~~~'j ~q t a t ` s ~~ .. ~~~'°y1 ycy fi d '3 A ,, hoe g E m g E ~ !G m ~a °o ~, ~'„I o m°a 0 ~~ c 3~ a o Zc i m ovz ° ~ ~'.c g me do m 5 •' ~ c [.~ '.m. Evi ~ h . >aE Eon ~ 2 I:.'1 °c a'w` as ' , mss 1 ~ O 1 1 ~(J1 N E =a aid U K d E N ~ ~ M i «° n ~s 2§ US10~ E o.'"°-' $^wa' ^Si t` mN rn"+5' d o m E ors `p f~~6 0 _ -° $ n ~ ~ a $ m ~¢~~'° U R _ W P12 3 t f s $ $ $ e s s e a 6 s s s s $ $ $ a B a a s s $ c. 6 F a B F ° 4 R R ~ O ~ R R ~ = ' a ^ ~ e R R ° _ _ ~ F F $ . » .. ° ° ° ° ° .. ° ., .. .. ° ° ° .. . .. ° . . . . . » e 6 8 8 - - 8 8 8 8 8 = 8 8 8 F G 6 6 ^' t - R : 4 8 E . _ 3 I B $ 8 8 a S 4 ' 8 x L 4 R ~ 4 ~ ~. ° X 9 $ 3 t l q ~ - j {i y g~ B 8 e 8 8 $ z $ ; a $ y q 6 4 t d ~ $ Y R 9 & S ~ 5 - ~ 3 ° ~ ° ~ a ' a ' c p @ R _ _ B S X p . 77 a . ., ° ° N E R ° = 6 ~ 8 ~ 8 $ ~. $ ~ a ~ ° ~ 4 ~ : ,9a 8 S. ' ~ R ~ ~ f a 6 ~ S k y C_ R' E 6 w ° n n a R e ~ e ~ $ 8 ~ 6 °' a ~ S b i ~ c B 3 4 ~ G; $ 8 $ _ . . ° 6 _ ~ a ~ dp5 e ~ B ° : ~ $ d 6 - 8 8 c 8 c 8 3 6 _ ~ - ° - .. a .. : a j q ~y p ~ ff CC $ ~ ~ kk 8 ~ ~ ~ C @ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i z i `? S y 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 _ ° 8 8 8 6 8 0 8 8 8 8 6 , 8 3 ppR - - ~ a F `a a ~ e a e e a s e . a e s a m 8 a a e a e c : ~ a B ~ ~ _ 4' • a s R - - :.~ a I 2 PI R ' ^ a - - rs r - f a ~ ~p `~ ~ ° ° ° ${ 6 F B i ~ ~ ~ i 6e 6Z i ~ t6 i i € z & ~ ~ ~ a a ~ a ~ ~ e E E E O "8 E E _ a fl 9 9 9 8 ~ ~ { { ~ { C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g E ~ ~ ~ ~ $ A ~ ~ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ~~ a a ~ a t E ~ ~ [¢ [€ p p i }8 d ~ p Y € Y 2 ~ ~ p 9@ $ k g 5 ~ g n ~ ~ ~ ~ a~' ! E @ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ 3 ~~$ s~ a ' ° @@ 3 ° }} p ~ ~ , 9 y ~ g g$ ff ffi #i# g~g ~ q ° s } y pp 6 ~ $ .8 q ~ f ~ n n n 8 e ~ a g ~ ~ ~ 4 „ ~ . a J S ~ ~ ~ ~ °. ° d ~ w 4 a i a ~ p ~ 88 3 t z € ~~~~~. ~ b ~ B a ~_9°~ st~~~ B ~ ~ ~~ @ v s ~ 5 5 ~ E a ~ ~ ~ { f . ~ R a g { 9 ~ 2 ?~~a $ ~ gg ° t F d a § J ~ ~ ° ~ i ~ ~ . » LL ~ @ a ~ ~ . gg ~;~~ 8 ~ t~s~~~ a 8 ~ ~ $ 6R _ 9 : P 4 6 $ $ B B S R _ _ _ _ _ a ~c a x ~~ ~g a P13 9 G ~~ xy z~+y~ 3~ 4 & 4 s tl $ a a e a ~ y . ° ^ y f s R : „ g ; $ '3 $ e a ~ $ a. 9 ~ H $ H ~ H s H o H B a a ~ e s 9 $ ~ n 9 $ "a L ~ $ e a a a ^s < 3 $ g ce "9 a s 6 $ $ ce ~ $ 3 s a ce ~ e ~ a a a ~ e a 5 e ~ e ° ~ e ~ e @ . A e ~ H " H : H "a y ® a a ~ H : : a e $ ce ~ s @ n B a ~ p g ~ : - : $ F ~ ^. 6 R « 9 6 ~ 6 s ^ $ . m . # s : R " " 3 g ~ 's ° ' 9 E a - s ^ ° . - " _ ~ " i : s , _ B ~ p _ n p R ^ ' B ~ R B ~ 8 ~ R 9 } $ .' $ ~ :, $ ~ 8 R $ n 8 ~ 8 ~ $ ~ ~ ^ Z $ A 8 8 8 9 8 ~ $ 8 8 8 8 $ 8 F R $ 9 e : 6 ~ a 8 $ ~ . a $ ° 8 ~ 8 A 8 R 3 a 8 W 8 R 8 ~ 8 R 6 8 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 .~ 8 ~ B ~ S, ^ ? ^ : tl 9 ~ „ ~ E R H ~ B n R 8 B 8 R S R S ~ R ^ 9 R d 6 F R ~' E 6 ~ ^ E 8 R C g _ R _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x z B ~ S ~ B = e : s A e n p ° € R € $ 9 q ' $ ~ ^ ~ 8 ? 6 k 8 k 8 R 8 @ ° " 9 e E a 6 E. 8 ~ 8 ~ $ 'e R a 6 ^ ^ R 8 ~ - ^ ? 8 5 8 ~ 8 8 ~ 8 @ 8 p 8 8 e 8 g $ ~ y s = "E 8 tl 9 ~ ^6 B 8 x $ _ 8 9 A ~ 6 3 ~/ z R - - " p n P " 9 p E H ° 6 ° p s - - ~4 " B L tl ~ 8 A : e : '~ $ ' : ~ 9 ~ ' A 8 g : v 8 g ~ e _ 6 _ 8 ^ :. : B R R ? 9 a e 3 6 E 8. S 8 .R, 8 : E : 6. r : ° R 8 8 8 ~ 8 $ ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 $ s y v c. ^ i $ € g 6 ~ 8 R 8 ~ 8 ' 8 R 6 ~ e R 9 . . tl _ _ ^ ^ . . . ~ , . ^ R r : iry . _ " a 8 e « R R a s - R . ° : ~ - _ ~ ~ ~ C S e ~ ~ ~ g 8 ~ ~ ~ g '~ 4 8 ^ ^ o' R m k ~ 6 ^. F ° 0 8 8 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 m ~V B S e : S B A ~ S 8 _ . ^ a _ . R " a % " « R R E tl _ x _ _ _ . . _ $ ~ 8 88 ~I = ~ "J S 8 ' 8 ~ 9 ' ~ 9, ~ : ~ 8 R 8 ~ n . 6 ~ 6 ^ 8 9. 8 R 8 R : 8 6 @ 8 F 8 ° 8 ~ = 6 6 8 3 $ S 8 $ 8 ~ a ~ a ~ e ~ a ~ 8 ~ a ~ 8 ~ $ .~ 8 9 $ ° ? A ° ~ 6 ~ 8 $ : 8 e .~ R 'n 3' 4 R ~ °- " ' 8 8 9 p a 3 R . _ . F a a ~ tl ~ e ~ _ ry 8 ~ 8 ~ $ Y( 9 ~ P ~ R ~ 8 8 ~ 8 8 ~ 8 8 n 8 F 8 6 8 ° 8 E 8 °R. 8 ~ E l S ~ $ s $ $ ~ C 6 e R 8 s 8 a 8 ~ B ~ 6 6 ~ 8 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ 6 ~ 8 ~ 9 8 ~ 8 8 X d 6 E 6 g 6 B R 8 8 -. 8 Q 6 ~ 5 _ , R E a " a " s p _ _ ~° ~ ' ~ ~ g kk g ~ ~ ~ ffi ~ g g ~ € $$ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~Z ~ B o ~ g g g"g " 8 " ~ a o o g"g gg ~ ~ 8 "g "g ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 4 4 4 ' ~ 1 f 4 gg ~ pp ~ ~ gg ~ $ 8 d $ 8 $ m $ 9 9 $ 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 ~ m 9 9 9 8 8 € ~ 9 m m 8 9 $ 3 9 8 ~ 3 J 3 3 3 3 9 3 4 4 g m § ~ 6n n ~ 8 L 8 ~ 8 8 y G = F1 Y S N8N tl Z. ' - ~ 8 ~ $ ~ gq R 6 ~ p6p R 8 ~ 8 e 8 ~ 8 R 8 ~ B 8 8 R a S 8 8. 8 B 8 R 8 $ ffi8ffi S 8 ~ 8 E S tl R A 8 S 8 g : ~ $ R tl 8 ~ 8 A qa ~ B ~ a w R a $ 3 ' q ~ Aga p 8 ~ $ = B H a ~ ~ pag k $ 3 8 a 8 ? $ 9 8 ~ : A 8 & 8 h g E e S y 9 e 9. ~ H 8 « $ 8 ~ G ~ 8 ~ .^o E 8 ~ * a R W $ G S _ : C « 9 6 8 F S " E ' ~ R " A ~ ~ ~ 9 - '_^ E 6 ° 8 999 g ° n ^ ~ ~ ^ S S 9 tl n ° '_° R 9 ~ C R ~ R a 6 g 8 8 " 8 8 3 6 ' " 9 ° ~ 8 ~ 6v ~i 88R M1 8 R 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 .R 8 ~ 8 'e 8 R. 8 R 8y tl 8 ° 6 e 8 i 8 S 8 S 8 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 8 8 "a « E 8 z $ 9 8 C : 3 9 R. $ 3 $ $ $ ^ $ $ 8tx 4 $ ^ . 6 $ 3 = ~ ~ e g d ~ a b $ a a g H 9 g 8 i 8 g 8 $ =. 6 2 8" _ $ R a y ~ 9 8 ~ a `v S " B ~ 8 ~ B 8 w B ~ 8 "„_ ~ c 6 : ~ $ R z ~ ~ e K - 9 R - ~ = a ° 9 : ~ "s c = ? " 3 g s ~ a - = y 6 ° R R g ° c ^ ° ~ • ^ 9 ° c ~ ^ a _ : a ° 9 R ? p n ~ e $E o - - € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € EE E E 4 4 P E E 4 E 4 E H Y R E 9 - F B E 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 d 2 8 d 8 8 8 8 8 8 $$ 2 $ 8 8 ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ $$ 8 $R 6 6 6 6 $ 6 a ¢R ¢ ¢ 6 ¢ ¢ ~ ¢ ¢ $ ~ ¢R ¢ $ ~ : ¢¢ d ¢¢ 8 ~ ¢¢ d ¢¢ d ¢¢ d ¢¢ d $$ d $$ d $$ 8 ¢¢ 8 pp66~~ d 8 ~ 2 $$ d $$ B $$ 2 pppp 8 a€' p pp d 2 ppyy 8 ppyy d $$ 2 ~ ~ p r d 2 . . . ~ J ~ Q ; 6 d E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : q ° ° - - - e . . € ~ ~ 8 $ ~ ~ F 4' ~ 4 4 4 4 4 E 4 4 E E C ~ g & gg f @@ $ ~ ~ ~ pp ~ g pp ~ $ " m i y y a a yy a g 5 ~ ~ a s p tl J J J ~ J J EE 3 J J J J J J J J J J J J a pp 5 ~ yy E 3 ~ 3 ~ & ~ ~ ~ x 8 d 3 p F a J J ~ g ~ 9 € . . . ~ ~ $ e E s5~ 5 ~ ~ ~ • € ~ ~ ~ € ~ ~ ~ [ f g f gg 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ € S ~ ~ g ~ gg d ~ € P ~ ~ € ' € € ~ $ ~ ~ pp y g w ~ 8 g ~ ~ € g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ • € ~ € € € ° . ~ a z a ~ n n a n 3 + 3 n n ~ n a a n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ $ 9 fi 4 S 5 8 4 ? ? $ i i 7 S ~ ~£ k 5 4 $ S 5 S ~ § ~ 3 ~ 7 ~ 3 8 $ ~ k i 4 ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ 5 5 ~ 4 R A 7 d ~ 4 § k ~ d 4 ~ & & ~ 3 ~ ~ t ~ ~ € € d ~ & ~ &~ ~ ~ € 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ € pp 3 pp 2 ~ gg 8 p p p ~ i € ~ ~ S ~ ~ b b 6 ~ 9~ g€ ~ g g Q ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ n € E i € E E Y yq 4 Y ff€g ~@@ ~€p ~ ~ ep ~ @Q rN ~ +~ +~ f ~ DZ g a3a y 3 ~ p3p - ~ ~ J r { ~ F € 4 3 4 € 8 „ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ 3 A ffi d k E a5 3 & .§ d 2 9 € ~ ~ ~ a ° : : ° ° mi . ~ f i 3 i i F i R E E pp @ ~ pp ! ~ e E e m m $ ~ m ~ ~ ~ gg ~ € . ` f € 8 . ( f C Y ~ g f ~ € Y [ f ~ ~ ~ ~ `g gg ii I ~ ~ ~ ~ & f a ! 5 E E E w 9 55 E € ~ ^ 6 ~ ~ B ~ t 4 ~ f E 4 4 ~ } § ~ EE 3 ~ gg 3 ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ # # 3 ~ ~ ~ { 4 p p 3 d pl d ~ l 3 ~ y d sp p A " a e e n x f $ e e = v a ~ "6 & 's & 8 ~ ° ^ " 3 °a °a ^a °a °a $ " ~ 9 s H $ "a °H 6 ~ & e ~ e e € e e `a B 9 3 8 E °a e R e a s s e a ^ g _ g g R tl _ a g s R a a s _ P14 e ~ R s ; a ~ a R ~ ° @ fJ ~ ~ a a fi 5 ° S A R G y y ~ A a R. R S CC Z ^ $ a R L _ . ~ C ~ B ~ A a F i : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ S ~ A a : e R ~ " ° " a ~ : § ' ~ S a a g C z : e ° 9 g ~ ^ $ ~ c a ^ $ S R A a p : ^m = 3 ~ ~ d _ _ $ r a a d . v~ ' ~ S ~ " ~ 'n @ F S $ ~ ~ . " . 5 N 9 „ » ~ ~ gg 8 8 $ m g ~ ~ % e ~ ~ ~ " a 8 R s a @ ~ ° ~ $ 9 8 ~ ~ S e y 99 5 ~ 4 ~ a~ a k ~ a k~ ~ a9a E E L 9 Y d i F ~ s Y - 9 ~ Y ~ 4g ~ 98 3 3 g ~~ 8 a ~ ~ $ ~ a E 99 tl~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~9 ~ ~ 3 g s € e e gg 3 ~'~$a - g ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ y y E ~~ ~ . p ~ [[[Y ~ ~~ ~~ { F~ t ~S ~ E ~ E~3;~: d a 3 9~ ~ ~ e P15 0 rc s a° ~g 0 x y f 6 O ~- ~~ O~ O$ ~~ {WW~n K w a 6 6 z ~ 8 8 8 a s ~ 8 o s F = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ° = °8 s $ m b R - ~ F S ~ ~ w '" E ~ $ 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 8 8 m $ ~ 8 ~ ~ m 8 ~ ~ $ g 4 ~ ' ~ ~ " N 9 `° g ~ $ ~ ~ ~ 5 8 a 3 ~, ~ 8 ~8 8 8 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ e e T £ V 5 w qq t ~i8 ~ ~ e~ a~i g S w 8 n N 2 S c , $ $ ~ m '~ ~ p 25 ! ¢ 5 q 15 r a eg G E g ^' S ' & d N ~ 5 S ~ ~ ~ ~ m 8 8 ~ ~ M 3 ~ f i,{ ui ~' N 6 ~ C $ ~ N 4 ? 4 `" ~ a~ .~ ~ ~ O g = ~ L' C O ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ o eb s - ~ ~ g€ ~ ~ u E K e 8 ~ ~ 8 8 8 q 8 9 e m ~ 8 m bE 5 » ~e g ~1 ~ ~ tt C lCµ~ tt k eu° ~e ° LL N $ ~ p p ~ ~ p rc ¢ Q3 LL ~$ s o ~ C 6 y g ~ y $ a° ~" ~ a9- ~o ~ ~ ~~~ : _ R's F s" F ~ b €a a s` 3 q ~ g t 0 a~ ~o ~~ e5 ° ~ N o a~ a~ a a~ a~ g z ~ a a $ ~ ~ a e E & M u ~aa € ~~ €~ a` a a s g a d E Qo s ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ 5 a' ~ a ~ E ~ 0 2 , n tt Y ~ m q ~ P $ N F p g ~ .v m ' ma ^` ' p L 0 ~ y y R 9 4 Tm' • p O~ ~;v° ~ m ~ A N 9 e ~ € ~ Q5 O $ ~ ~ ~ % 5 ~ $j S~CLL ~ g ~` i' ¢' E a~ ~ a' s a° ~ rc g rc ~ ¢° ~ 'u4 `5`gg~`m4 05 ~ i 2 o `o `o b o e o 'o o b T. ° r o u a ~ u ~ ~ a ~ 3e5"s~~ $ g g Q ~ § ~ ~ § § ~ ~ s s ~o~~°°-e~ g Y ~ pp ~ ~ o~y$ z~ rN S~ Y 3 E 8 8 3 a o9~5 ~ ~ a CC P ~ ~ ~ ° a 3 ~ eN9 ~ ~ ~ S p ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ g s 1 i ~ ' ! n 8 ~~ 6 8 ~ $ e 8 8 8 ~ 8 8 8 ~ 8 ry $ R 8 ~ $ ° 8 ~ $ m $ 6 + 9 $ 8 9 g ~ ' ~ ~ m S ~. ~ „ F eEd n . .. . 0 5 R 8 8 e ~ $ - S ~ ~ " ~ _ Y 3 n f a s % B 8 8 8 8 , ~ S : m $ - ° , a m $ ~ ~ $ ~ ; S R 8 8 R _ F A _ r „ , ° e ~ i ~ ~ 8 s ~ " $ w € a F ~ $ ~ a s ~ $ ~ 3 3 ~ E $ S ~ Y ~ 3 a $ " $ " a + ~ s ~ a $ ~ R 8 yy ~ a 2 u f 8 $ & ~ R ~ a i a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g 3 d@b 8 $ 8 w 8 a 8 v 8 $ 8 'a 8 ~ 8 H 8 R 8 m 8 a 8 ~ 8 A e 2 a a BYR B .: m e o ~ ' B 'ra 6 o '" 3 '" m m _ $ ~ 7 F P ' ~ ~ F§ 0 ~ 8 8 8 ° 8 R 8 $ 8 8 $ 8 $ .°.,~ ~ 8 g " p ~ a m . ~ e a ^ Y a 't b pC y ~ 6~ Pi rv n { E p +l g g ~ E z" < 5 g 5 i L < 'u . o ` ~ < L < a ` 'u 3 fj ~ ~'! ^ ~ s o . & & e & 8 a a a a s x~ d C ¢¢ E ' C ' C C Y ' C ° ~ ` Y gL' ~ pp i~ t• Y ~ gf E 2 a a i rz e a rz e c R ~ ° ~; p + ~ 5 ~ II g a i ~~ 3 ~ € . g a ~ ~ ~ I as ~ , ~ F ~ 6 ~ a~ ~~~ : i a 6 n ~ P a ~ : a 6 q a k 92 ~ 9 ~ ~ a r F~99` pe ~ ~ o s $ £ E S v " ' .~ ~ S LL S Y a° A U ~ $ g ER ~~ S ~ E E E a s $ ~ ` ~ ~ ; x ` SL 5 e ~ ~~e ~ ~ n 4 9 ~ ~ g ~ g a w m . s I~.EP ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffii ~ a Z ~ u $ g S ` BS Y$g~S ~ O a F~ac a $ g ~ e c e E ~ ~ E ¢ n ~ ~ e v & `u si `a 6 ~ O Y ~p 5Cy9po C9 LL Eq~a ~~ { 2 ~ g ~ ~ 9 a _ ._ a ~ ~a=~~~~'~ g " ~ ~ g ~ & e e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s $ i 31~ P16 P17 W a ~ ~ O 0 ~ za O ~+ U w J W U H Z W Q a Z O F Q C7 J CO O W N Z O U W ~ U ~ ~ O LL ~ 0 J O u. T U T U C d O1 a O N N d V U 7 N 0 m E f0 Z y } o N f- C ~ ~ C yj ~ r _ 1 i.' t ~' I r_ r .. ~ ;, 1 I lfe 1 _ ~ • 1 (~~ ' ~ i ' y,' ~.. 1_=~ tp " '.~ ' ~ •p f0 N m rD c. . t0 ~ N = . ~_. ' M O tp m m N N r i i r 4 N ~ t . " a v v ~" ~ U c m g,~ n m N N N Or c o o ~' « m v n m i ~ C '" c ~ m N V ~~ y O ~ ~ N N N N ~ •f ~ N O o -ti .,.r ~ , j S a '{ ; ~ • m „•ea ~ • • ~.• O ~'. w .~ t" w w w w a~ fin'. w ~t. ~~ t'.. I i ,? ~ j Y ~ , - Fli r °c a k:":~ rr'•'l~+ ~" ~ 5 n it'i a'q o ~u ' ~ L; x !~ v N C U a -~~ ~ ~ or '? .~ LL Z ,j 3R •" Oo > , ~ °' °S ~r~? a ~ ' I, t 1 . E v N - ~ ` Y yl o W Y i ~ O F i C ~~ ., ~ . o j i. ~ _ .~. ~ ° .n j y LL e C a , -- I LL N ~ ~ ~ : E c a ~ Q ' ~- a o. ~ LL LL •'~~ ~t a= c 3 ~ ~~ a~ ` I ~ 3 ~ ~ . ' ~ ma $p l m « 4 ~ i « C A C o K I I ip ''f''~ m ~ U l q a o ~ ` C N f O h:: µ a~ O ~ m a ~ m.`, , ~ . t m o '°~ ~. a ~ ` c . .• ¢ta a ' v ~ ( ' ~ Q W Q a q S v ' . „> 3 S C °% '~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ N E ~ E ' ' ~ " k o _ o a __$ V .~ V V O O d~ E Z a N c W OI T p U C U W N d d ~ m m v U ~ E a ~ A c m c m w C t ~ ~ ~ `• mn E aim m ~ _ ~ W ... Y U ~ ~ ~ ,~ N O `ry O N N O = > m n ° v ~ ~ m me v u ` m ~ ~ v Q ~ C O ~ t E pin '~` m oo~a O C t0 C >, j U 10 ~ ~ ~~vo, Z N d J L ~ U LL _ O P18 ga Q 4 5 4~ 3$ ~"~ ~~2 e Efl6 fl8 8 B HfiBfi BE H fl PB Bf eP 8 c - s ^ ^„ + ~. . fa ^^ 9 888 'PR 8 ~ 888 ~~ 8 8888 ~h~~A H ~ B k B i 82 ~4~ 8e @ ~C 78 ~ ~ m-- ^ - 8 • F N' P " 5~ " ~ 88 ~~ a a 8flfl ~~~ 8888B ~P.Pt .~~ 8 ~ B R R i: B °6 II~ Hy ( Ad E .. ," ~ L 8 @~ a d H86 R k 8H66 9&P.R 8 x 6 @ @ ?a a •8~ flz ~~ 8 -- . p _ ,Y ~ s P B P a a 666 R~~ E8888 kFA~„~ ~ 8 9 R }` F 9C :@ ^ @s € - ' H k =A 3~ ~ ~ "Y F 88 ~9 8a ~ 888 @R HB88H k~:`9a @ B c B ra Y; c' ° 5~ ^ S~ ~ _ ~" _.- a - H p ~m ,, ~ a -E + w HB ~~ " a 888 s ~ 88668 @~~~R 8 e 8 G _ ~: 6 ~ 9~ '~, - - .~ _.4 ~.~ CF~ ¢ ~~ k~~ ~FCFK 6 ~~ ~k ~ K33 _ `3 C H 8 8fl fl88 8E8 6 66 86 86 8 H E~ ~~~ u .. -^ ffiM1 " ..~ i Bfl 88 888 888 8 fl 8H 68 838 R 8~ T ^ "~ „ i i ~ i ii S z~ 4 g e ~ i i i ai g~ k ~ F F ~ & 4 FF 4 & ~ t yy yy e C ~ && 77 C & 44 a s& 4 4 C ~ s $ F c yp py f fee PPyy FFCC. ~ P p Pyy p ~ F ¢ Fyy Pe ~ P Fe e p yy y pt pe p2 yy R x 2d ¢ dd n da d¢ 2i e2d E Fe E 7 8 ~ iE ~ i p LL ~ 8 9fi e ~ t 4 ~~~ xk Qp p '$p ~~~ 9 x a~tfx ~ tl p E ia = B ""py pp pp @i~ ~ : ~ &~ ¢ f lFl ~i$~ : _ ° ~~ _ ~~ `s$ YY $ ~ ;8~ t~ F x sa '• ~ s i n ` ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ g e~° ~~ fi ° ~~ i ~ E?S' ~~~~~ ¢§~ 5 ~ g ~ @ j E~ C ; n a ~ a~~ i~8s"s m~ 3~= ~3 °~~ :. c qq a ~ 5 $ @q R ggaa F:P pp ~B gg9g.4R P.fi P . gggg99gg 6 P.98~ ppG P. ~j EE PR S' y ~+~ 8 ; P , 5 ~ ~ $ E g o,ax )s~, 6o_f y js 5 ~ 99t{t{ a 57e E 9dHa;x 'd ~ € 6 ~ , •~ ~i3e €t3 ~~~ ~~~Q d ~ g~ ~ : ~~ 3 ~~S t~~~~ ~` ~ ~~ i F~tt3~ ~ 5 _ s ^ 96 _~ s_fi6 a _a HS6 .~ " :u~ - aH_ . Y ~:. y is a 6 qj ~i ~a~ y~F $~ ^a vR aa a o su L ~ M1 Pn ^^ ^ R n~ • . ^' °° :8 8 8Y 3 Y B • $ °B BA aa ° 'a °t~ E .9 ° `~ 5¢ °c p ~C Ba ~ " eB 9~ ~a :8 °+ :R 2 P L ,s m° , b ~ & -E ~.. ° B ~ ° aa ° as ~a ~ g - fi z' 9 :g 9 E E 6 °~ ea ma na °a ~J ~'. R.6 9e °~ 8R '° :.S pp 3 a3 3m sa ®~ 3 'n . ~ ~~ i ~§ ppCC 60 gqEE Oe EgS ee ~° " " .1. B3 ' d?R ~~R ^ a PB s~ S^ cS °, 3 "a g 3° x r.o :6 ^s a ag . a gx ry °~ j °~ Nd F5 $i sa d i EE EE 4" 3 e{ f s ee a ¢ ° s a ~AkS F e pg E p C¢ g {{ {{ ¢C xx S~ a 8 8 8 E jF EE ~ ~ ~ 8 § E yy d ~ ay{~l ~ g~~ EEE EE E y R a8 e~tl ~ ~d a~ ~ ~ S g~8 Ol ~ a e 7 gaa S ~ i Cd a Ea ~$ O @ yk ~y G~ $ e e e as $ ' S C i tSS o& S os L ~ E ~ o # ~~8 ~3aR ~ ~ s ;= S~ 3 =a~` g a= °Ep Q &£gf~ e a ~ F S ~~9~epad " ° ~ _ 5 S ~ ~ i yF ~ ~ ~ > W •89 W5 °> y S ~i~~~~$ ~e 2 E ~ ~ 8 ~.~v~d~~si~a P79 0 u°i~ ~" ~a d aa3 F j o wa '. ~, v xr rc ~n _ ~, u ¢e o ~ ~ S G a" c' E E 2 6 as so s s s s a s „~ n$ E,S g gg q SS uS gq p E ~ Q q Qp SS ry~ n «$ s~ ea Fa ^ ss oo q~ R$ 8a 8 88 ~o ~g R ~ Ne .iG 8 E °~ c " Ra 8 8$ ~8 m $R ae B ~8 as ~ E z g _ ~ $ S ~ e ga ° "gy m" ~ g ~ ~ w5 B€ 8 $ . -~ s' -~ E "~ ~" ~ aa s $YgY e o ~~ € € R ~' - $ b _ E a LL ~ ~ ~ "o n 8 So° '°~ 5 ^$ $8^ °0 ~ ~~ mE B 3 a N =e ' ° `° $ ~ ffi ~ a "6+ 0~ p Ti QQ a S m E u E ~ '~~ Cp N 6 "e~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ rF ~ n' v' i ~ ¢ 9 ~ k[ ' 7 $8 8 ~ 88 ~ 88 ~ 5 88 ~ ~ 88 ~ d oen sE c ° ~g g ~ ~ , k5 rr ~ R N rv$ ~.~. R n= I .~r p an d ~ ~~a 1 jiu Q 3 ~ k= ~ ° ° Qu ¢ y ` ' e ~„ g 8 $ $8 $8 88 88 ~ ~N N~ °~ ~~. ~.~ ~es e ~ g b s g 8a Sa ~8 g 9 9E ° °e 4° _ ~ ` ~ c e ga i n i n n ! ~= • 3E ° ~ ¢ i ~ g ~ p g tl Y o Y ~ ~ o N ^ ~ E ~SS& da ~ aa ~a aa aa a ~. € $ ~$ F ~ ~ 8 3 a F ~ o .m pn pin ;, F s ~ os . e ° ~L ° ° ~s _ @g ` ~ "~ 3 e¢ ^y ~~ y z' ° ~ n w 5 o8 n9 °u 3 o o a E E'S ° E ~ ^ d Nv 4 3 uu E a u u pyy p dd u ~ ° ~ ° a''S € g g y o pp e F C 6 6 6 6 C C R C C n ~ F ' sF SS -s -s a a C~~ a ~ne8^4; °O ° u u ua u Fs. a € § y e ~ yy &v~ ~ ry EE SS[ E Sy5 EE ~ E ¢°5a569d ee eS ~ S yy i ~ °a $ E a°~ ~$ S $S S5 r~3~s$S ° o = p d ~ ~ g c k F ° a C 9E~a +~ k k 8 k # k ~~ k ,5 ~E ~ a= o ~~ II ~ ~,~ ~~ ~~ a~x~ a~ :~~:~~~I O P20 E t 6 e LL °o ~~ E E U°n e °t ~ £~rq "a e ~ in gu ng N Y ~ m.m o_a ~~ w~a y~n u Vy ~~ ~q5 qaL Y 6 - < . a 5 I: S ~ b a N - ~ ~ ° ' - °E e & s g ~ o ~ ~ € 6 8 3 ~ - CC F p ~ ; g n ~ N O ~ ?e n~ 5 B 0 ~ E E o n 5 ~ E " ~ - ° ' ~ c . N of ~ ~ t s ~ u $ LL _ ~ x S e €.: dre e h E €s ~ e b~c .a $9 F4n ys ~ °n 6 at E g~ SE °= 5 o$ oa ea t~ ' 5 8 - tt' g_ e ~~ eE a 5. FE " ~~"c c° ms's esa r ~ a~ E_~ E ~ ~ " o E~ E Ba Ea nE Y „s ~~ag~ d o E~~^m°°a$a° ~ h a" " g~~ ~ $y No ~ ~ n } },, `e~Epu~'.~xE orc ~aO1 ~, a°2c„4 Sa"a a ~ , ~QeH ~i ' ~ua o ~~ fi n " $ SE . Ee F ~ o~ ~ ~ c ~ E~31 c P21 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A¢enda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,416.16 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 150.32 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 182.91 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 501.13 AP 00324369 2012/08/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 386.97 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 824.19 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 666.55 AP 00324371 2012/05/17 l EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 289.59 Ap 00324372 2012/05/17 ( HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 425.29 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.01 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.03 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.01 Ap 00324372 2012/05/171 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 60.88 AP 00324372 2012/05/17 l HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 425.86 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 37.65 Ap 00324376 2012/05/17 1 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 44.99 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 73.22 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA ~ 0.00 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 63.01 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 48.33 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 50.28 AP 00324376 2012/08/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.01 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.00 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.17 qP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA ~ 0.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 1.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 19.14 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.01 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 61.28 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 pp 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.49 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 75.75 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 f VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 P22 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 1 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Asenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 60.02 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VER[ZON WIRELESS - LA 79.40 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 41.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA -40.55 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.01 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 58.45 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 37.05 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 41.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 1 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 I VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 41.08 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 43.52 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 I VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.52 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.32 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 40.52 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 60.12 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 81.19 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.55 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 60.44 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 79.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 f VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 2.30 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 33.00 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 37.84 AP 00324433 2012/05/23 ( D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 503.20 AP 00324432 2012/05/23 l CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 22.03 AP 00324432 2012/05/23 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 28.24 AP 00324432 2012/05/23 1 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 199.36 AP 00324432 2012/05/23 1 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 187.27 AP 00324432 2012/05/23 1 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 120.90 AP 00324432 2012/05/23 1 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATERDISTRICT 345.14 AP 00324431 2012/05/23 ( CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES INC 1,165.05 AP 00324431 2012/05/23 l CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES INC 285.54 AP 00324431 2012/05/23 ( CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES INC 598.01 AP 00324429 2012/05/23 ( CORNERSTONE RECORDS MANAGEMENT 794.44 AP 00324428 2012/05/23 ( COOPER, CHERYL 28.00 AP 00324428 2012/05/23 ( COOPER, CHERYL 90.00 AP 00324428 2012/05/23 ( COOPER, CHERYL 226.80 AP 00324426 2012/05/23 ( CONCEPT POWDER COATING 560.00 AP 00324425 2012/05/23 ( COMBINED MARTIAL SCIENCE INC 2,349.00 AP 00324424 2012/05/23 t COCHERELL, DOREEN 90.00 AP 00324423 2012/05/23 1 CLARK, KAREN 144.00 P23 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 2 Curren[ Date: 05/30/: Report; CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Re¢ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amount AP 00324423 2012/05/23 ( CLARK, KAREN 737.10 AP 00324422 2012/05/23 l CIRIACKS, VALERIE ANN 76.80 AP 00324422 2012/05/23 l CIRIACKS, VALERIE ANN 86.40 AP 00324420 2012/05/23 ( CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST 4,519.35 AP 00324419 2012/05/23 ( CATLETT, SCOTT 55.00 AP 00324418 2012/05/23 I CAST[LLO, FRANK 553.50 AP 00324417 2012/05/23 I CASCADE TURF LLC 463.80 AP 00324417 2012/05/23 1 CASCADE TURF LLC 15.51 AP 00324416 2012/05/23 1 CARTY, DANE 672.00 AP 00324414 2012/05/23 1 CALIFORNIA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, STATE 2,228.00 AP 00324413 2012/05/23 I BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC. 6,129.00 AP 00324412 2012/05/23 1 BONILLA, JOE 10.00 AP 00324411 2012/05/23 1 BOLIVAR, EMILIO 25.00 AP 00324410 2012/05/23 1 BOB HICKS TURF EQUIPMENT 81.70 AP 00324409 2012/05/23 1 BLOOM, JEFFREY A 8,140.79 AP 00324408 2012/05/23 l BISHOP COMPANY 515.91 AP 00324408 2012/05/23 f BISHOP COMPANY 83.94 AP 00324407 2012/05/23 ( BILL AND WAGS INC 214.00 AP 00324406 2012/05/23 ( BERNARD, JESSICA NASH 126.00 AP 00324406 2012/05/23 ( BERNARD, JESSICA NASH 382.20 AP 00324405 2012/05/23 l BERNARD, JEREMY 126.00 AP 00324405 2012/05/23 ( BERNARD, JEREMY 382.20 AP 00324404 2012/05/23 ( BARNES AND NOBLE 44.73 AP 00324403 2012/05/23 l BALLOONS N' MORE 457.94 AP 00324402 2012/05/23 ( BAGNERA, MICHAEL 26.00 AP 00324401 2012/05/23 1 AVANTS, MARGE 75.00 AP 00324401 2012/05/23 l AVANTS, MARGE 180.00 AP 00324400 2012/05/23 1 AVALON COLLISION CENTER 2,810.17 AP 00324399 2012/05/23 l AROCHO, ALMA 108.00 AP 00324399 2012/05/23 1 AROCHO, ALMA 324.00 AP 00324398 2012/05/23 ( ARNOLD FIELDS PAINTING 4,300.00 AP 00324397 2012/05/23 1 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 405.00 AP 00324397 2012/05/23 I ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 31.60 AP 00324396 2012/05/23 1 ARBOR NURSERY PLUS 1,289.77 AP 00324395 2012/05/23 ( ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES ~ 3.35 AP 00324394 2012/05/23 ( APPA 5,016.78 AP 00324394 2012/05/23 ( APPA 928.19 AP 00324393 2012/05/23 ( ALPHAGRAPHICS 422.71 AP 00324391 2012/05/23 l ALLEN, JOSH 42.00 AP 00324390 2012/05/231 ALLEN, CAROL 200.00 AP 00324389 2012/05/23 ( ALL WELDING 60.78 AP 00324389 2012/05/23 1 ALL WELDING 563.62 AP 00324389 2012/05/23 I ALL WELDING 2,413.60 AP 00324387 2012/05/23 1 ALFONSO, ASHLING 568.80 AP 00324386 2012/05/23 1 AGILINE INC 20.00 P24 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 3 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC -' CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P25 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00324386 2012/05/23 1 AGILINE INC ~ 340.00 AP 00324386 2012/05/23 1 AGILINE INC 1,040.00 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.57 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.55 pp 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.59 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 48.81 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.83 pP 00324376 2012/05/17 I VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 10.03 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.80 AP 00324435 2012/05/23 f DANCE TERRIFIC 2,244.15 AP 00324434 2012/05/23 ( DAGHDEVIRIAN, KATHY 405.00 AP 00324433 2012/05/23 ( D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 708.13 AP 00324433 2012/05/23 ( D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 600.71 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 34.31 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 98.47 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 I VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 26.27 Ap 00324376 2012/05/17 1 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 41.76 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 60.26 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 41.71 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.01 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 45.77 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 33.69 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.01 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 37.68 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA -35.54 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 41.71 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.01 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 60.02 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 60.52 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 63.43 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 60.02 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 60.02 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 90.77 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.55 Ap 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.54 Ap 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 30.97 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 4 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Aeenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P26 Check No. ~ Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA -9.38 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.55 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 I VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 I VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 41.52 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 19.14 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 38.01 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VER[ZON WIRELESS - LA 21.75 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 44.99 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.81 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.55 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 33.33 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 36.53 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 45.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 9.51 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 26.35 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 2.60 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 I VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.17 AP 00324376 2012/05/171 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 12.66 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 7.77 AP 00324376 2012/05/17 l VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.17 AP 00324372 2012/05/171 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 250.00 AP 00324370 2012/05/171 DAPPER TIRE CO 779.12 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 l CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 367.04 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 240.20 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,331.39 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 739.16 AP 00324435 2012/05/23 ( DANCE TERRIFIC 44.10 AP 00324437 2012/05/23 ( DAVID TAUSSIG AND ASSOCIATES INC. 450.00 AP 00324437 2012/05/23 ( DAVID TAUSSIG AND ASSOCIATES INC. 1,000.00 AP 00324438 2012/05/231 DEL MECHANICAL 246.25 AP 00324439 2012/05/23 ( DEMPSTER, KERI 288.00 AP 00324440 2012/05/23 ( DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS 125.00 AP 00324442 2012/05/23 ( DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 212.37 AP 00324443 2012/05/23 1 DOLLARHIDE, GINGER 24.00 AP 00324443 2012/05/23 ( DOLLARHIDE, GINGER 24.00 AP 00324443 2012/05/23 I DOLLARHIDE, GINGER 40.00 AP 00324444 2012/05/23 1 DOLSHOR PROD. (f/s/o MARTIN SHORT) 28,000.00 AP 00324445 2012/05/23 I DOWD, MICHELLE 108.00 AP 00324446 2012/05/23 1 DRACHAND, DI ANNE 900.00 AP 00324447 2012/05/23 ( DUFFY, RICK 1,832.60 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 5 Current Date; 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P27 Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324448 2012/05/23 l DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 124.97 AP 00324448 2012/05/23 ( DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 124.97 AP 00324448 2012/05/23 ( DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 190.74 AP 00324448 2012/05/23 1 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 105.24 AP 00324448 2012/05/23 1 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 80.52 AP 00324448 2012/05/23 1 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 65.97 AP 00324448 2012/05/23 1 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 91.52 AP 00324449 2012/05/23 1 DUNN, ANN MARIE 132.30 AP 00324449 2012/05/23 1 DUNN, ANN MARIE 144.00 AP 00324449 2012/05/23 I DUNN, ANN MARIE 99.00 AP 00324449 2012/05/23 1 DUNN, ANN MARIE 144.00 AP 00324449 2012/05/23 ( DUNN, ANN MARIE 180.00 AP 00324449 2012/05/23 1 DUNN, ANN MARIE 144.00 AP 00324449 2012/05/23 1 DUNN, ANN MARIE 1,077.30 AP 00324450 2012/05/23 I DYNASTY SCREEN PRINTING 3,855.83 AP 00324451 2012/05/23 ( EARLEY, IDA 115.20 AP 00324452 2012/05/23 1 EASTERLING, RAY 172.80 AP 00324452 2012/05/23 l EASTERLING, RAY 48.00 AP 00324452 2012/05/23 ( EASTERLING, RAY 28.80 AP 00324453 2012/05/23 ( EBSCO 42.90 AP 00324454 2012/05/23 ( ELECTRONICS WAREHOUSE 31.08 AP 00324455 2012/05/23 l ELLIS ENTERPRISES 70.00 AP 00324455 2012/05/23 ( ELLIS ENTERPRISES 330.00 AP 00324455 2012/05/23 ( ELLIS ENTERPRISES 980.00 AP 00324455 2012/05/23 ( ELLIS ENTERPRISES 160.00 AP 00324455 2012/05/23 ( ELLIS ENTERPRISES 295.00 AP 00324455 2012/05/23 ( ELLIS ENTERPRISES 70.00 AP 00324455 2012/05/23 ( ELLIS ENTERPRISES 50.00 AP 00324456 2012/05/23 ( ENGRAVE'N EMBROIDER THINGS 84.02 AP 00324457 2012/05/23 ( ENRIQUEZ, ALICE 140.00 AP 00324458 2012/05/23 ( ENVISIONWARE INC. 1,127.95 AP 00324458 2012/05/23 ( ENVISIONWARE INC. 1,127.95 AP 00324459 2012/05/23 ( FAB DIVERSIFIED SERVICES 806.61 AP 00324460 2012/05/23 1 FELICIANO, ANTHONY 210.00 AP 00324461 2012/05/231 FIREBLAST451INC 12,197.05 AP 00324461 2012/05/23 1 FIREBLAST 451 INC 30,011.87 AP 00324464 2012/05/23 l FLICKEVGER, GLORIA 60.00 AP 00324465 2012/05/23 ( FOOTHILL FAMILY SHELTER 340.00 AP 00324466 2012/05/23 ( FORD OF UPLAND INC 108.41 AP 00324467 2012/05/23 ( G & J AIRCRAFT 10.71 AP 00324469 2012/05/23 ( GEOGRAPHICS 2,643.92 AP 00324469 2012/05/23 ( GEOGRAPHICS 1,020.00 AP 00324469 2012/05/23 ( GEOGRAPHICS 3,748.62 AP 00324469 2012/05/23 ( GEOGRAPHICS 1,718.61 AP 00324469 2012/05/23 ( GEOGRAPHICS 1,628.37 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 6 Current Date: 05/30/: Report CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P28 Aeettda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324470 2012/05/23 l GIORDANO, MARIANNA 86.40 AP 00324471 2012/05/23 1 GIORDANQ MARIANNA 45.00 AP 00324472 2012/05/23 I GRAFFITI TRACKER INC 2,250.00 AP 00324473 2012/05/231 GRAINGER 177.25 AP 00324473 2012/05/231 GRAINGER 294.42 AP 00324473 2012/05/23 ( GRAINGER 89.84 AP 00324473 2012/05/23 ( GRAINGER 44.93 AP 00324473 2012/05/23 ( GRAINGER 205.41 AP 00324473 2012/05/231 GRAINGER 15.82 AP 00324473 2012/05/231 GRAINGER 141.46 AP 00324473 2012/05/231 GRAINGER -499.17 AP 00324473 2012/05/23 ( GRAINGER 122.24 AP 00324473 2012/05/23 ( GRAINGER 1,022.82 AP 00324474 2012/05/23 1 GRANICUS INC 1,100.00 AP 00324475 2012/05/23 I GRAPHICS FACTORY PRINTING INC. 381.44 AP 00324476 2012/05/231 GROWESTNURSERIES 275.40 AP 00324478 2012/05/23 l HALO BRANDED SOLUTIONS 942.11 AP 00324478 2012/05/23 l HALO BRANDED SOLUTIONS 399.22 AP 00324479 2012/05/23 ( HAMILTON, MONIQUE 75.00 AP 00324479 2012/05/23 ( HAMILTON, MONIQUE 175.00 AP 00324479 2012/05/23 ( HAMILTON, MONIQUE 80.00 AP 00324479 2012/05/23 l HAMILTON, MONIQUE 170.00 AP 00324479 2012/05/23 l HAMILTON, MONIQUE 153.00 AP 00324480 2012/05/23 1 HARTS-HANKS SHOPPERS INC. 1,574.43 AP 00324481 2012/05/23 1 HEH.IG, KELLY 916.50 AP 00324482 2012/05/23 I HERROH, NORMAN 500.00 AP 00324483 2012/05/23 I HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 27.45 AP 00324483 2012/05/23 l HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 34.35 AP 00324484 2012/05/23 ( HOSE MAN INC 151.28 AP 00324484 2012/05/23 ( HOSE MAN INC 68.03 AP 00324484 2012/05/23 ( HOSE MAN INC 108.55 AP 00324485 2012/05/23 ( HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 96.54 AP 00324486 2012/05/23 ( HSU, STEVE 516.00 AP 00324487 2012/05/23 l IBM CORPORATION -285.43 AP 00324487 2012/05/23 I IBM CORPORATION . 2,807.40 AP 00324487 2012/05/23 I IDM CORPORATION 146.52 AP 00324487 2012/05/23 I IBM CORPORATION 1,742.79 AP 00324487 2012/05/23 I IBM CORPORATION 13,055.75 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 l INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 5.00 AP 00324488 2012/05/231 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 40.57 AP 00324488 2012/05/231 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 103.02 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 l INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 20.23 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 11.83 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 1 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 29.36 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 I INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 2.63 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 7 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P29 Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amount AP 00324488 2012/05/23 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 19.08 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 I INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 47.35 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 1 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 4.24 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 1 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 7.98 Ap 00324488 2012/05/23 l INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 19.79 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 1.77 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 922.17 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 112.49 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 63.39 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 l INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 6.46 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 20.23 AP 00324488 2012/05/231 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 11.57 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 1 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 47.37 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 I INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 1,136.00 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 1 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 9.52 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 I INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 13.85 AP 00324488 2012/05/23 1 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 141.09 AP 00324489 2012/05/23 1 INDERWIESCHE, MATT 795.60 AP 00324490 2012/05/23 l INLAND EMPIRE TOURS AND TRANSPORTATIOi 2,516.00 AP 00324490 2012/05/23 1 INLAND EMPIRE TOURS AND TRANSPORTATIOi 1,125.00 AP 00324490 2012/05/23 ( INLAND EMPIRE TOURS AND TRANSPOR'PATIOi 2,536.75 Ap 00324490 2012/05/23 l INLAND EMPIRE TOURS AND TRANSPORTATIOi 8,057.50 AP 00324491 2012/05/23 I INLAND VALLEY DANCE ACADEMY 1,959.60 AP 00324492 2012/05/23 ( INNERLINE ENGINEERING INC 900.00 AP 00324493 2012/05/23 ( JM SERVICES 4,495.00 AP 00324494 2012/05/23 ( JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 471.60 AP 00324494 2012/05/23 ( JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 84.68 AP 00324494 2012/05/23 l JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 500.00 AP 00324494 2012/05/23 1 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 291.39 AP 00324494 2012/05/23 1 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 348.91 AP 00324494 2012/05/23 1 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 400.00 AP 00324495 2012/05/23 l JOHNSON, JENNY 75.00 Ap 00324496 2012/05/23 l JOHNSON, TANISHA 210.00 AP 00324497 2012/05/23 1 JOHNSON, VILMA CALLEJO 2,300.00 AP 00324498 2012/05/23 1 JONES AND MAYER, LAW OFFICES OF 290.00 AP 00324499 2012/05/23 ( KIDSART, KJDSART 1,103.20 AP 00324500 2012/05/23 ( KIM, DANIEL 378.00 AP 00324501 2012/05/23 f KOA CORPORATION 3,121.58 AP 00324501 2012/05/23 ( KOA CORPORATION 7,283.70 AP 00324501 2012/05/23 ( KOA CORPORATION 715.05 AP 00324502 2012/05/23 ( KRIEGER, ED 300.00 AP 00324503 2012/05/23 ( KX2 HOLDINGS 2,657.82 AP 00324504 2012/05/23 ( LB PRODUCTION CENTER 2,144.22 AP 00324505 2012/05/23 ( LEAL, RUTH 54.00 AP 00324507 2012/05/23 ( LIM, HEATHER 270.00 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 8 Curren[ Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Au_enda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P30 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324508 2012/05/23 ( LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 125.00 AP 00324508 2012/05/23 ( LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 75.00 AP 00324509 2012/05/23 ( LIVE OAK DOG OBEDIENCE 665.55 AP 00324510 2012/05/23 ( MANAGEMENT PARTNERS INC 2,995.00 AP 00324510 2012/05/23 ( MANAGEMENT PARTNERS INC 10,000.00 AP 00324511 2012/05/231 MANSFIELD GAS EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS 257.16 AP 00324512 2012/05/23 l MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 108.00 AP 00324512 2012/05/23 ( MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 108.00 AP 00324512 2012/05/23 l MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 108.00 AP 00324513 2012/05/23 1 MARK CHRISTOPHER INC 128.32 AP 00324514 2012/05/23 1 MARSHALL, SYLVIA 622.50 AP 00324515 2012/05/23 1 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP 00324515 2012/05/23 ( MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP 00324515 2012/05/23 ( MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP 00324515 2012/05/23 ( MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 220.00 AP 00324515 2012/05/23 ( MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP 00324515 2012/05/23 ( MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP 00324516 2012/05/23 ( MAXWELL, ANTHONY 90.00 AP 00324517 2012/05/23 ( MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 454.90 AP 00324518 2012/05/23 ( MEDINA, NADIR 81.60 AP 00324519 2012/05/23 ( MICRO TRENDS INC 3,850.00 AP 00324520 2012/05/23( MIDWEST TAPE 110.95 AP 00324520 2012/05/23( MIDWEST TAPE 130.95 AP 00324521 2012/05/23 ( MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS USA IN~ 579.04 AP 00324522 2012/05/23 ( MOE, JOHN 651.00 AP 00324523 2012/05/23 ( MORENO VALLEY, CITY OF 3,051.86 AP 00324524 2012/05/23 ( MORNINGSTAR 333.00 AP 00324525 2012/05/23 ( MORRIS, RICHARD 195.00 AP 00324526 2012/05/23 ( MR TS 24HR TOWING 85.00 AP 00324527 2012/05/23 l MSA INLAND EMPD2E/DESERT CHAPTER 75.00 AP 00324528 2012/05/231 MYERCHIN,NICOLE 1,198.80 AP 00324529 2012/05/23 1 N-2 FITNESS 1,039.50 AP 00324530 2012/05/23 l NAPA AUTO PARTS 266.49 AP 00324530 2012/05/23 1 NAPA AUTO PARTS 139.48 AP 00324530 2012/05/23 ( NAPA AUTO PARTS 65.30 AP 00324531 2012/05/23 ( NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS INC 4,663.03 AP 00324531 2012/05/23 ( NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS INC 195.00 AP 00324532 2012/05/23 ( NATIONAL ROOFING CONSULTANTS INC 2,152.50 AP 00324533 2012/05/23 ( NBS 600.00 AP 00324535 2012/05/23 ( NICHOLS, GARY 385.35 AP 00324536 2012/05/23 ( NIMAKO, SOLOMON 46.73 AP 00324537 2012/05/23 l NITHYA, SARVASMARANA 336.00 AP 00324537 2012/05/23 ( NITHYA, SARVASMARANA 216.00 AP 00324537 2012/05/23 l NITHYA, SARVASMARANA 168.00 AP 00324537 2012/05/23 ( NITHYA, SARVASMARANA 228.00 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 9 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P31 Agenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 5.51 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 f O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 5.58 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REII.LY AUTO PARTS -5.58 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 t O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 5.58 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 5.58 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 l O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 33.65 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REII.LY AUTO PARTS 5.58 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 6.03 Ap 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REII.LY AUTO PARTS 18.10 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 6.03 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 738 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REII.LY AUTO PARTS 11.87 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 6.03 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 l O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 2.28 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REII,LY AUTO PARTS 738 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 430 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 430 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 738 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 9.99 AP 00324538 2012/05/231 O'REII,LY AUTO PARTS 6.03 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 1 O'REII,LY AUTO PARTS 6.03 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 430 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 l O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 538 AP 00324538 2012/05/23 ( O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 11.55 AP 00324539 2012/05/23 ( OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA 262.00 AP 00324539 2012/05/23 l OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA 634.00 AP 00324539 2012/05/23 l OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA 103.86 AP 00324540 2012/05/23 ( ONTARIO ICE SKATING CENTER 604.80 AP 00324541 2012/05/23 1 ONTARIO WINNELSON CO 3539 AP 00324541 2012/05/23 1 ONTARIO WINNELSON CO 7.96 AP 00324542 2012/05/231 ORONA, PATRICIA 1,660.00 AP 00324542 2012/05/23 l ORONA, PATRICIA 415.00 AP 00324543 2012/05/23 1 OTT, LAURA 420.00 AP 00324543 2012/05/23 1 OTT, LAURA 255.00 AP 00324544 2012/05/23 I OTT, SHARON 300.00 AP 00324544 2012/05/23 1 OTT, SHARON 270.00 AP 00324544 2012/05/23 f OTT, SHARON 90.00 AP 00324545 2012/05/23 ( PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS 21,761.01 AP 00324546 2012/05/23 ( PAHIA, REGINALD 57.60 AP 00324547 2012/05/23 ( PATTON SALES CORP 31633 AP 00324548 2012/05/23 ( PEP BOYS 98.91 AP 00324549 2012/05/23 ( PRECISION GYMNASTICS 2,716.00 Ap 00324551 2012/05/23 ( QUICKSTART INTELLIGENCE 3,695.00 AP 00324552 2012/05/23 ( RAMIREZ, VERONICA 117.00 AP 00324553 2012/05/23 ( RANCHO CUCAMONGA FONTANA FAMILY YMC 7,999.67 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 10 Curren[ Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P32 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum pp 00324554 2012/05/23 ( RANCHO CUCAMONGA QUAKES 500.00 AP 00324555 2012/05/23 ( RAU, ED 15.00 AP 00324556 2012/05/23 ( RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 6.50 AP 00324558 2012/05/23 ( REPUBLIC ITS 22,215.03 AP 00324558 2012/05/23 ( REPUBLIC ITS 12,104.00 AP 00324558 2012/05/231 REPUBLIC ITS 2,773.46 pP 00324558 2012/05/23 1 REPUBLIC ITS 1,038.60 AP 00324558 2012/05/23 1 REPUBLIC ITS 319.14 AP 00324559 2012/05/231 RIGHTWAY 486.20 AP 00324560 2012/05/23 ( ROBLES, RAUL P 75.00 AP 00324561 2012/05/23 ( RODRIGUEZ INC, R Y 218.46 AP 00324562 2012/05/23 ( ROSE, LISA 10.00 AP 00324564 2012/05/23 ( RTK ARCHITECTS INC 137.67 AP 00324565 2012/05/23 ( S AND K ENGINEERS INC 2,400.00 AP 00324566 2012/05/23 l SALZMAN, KEN 189.00 AP 00324567 2012/05/23 l SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT 2,389.70 AP 00324568 2012/05/23 1 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT 1,298.75 AP 00324569 2012/05/23 l SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT 3,065.05 AP 00324570 2012/05/23 ( SAN BERNARDINO CTY 9,486.00 AP 00324571 2012/05/23 1 SAN BERNARDINO CTY DEPT OF PUBLIC WORK 5,000.00 pp 00324572 2012/05/23 1 SAN BERNARDINO CTY REAL ESTATE SVCS DEI 8,400.00 AP 00324573 2012/05/23 I SC FUELS 21,786.29 AP 00324574 2012/05/23 ( SENECHAL, CALVIN 79.20 AP 00324574 2012/05/23 ( SENECHAL, CALVIN 72.00 AP 00324574 2012/05/23 I SENECHAL, CALVIN 36.00 AP 00324574 2012/05/23 I SENECHAL, CALVIN 27.00 AP 00324574 2012/05/23 ( SENECHAL, CALVIN 18.00 AP 00324574 2012/05/23 ( SENECHAL, CALVIN 108.60 AP 00324574 2012/05/23 ( SENECHAL, CALVIN 83.40 AP 00324574 2012/05/23 ( SENECHAL, CALVIN 141.00 AP 00324574 2012/05/23 1 SENECHAL, CALVIN 112.20 AP 00324575 2012/05/23 1 SHU JAN, WEI 135.00. AP 00324576 2012/05/231 SIGMANET 156,990.58 AP 00324577 2012/05/23 ( SKIN PERFECT MEDICAL AESTHETICS INC 34.24 AP 00324577 2012/05/23 l SKIN PERFECT MEDICAL AESTHETICS INC 79.76 AP 00324579 2012/05/23 ( SOLARWINDS INC 395.00 AP 00324580 2012/05/23 ( SOURCE GRAPHICS 552.63 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.78 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 61.43 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 63.22 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.45 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 57.19 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.54 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: I1 Current Dale; 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P33 Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 200.94 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.78 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 87.45 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.62 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.23 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.13 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 108.25 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 334.29 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.71 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 65.43 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 51.37 AP 00324584 2012/05/231 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 86.44 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 44.23 AP 00324584 2012/05/231 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 64.53 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324584 2012/05/231 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 83.21 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 43.97 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.39 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 66.31 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.78 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.98 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 50.17 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.36 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.71 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.85 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 68.40 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.78 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.98 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNLI EDISON 22.93 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 12 Curren[ Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Aeenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P34 Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 105.03 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 19.50 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 49.79 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 49.94 AP 00324584 2012/OS/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 62.83 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 56.54 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.16 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 43.15 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 71.22 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 93.27 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 58.56 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2,543.34 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 57.79 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.98 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 60.76 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.75 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 36.54 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.07 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 220.86 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.42 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ED[SON 116.00 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ED[SON 140.40 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 46.60 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 56.16 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 51.40 AP Ob324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 50.08 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 313.63 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.67 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 201.45 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 201.45 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.43 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.67 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 78.18 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.84 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.65 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 64.95 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: l3 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P35 Agenda Check Re¢ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 256.32 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 79.72 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 72.21 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.99 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1.96 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 74.17 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1,103.22 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.52 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 93.59 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 71.68 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 68.54 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 37.53 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 77.87 AP 00324584 2012/05/23 f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.85 AP 00324585 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 34.30 AP 00324585 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 35.07 AP 00324586 2012/05/23 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 203.83 AP 00324587 2012/05/23 ( STEELWORKERS OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION 800.00 AP 00324588 2012/05/23 ( STERLING COFFEE SERVICE 293.49 AP 00324588 2012/05/23 ( STERLING COFFEE SERVICE 320.27 AP 00324589 2012/05/23 ( STEVES TOWING AND TRANSPORT 375.00 AP 00324590 2012/05/23 ( SUMARLI, LYDIA 714.00 AP 00324591 2012/05/23 ( SUN TINT CHAMPIONS 82.88 AP 00324592 2012/05/23 ( SUPLER, LISSA 178.50 AP 00324592 2012/05/23 l SUPLER, LISSA 535.50 AP 00324593 2012/05/23 ( TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS 153.13 AP 00324594 2012/05/23 1 TERRY, DONNA 154.35 AP 00324595 2012/05/23 1 TONG, WENDY Y 2,075.00 AP 00324595 2012/05/23 l TONG, WENDY Y 2,862.50 AP 00324595 2012/05/23 I TONG, WENDY Y 2,850.00 AP 00324596 2012/05/23 ( TOTAL STRUCTURES INC 2,459.46 AP 00324597 2012/05/23 ( TRACEY, VAL 480.00 AP 00324597 2012/05/23 ( TRACEY, VAL 480.00 AP 00324597 2012/05/23 ( TRACEY, VAL 420.00 AP 00324597 2012/05/23 ( TRACEY, VAL 156.00 AP 00324598 2012/05/23 l TUNGGALDJAJA, INGE 152.28 AP 00324599 2012/05/23 l UNffIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 23.96 AP 00324599 2012/05/23 ( UNIFHtST UNIFORM SERVICE 36.72 AP 00324599 2012/05/23 ( UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 844.71 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 14 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layou[ Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Aeenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P36 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324599 2012/05/23 ( UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 478.72 AP 00324600 2012/05/23 ( UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA PARS TRUSTEE 1,865.83 AP 00324601 2012/05/23 ( UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA PARS TRUSTEE 29,205.39 AP 00324602 2012/05/23 ( UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA PARS TRUSTEE 3,900:00 AP 00324603 2012/05/231 UNIQUE PRINTS SCREEN PRINTING 137.75 AP 00324604 2012/05/23 ( UPS 31.71 AP 00324605 2012/05/23 ( URBINA, BRANDON 90.00 AP 00324606 2012/05/23 ( VELARDE, VANESSA 840.00 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 87.89 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 79.38 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 1 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 475.70 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 1 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 38.59 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 115.79 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 I VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.78 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 47.90 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 1 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 39.45 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 1 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 18.65 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.42 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 115.76 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 18.14 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 38.59 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.42 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.42 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 l VERIZON CALIFORNIA 80.97 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 l VERIZON CALIFORNIA 55.90 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 1 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 20.24 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 I VERIZON CALIFORNIA 170.06 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 1 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 154.99 AP 00324607 2012/05/23 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 659.05 AP 00324608 2012/05/23 l VIBBER, SABRINA 200.00 AP 00324609 2012/05/23 ( VISION SERVICE PLAN CA 10,981.92 AP 00324610 2012/05/23 ( WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 339.42 AP 00324610 2012/05/23 1 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 200.00 AP 00324610 2012/05/23 ( WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 40.91 AP 00324610 2012/05/23 ( WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 12.10 AP 00324610 2012/05/23 ( WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 3.32 AP 00324611 2012/05/23 ( WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 419.14 AP 00324611 2012/05/23 ( WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 73.44 AP 00324611 2012/05/23 l WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 212.27 AP 00324612 2012/05/23 1 WEIR, JEWELL 96.00 AP 00324612 2012/05/23 I WEIIt, JEWELL 140.00 AP 00324613 2012/05/23 ( WESCO RECEIVABLES CORD 431.86 AP 00324613 2012/05/23 1 WESCO RECEIVABLES CORP 384.67 AP 00324613 2012/05/23 ( WESCO RECEIVABLES CORP 4.20 AP 00324613 2012/05/23 ( WESCO RECEIVABLES CORP 22628 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 15 Current Dale: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P37 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00324614 2012/05/23 ( WEST SANITATION SERVICES INC 370.10 AP 00324615 2012/05/23 l WESTERN RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION : 1,510.83 AP 00324617 2012/05/23 1 WORD MILL PUBLISHING 725.00 AP 00324617 2012/05/23 I WORD MILL PUBLISHING 725.00 AP 00324618 2012/05/23 ( XTREME DETAILING 625.00 AP 00324619 2012/05/23 ( ZAILO, ROBERT W 159.60 AP 00324620 2012/05/23 h ZAVALA, PETER 96.00 AP 00324621 2012/05/23 ( ZIRGES, ARLENE 132.00 AP 00324622 2012/05/23 ( ZOHO CORPORATION 1,999.00 AP 00324235 2012/05/16 ( HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 299.59 AP 00324235 2012/05/16 ( HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 81.87 AP 00324235 2012/05/16 ( HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 79.50 AP 00324235 2012/05/16 ( HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 35.52 AP 00324237 2012/05/161 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 153.87 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 l INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 1,510.94 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 59.22 AP 00324237 2012/05/161 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 27.25 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 l INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 110.82 AP 00324237 2012/05/161 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 19.40 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 l INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 461.60 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 l INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 461.60 AP 00324237 2012/05/161 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 159.65 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 174.37 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 102.79 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 70.46 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 1,300.35 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 l INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 15.44 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 22.45 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 362.95 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 l INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 388.36 AP 00324237 2012/05/161 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 253.20 AP 00324237 2012/05/161 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 7.56 AP 00324237 2012/05/161 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 26.08 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 14.04 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 341.58 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 67.15 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 46.97 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 19.82 AP 00324252 2012/05/16 ( LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 4,295.00 AP 00324250 2012/05/16 ( LAWNSCAPE SYSTEMS 100.00 AP 00324249 2012/05/16 l LAWDIS, STEVE 1,200.00 AP 00324247 2012/05/161 LANDSCAPE FORMS INC 1,228.36 AP 00324246 2012/05/]61 KONEINC 568.60 AP 00324245 2012/05/16 f KOMATSU, KIMBERLY 50.00 AP 00324244 2012/05/16 l KOLA 99.9 2,980.00 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 16 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Aeenda Check Re¢ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P38 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00324255 2012/05/161 COWES COMPANIES INC. ~ 159.09 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 I COWES COMPANIES INC. -90.03 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. -18.36 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( -COWES COMPANIES INC. 15.32 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 270.34 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 59.05 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 98.14 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 202.68 Ap 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 0.72 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. -48.90 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 44.81 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 13.90 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 105.44 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 97.92 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 34.86 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 13.06 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 9.60 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 267.41 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 62.88 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 53.52 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 116.69 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 87.45 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 28.65 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 COWES COMPANIES INC. 40.45 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 COWES COMPANIES INC. ~ 70.87 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 COWES COMPANIES INC. 21.79 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 10.39 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 COWES COMPANIES INC. 29.70 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 22.80 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 2.84 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 67.14 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 36.76 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 20.32 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 145.47 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 67.28 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( COWES COMPANIES INC. 22.33 AP 00324286 2012/05/16 ( RCH CONSTRUCTION INC 5,000.00 AP 00324285 2012/05/16 ( RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 70.04 AP 00324285 2012/OS/161 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 48.49 AP 00324284 2012/08/16 ( RAYBALLOONS 567.07 AP 00324283 2012/05/16 ( RANCHO DISPOSAL SERVICES INC 2,240.00 AP 00324282 2012/05/161 PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS SPECL 1,080.00 AP 00324281 2012/05/161 PRIME GLASS 236.61 AP 00324280 2012/05/16 l PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 11.40 AP 00324280 2012/05/16 ( PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 143.46 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 17 Report; CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Current Date: 05/30/: Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Re¢ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P39 Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324278 2012/05/16 ( PITASSI ARCHITECTS INC 198.00 AP 00324277 2012/05/161 PIPS TECHNOLOGY 1,460.00 AP 00324276 2012/05/16 ( PETROVICH, VICTORIA 182.33 AP 00324275 2012/05/16 ( PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 323.91 AP 00324274 2012/05/16 ( PEREZ, DOMBQICK 2,000.00 AP 00324273 2012/05/16 ( PATTERSON CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC 10,000.00 AP 00324272 2012/05/16 ( PARS 3,500.00 AP 00324271 2012/05/16 ( PAL CAMPAIGN 50.00 AP 00324270 2012/05/161 PACffIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICES 3,825.00 AP 00324269 2012/05/16 l ONTARIO WINNELSON CO 29.10 AP 00324269 2012/05/16 ( ONTARIO WINNELSON CO 17.08 AP 00324269 2012/05/16 ( ONTARIO WINNELSON CO 7.06 AP 00324267 2012/05/16 ( OAKVIEW CONSTRUCTORS INC -30,359.80 AP 00324267 2012/05/16 ( OAKVIEW CONSTRUCTORS INC 303,598.05 AP 00324267 2012/05/16 ( OAKVIEW CONSTRUCTORS INC -11,107.25 AP 00324267 2012/05/16 ( OAKVIEW CONSTRUCTORS INC 111,072.45 AP 00324266 2012/05/16 ( NWOSU, LORETHA 1776 AP 00324265 2012/05/16 ( NEW COLOR SCREEN PRINTING & EMBROIDERS 168.09 AP 00324265 2012/05/16 ( NEW COLOR SCREEN PRINTING & EMBROIDERS 452.55 AP 00324264 2012/05/16 l NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY 2,000.00 AP 00324263 2012/05/161 NAPA AUTO PARTS 41.59 AP 00324263 2012/05/161 NAPA AUTO PARTS 34.34 AP 00324263 2012/05/161 NAPA AUTO PARTS 9.68 AP 00324263 2012/05/161 NAPA AUTO PARTS 9.69 AP 00324262 2012/05/]6 l MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 35.45 AP 00324262 2012/05/16 ( MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 133.45 AP 00324262 2012/05/16 ( MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 35.45 AP 00324262 2012/05/16 ( MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 77.14 AP 00324262 2012/05/161 MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 25.82 AP 00324262 2012/05/161 MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 60.23 AP 00324261 2012/05/16 I MIGHTY MOVERS TRAILERS INC 1,293.50 AP 00324260 2012/05/161 MIDWEST TAPE 39.99 AP 00324260 2012/05/161 MIDWEST TAPE 39.99 AP 00324260 2012/05/16 ( MIDWEST TAPE 15.19 AP 00324260 2012/05/161 MIDWEST TAPE 15.19 AP 00324260 2012/05/16 ( MIDWEST TAPE 2299 AP 00324260 2012/05/16 ( MIDWEST TAPE 22.99 AP 00324260 2012/05/16 ( MIDWEST TAPE 19.99 AP 00324260 2012/05/16 ( MIDWEST TAPE 29.99 AP 00324259 2012/05/161 MIDDLE RIDGE INC 1,050.00 AP 00324258 2012/05/161 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 10,068.56 AP 00324258 2012/05/161 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 141.57 AP 00324258 2012/05/161 MARB'OSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 21,635.55 AP 00324258 2012/05/161 MARII'OSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 304.52 AP 00324258 2012/05/16 ( MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 5,511.22 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 18 Curren[ Date: 05/30/: Report CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Re¢ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P40 Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324258 2012/05/16 ( MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 3,754.44 AP 00324258 2012/05/16 ( MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 12,197.13 AP 00324258 2012/05/16 ( MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 2,111.08 AP 00324258 2012/05/16 f MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 3,988.67 AP 00324257 2012/05/16 ( MAIN STREET SIGNS 641.11 AP 00324256 2012/05/16 ( LU'S LIGHTHOUSE INC 242.28 AP 00324256 2012/05/16 ( LU'S LIGHTHOUSE INC 1,049.86 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 133.25 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 21.79 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 I LOWES COMPANIES INC. 121.42 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 38.36 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 8.58 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 4.03 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 60.17 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 19.42 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 95.76 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 179.08 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 44.22 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 l LOWES COMPANIES INC. 40.92 AP 00324289 2012/05/16 I RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 11,102.04 AP 00324288 2012/05/16 ( RECY-CAL SUPPLY LLC 1,282.23 AP 00324287 2012/05/16 ( RCPFA ~ 9,315.70 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 106.25 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 80.92 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 155.94 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 45.97 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 360.40 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 24.76 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 l LOWES COMPANIES INC. 25.24 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 I LOWES COMPANIES INC. 63.85 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. ~ 15.18 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 102.60 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 408.43 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 137.10 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 479.94 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 264.99 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 182.63 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 110.90 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 15.02 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 354.79 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 48.66 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 354.97 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 79.29 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 76.27 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 22.06 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 19 Current Dale: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P41 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 10.67 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 55.98 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. -9.60 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 51.85 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 18.89 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 113.39 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 68.96 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 2.78 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 f LOWES COMPANIES INC. -41.15 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 393.30 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 68.00 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 32.78 AP 00324255 2012/05/16 ( LOWES COMPANIES INC. 111.39 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 5.62 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 81.78 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 75.75 AP 00324255 2012/05/161 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 66.26 AP 00324243 2012/05/16 I JZ'S PARTY CHARM 561.89 AP 00324242 2012/05/16 l JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 26.51 AP 00324242 2012/05/16 ( JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 248.39 AP 00324241 2012/05/16 ( JOHANSSON, JULIE 200.00 AP 00324240 2012/05/16 ( INLAND TOP SOIL MIXES 452.55 AP 00324240 2012/05/16 ( INLAND TOP SOIL MIXES 905.10 AP 00324238 2012/05/16 ( INLAND FAIR HOUSING AND MEDIATION BOAR 717.96 AP 00324238 2012/05/16 ( INLAND FAIR HOUSING AND MEDIATION BOAR 842.54 AP 00324237 2012/05/161 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 153.42 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 57.82 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 34.28 pp 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 74.65 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 106.29 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 34.18 AP 00324237 2012/05/161 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 41.20 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 I INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 9.77 AP 00324237 2012/05/161 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 105.51 AP 00324237 2012/05/161 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 3.87 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 51.40 AP 00324237 2012/05/16 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 4.85 AP 00324236 2012/05/16( ICMA 1,400.00 AP 00324235 2012/05/161 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 71.60 AP 00324290 2012/OS/161 RIPPETOE MILES LLP 1,766.35 AP 00324290 2012/05/16 ( RIPPETOE MII.ES LLP 2,093.70 AP 00324290 2012/05/16 l RIPPETOE MII,ES LLP 1,600.50 AP 00324290 2012/05/161 RIPPETOE MILES LLP 215.10 AP 00324290 2012/05/161 RIPPETOE MILES LLP 5,396.05 AP 00324290 2012/05/161 RIPPETOE MILES LLP 115.50 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 20 Current Dale; 05/30/: Repor[:~CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P42 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324290 2012/05/16 ( RIPPETOE MH,ES LLP 7,073.75 AP 00324291 2012/05/16 ( ROBLES, RAUL P 115.00 AP 00324292 2012/05/16 ( RODRIGUEZ, EUGENIO 3,666.00 AP 00324293 2012/05/16 ( RYLAND HOMES 113.63 AP 00324294 2012/05/16 ( SAN BERNARDBVO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT 210.00 AP 00324295 2012/05/16 ( SAN BERNARDIIJO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT 946.42 AP 00324296 2012/05/161 SAN BERNARDINO CTY DEPT OF PUBLIC WORK 1,740.00 AP 00324296 2012/05/161 SAN BERNARDINO CTY DEPT OF PUBLIC WORK 1,740.00 AP 00324297 2012/05/16 ( SBPEA 729.17 AP 00324298 2012/05/161 SCHOLASTIC BOOKFAIRS .294.11 AP 00324299 2012/05/16 I SEGWAY INC 16,260.44 AP 00324300 2012/05/161 SHARABY, MARIAN 25.00 AP 00324301 2012/05/16 l SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 150.00 Ap 00324302 2012/05/16 ( SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 397.34 AP 00324303 2012/05/16 ( SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 18.70 AP 00324304 2012/05/16 ( SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 255.00 AP 00324305 2012/05/16 ( SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 186.79 AP 00324306 2012/05/16 ( SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 30.51 AP 00324307 2012/05/16 ( SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 25.00 AP .00324308 2012/05/161 SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 192.64 AP 00324309 2012/05/161 SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 34.13 AP 00324310 2012/05/16 ( SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 216.64 AP 00324311 2012/05/161 SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 100.00 AP 00324312 2012/05/161 SHRED PROS 65.00 AP 00324314 2012/05/161 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 1,988.25 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON _, 22.76 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.99 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 61.70 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.52 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 49.42 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 45.11 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 44.67 Ap 00324319 2012/05/]6 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.76 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 60.51 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 75.44 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.16 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 21 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P43 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 49.40 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 49.40 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 pP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 Ap 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 62.25 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.12 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 36.23 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.16 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.44 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2L26 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.78 Ap 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.46 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.42 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.78 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.84 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 151.08 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 73.29 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 108.35 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 69.84 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 58.81 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.49 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.16 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.39 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAEDISON 1]5.87 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1,099.62 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 30.55 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 61.66 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 133.73 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 63.93 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 50.56 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.80 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 47.85 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 22 Current Dale: 05/30/: Report; CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AEettda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P44 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 89.45 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 72.77 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 70.32 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 Ap 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 157.61 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 431.34 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 107.74 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 Ap 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.26 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 38.85 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.73 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 49.79 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 52.81 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.28 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 64.54 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.77 Ap 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 849.96 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1,449.75 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 108.24 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 65.38 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.64 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 33.27 AP 00324319 20]2/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 37.66 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 30.31 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.26 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.26 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 139.76 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 96.13 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.26 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.26 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.27 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.30 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 46.60 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.54 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 77.40 Ap 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 37.39 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.96 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.96 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.29 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.16 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 502.20 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 581.63 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 332.34 pp 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 48.68 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Pale: 23 Curren[ Dale: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amaum AP 00324319 2012/05/16 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.88 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.02 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 172.16 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.98 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 37.93 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 116.12 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 Ap 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.15 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 61.37 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 35.66 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 34.04 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 85.81 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 67.02 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2.52 AP 00324319 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.72 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORMA EDISON 64.53 AP 00324319 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 83.28 AP 00324320 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 30.46 AP 00324320 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 86.70 AP 00324320 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 297.15 AP 00324320 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.92 AP 00324320 2012/05/161 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 362.08 AP 00324320 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 206.50 AP 00324321 2012/05/16 ( SOUTHLAND FARMERS MARKET ASSOC INC 1,315.00 AP 00324322 2012/05/16 ( SPARKLETTS 76.00 AP 00324323 2012/05/16 ( STEEVE, WILMA 112.87 AP 00324323 2012/05/161 STEEVE, WILMA 64.65 AP 00324324 2012/05/16 ( STEVE'S FIVE STAR SERVICE INC 2,690.00 AP 00324325 2012/05/161 STEVES TOWING AND TRANSPORT 40.00 AP 00324326 2012/05/161 STOFA, JOSEPH 10.00 AP 00324327 2012/05/16 ( STOVER SEED COMPANY 668.05 AP 00324328 2012/05/16 ( SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR INC 534.00 AP 00324328 2012/05/16 ( SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR INC 854.40 AP 00324330 2012/05/16 ( TEACHERS DISCOVERY 599.00 AP 00324332 2012/05/16 ( TOMARK SPORTS INC 494.53 P45 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 24 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P46 Check No. Check Da[e~ Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324333 2012/05/16 I TOOLS R US INC 30.08 AP 00324334 2012/05/16 I TOTAL STRUCTURES INC 2,148.00 AP 00324335 2012/05/161 TRAFFIC PARTS 2,824.98 AP 00324336 2012/05/161 U S LEGAL SUPPORT INC 140.50 AP 00324336 2012/05/161 U S LEGAL SUPPORT INC 153.23 AP 00324337 2012/OS/16 ( UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL 310.50 AP 00324338 2012/05/16 ( UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 28.28 AP 00324338 2012/05/16 ( UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 142.26 AP 00324338 2012/05/16 ( UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 43.41 AP 00324338 2012/05/16 ( UNIFIl2ST UNIFORM SERVICE 695.43 AP 00324339 2012/05/16 ( UNIQUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC 724.03 AP 00324340 2012/05/16 ( UMTED FENCE ERECTORS 850.00 AP 00324341 2012/05/16 ( UMTED ROTARY BRUSH CORPORATION 259.83 AP 00324341 2012/05/16 ( UMTED ROTARY BRUSH CORPORATION 277.39 AP 00324341 2012/05/16 ( UNITED ROTARY BRUSH CORPORATION 129.27 AP 00324342 2012/05/16 ( UNITED WAY 183:00 AP 00324342 2012/05/161 UNITED WAY 6.00 AP 00324343 2012/05/161 UPS 21.75 AP 00324343 2012/05/161 UPS 80.00 AP 00324344 2012/05/161 US POSTMASTER 10,954.98 AP 00324345 2012/05/16 ( UTIL[QUEST 1,274.20 AP 00324345 2012/05/16 ( UTILIQUEST 1,398.85 AP 00324346 2012/05/161 VASTA, WILLIAM 188.56 AP 00324346 2012/05/161 VASTA, WILLIAM 188.57 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 l VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.42 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 I VERIZON CALIFORNIA 18.65 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 38.63 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 41.02 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 18.14 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 18.65 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 78.53 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 f VERIZON CALIFORNIA 3,147.44 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 f VERIZON CALIFORNIA 18.14 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 18.14 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 39.45 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 460.01 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 39.52 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 38.59 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 40.18 AP 00324348 2012/05/161 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 21.50 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.42 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( YERIZON CALIFORNIA 109.81 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.42 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 38.59 AP 00324348 2012/05/161 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 42.50 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ .. Page: 25 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Benda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P47 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name ~ Amouni AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 187.69 AP 00324348 2012/05/161 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 78.99 AP 00324348 2012/05/161 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 79.93 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 l VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.42 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORMA 74.85 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.72 AP 00324348 2012/05/161 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 23.52 AP 00324348 2012/05/161 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 49.17 AP 00324348 2012/05/161 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 18.14 AP 00324348 2012/05/161 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 20.20 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 38.59 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.42 AP 00324348 2012/05/161 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 40.69 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 171.30 AP 00324348 2012/05/161 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 38.59 AP 00324348 2012/05/161 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 38.59 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 20.20 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 f VERIZON CALIFORNIA 275.93 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 f VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.42 AP 00324348 2012/05/161 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 97.48 AP 00324348 2012/05/161 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 49.13 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 49.13 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.42 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 f VERIZON CALIFORNIA 149.69 AP 00324348 2012/05/16 f VERIZON CALIFORNIA 115.76 AP 00324349 2012/05/161 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 3,426.46 AP 00324349 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 3,481.55 AP 00324349 2012/05/16 f VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 3,373.94 AP 00324349 2012/05/16 ( VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 3,375.15 AP 00324350 2012/05/16 ( VISION COMMUNICATIONS CO 1,609.70 AP 00324350 2012/05/16 ( VISION COMMUNICATIONS CO 320.00 AP 00324351 2012/05/16 ( VISTA PAINT 182.46 AP 00324359 2012/05/17 l RIVERSIDE, CITY OF 200.00 AP 00324351 2012/05/16 ( VISTA PAINT 127.74 AP 00324351 2012/05/161 VISTA PAINT 27.94 AP 00324351 2012/05/161 V[STA PAIN'[' 335.70 AP 00324351 2012/05/161 VISTA PAINT 456.16 AP 00324351 2012/05/161 VISTA PAINT 48.38 AP 00324351 2012/05/16 I VISTA PAINT 335.39 AP 00324351 2012/05/161 VISTA PAINT 1,915.87 AP 00324352 2012/05/161 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 32.99 AP 00324366 2012/05/171 BRODART BOOKS 9.51 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 I BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 l BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324366 2012/05/171 BRODART BOOKS 33.31 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 26 Current Date: 05/30/: Report CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P48 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00324366 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 15.52 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 33.93 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 6.63 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 26.59 AP 00324364 2012/05/17 ( AUTO BODY 2000 1,548.88 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 14.50 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 24.87 AP 00324366 2012/OS/U ( BRODART BOOKS 19.91 AP 00324366 2012/05/171 BRODART BOOKS 24.87 AP 00324366 2012/05/171 BRODART BOOKS 13.19 AP 00324366 2012/05/171 BRODART BOOKS 6.63 AP 00324366 2012/05/171 BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324366 2012/05/171 BRODART BOOKS 6.63 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 I BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 l BRODART BOOKS 102.83 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 160.94 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 22.35 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 10.80 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 33.31 Ap 00324366 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 46.21 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 2241 AP 00324366 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 267.54 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 88.19 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 68.22 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT .140.29 Ap 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 258.83 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 326.77 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 152.93 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 l CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 118.14 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 390.63 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 31.01 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 263.42 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 891.56 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 181.85 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 460.99 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 445.06 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 119.53 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 117.79 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 757.22 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 154.85 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 661.47 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.89 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 27 Current Date: 05/30/: Report; CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Aeenda Check Re¢ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P49 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00324369 2012/05/17 f CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,348.38 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 240.73 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 f CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 117.04 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 140.29 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 60.86 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 f CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 457.09 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 177.38 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 179.29 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 209.96 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 176.63 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,469.78 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 140.37 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 163.09 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 633.57 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,092.49 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 428.41 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT - 166.67 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 620.85 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 176.23 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 773.02 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 175.18 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 573.08 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 92.85 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 963.69 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 l CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 561.27 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,550.03 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,237.63 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 232.82 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 160.96 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 174.18 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 979.11 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 50.79 AP 00324369 2012/05/171 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 174.18 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 150.42 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 f CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 422.58 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 92.85 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 108.66 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 384.69 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 113.22 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 286.34 AP .00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 474.99 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 285.88 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,196.29 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 138.64 AP 00324369 2012/05/17 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 134.60 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 28 Current Date: 05/30/: Repor[ CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 Check No. AP 00324369 AP 00324366 AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324366 00324363 00324362 00324362 00324362 00324362 00324362 00324361 00324360 00324352 00324353 00324353 00324353 00324353 00324353 00324353 00324353 00324353 00324353 00324353 00324353 00324353 00324354 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check Dale Vendor Name 2012/05/17 l CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/171 BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/171 BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/171 BRODARTBOOKS 2012/05/171 BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/171 BRODARTBOOKS 2012/05/171 BRODARTBOOKS 2012/05/171 BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/171 BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/17 I BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/17 l BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/17 l BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/17 I BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/17 I BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/17 ( BRODART BOOKS 2012/05/17 ( AIRGAS WEST 2012/05/17 I ABC LOCKSMITHS 2012/05/17 f ABC LOCKSMITHS 2012/05/17 f ABC LOCKSMITHS 2012/05/17 ( ABC LOCKSMITHS 2012/05/17 t ABC LOCKSMITHS 2012/05/17 t ROGERS ANDERSON MALODY & SCOTT LLP 2012/05/17 t ROGERS ANDERSON MALODY & SCOTT LLP 2012/05/16 ( WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 2012/05/16 ( WARREN & CO INC, CARL 2012/05/16 l WARREN & CO INC, CARL 2012/05/16 I WARREN & CO INC, CARL 2012/05/16 I WARREN & CO INC, CARL 2012/05/161 WARREN & CO INC, CARL 2012/05/16 I WARREN & CO INC, CARL 2012/05/16 ( WARREN & CO INC, CARL 2012/05/16 ( WARREN & CO INC, CARL 2012/05/16 ( WARREN & CO INC, CARL 2012/05/16 ( WARREN & CO INC, CARL 2012/05/16 f WARREN & CO INC, CARL 2012/05/16 f WARREN & CO INC, CARL 2012/05/161 WAWANESA Amoum 397.23 10.07 167.58 56.94 9.51 13.41 4.47 4.47 30.99 17.88 35.84 14.57 50.02 66.54 11.10 24.87 13.19 44.70 6.63 123.33 13.41 10.07 285.82 83.61 38.78 431.00 124.28 528.76 212.96 300.00 300.00 179.84 551.83 84.65 199.68 168.90 456.31 46.17 462.15 438.23 466.12 61.56 548.26 266.24 1,168.53 P50 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 29 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check ReI?ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P51 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00324355 2012/05/16 ( WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 45.19 AP 00324355 2012/05/16 I WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 63.68 AP 00324355 2012/05/161 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 906.40 AP 00324355 2012/05/161 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 1,413.80 AP 00324355 2012/05/161 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 251.26 AP 00324355 2012/05/16 ( WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 276.77 AP 00324355 2012/05/16 ( WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 368.75 AP 00324355 2012/05/16 ( WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 639.90 AP 00324356 2012/05/16 f WENTLAND, JULIA TILLEY 160.00 AP 00324357 2012/05/16 ( WHITTIER FERTII,IZER 953.59 AP 00324626 2012/05/24 ( ABC LOCKSMITHS 38.75 AP 00324627 2012/05/24 ( AIRGAS WEST 44.19 AP 00324628 2012/05/24 ( AUTO BODY 2000 798.90 AP 00324628 2012/05/24 ( AUTO BODY 2000 177.08 AP 00324628 2012/05/24 ( AUTO BODY 2000 834.51 AI' 00324629 2012/05/24 ( CALSENSE 1,432.51 AP 00324629 2012/05/24 ( CALSENSE 134.98 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 991.70 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 164.58 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 l CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 304.93 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 221.25 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 260.29 AP 00324634. 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 141.06 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 257.28 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 169.73 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 169.73 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 136.45 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 101.37 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 226.58 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 215.59 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ~ 176.53 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 218.67 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 245.38 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 226.48 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 395.23 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 243.61 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 686.15 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 47.70 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ~ 75.55 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 497.24 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 108.26 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 104.35 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 817.69 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 30 Current Dale; 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P52 Check No. ~ Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 364.77 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 512.85 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 32.76 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 48.14 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 f CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 909.58 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,562.82 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 117.21 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 f CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 126.72 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,031.82 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 f CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 10,747.36 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 55.20 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 56.94 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 52.38 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 501.35 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 f CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 996.86 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 f CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 451.41 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 f CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 296.86 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 369.58 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 f CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 736.91 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 99.52 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 195.02 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 116.77 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 524.08 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 199.45 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 176.53 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 93.63 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 183.46 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 l CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 57.13 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 234.58 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,142.09 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 141.18 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 246.73 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 109.10 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 169.42 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 292.54 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 508.29 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 878.82 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 l CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 193.61 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 562.11 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 84.51 pP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 220.67 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 185.28" AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 126.51 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 752.98 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 750.75 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 31 Current Dale: 05/30/: Report; CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P53 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,718.11 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 379.03 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,646.39 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 356.08 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 3,525.81 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 184.63 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 l CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 55.20 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,844.97 Ap 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 302.08 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 236.98 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60 Ap 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 300.68 Ap 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,387.34 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 136.76 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,447.23 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 172.67 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 102.28 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 211.15 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 110.23 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 314.86 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,044.65 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 l CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 174.36 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 745.71 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,670.92 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 93.84 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 101.87 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 49.03 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 100.52 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 534.46 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 534.45 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 91.92 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 179.23 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 329.08 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 196.45 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 649.90 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 74.96 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 581.45 AP 00324634 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,166.48 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 203.33 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 256.51 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 720.49 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 556.61 AP 00324634 2012/05/24 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 357.98 ___ User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 32 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Re¢ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. AP 00324634 AP 00324634 AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP 00324634 00324634 00324634 00324635 00324635 00324636 00324637 00324637 00324637 00324637 00324637 00324638 00324638 00324639 00324639 00324639 Ob324639 00324639 00324639 00324639 00324640 00324641 00324641 00324641 00324641 00324641 00324641 00324641 00324641 00324641 00324641 00324641 00324641 00324641 00324641 00324641 00324641 00324642 00324642 00324642 00324643 00324643 00324644 Check Date Vendor Name 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2012/05/241 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2012/05/24 l CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2012/05/24 l CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2012/05/24 ( DAPPER TIRE CO 2012/05/24 ( DAPPER TIRE CO 2012/05/24 ( EMCOR SERVICE 2012/05/24 ( EWING DRRIGATION PRODUCTS 2012/05/241 EWING II2RIGATION PRODUCTS 2012/05/241 EWINGIRRIGATIONPRODUCTS 2012/05/241 EWINGIRRIGATIONPRODUCTS 2012/05/241 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 2012/05/24 l GENERATOR SERVICES CO 2012/05/24 ( GENERATOR SERVICES CO 2012/05/24 ( HOLLli7AY ROCK CO INC 2012/05/24 ( HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 2012/05/24 f HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 2012/05/24 ( HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 2012/05/24 ( HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 2012/05/24 ( HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 2012/05/24 ( HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 2012/05/24 ( HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 2012/05/24 l INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/241 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/241 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/241 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/24 l INLAND VALLEY DAII,Y BULLETIN 2012/05/24 l INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/241 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/24 ( INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/24 ( INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/24 ( INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/24 ( INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/24 l INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/24 l INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/24 l INLAND VALLEY DAII.Y BULLETIN 2012/05/24 l INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/241 INLAND VALLEY DAII.Y BULLETIN 2012/05/241 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/241 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/24 l INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2012/05/24 ( INTERSTATE BATTERIES 2012/05/24 ( INTERSTATE BATTERIES 2012/05/24 ( LIMS AUTO INC P54 Amoum 27.89 2,528.28 29.49 1,817.54 341.25 168.53 590.55 2,895.91 29.55 177.96 8.29 1,351.39 7.78 734.26 734.26 94.94 125.00 459.23 428.13 250.00 453.01 683.13 351.99 513.62 1,14].80 319.58 569.48 156.00 1,257.44 644.45 498.92 1,175.12 1,210.40 1,233.92 1,369.16 1,301.54 146.12 1,213.34 375.44 235.00 235.00 698.00 16.16 127.03 98.21 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 33 Current Date: 05/30/: Report CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Aeettda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P55 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00324644 2012/05/24 ( LIMS AUTO INC 18.97 AP 00324644 2012/05/24 ( LIMS AUTO INC 276.86 AP 00324644 2012/05/24 ( LIMS AUTO INC 54.59 AP 00324644 2012/05/241 LIMS AUTO INC 38.12 AP 00324645 2012/05/241 LN CURTIS AND SONS 2,764.95 AP 00324646 2012/05/241 SUNRISE FORD 109.99 AP 00324647 2012/05/24 I TRUGREEN LANDCARE 989.34 AP 00324647 2012/05/241 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 418.94 AP 00324647 2012/05/241 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 255.79 AP 00324647 2012/05/24 l TRUGREEN LANDCARE 1,814.62 ` AP 00324647 2012/05/24 f TRUGREEN LANDCARE 3,972.86 AP 00324647 2012/05/24 ( TRUGREEN LANDCARE 14,406.68 AP 00324647 2012/05/24 ( TRUGREEN LANDCARE 20,018.54 AP 00324647 2012/05/24 ( TRUGREEN LANDCARE 401.25 AP 00324647 2012/05/24 ( TRUGREEN LANDCARE 2,556.32 AP 00324647 2012/05/24 ( TRUGREEN LANDCARE 4,569.60 AP 00324623 2012/05/23 ( CONTACT SECURITY INC 363.72 AP 00324623 2012/05/23 ( CONTACT SECURITY INC 2,961.72 AP 00324623 2012/05/23 ( CONTACT SECURITY INC 4,364.64 AP 00324623 2012/05/231 CONTACT SECURITY INC 2,903.27 AP 00324623 2012/05/23 1 CONTACT SECURITY INC 8,939.93 AP 00324623 2012/05/23 1 CONTACT SECURITY INC 1,971.67 AP 00324623 2012/05/23 1 CONTACT SECURITY INC 1,847.83 AP 00324623 2012/05/23 1 CONTACT SECURITY INC 2,494.08 AP 00324154 2012/05/161 Al AUTOMOTIVE 116.10 AP 00324155 2012/05/16 I ACCELA INC 59,542.22 AP 00324156 2012/05/16 ( ACTIVE NETWORK, THE 900.00 AP 00324158 2012/05/16 ( ALL CITIES TOOLS 26.40 Ap 00324159 2012/05/16 I ALLEGIANT BUSINESS FINANCE 445.50 AP 00324160 2012/05/161 ALLIED STORAGE CONTAINERS 3,693.67 AP 00324162 2012/05/16 ( ALTA LOMA PLUMBING 500.00 AP 00324163 2012/05/16 ( AMERINATIONAL COMMUDIITY SERVICES INC. 116.00 AP 00324164 2012/05/16 ( ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 3.35 AP 00324167 2012/05/161 ASCE-RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO BRANCH 25.00 AP 00324168 2012/05/16 ( ASFPM 50.00 AP 00324169 2012/05/16 ( AVALON COLLISION CENTER 4,675.18 AP 00324170 2012/05/161 BAGNERA, MICHAEL 45.00 AP 00324171 2012/05/16 ( BALDONADQ AUDREY 500.00 AP 00324172 2012/05/161 BARNES AND NOBLE 72.75 AP 00324173 2012/05/161 BARTEL ASSOCIATES LLC 5,225.00 AP 00324174 2012/05/161. BERNELL HYDRAULICS INC 530.69 AP 00324174 2012/05/16 ( BERNELL HYDRAULICS INC 82.03 AP 00324175 2012/05/161 BLAIR PARK SERVICES LLC 2,000.00 AP 00324176 2012/05/16 ( BLUNDELL, CAROLE 675.00 AP 00324178 2012/05/16 f BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA LLP 1,654.06 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 34 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P56 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name ~ Amouni AP 00324180 2012/05/16 l CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE 691.60 AP 00324181 2012/05/161 CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 50.00 AP 00324182 2012/05/161 CALIFORMA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 100.00 AP 00324183 2012/05/161 CALIFORMA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 25.00 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 l A AND R TIRE SERVICE 301.17 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 ( A AND R TIRE SERVICE 42.00 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 ( A AND R TIRE SERVICE -42.00 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 ( A AND R TIRE SERVICE 42.00 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 ( A AND R TIRE SERVICE 157.85 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 ( A AND R TIRE SERVICE 38.93 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 ( A AND R TIRE SERVICE 119.86 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 ( A AND R TIltE SERVICE 19.47 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 ( A AND R TIRE SERVICE 1,169.19 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 ( A AND R TIRE SERVICE 19.47 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 l A AND R TIRE SERVICE 19.47 AP 00323953 2012/05/091 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 1,549.90 AP 00323953 2012/05/091 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 19.47 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 l A AND R TIRE SERVICE 19.47 AP 00323953 2012/05/091 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 15.19 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 I A AND R TIRE SERVICE 15.19 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 l A AND R TIRE SERVICE 19.47 AP 00323953 2012/05/09 l A AND R TIKE SERVICE 1,138.33 AP 00323953 2012/05/091 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 518.45 AP 00323954 2012/05/091 Al AUTOMOTIVE 1,216.58 Ap 00323955 2012/05/09 ( ABM JANITORIAL SW 43,055.11 AP 00323957 2012/05/09 ( ADVANCED ALTERNATOR EXCHANGE 339.41 AP 00323958 2012/05/09 ( AEl-CASC ENGINEERING INC. 6,863.60 AP 00323959 2012/05/09 ( AFLAC 7,068.08 AP 00323960 2012/05/09 ( AGAPE EMPLOYMENT 161.98 AP 00323960 2012/05/09 ( AGAPE EMPLOYMENT 170.50 AP 00323962 2012/05/09 ( ALEXANDER, KAREN 20.00 AP 00323963 2012/05/09 ( ALL CITIES TOOLS 202.57 AP 00323964 2012/OS/091 ALLEGIANT BUSINESS FINANCE 594.00 AP 00323965 2012/05/09 ( ALTA LOMA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES 5,550.00 AP 00323965 2012/05/091 ALTA LOMA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES 5,550.00 AP 00323966 2012/05/09 I AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 220.24 AP 00323966 2012/05/09 ( AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 250.37 AP 00323966 2012/05/09 ( AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 270.46 AP 00323967 2012/05/09 ( ANIMAL HEALTH & SANITARY SUPPLY 1,067.46 AP 00323968 2012/05/09 ( ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 3.35 AP 00323969 2012/05/09 ( ASAP POWERSPORTS 55.00 AP 00323969 2012/05/09 ( ASAP POWERSPORTS 571.95 AP 00323969 2012/05/09 l ASAP POWERSPORTS 200.00 AP 00323970 2012/05/09 ( AUSTIN POWER PONG 165.00 AP 00323971 2012/05/09 ( AUTO AND RV SPECIALISTS INC. 108.47 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 35 Current Date: 05/30/: Repor[: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A¢enda Check Rei?ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P57 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name ~ Amoum AP 00323972 2012/05/091 BARBARA'S ANSWERING SERVICE 572.00 AP 00323973 2012/05/091 BERNELL HYDRAULICS INC 213.72 AP 00323974 2012/05/09 ( BISHOP COMPANY 340.89 AP 00323975 2012/05/09 ( BOLTON, HEATHER 56.06 AP 00323977 2012/05/09 ( BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN 5,528.00 AP 00323978 2012/05/09 ( BULLER, BRAD - 10.00 AP 00323979 2012/05/09 ( CAPITOL BUII.DERS HARDWARE INC. 256.15 AP 00323981 2012/05/09 ( CASCADE TURF LLC 36.50 AP 00323981 2012/05/09 ( CASCADE TURF LLC 29.85 AP 00323982 2012/05/09 ( CASE POWER AND EQUIPMENT 33.11 AP 00323983 2012/05/09 ( CDW-G 2,523.42 AP 00323984 2012/05/09 ( CHAMPION AWARDS AND SPECIALTIES 150.85 AP 00323985 2012/05/091 CITY CLERKS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA 40.00 Ap 00323986 2012/05/09 I COLLISION AND INJURY DYNAMICS INC. 2,734.65 AP 00323987 2012/05/09 I CONCEPT POWDER COATING 120.00 AP 00324377 2012/05/23 1 A&V SOFTBALL 3,875.00 AP 00324378 2012/05/23 I A'JONTUE, ROSE ANN 676.80 AP 00324379 2012/05/23 ( Al AUTOMOTIVE 283.38 AP 00324379 2012/05/23 ( Al AUTOMOTIVE _ 283.38 AP 00324379 2012/05/23 ( Al AUTOMOTIVE 973.29 AP 00324380 2012/05/23 ( ABLETRONICS 35.67 AP 00324381 2012/05/23 ( ABM JANITORIAL SW 464.57 AP 00324381 2012/05/231 ABM JANITORIAL SW 902.77 AP 00324381 2012/05/23 I ABM JANITORIAL SW 7,841.31 AP 00324381 2012/05/23 I ABM JANITORIAL SW 184.80 AP 00324382 2012/05/23 1 ACADEMY OF MUSIC 745.85 AP 00324383 2012/05/23 l ACEY DECY EQUIPMENT INC. 647.69 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 27.14 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 15.10 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 46.70 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 29.67 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 19.13 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 20.13 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 12.61 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 30.20 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 l BRODART BOOKS 9.98 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 f BRODART BOOKS 85.93 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 59.33 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 27.15 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 53.07 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 13.53 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 14.54 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 191.43 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 29.09 Ap 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 24.23 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 36 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layou[ Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Re¢ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P58 Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324142 2012/05/10 l BRODART BOOKS 15.68 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 10.07 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 10.80 AP 00324142 20]2/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 107.85 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 366.92 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 316.04 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 10.07 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS ~ 10.07 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 26.95 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 55.50 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 l BRODART BOOKS ~ 9.51 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 18.75 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 172.06 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 16.47 AP 00324142 2012/OS/l0l BRODART BOOKS 8.95 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 I BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 44.70 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 I BRODART BOOKS 147.52 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 145.20 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 f BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 24.36 AP 00324142 2012/05/]0 f BRODART BOOKS 8.94 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 6.63 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 8.94 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 l BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 8.94 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 f BRODART BOOKS 22.35 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 26.52 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 17.88 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 6.63 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 I BRODART BOOKS 75.99 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 l BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 l BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 f BRODART BOOKS 7].22 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 6.63 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 10.07 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 37. Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 10.07 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 110.12 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 359.26 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 236.69 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 6.63 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 22.63 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 26.95 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 16.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 73.26 AP 00324142 2012/OS/l0l BRODARTBOOKS 182.21 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 l BRODART BOOKS 9.51 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 15.10 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 51.36 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 l BRODART BOOKS 14.57 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 73.98 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 14.57 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 19.13 Ap 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 20.13 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 14.55 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 15.10 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 17.15 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 30.25 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 13.98 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 f BRODART BOOKS 9.98 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 f BRODART BOOKS 25.21 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 15.68 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 13.53 pP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 14.54 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 8.89 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 116.46 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 Ap 00324142 2012/05/10 f BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 44.70 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 143.05 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 109.44 Ap 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 19.89 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODARTBOOKS 4.47 Ap 00324142 2012/05/10 1 BRODART BOOKS 35.46 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODARTBOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 l BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 l BRODART BOOKS 10.07 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 8.94 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 I BRODART BOOKS 8.94 P59 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 38 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Asenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P60 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount Ap 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 6.63 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 l BRODART BOOKS 8.94 AP 00324142 .2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 6.63 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 l BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 f BRODART BOOKS 31.29 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 6.63 AP .00324142 2012/05/10 ( BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 l BRODART BOOKS 80.46 AP 00324142 2012/05/10 I BRODART BOOKS 4.47 AP 00324142 2012/05/101 BRODART BOOKS 6.63 Ap 00324142 2012/05/10 f BRODART BOOKS 37.92 AP 00324143 2012/05/101 CALSENSE 960.15 AP 00324144 2012/05/10 l COMP U ZONE 85.00 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 198.75 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 173.76 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 178.21 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 124.54 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 642.84 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 236.27 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 238.08 AP 00324146 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 170.31 AP 00324146 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 167.24 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 174.65 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 299.72 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 319.63 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 375.38 pp 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 220.36 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 283.79 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 (. CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 197.77 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 281.80 AP. 00324146 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 3,882.92 AP 00324146 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 50.51 AP 00324146 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 124.08 AP 00324146 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 524.85 AP 00324146 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 94.43 AP 00324146 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 918.15 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 187.34 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 345.51 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 489.89 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 424.65 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 321.15 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 l CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 85.83 AP 00324146 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 808.44 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 39 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P61 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324146 2012/05/10 f CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 630.42 pP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 175.05 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 239.89 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 467.95 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 147.61 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 274.28 AP 00324146 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 186.11 AP 00324146 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 353.92 AP 00324146 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 374.97 AP 00324146 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 179.68 AP 00324146 2012/05/10 f CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 179.67 pP 00324146 2012/05/]01 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 469.39 pP 00324146 2012/05/]01 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 451.03 pP 00324147 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5,375.33 AP 00324147 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,762.56 pP 00324147 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 45.46 AP 00324147 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 55.20 pP 00324147 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 106.69 pP 00324147 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 735.35 AP 00324147 2012/08/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 358.04 pp 00324147 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 89.92 AP 00324147 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 181.72 pP 00324147 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 821.59 AP 00324147 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,108.10 AP 00324147 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 143.89 AP 00324147 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 76.05 AP 00324147 2012/05/10 f CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 181.27 AP 00324147 2012/05/10 I CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 510.82 AP 00324147 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5,486.24 AP 00324147 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,438.06 'AP 00324147 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 187.30 AP 00324147 2012/05/10 ( CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 145.11 AP 00324147 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 162.65 AP 00324147 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 14.76 AP 00324147 2012/05/101 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 138.53 AP 00324148 2012/05/101 DAPPER TIRE CO 660.91 AP 00324149 2012/05/]01 GENERATOR SERVICES CO 2,297.92 AP 00324149 2012/05/101 GENERATOR SERVICES CO 2,908.32 AP 00324150 2012/05/10 l HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 635.85 pP 00324150 2012/05/10 I HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 443.76 pP 00324150 2012/05/10 l HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 590.37 AP 00324151 2012/05/10 ( HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 61.42 pP 00324151 2012/05/10 ( HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 91.19 AP 00324151 2012/05/10 ( HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 72.57 AP 00324152 2012/05/101 SIMPLOT PARTNERS 900.79 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 40 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layou[ Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Re¢ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P62 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324152 2012/05/10 ( SIMPLOT PARTNERS ~ 900.79 AP 00324153 2012/05/10 ( SUNRISE FORD -55.28 AP 00324153 2012/05/10 ( SUNRISE FORD 55.28 AP 00324153 2012/05/10 ( SUNRISE FORD 39.31 AP 00324153 2012/05/10 ( SUNRISE FORD 17.74 AP 00323988 2012/05/09 ( COOK JR., DR. JOHN F 5,667.50 AP 00323989 2012/05/09 ( COVERMASTER INC 750.00 AP 00323990 2012/05/09 ( D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 662.13 AP 00323991 2012/05/09 ( DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES ~ 3,095.00 AP 00323991 2012/05/09 l . DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 4,390.20 AP 00323991 2012/05/091 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 11,999.88 AP 00323993 2012/05/091 DAMS, SAM 600.00 AP 00323994 2012/05/09 l DAWSON SURVEYING INC. 4,950.00 AP 00323994 2012/05/09 ( DAWSON SURVEYING INC. 17,600.00 AP 00323995 2012/05/09 ( DREAM SHAPERS 850.00 AP 00323997 2012/05/09 l E GROUP, THE 450.00 AP 00323998 2012/05/091 EDC EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORP 3,838.98 AP 00323999 2012/05/091 EIGHTH AVENUE ENTERPRISE LLC 142.23 AP 00324000 2012/05/091 ELLISON-SCHNEIDER & HARRIS L.L.P. 640.50 AP 00324001 2012/05/091 EMBROIDME 229.46 AP 00324002 2012/05/09 l EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 10,475.00 AP 00324003 2012/05/09 f EXPERIAN 52.00 AP 00324004 2012/05/09 ( EXPRESS BRAKE SUPPLY 106.03 AP 00324004 2012/05/09 ( EXPRESS BRAKE SUPPLY 56.97 AP 00324005 2012/05/09 ( FAB DIVERSIFIED SERVICES 1,210.95 AP 00324005 2012/05/09 f FAB DIVERSIFIED SERVICES 973.14 AP 00324006 2012/05/09 ( FAB DIVERSIFIED SERVICES 3,576.70 AP 00324007 2012/05/09 ( FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 22.08 AP 00324009 2012/05/09 ( FIIiST CLASS HEATING & AIR INC. 2,200.00 AP 00324010 2012/05/09 ( FORD OF UPLAND INC 13250 AP 00324010 2012/05/09 ( FORD OF UPLAND INC 709.19 AP 00324012 2012/05/09 ( GEMPLERS INC 38.14 AP 00324013 2012/05/091 GEOGRAPHICS 4,924.45 AP 00324014 2012/05/091 GILLISON, IOHN 42.00 AP 00324015 2012/05/09 ( GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK INC. 1,050.00 AP 00324016 2012/05/09 ( GOOD YEAR SOCCER LEAGUE 1,044.00 AP 00324017 2012/05/09 ( GRAINGER 178.48 AP 00324017 2012/05/09 ( GRAINGER 53.97 AP 00324017 2012/05/09 ( GRAINGER 372.90 AP 00324017 2012/05/091 GRAINGER 765.67 AP 00324018 2012/05/091 GRANILLO, ELIZABETH 35.00 AP 00324019 2012/05/09 I GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 311.82 AP 00324020 2012/05/09 ( HALO BRANDED SOLUTIONS 652.42 AP 00324021 2012/05/09 ( HARRIGAN'S 325.00 AP 00324022 2012/05/09 ( HARTS-HANKS SHOPPERS INC. 1,413.16 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 41 Current Dale: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Re¢ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P63 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324023 2012/05/091 HEELER ARCHITECT, JOHN 14,945.00 AP 00324024 2012/05/09 ( HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INC 379.62 AP 00324025 2012/05/09 l HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 87.29 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 485.03 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 (- INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 12.29 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS -23.50 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS l 19.85 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 6.34 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 15.72 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 1.41 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 l INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 5.15 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 12.80 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 1.15 AP 00324027 2012/05/091 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 52.56 AP 00324027 2012/05/091 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 383.29 AP 00324027 2012/05/091 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 1,848.07 AP 00324027 ~ 2012/05/09 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 32.30 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 43.99 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 32.22 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 30.17 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 ( INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 4.58 AP 00324027 2012/05/09 l INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 90.68 AP 00324028 2012/05/091 INLAND EMPIRE TOURS AND TRANSPORTATIOI 1,334.00 AP 00324030 2012/05/09 ( INLAND PRESORT & MAILING SERVICES 253.49 AP 00324030 2012/05/091 INLAND PRESORT & MAILING SERVICES 65.17 AP 00324030 2012/05/091 INLAND PRESORT & MAILING SERVICES 50.94 AP 00324030 2012/05/091 INLAND PRESORT & MAILING SERVICES 60.54 AP 00324031 2012/05/091 INTEGRITY DOOR & HARDWARE INC 164.84 AP 00324032 2012/05/091 INTERNATIONAL FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATION 20.00 AP 00324032 2012/05/091 INTERNATIONAL FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATION 20.00 AP 00324033 2012/05/09 ( INTERNET INC 4,745.25 AP 00324034 2012/05/09 ( IRON MOUNTAIN OSDP 2,500.59 AP 00324035 2012/05/09 ( JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 566.32 AP 00324035 2012/05/09 ( JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 33.00 AP 00324035 2012/05/09 l JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 700.22 AP 00324036 2012/OS/091 KIMBALL MIDWEST 180.82 AP 00324037 2012/05/091 KIP AMERICA INC 15,320.30 AP 00324038 2012/05/091 KONE INC 568.60 AP 00324039 2012/05/091 KRAUT, KAREN RAE 450.00 AP 00324040 2012/05/09 I L & B SHEET METAL MFG COMPANY 64.65 AP 00324041 2012/05/09 ( LA STAGE ALLIANCE 300.00 AP 00324042 2012/05/09 ( LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 40.00 AP 00324042 2012/05/09 ( LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 40.00 AP 00324042 2012/05/09 ( LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 40.00 AP 00324042 2012/05/09 ( LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 40.00 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 42 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P64 Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324045 2012/05/091 MABRY, NDY 175.00 AP 00324046 2012/05/091 MANCHESTER GRAND HYATT 1,154.20 AP 00324047 2012/05/091 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 223.80 AP 00324047 2012/05/09 l MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 135.13 Ap 00324047 2012/05/091 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 788.74 AP 00324047 2012/05/09 ( MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 1,581.61 AP 00324047 2012/05/09 ( MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 2,289.21 AP 00324047 2012/05/09 ( MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 587.54 AP 00324047 2012/05/09 ( MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 15,998.13 AP 00324047 2012/05/09 ( MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 6,578.73 AP 00324047 2012/05/091 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 3,022.47 AP 00324047 2012/05/09 ( MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 5,059.09 AP 00324047 2012/05/09 ( MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC - 822.67 AP 00324047 2012/05/09 ( MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 696.51 AP 00324047 2012/05/09 l MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 870.75 AP 00324047 2012/05/091 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 2,737.36 AP 00324048 2012/05/091 MARTAIEZ UNION SERVICE - 45.00 AP 00324048 2012/05/091 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP 00324049 2012/05/091 MCCONNELL, KIRK A 50.00 AP 00324049 2012/05/091 MCCONNELL, KIRK A 50.00 AP 00324050 2012/05/09 ( MCFADDEN DALE HARDWARE 41.81 AP 00324050 2012/05/091 MCFADDENDALEHARDWARE 277.22 AP 00324051 2012/05/091 MERITAGE HOMES OF CALIF 479.87 AP 00324052 2012/05/09 ( MIDWEST TAPE 15.19 AP 00324052 2012/05/09 ( MIDWEST TAPE 28.78 AP 00324052 2012/05/09( MIDWEST TAPE 27.98 AP 00324052 2012/05/091 MIDWEST TAPE 27.98 AP 00324052 2012/05/091 MIDWEST TAPE 11.99 AP 00324053 2012/05/09 ( MINUTEMAN PRESS 606.50 AP 00324053 2012/05/091 MINUTEMAN PRESS 84.05 AP 00324054 2012/05/09 ( MOUNTAIN VIEW GLASS AND MIRROR INC 250.16 AP 00324055 2012/05/09 ( MWI VETERINARY SUPPLY 833.01 AP 00324055 2012/05/091 MWI VETERINARY SUPPLY 23.77 AP 00324055 2012/05/091 MWI VETERINARY SUPPLY 499.42 AP 00324056 2012/05/091 NAPA AUTO PARTS 92.60 AP 00324057 2012/05/09 l NATIONAL ASSOC OF TOWN WATCH 35.00 AP 00324058 2012/05/091 NEXTEL 1,019.18 AP 00324059 2012/05/09 ( OCLC INC 46.39 AP 00324060 2012/05/09 ( OFFICE DEPOT 1,231.58 AP 00324060 2012/05/09 ( OFFICE DEPOT 3,180.67 AP 00324060 2012/05/09 ( OFFICE DEPOT 4,926.33 AP 00324060 2012/05/091 OFFICE DEPOT 346.03 AP 00324061 2012/05/09 ( ONTARIO WINNELSON CO 4889 AP 00324061 2012/05/09 ( ONTARIO WINNELSON CO 20.09 AP 00324061 2012/05/091 ONTARIO WINNELSON CO 407.61 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 43 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P65 Aeenda Check Ret?ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amount AP 00324062 2012/05/091 ORKIN PEST CONTROL 1,475.66 AP 00324063 2012/05/09 l PACIFIC MUNICIl'AL CONSULTANTS 7,898.75 AP 00324064 2012/05/09 ( PATHFINDER CONSULTING 3,145.00 AP 00324065 2012/05/09 ( PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM .75.00 AP 00324066 2012/05/09 ( PENNY PLUMBING 197.50 AP 00324066 2012/05/09 ( PENNY PLUMBING 180.00 AP 00324067 2012/05/09 ( PEPSI-COLA 818.40 AP 00324068 2012/05/09 ( PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 388.96 AP 00324069 2012/05/09 ( PFISTER, ROBIN 1,175.00 AP 00324070 2012/05/09 ( PIERCE, ELIZABETH 18.00 AP 00324071 2012/05/09 ( PIONEER MANUFACTURING 105.02 AP 00324072 2012/05/09 ( PIXELPUSHERS INC 3,990.00 AP 00324073 2012/05/09 ( PRIME GLASS 171.59 AP 00324074 2012/05/09 ( PRO SALES GROUP INC 159.34 AP 00324075 2012/05/09 ( PRO-PLANET INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 599.38 AP 00324076 2012/05/091 PROPET DISTRIBUTORS INC 1,000.00 AP 00324076 2012/05/09 l PROPET DISTRIBUTORS INC 1,055.95 AP 00324077 2012/05/09 I R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 34.57 AP 00324077 2012/05/091 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 242.99 AP 00324077 2012/05/09 ( R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 705.58 AP 00324077 2012/05/09 f R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 670.82 AP 00324077 2012/05/09 ( R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 40.00 AP 00324077 2012/05/09 ( R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 80.96 AP 00324077 2012/05/09 ( R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 1,189.04 AP 00324077 2012/05/09 ( R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 530.92 AP 00324077 2012/05/09 ( R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 66.54 AP 00324077 2012/05/09 ( R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 704.89 AP 00324077 2012/05/09 ( R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 40.73 AP 00324077 2012/05/09 f R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 242.99 AP 00324077 2012/05/09 ( R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 1,014.41 AP 00324077 2012/05/09 ( R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 673.62 AP 00324077 2012/05/09 ( R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 291.11 AP 00324078 2012/05/09 ( RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMER 100.00 AP 00324080 2012/05/09 ( RAZZLE BAM BOOM 995.00 AP 00324081 2012/05/09 ( RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 11.31 AP 00324081 2012/05/09 l RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 23.71 AP 00324081 2012/05/091 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 36.80 AP 00324081 2012/05/091 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 22.62 AP 00324082 2012/05/09 I RECORDED BOOKS LLC 7.49 AP 00324083 2012/05/091 REPUBLIC ITS 671.27 AP 00324083 2012/05/09 ( REPUBLIC ITS 386.98 AP 00324083 2012/05/091 REPUBLIC ITS - 288.10 AP 00324083 2012/05/09 ( REPUBLIC ITS 735.84 AP 00324083 2012/05/09 l REPUBLIC ITS 921.20 AP 00324083 2012/05/09 ( REPUBLIC ITS 352.38 User: VLOPEZ - VEROMCA LOPEZ Page: 44 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A¢ettda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P66 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324083 2012/05/091 REPUBLIC ITS 5,950.00 AP 00324083 2012/05/091 REPUBLIC ITS 2,800.00 AP 00324083 2012/05/091 REPUBLIC ITS 362.30 AP 00324083 2012/05/09 l REPUBLIC ITS 14,960.79 Ap 00324083 2012/05/09 I REPUBLIC ITS 10,508.35 AP 00324083 2012/05/091 REPUBLIC ITS 9,347.01 AP 00324083 2012/05/09 ( REPUBLIC ITS 357.17 AP 00324083 2012/05/09 ( REPUBLIC ITS 2,100.00 AP 00324083 2012/05/09 ( REPUBLIC ITS 2,922.63 AP 00324083 2012/05/09 ( REPUBLIC ITS 12,104.00 AP 00324083 2012/05/09 ( REPUBLIC ITS 12,104.00 AP 00324083 2012/05/09 ( REPUBLIC ITS 458.71 AP 00324083 2012/05/09 ( REPUBLIC ITS 12,104.00 AP 00324083 2012/05/09 ( REPUBLIC ITS 177.50 AP 00324083 2012/OS/091 REPUBLIC ITS 1,552.93 AP 00324083 2012/05/09 ( REPUBLIC ITS 14,021.65 AP 00324083 2012/05/091 REPUBLIC ITS 8,436.42 AP 00324083 2012/05/091 REPUBLIC ITS 12,845.04 AP 00324083 2012/05/091 REPUBLIC ITS 38,002.81 AP 00324085 2012/05/091 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 272.00 Ap 00324085 2012/05/09 l RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 996.00 AP 00324085 2012/05/09 ( RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 265.60 AP 00324085 2012/05/09 ( RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 20,506.25 AP 00324086 2012/05/09 ( RIVAS, TRACY 68.00 AP 00324087 2012/05/09 ( RP/ERA, NOHEMI 23.31 AP 00324088 2012/05/09 ( ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC 640.38 AP 00324089 2012/05/09 ( ROADRUNNER PHARMACY 186.31 AP 00324090 2012/05/09 ( ROBLES, RAUL P 152.00 AP 00324090 2012/05/09 ( ROBLES, RAUL P 75.00 AP 00324091 2012/05/09 ( SALZMAN, KEN 189.00 AP 00324092 2012/05/09 ( SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT 207.80 AP 00324093 2012/05/09 l SAN BERNARDINO CTY AUDITOR CONTROLLED 18.00 AP 00324094 2012/05/09 ( SAN BERNARDINO CTY DEPT OF PUBLIC WORK 5,267.36 AP 00324095 2012/05/091 SC FUELS 16,029.96 AP 00324095 2012/05/091 SC FUELS 14,796.88 AP 00324096 2012/05/091 SERVANTEZ, CYNTHIA 487.50 AP 00324096 2012/05/091 SERVANTEZ, CYNTHIA 500.00 AP 00324096 2012/05/091 SERVANTEZ, CYNTHIA 525.00 AP 00324096 2012/05/09 ( SERVANTEZ, CYNTHIA 300.00 AP 00324096 2012/05/09 ( SERVANTEZ, CYNTHIA 475.00 AP 00324096 2012/05/09 ( SERVANTEZ, CYNTHIA 200.00 AP 00324096 2012/05/09 ( SERVANTEZ, CYNTHIA 525.00 AP 00324096 2012/05/09 ( SERVANTEZ, CYNTHIA 275.00 AP 00324096 2012/05/09 1 SERVANTEZ, CYNTHIA 512.50 AP 00324096 2012/05/09 ( SERVANTEZ, CYNTHIA 400.00 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 45 Curren[ Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Asettda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. AP 00324096 AP 00324097 AP 00324098 AP 00324098 AP 00324098 AP 00324098 AP 00324098 AP 00324099 AP 00324099 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 Ap 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 Ap 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 AP 00324104 Check Dale 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/091 2012/05/091 2012/05/091 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/091 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/091 2012/05/091 2012/05/091 2012/05/091 2012/05/091 2012/05/091 2012/05/091 2012/05/091 2012/05/091 2012/05/091 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/091 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( 2012/05/09( Vendor Name SERVANTEZ,CYNTHIA SIGN SHOP, THE SLP COMMUNICATIONS SLP COMMUNICATIONS SLP COMMUNICATIONS SLP COMMUNICATIONS SLP COMMUNICATIONS SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON P67 Amoum 525.00 372.60 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 1,288.80 650.00 3,122.30 892.26 6,137.36 3,978.93 23.49 23.49 21.91 23.46 21.91 23.37 23.37 21.91 21.91 84.21 54.54 21.91 22.03 61.93 29.64 69.58 59.50 23.37 74.25 23.49 20.34 25.27 24.11 23.49 103.38 46.53 21.39 22.11 39.53 71.33 63.35 21.91 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 46 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P68 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 42.06 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.80 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 60.20 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324104 2012/05/09.1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.73 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.37 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ~ 71.30 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.37 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 47.78 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 57.50 AP 00324104 20]2/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.65 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2 L26 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 139.16 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.37 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.37 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.37 Ap 00324104 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.72 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 54.21 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.47 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.85 Ap 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 102.24 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.72 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 80.30 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 63.90 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.59 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.39 AP OD324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 91.57 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 79.77 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 60.00 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 92.18 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 113.02 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3,665.93 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNAI EDISON 24.26 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 47 Current Dale: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AEenda Check Re¢ister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 49.31 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 36.54 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 108.03 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 59.95 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.76 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 392.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 74.89 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 103.84 AP 00324104- 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 56.60 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.37 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 9.65 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.78 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 201.85 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.37 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 42.19 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2].26 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.15 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.93 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.92 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.36 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3,877.69 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 90.47 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.15 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 72.07 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 35.89 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 68.37 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 74.28 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 116.65 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 7.92 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 104.00 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 64.33 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 34.56 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 48.15 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 338.87 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.97 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.97 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 P69 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 48 Curren[ Date: 05/30/: Report; CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda. Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 P70 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.37 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 63.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - 23.37 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 137.90 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 49.79 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 85.67 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORMA EDISON 60.90 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 57.48 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON . 7,027.21 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 10,737.45 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 680.33 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.16 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.11 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 366.85 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.33 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 312.08 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORMA EDISON 51.68 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 162.38 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.37 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.62 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ~ 23.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 82.74 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 109.06 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ~ 23.49 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 49.62 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 59.63 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 30.02 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.39 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOU"I'fIERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.03 AP 00324104 2012/05/09 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 147.50 AP 00324104 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.49 AP 00324105 2012/05/09 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 44,192.82 AP 00324105 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23,064.74 AP 00324105 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23,064.74 AP 00324105 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16,520.13 AP 00324105 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 8,790.15 AP 00324105 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3,681.34 AP 00324105 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 6,010.36 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 49 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Asenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name ~ Amouni AP 00324105 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12,554.97 AP 00324105 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4,399.25 AP 00324105 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.98 AP 00324105 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.39 Ap 00324105 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1,750.73 AP 00324105 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11,165.62 AP 00324105 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4,918.00 AP 00324105 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4,830.04 AP 00324105 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 36.28 AP 00324105 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 125.45 AP 00324105 2012/05/091 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14,021.78 AP 00324105 2012/05/09 l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 38.87 AP 00324106 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDI$ON 5,000.00 AP 00324107 2012/05/09 ( SOUTHLAND SPORTS OFFICIALS 207.00 AP 00324108 2012/05/09 ( SPARKLETTS 76.00 AP 00324109 2012/05/09 ( STEEVE, WILMA 25.27 AP 00324110 2012/05/09 ( STERI-CLEAN LLC 540.00 AP 00324111 2012/05/091 STERLING COFFEE SERVICE 51.85 AP 00324111 2012/05/09 I STERLING COFFEE SERVICE 164.74 AP 00324111 2012/05/09 ( STERLING COFFEE SERVICE 177.24 AP 00324111 2012/05/09 ( STERLING COFFEE SERVICE 58.75 AP 00324111 2012/05/09 ( STERLING COFFEE SERVICE 448.85 AP 00324112 2012/05/09 ( SUNSHINE GROWERS NURSERY INC 40.51 AP 00324113 2012/05/09 ( SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT COMPANY LLC 1,125.99 AP 00324114 2012/05/09 ( SWIFTY SIGN 107.75 AP 00324115 2012/05/09 ( UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 168.38 AP 00324115 2012/05/09 ( UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 28.28 AP 00324115 2012/05/09 ( UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 819.74 AP 003241 IS 2012/05/09 ( UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 46.71 AP 00324116 2012/05/09 l UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA PARS TRUSTEE 1,965.47 AP 00324117 2012/05/09 l UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA PARS TRUSTEE 32,349.07 AP 00324118 2012/05/091 UNITED ROTARY BRUSH CORPORATION 2,033.37 AP 00324119 2012/05/09 ( UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA INC 10.60 AP 00324119 2012/05/09 f UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA INC 217.78 AP 00324120 2012/05/09 ( UPS 62.48 AP 00324120 2012/05/09 ( UPS 55.95 AP 00324120 2012/OS/09( UPS 28.27 AP 00324120 2012/05/09( UPS 76.20 AP 00324121 2012/05/09 ( UTII,IQUEST 955.65 AP 00324123 2012/05/09 1 VANDERHAWK CONSULTING LLC 12,647.50 AP 00324123 2012/05/091 VANDERHAWK CONSULTING LLC 9,799.60 AP 00324124 2012/05/09 l VERITECH CONSULTING ENGINEERING LLP 1,050.44 AP 00324125 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON BUSINESS 3,291.72 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 77.18 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 38.59 P77 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 50 Current Date: 05/30/: Report CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amoum pp 00324126 2012/05/091 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 1,516.42 AP 00324126 2012/05/091 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 728.56 AP 00324126 2012/05/091 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 35.81 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 I VERIZON CALIFORNIA 188.13 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 l VERIZON CALIFORNLI 40.40 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 145.17 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 f VERIZON CALIFORNIA 38.59 AP 00324193 2012/05/16 ( CASTRO, ROBERT 3,200.00 AP 00324191 2012/05/16 ( CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 129.75 AP 00324190 2012/05/16 ( CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 294.29 AP 00324189 2012/05/161 CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 150.00 AP 00324188 2012/05/16 ( CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 111.93 Ap 00324187 2012/05/16 ( CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 100.00 AP 00324186 2012/05/16 ( CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 72.50 AP 00324185 2012/05/161 CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 100.00 AP 00324184 2012/05/161 CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 50.00 AP 00324211 2012/05/16 ( DELTA CARE USA 1,878.18 AP 00324210 2012/05/16 ( DEALER ALTERNATNE SOLUTIONS 44.50 AP 00324209 2012/05/16 ( DANIEL, PATRICIA 250.00 AP 00324208 2012/05/16 ( D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 636.71 AP 00324207 2012/05/16 ( CRESTWOOD CORPORATION 6,800.00 AP 00324206 2012/05/161 COUSIN, DAVID 325.00 AP 00324205 2012/05/16 ( COUNSELING TEAM INTERNATIONAL, THE 300.00 AP 00324204 2012/05/16 ( CORNERSTONE RECORDS MANAGEMENT 794.44 AP 00324203 2012/05/16 1 CONTINENTAL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPA 16.39 AP 00324222 2012/05/16 I FRISBY, DALE A 10,745.28 AP 00324222 2012/05/161 FRISBY, DALE A 3,931.20 AP 00324221 2012/05/161 FRAZEE PAINT CENTER 56.17 AP 00324220 2012/05/16 I FORTEX CONSTRUCTION INC -4,249.00 AP 00324220 2012/05/16 I FORTEX CONSTRUCTION INC 42,490.00 AP 00324219 2012/05/16 ( FORD OF UPLAND INC 901.06 AP 00324219 2012/05/16 ( FORD OF UPLAND INC 255.92 AP 00324219 2012/05/16 ( FORD OF UPLAND INC -19.40 AP 00324219 2012/05/16 ( FORD OF UPLAND INC 87.00 AP 00324235 2012/05/16 l HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 166.26 AP 00324235 2012/05/16 ( HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 85.42 AP 00324235 2012/05/16 I HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 107.12 AP 00324235 2012/05/161 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 45.94 AP 00324233 2012/05/16 ( HOUSTON, JEANNE WAKATSUKI 1,650.00 AP 00324233 2012/05/16 ( HOUSTON, JEANNE WAKATSUKI 350.00 AP 00324232 2012/05/16 ( HOUSE OF RUTH 355.69 AP 00324231 2012/05/16 ( HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 137.48 AP 00324231 2012/05/16 ( HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 67.13 AP 00324231 2012/05/16 ( HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 8.34 AP 00324231 2012/05/16 ( HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 7.76 P72 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 51 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00324231 2012/05/161 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 427.77 AP 00324230 2012/05/161 HINTON, BRIAN 50.00 AP 00324229 2012/05/161 HARBOUR, CAROL 964.00 AP 00324228 2012/05/16 ( GUERRERO, ALLENA 132.50 AP 00324227 2012/05/16 ( GRAPHICS FACTORY PRINTING INC. 118.53 AP 00324226 2012/05/16 ( GRAINGER 13.71 AP 00324226 2012/05/16 ( GRAINGER 59.42 AP 00324226 2012/05/16 ( GRAINGER 21.64 AP 00324226 2012/05/16 ( GRAINGER 25.70 AP 00324226 2012/05/16 ( GRAINGER 130.33 AP 00324226 2012/05/16 ( GRAINGER 179.95 AP 00324225 2012/05/16 ( GIORDANO, MARIANNA 50.00 AP 00324224 2012/05/16 ( GALVEZ, QUEENIE 25.00 AP 00324223 2012/05/16 ( G & l AIRCRAFT 13.26 AP 00324223 2012/05/16 ( G & J AIRCRAFT 240.50 AP 00324223 2012/05/16 ( G & J AIRCRAFT 181.54 AP 00324219 2012/05/(6 ( FORD OF UPLAND INC 90.00 AP 00324218 2012/05/16 ( FLAG SYSTEMS INC. 450.00 AP 00324218 2012/05/16 l FLAG SYSTEMS INC. 3,785.26 AP 00324217 2012/05/16 l FII2ST CLASS HEATING & AII2INC. 150.00 AP 00324216 2012/05/16 ( FETTERMAN, DORIS 45.00 AP 00324215 2012/05/16 ( FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 35.59 AP 00324213 2012/05/16 ( EMPIRE MOBILE HOME SERVICE 4,150.00 AP 00324212 2012/05/16 ( DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS 125.00 AP 00324203 2012/05/16 ( CONTINENTAL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPA~ 79.40 AP 00324199 2012/05/16 ( CLEARWATER GRAPHICS 748.86 AP 00324198 2012/05/16 ( CISNEROS, HERNANDO 300.00 AP 00324197 2012/05/16 ( CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 175.00 AP 00324196 2012/05/16 ( CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 109.99 AP 00324195 2012/05/16 ( CHAOS 4,820.00 AP 00324194 2012/05/16( CDW-G 398.79 AP 00324194 2012/05/16( CDW-G 2,350.83 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 38.59 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 38.59 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORMA 38.59 AP 00324126 2012/05/091 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 35.81 AP 00324126 2012/05/091 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 242.59 AP 00324126 2012/05/091 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 41.02 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 I VERIZON CALIFORNIA 38.59 AP 00324126 2012/05/091 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 18.65 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 95.82 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 35.81 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 20.24 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 112.26 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.42 P73 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 52 Current Da[e: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.42 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA ~ 38.59 AP 00324126 2012/05/091 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 76.01 AP 00324126 2012/05/091 VERIZON CALIFORIIA 38.59 AP 00324126 2012/05/091 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 77.91 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 37.42 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 209.51 AP 00324126 2012/05/091 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 584.72 AP 00324126 2012/05/091 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 364.70 AP 00324126 2012/05/09 ( VERIZON CALIFORNIA 374.11 AP 00324127 2012/05/09 ( WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 395.42 AP 00324127 2012/05/09 ( WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 259.84 AP 00324127 2012/05/09 l WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 600.00 AP 00324127 2012/05/09 ( WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 331.32 AP 00324127 2012/05/09 ( WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 604.48 AP 00324127 2012/05/09 ( WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 2,531.63 AP 00324127 2012/05/09 ( WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 67.96 AP 00324127 2012/05/09 l WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 68.08 AP 00324127 2012/05/091 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 104.67 AP 00324127 2012/05/091 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 431.97 AP 00324127 2012/05/091 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 500.00 AP 00324127 2012/05/091 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 174.43 AP 00324128 2012/05/09 ( WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 117.99 AP 00324128 2012/05/09 f WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY - 65.34 AP 00324128 2012/05/09 f WAXIE SAMTARY SUPPLY 122.07 AP 00324128 2012/05/09 ( WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 79.82 AP 00324129 2012/05/09 ( WESCO RECEIVABLES CORD 23:71 AP 00324129 2012/05/09 ( WESCO RECEIVABLES CORP 200.42 AP 00324129 2012/05/09 ( WESCO RECEIVABLES CORP 124.45 AP 00324129 2012/05/09 ( WESCO RECEIVABLES CORD 218.19 AP 00324129 2012/05/09 ( WESCO RECEIVABLES CORP 1,607.89 AP 00324129 2012/05/09 ( WESCO RECEIVABLES CORP 1,148.57 AP 00324129 2012/05/091 WESCO RECEIVABLES CORP 660.11 AP 00324129 2012/05/091 WESCO RECEIVABLES CORP 188.24 AP 00324130 2012/05/09 ( WEST COVIIJA FIRE DEPARTMENT 36,018.00 AP 00324131 2012/05/091 WESTCOAST MEDIA 900.50 AP 00324131 2012/05/091 WESTCOASTMEDIA 900.50 AP 00324132 2012/05/09 l WESTLAND GROUP INC 15,000.00 AP 00324132 2012/05/09 ( WESTLAND GROUP INC 4,980.00 AP 00324133 2012/05/09 ( WESTRUX INTERNATIONAL INC 960.60 AP 00324133 2012/05/09 ( WESTRUX IN"CERNATIONAL INC 243.49 AP 00324134 2012/05/09 ( WILDLIFE COMPANY, THE 405.00 AP 00324135 2012/05/091 WILLDANASSOCIATES 5,733.00 AP 00324136 2012/05/091 YEKOPOE MIMSTRIES 250.00 AP 00324137 2012/05/09 l ZEE MEDICAL INC 239.69 P74 User: VLOPEZ -VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 53 Current Date: 05/30/: Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P75 Agenda Check Resister 5/9/2012 through 5/29/2012 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount EP 00002531 2012/05/09 ( CITIGROUP ENERGY INC 69,781.25 EP 00002532 2012/05/09 ( MICHAEL, L. DENNIS 43.93 EP 00002533 2012/05/09 ( RIVERSIDE, CITY OF 5,807.00 EP 00002534 2012/05/09 ( SHELL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA 162,524.00 EP 00002535 2012/05/09 ( VIASYN INC 3,137.00 EP 00002541 2012/05/16 I CALIF GOVERNMENT VEBA/RANCHO CUCAMOI 1,580.00 EP 00002541 2012/05/16 ( CALIF GOVERNMENT VEBA/RANCHO CUCAMO] 7,025.00 EP 00002542 2012/05/16 ( FORTISTAR METHANE GROUP LLC 92,436.06 EP 00002542 2012/05/16 ( FORTISTAR METHANE GROUP LLC 118,189.60 EP 00002543 2012/05/16 ( SEMPRA GENERATION 1,750.00 Total for Entity: 3,153,377.79 User: VLOPEZ =VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 54 Current Date: 05/30/: Repor[: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:0 STAFF REPORT CObSbSUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Date: June 6, 2012 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager From: Nettie Nielsen, Community Services Director By: JoAnn Gwynn, Community Services Supervisor RANCHO CUCAMONGA Subject: CONSIDERATION OF A LIGHT VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR MINORS, MAJORS, JUNIORS AND SENIOR DIVISIONS ALL -STAR TOURNAMENT HOSTED BY DISTRICT 71 LITTLE LEAGUE DURING JUNE 23 -JULY 28, 2012, AT HERITAGE AND RED HILL COMMUNITY PARKS The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that the City Council approve a temporary variance of the Light Usage Policy to allow use until 11:00 p.m. on the little league (60') and senior division (90') fields at Heritage and Red Hill Community Parks June 23 -July 28, 2012. Any use after 10:00 p.m. will be limited within those parameters as mentioned below and perthe requirements listed in the attached Light Variance Policy. BACKGROUND District 71 Little League, who is hosting this regional All-Star Little League tournament, is requesting this particular item. They plan to host the Minors and Junior Divisions at Heritage Community Park and the Major and Senior Divisions at Red Hill Community Park. The current sports field policy curfew is 10:00 p.m. The Light Variance Policy allows for light variance requests that would enable youth sports groups to use the field lights past the standard curfew of 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday for special occasions such as regional Little League All-Star Playoffs. If a variance to the field policy curfew is approved, this allows games to continue past 10:00 p.m. because injuries, extra innings, or other reasons that have caused game(s) to last longer than scheduled. Most games will conclude by 10:00 p.m. Similar tournaments have been hosted over the past several years and variances have been permitted on a regular basis. The Community Services Department has not received any complaints during the last twelve years that Little Leagues All-Star Competitions have been- conducted at Heritage and Red Hill Community Parks. Some of the more important requirements that the Little, Leagues will be bound to are listed within the Light Variance Policy and include, but are not limited to the following: P76 1. "NO PARKING" signs will be posted on the resident side of streets adjacent to the parks in use on Saturdays and Sundays by the requesting organization with signs provided by the City. P77 CONSIUL'RATTON OFAI,ICII1'VARIANCI3 RHQU8S"I73D FOR MINORS, SfAJORS,JUNIORS.WDSENIOR U[VISIONS~V,L- PAGG2 SPAR TOURNA~IBNT HOSTf:D BY DISIRICI' 71 I,11'ILH LGAGUL•: DURING JUNG 23 -JULY 28, 2012, A'1' I IHRI'1'AGH eWD RISD I1IIA. CO\IDfUNI1Y PARKS IUNIi G, 2012 2. Fliers detailing the Tournament specifics must be delivered in person to each area. resident or weighted in some fashion to each doorstep. The flier must also include home phone numbers of a district or regional representative and any league presidents. The entire flier process will be accomplished at league expense. 3. Amplified sound systems will be checked prior to the tournament. Staff will drop in unannounced to monitor at least two times a week during the tournament. Announcing will be limited to: • General welcome • Introduction of teams ^ Announcement of player to the plate ^ Recap of runs and score between innings • Play-by-play announcing will not be permitted 4. Furthermore, power limits are to be set so as not to exceed 74DBA~at 300 feet in circumference from the source or property line, whichever is closer. 5. The P.A. system use will be permitted only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday, unless othervuise approved by City Council. No lights are permitted on Sunday. ANALYSIS The requested light variance would apply to the three baseball diamonds located at Heritage Park and the two baseball diamonds on the north side of Red Hill Park. Staff requests the City Council continue with their current policy of providing a curfew light variance only for extended, overtime or extra innings, which is necessary for tournament play. Respectfully submitted, ~(-P~-t-~~, ~4e~~ Nettie Nielsen Community Services Director Attachment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT LIGHT VARIANCE POLICY RANCHO POLICY NO.: 500-40 C,UCAMONGA CALIFORNIA PAGE 1 OF 3 EFFECTIVE: November 1, 1992 REVISED: January, 2001 APPROVED: March 15, 2007 SUBJECT: LIGHT VARIANCE POLICY PURPOSE: To specify guidelines for the request and use of sports field lights after normal operating hours. POLICY: The following procedures will be followed by all community based youth sports organizations who desire to request and use lighted sports fields after normal operating hours. GENERAL POLICIES AND GUIDELINES: There are some occasions throughout the year that may require a youth sporting event to exceed the normal 10:00 p.m. sports fields' light curfew. However, it is important to develop some procedures that insure that neighboring residents are not negatively impacted by an approved light variance. Outlined below is a set of guidelines that specifies a process for requesting such a variance and how it should be implemented. Non-profit community based youth sports organizations may request a variance to extend light use for City park sports fields beyond normal operating hours. Current operating hours conclude at 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and no use of lights is permitted on Sundays. 2. The request must be for a special occasion of some type such as Regional Little League All Star Playoffs, etc. The variance is limited only to games that were scheduled to conclude by 10:00 p.m. but because of injury, extra innings, or other unforeseen circumstances the game was not able to finish in time. Normal league play or practices are not eligible for consideration under this request. 3. A request must be submitted in writing to the Community Services Director two months prior to their requested use. This allows the department to review their request and submit it for review and approval to the Park and Recreation Commission and the City Council. 4. The request must then be presented to the Park and Recreation Commission for their review and approval. 33 LIGHT VARIANCE POLICY PAGE 2 of 3 5. The Park and Recreation Commission must then forward their recommendation to the City Council for their final review and approval. 6. If such a request receives final approval from City Council then that organization must provide home phone numbers and a fact sheet giving details of the tournament. Furthermore, it must be distributed by the leagues or organization to homeowners within two blocks of the City park (s) two weeks before the toumament or event. The flier must be delivered in person to each resident orweighted in some fashion to their doorstep. The flier will include home phone numbers of a district or regional representative and any league presidents. In addition, any pay or designated phones at the sports fields will also be provided so immediate contact can be obtained with the tournament directors. This will be accomplished at league expense. 7. "NO PARKING" signs will be posted on the resident side of streets adjacent to parks in use on Saturdays and Sundays by the requesting organization with signs provided by the City. 8. A separate flier will be distributed to league or tournament participants stating that no noisemakers are allowed and that participants/guests are requested to leave the park area quietly. 9. Overflow parking will be monitored by the requesting organization and signage provided directing participants to park at additional parking facilities nearby. Prior approval must be obtained to use these parking facilities. 10. Organized scheduled athletic events sound amplification equipment will be allowed in City parks, but limited to public address systems, stereo equipment, stationary and portable components and bull horns, subject to the following conditions: a. Request to use the Public Address (P.A.) System must be included on the field use application or submitted separately prior to any usage. b. Amplified sound systems will be checked prior to the tournament or event and the organization must keep the level of sound below the City's required decibel level. Staff will drop in unannounced to monitor at least three times a week .during the tournament. A fee of $90 will be paid in advance to cover monitoring costs. If additional monitoring is needed, the user organization will be billed at $10.00 an hour. Announcing will be limited to: • General welcome. • Introduction of teams. • Announcement of player to the plate. • Recap of runs and score between innings. 34 LIGHT VARIANCE POLICY PAGE 3 of 3 c. Furthermore, power limits are to be set so as not to exceed 74DBA at 300 feet in circumference from the source or property line, which ever is closer. No sound from a Community Services approved event can exceed a noise level (slow, 74dBA, "A" weighted scale) measured at the nearest property line, for a cumulative period of not more than five (5) minutes in any one hour, whether or not the sounds are live, recorded, amplified or necessary to the event (i.e. generators). d. All user organizations will be responsible for guaranteeing the sound level not exceed 74DBA. e. The direction of sound from the P.A. System speakers will be toward spectators and/or bleacher areas and away from residential areas. f. The P.A. System use will be permitted only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday, unless otherwise approved by City Council. g. Only persons 18 years and older will be allowed to operate the Public Address System. h. All Public Address System use for athletic events must pertain to the game being played. Special announcements should be kept to a minimum. In no case will play-by-play announcing be permitted. Failure to comply with the above requirements by user groups will result in one of the following: • First Offense: Verbal warning followed by written communication. • Second Offense: Payment of staff time to monitor sound system at rate set in Music and Amplification Policy at the next set of games. • Third Offense: Loss of system use. 11. Sports field lights are to be turned off as soon as possible after the completion of the last game, but not to exceed 11:00 p.m. I:COMMSERVI Policies)Pollcles-ApprovedPoliciesLLightVariancePolicyapproved07 35 STAFF REPORT CODIMUNITY SERVICES DEP~1RTb~NT Date: June 6, 2012 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager From: Nettie Nielsen, Community Services Director By: Daniel Schneider, Community Services Supervisor RANCHO C,,UCAMONGA Subject: APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN JOINT TRADE AGREEMENT FOR JUNE 21, 2012 TO MAY 30, 2013 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Joint Trade Agreement which allows use of the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter for the Daily Bulletin 2012 All-Star High School Baseball game on June 15, 2012 (practice game on June 14U) in exchange for advertising space for city programs and events in the Daily Bulletin. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City has participated in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin's annual All-Star Game for the past fifteen years. This year the event provides the opportunity to bring together 36 of the Inland Valley's premiere high school baseball players to compete at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium. Team members are divided on a North/South split with Interstate 10 being the dividing line. The nearly 700 participants are anticipated to come from the following schools:.A.6. Miller, Alta Loma, Ambassador Christian, Ayala, Bonita, Boys Republic, Carter, Calvery Baptist, ~Chaffey, Chino, Claremont, Colony, Damien, Diamond Bar, Diamond Ranch, Don Lugo, Etiwanda, Fontana, Ganesha, Garey, Kaiser, Jurupa Valley, La Verne Lutheran, Montclair, Norco, Ontario, Ontario- Christian, Los Osos, Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, San Dimas, Summit, Upland, Upland Christian and Webb. As a collaborative activity between the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Quakes Baseball and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the City is requested to participate in the activity by providing the following: P81 :• Use of the Epicenter Stadium and parking area on June 14~' (practice game date) and June 15~' (game date). • Provide the visitor's locker room for the game day. Provide security at the stadium on the game night. •S Provide field prepping and facility maintenance and clean up of the Stadium. r In exchange, the Daily Bulletin will match all advertising dollars spent on city programs and events and recognize the City as a partner on all print and promotional materials for the Inland Valley All- Star Game. The Daily Bulletin will also provide promotion and an announcer for a stage.at the City's Annual Founders Day Parade in November 2012. , P82 APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND INLr1ND VALLEY DAILY Pace 2 BULLETIN JOINT TRADE AGREEMENT FOR JUNE 21, 2012 TO MAY 3Q 2013 )uNe 6, 2012 Specific areas of responsibility have also been developed between the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, the Quakes and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. If approved, the event will be marketed noting the collaboration among the sponsors. Net proceeds from this year's game have been designated for the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Send a Kid to Camp Program. FISCAL IMPACT: City expenses of approximately $3,850 for the benefit event would be offset in part by the admissions tax generated by ticket sales and concession revenues of approximately $1,000. In addition the City will receive advertising space in the Daily Bulletin valued at $5,000. Respectfully submitted, Nettie Nielsen Community Services Director I:ICOMMSERVICouncil&BOaNslCityCouncillStaHReports1201110ailyBUlletin.AllStarGame.6.6.12. doc P83 City of Rancho Cucamonga and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Joint Trade Agreement June 1, 2012 to May 30, 2013 The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin agrees to: • Advertising: Match all advertising dollars spent on the City operated 4'" of July, Founders Day / Festival events, and other special events as determined by CSD Marketing Manager. Listirig of events in the City news; Entertainment Calendars and Daily Bulletin Web site and assist in the facilitation of feature articles. Value: Minimum $5,000 • Recognition: Acknowledge the City of Rancho Cucamonga as a partner on all print and promotional materials for the Inland Valley Alt-Star Baseball Game ahd field"promotions for the All Star Game. Value: $8,000 • Provide: Promotion and announcer for announcing booth at the Annual Founders Day Parade on November 10, 2012. Value: $1,500 • Sponsor Community Awards at the Founders Day Parade. (In the past has been Victoria Gardens Gift Cards provided to City to hand out with trophies). Value: $500. The City of Rancho Cucamonga agrees to: • Advertising: Purchase a minimum of $5;000 of special event advertising on a matching basis with the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Provide accurate and timely information for calendar listings. Value. $5,000 Acknowledgement: Acknowledge the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin as a supporter of events partnered on web, ads and fliers where applicable; banner recognition at Concerts in the Park, with Booth opportunity at Concerts in the Park and Founders festivities provided to Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Recognition on flyers and posters printed by the Daily Bulletin, printing contribution to be recognized. Value: $5,000 Facilities: Provide the basebalFcomplex the "Epicenter", field maintenance and security to the Daily Bulletin for the Inland Valley All-Star Baseball Game. Value: $5,000. '~ ~ - Inland Valley ulletin ~ City of R ncho Cucamonga IS ~ I Z D to ~ 21 a01~ ate STAFF REPORT PL~INNING DEP.~RT~'IENT Date: June 6, 2012 RANCHO CUCAMONGA To: Mayor and Members of the City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager From: Jeffrey A. Bloom, Interim Planning Director By: Donald Granger, Senior Planner Keri Hinojos, Senior Buyer, CPPB Subject: APPROVAL TO AWARD A CONTRACT (CO#12-49) TO APPLIED PLANNING, INC. TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED WALMART SUPER STORE PROJECT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND MAYTEN AVENUE (DRC2012-00049), IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 11/12-110, IN THE AMOUNT OF $348,762 TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NUMBER 1001314-5303 (CONTRACT SERVICES REIMBURSABLE). Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the Professional Services Agreement (CO#12-49) with Applied Planning, Inc. to create a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with Request for Proposal No. 11/12-110, in the amount of $348,762 to be funded from account number 1001314-5303 (Contract Services Reimbursable). Background The proposed project involves constructing an approximate 185,000 square foot Walmart retail anchor store along with a Master Plan for approximately 69,000 square feet of additional retail space on a site that totals 28.59 acres (Walmart will encompass 20.59 acres of the total project site). The project is at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Avenue, with two vehicle drive entrances on Foothill Boulevard, and another vehicle access point on Mayten Avenue. Walmart will operate 24 hours per day and receive approximately 88 deliveries per week. The Walmart proposes to have groceries, general merchandise, and an outdoor garden sales area. From Mayten Avenue a commercial drive approach will provide access to six loading docks. The proposed project will become an integral part of the Terra Vista Promenade commercial center, which includes Home Depot, Spaghetti Factory along with additional in-line and pad tenants. North of the project site are 19.25 acres of vacant land zoned Medium-High (MH) Residential, which will ultimately be developed as amulti-family project. To the east is a commercial development, and to the west, across Mayten Avenue, are senior apartments. Foothill Boulevard is located on the southern boundary of the project area. There are no trees on the site and it has been regularly cleared of brush. The project site is one of a few remaining large-scale commercial sites in the City. Staff determined that the proposed project is on a scale that requires an EIR in order to comprehensively evaluate and mitigate potential environmental impacts in order to be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The preparation of an EIR is the first step in a long series of review steps in the Development Review and CEQA process. P84 P85 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CONTRACT 12-49 -APPLIED PLANNING INC. DRC2012-000249 June 6, 2012 Page 2 The Planning Department (Planning) provided specifications and a scope of work to the Purchasing Division (Purchasing) to prepare a formal Request for Proposal (RFP). In accordance with the City's Purchasing policies, Purchasing prepared and posted formal RFP#11/12-110 on February 13, 2012. One-hundred and one (101) firms were notified, thirty-nine (39) firms downloaded the solicitation, and twelve (12) RFP responses were received. After analysis of the RFP responses, Applied Planning, Inc. was determined to be the most responsive and responsible firm providing the best value while meeting the scope of services and specifications required. All RFP documentation is on file in Purchasing. The Planning Department has dedicated a team of two case planners, Tabe van der Zwaag and Donald Granger, to provide comprehensive and project oversight to ensure the timely and successful completion of the EIR. Mr. van der Zwaag and Mr. Granger will be working very closely with Applied Planning, Inc. in every aspect of the project to make certain that the EIR is thorough and defensible. In addition, senior staff from the Planning Department, Engineering staff, and the City Attorney will provide feedback and support during the preparation and drafting of the EIR. Respectfully submitted, Je r A. loom Interim Planning Director JAB:DG:KH/Is STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date: Jurie 5, 2012 To: President and Members of the Fire Board Mayor and Members of the Successor Agency/City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager, Executive Director/City Manager From: Debra L. McKay, MMC, Assistant City Clerk/Records Manager P86 ,_ RANCHO GUCAMONGA . Subject: APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH THE BIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, SUCCESSOR AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Fire Board/Successor Agency/City Council direct staff to proceed with the biennial review of their Conflict of Interest Code. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Pursuant to the Political Reform-Act, all local governments and agencies must update their Conflict of Interest Code in 2012. Prior to July 1, 2012, all Fire DistricUCity staff will be notified of the pending update and will be requested to review any changes to designated positions, such as changes in title or duties, or creation or elimination of positions. Pursuant to state law, after a thorough review has been made, the City Clerk's office will bring this item back to the Fire Board/Successor Agency/City Council prior to October 1, 2012 to propose any appropriate amendments as needed. If amendments are needed, they must be approved by the Fire Board/Successor Agency/City Council prior to December 30, 2012. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitted, ;~ '.l ~'~ .UGr De ra L. McKay, MMC Assistant City Clerk/Records Manager STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT Date: June 6, 2012 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager From: William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director By: Emest Ruiz, Streets, Storm Drains and Fleet Superintendent Keri Hinojos, CPPB, Senior Buyer P87 ;.~ RANCHO C,,UCAMONGA Subject: APPROVAL TO AWARD THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) CNG POWERED CONVENTIONAL CAB LOG LOADER TRUCK TO NIXON-EGLI EQUIPMENT CO:, OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUEST FOR BID ("RFB") #11/12-014 IN THE AMOUNT OF $228,659.00 FROM ACCT. NO. 1105208-5604 (AB2766 AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND) It is recommended that the City Council approve the award to purchase one (1) CNG Powered Conventional Cab Log Loader Truck from Nixon-Elgi Equipment Co. of Ontario, Califomia, in accordance with request for bid ("RFB°) #11/12-014 in the amount of $228,659.00 from account number 1105208-5604 (A62766 Air Quality Improvement Fund). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS City Council approved the purchase of one (1) CNG Powered Conventional Cab Log Loader Truck in the adopted FY 2011/12 budget as a part of the AB2766 Air Quality Improvement Fund. In addition, staff has received a $30,000 grant from the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) who provides funds for the purchase of alternative fuel vehiGes and infrastructure projects that reduce air pollution from motor vehiGes within the South Coast Air District in Southern Califomia pursuant to air quality and provisions of the Califomia Clean Air Act AB 2766. This new vehicle will replace the existing Loader Truck being utilized by the Public Works Services Department, Parks and Landscape Division. The primary function of the Loader Truck is to pick up tree trunks, stumps and brush from landscaped areas throughout the City while conducting regular maintenance activities. The unique design of this vehicle allows crews to pick up large amounts of tree debris or other large types of debris quickly minimizing the impact to the public right-of-way during the normal course of work and/or during a major wind event. In accordance with the City's purchasing policies, the Purchasing Division prepared and posted the formal RFB #11/12-014 on April 11, 2012. Sixty-two (62) vendors were noted; ten (10) vendors downloaded the bid solicitation and two (2) bid responses were received. Re: Approval to award the purchase of one (1) CNG Powered Conventional Cab Log Loader pgg Truck. June 6, 2012 Page 2 After analysis of the bid responses, Nixon-Elgi Equipment Co. was determined to be the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting the spec cations required. All bid documentation is on file in the Purchasing Division and can also be found on the City's online bid management system. Resp miffed, William Wittkopf Public Works Services Director WW/ER:kh P89 STAFF REPORT - ENGINEERING DEPdRTMENT RANCHO Date: June 6, 2012 C,UCAMONGA To: Mayor and Members of the City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager From: Mark A. Steuer, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer By: Carlo Cambare, Engineering Technician Subject: RELEASE OF FAITHFUL PERFOMANCE BOND RETAINED IN LIEU OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND FOR PARCEL MAP 17594 STREET IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY F & F. LLC RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond retained in lieu of Maintenance Guarantee Bond, for Parcel Map 17594 street improvements, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, submitted by F & F, LLC, BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. DEVELOPER F & F, LLC 509 Rosemarie Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Release: Faithful Performance Bond (in lieu. of Maintenance) Respectfully submitted, rk uer Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer MAS:CC/alrw #4361699 $357,400 Attachment(s) P90 s .STATE ROUTE 210 Cl7Y a~ f~A1yC~-10 C IJCAIvI (7N CA ~---- '_ k w ~ . W wz _~ .. ~ `~ ~ ~ Q I Q ~, ARROW ROUTE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGWEERING DIVISION ~P~ ~~ ~~ >\~ 5~P ~~ ~~ \` FOOTHILL BOULEVARD p~ ITEM: _ ~ ~ 7J ,/~ TITLE:1/C~LIUTYM~4P P91 STAFF REPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT RANCHO Date: June 6, 2012 C,UCAMONGA To: Mayor and Members of the City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager From: Mark A. Steuer, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer By: Carlo Cambare, Engineering Technician Subject: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND FOR DRC2006-00580, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND ARROW ROUT E, SUBMITTED BY SMASH, LLC RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond, for DRC2006-00580, located on the southeast corrier of Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Route, submitted by Smash, LLC, BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. DEVELOPER Smash, LLC 204 N. First St. Arcadia, CA 91106 Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond #729370S Respectfully submitted, M r Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer MAS:CC/alnv Attachment(s) $28,290.00 EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP Q Z H DRC2006-00580 W City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Division DRC2006-00580 VICINITY MAP (Not to Scale) P92 P93 STAFF REPORT - CObIbIUNITY SERVICES DEP~1RT1fENT Date: June 6, 2012 RANCHO To: Mayor and Members of the City Council C,UCAMONGA John R. Gillison, City Manager From: Nettie Nielsen, Community Services Director By: Karen McGuire-Emery, Senior Park Planner Subject: APPROVE THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF PLAY EQUIPMENT FROM LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC. FOR THE ETIWANDA CREEK PARK PLAYGROUND, UTILIZING A COMPETITIVELY BID COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AWARDED BY HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL (HGAC CONTRACT NO. PR 11-10), AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF $ 275,823.73 PLUS A 5% CONTINGENCY TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT 1120305-5650/1802120-0 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the purchase of play equipment from Landscape Structures, Inc., for the Etiwanda Creek Park Playground utilizing a competitively bid cooperative agreement awarded by Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC Contract No. PR 11-10) and authorize the expenditure of $275,923.73 plus a 5% contingency in the amount of $13,796.19. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Due to a combination of continual and heavy use from regular park users, it is necessary to replace the existing play equipment and rubber surfacing at Etiwanda Creek Park, which was originally installed in 1996. Utilizing the HGAC Contract No. PR11-10, new Landscape Structures, Inc. play equipment and resilient, rubberized surfacing will be installed that is compliant with the current Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), as well current Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) guidelines. In addition to the usual play area access ramps and rubber surfacing that is provided under and around each play structure, the Public Works Department has requested that additional rubberized surfacing be provided to reduce the amount of sand at this facility. It is anticipated that these improvements will be completed by September 2012. Respectfully Submitted, j~f~f-fr~i ~1~~P.v~_. Nettie Nielsen Community Services Director NN/KME P94 STAFF REPORT PL-INNING DEPARTMENT ~~f~'~ jZANCeo Date: June 6, 2012 C,UCAMONGA To: Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Jeffrey A. Bloom, Interim Planning Director By: Donald Granger, Senior Planner Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DRC2010-00157 -The review and adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport-Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). Related Files: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 5.3.2. of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LAlOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Related Files: LA/Ontario Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council take the following actions: Adopt a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for the adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP. Adopt LA/ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157. Enter• into the Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport- Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) and authorize the City Manager of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to execute the Cooperative Agreement for the ONT-IAC. Approve Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685. FISCAL IMPACT None. The approval of the requested actions will support the long-term viability of Ontario International Airport and the economic synergy it brings with other businesses by providing for compatible land use planning within the Airport Influence Area. P95 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUB 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 2 STAFF REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ALUCP ADOPTION AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) is classified as a primary commercial service airport owned by the City of Los Angeles and operated by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA). The geographic scope of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is the Airport Influence Area (AIA), the area in which current or future airport related noise, safety, airspace protection and/or overflight factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses (Exhibit A). The AIA includes portions of the cities of Chino, Claremont, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland and portions of Riverside and Los Angeles Counties and unincorporated portions San Bernardino County (Exhibit B). California State Law requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports to protect the public, health, safety and welfare by ensuring orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. Adopting land use measures and policies that are in line with the LA/ONT International.Airport (ONT) future growth protects and provides policies to guide the City of Rancho Cucamonga from associated impacts from aircraft operations (airspace protection and overflight notification). The ALUCP addresses compatibility in four categories, which include safety, noise, airspace protection and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. These compatibility factors provide the basis for the development of compatibility policies. Affected Agencies will utilize these compatibility policies to evaluate development proposals for consistency with the ALUCP. In addition to preventing future incompatible development, adoption and participation in the ALUCP promotes the viability of ONT and the economic synergy it brings to the City of Rancho Cucamonga (retail sales, hospitality, etc.) and the surrounding region. In most counties, the responsibility for the preparation and adoption of airport land use compatibility plans falls to the County Airport Land Use Commission. However, San Bernardino County and its cities elected to follow the Alternative Process after this option became available as a result of 1994 legislation (AB 2831). An Alternative Process for San Bernardino County was established in 1995 by resolutions of the County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of cities affected by airports in the County. Consistent with State law, the Ontario City Council adopted an Alternative Process for ONT through Resolution (No. 95-34). In 1995, the Airport Environs Section of the City of Ontario's 1992 General Plan became the basis for airport land use compatibility planning. The California Division of Aeronautics approved the San Bernardino County Alternative Process in 1996. The approval of the Alternative Process designated the City of Ontario as the local jurisdiction responsible for airport land use compatibility planning for ONT. The proposed ALUCP for ONT utilizes two 2030 airport activity forecasts proposed in LAWA's preliminary Airport Master Plan. The "no project" forecast was constrained by the existing runway configuration. The proposed project forecast was based on a reconfigured runway that shifted both runways south and east of their existing locations to accommodate a higher volume P96 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUB 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 3 of aircraft activity consistent with the Southern California Association of Government's 2008 Regional Transportation Plan. State law requires airport land use compatibility plans to have at least twenty year horizons and be based on an Airport Master Plan or Airport Layout Plan. Since LAWA discontinued the Airport Master Plan, a simplified Airport Layout Plan was prepared showing the "no project" existing and proposed project reconfigured runway alignments. The simplified Airport Layout Plan was approved by the California Division of Aeronautics in July of 2009 and is used for the basis of the LA/ONT ALUCP. The Alternative Process provides for participation by all jurisdictions in San Bernardino County impacted by existing and future ONT airport activity and for the optional participation of Riverside County. Representation by these jurisdictions will be accomplished through interagency collaboration (Technical Advisory Committee) and the formation of a Mediation Board to mediate disputes. Both of these processes are outlined within the proposed ALUCP and will be implemented through the establishment of the Cooperative Agreement for the Ontario International Airport -Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT - IAC) between the City of Ontario and affected jurisdictions. San Bernardino County and all of the agencies within the AIA within San Bernardino County are required to participate in the Cooperative Agreement and approve the ALUCP. All of the participating agencies are scheduled to review and adopt the Cooperative Agreement by the end of June, followed by submittal to the State of California by the City of Ontario by the end of July. SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT State law requires that General Plans and Specific Plans must be consistent with adopted airport compatibility plans (Government Code Section 65302.3). Following adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP, each jurisdiction within the AIA will need to achieve vertical consistency with its land use policy documents. For the City of Rancho Cucamonga, this involves three documents: The General Plan, the IASP Subarea 18 and the Industrial Districts Section of the Development Code (Section 17.30). Planning staff was able to work with the City of Ontario Planning staff during 2009-2010 and incorporate discussion, policies and implementation actions for the LA/ONT ALUCP into the 2010 General Plan; therefore, no modification to the General Plan is necessary. The . forthcoming Development Code Update includes text in Article III requiring compliance with the LA/ONT ALUCP; therefore, no action is required at this time to amend the current Development Code. The proposed text amendment to the IASP Subarea 18 will provide this Specific Plan with language ensuring compatibility with the LA/ONT ALUCP. Specifically, the IASP Subarea 18 Plan will be amended to be consistent with the height limitations for buildings within the Airport Influence Area within the ALUCP. The height limit will be 70 feet in the High Terrain Zone as identified in the ALUCP, unless an exception is granted from the FAA. With an exception from the FAA, the IASP Subarea 18 will permit office and hotel buildings up to 90 feet or 8 stories. The standard 70-foot height in the High Terrain Zone limit will permit up to 6 story buildings, which is consistent with the goals and objective of the 2010 General Plan and the Development Code. The 70-foot height limit will not preclude the development potential or diminish the economic potential of properties in the Industrial Districts. P97 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUB 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 4 STAFF REPORT BACKGROUND. REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND OPERATIONAL LEVELS Background and Regional Significance: Commercial aviation plays a significant role in California and the Inland Empire on many different levels-transportation (personal and business), economic synergy with other businesses (hospitality, car rentals and restaurants), travel opportunities and parcel service. Communities in close proximity to airports benefit economically but also face airport impacts. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans are documents that address airport impacts and provide implementation techniques to ensure the development of compatible land uses around airports. Airport land use compatibility planning is concerned with four types of interactions and potential impacts from airports and their environs: noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight notification. Historical Operational Levels and Projected Operational Levels: In 2008, over 6 million passengers departed from and arrived at the airport on over 124,000 commercial and general aviation flights. Although air traffic for ONT has diminished during the recent economic downturn, forecasts for ONT in the year 2030 proposed by LAWA airport master plan efforts, coupled with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), assumed that current airport activity would more than triple by 2030. The approved Airport Layout, which includes shifting both runways south and east of their present positions, could accommodate up to 465,000 annual aircraft operations, 33.4 million passengers and 3.26 million tons of cargo. Although ONT is located entirely within the City of Ontario, these forecasts would result in off- airport impacts affecting neighboring jurisdictions. These impacts fall into four categories: noise, safety, airspace protection and overflight notification. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will be affected by two of these impact categories: airspace protection and overflight notification. Impacts and mitigation for airspace protection and overflight notification is discussed in detail under the Staff Report section labeled Airport Impacts. Master Plan Status: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCP) and Airport Master Plans (AMP) are closely intertwined. Section 21675(a) of the California Public Utilities Code requires that ALUCPs be based upon along-range AMP adopted by the airport owner. If an AMP does not exist, an airport layout plan (ALP) may be used with the approval of the California Division of Aeronautics. Compatibility planning must take into account the anticipated growth of the airport fora 20-year horizon. In 2002, LAWA initiated a master planning effort for ONT. The Master Plan includes reconfiguring the existing runway system, shifting both runways south and east of their present positions. This reconfiguration is necessary to permit the runway system to accommodate the volume of aircraft operations associated with the aviation forecasts for passenger and air cargo P98 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUB 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 5 loads for 2030. Since ONT is located in the geographic center of the City of Ontario, the City of Ontario is presently the only affected municipality by operations at ONT; however, with the Master Plan proposal of reconfiguring the runways to meet 2030 projections, neighboring municipalities that were previously outside the affected area of ONT would now be affected by aircraft operations (noise, safety, airspace protection and overflight notification). With the nationwide economic downturn and subsequent decline in activity at ONT, the urgency for completion of the AMP was removed, and LAWA suspended work on the plan in early 2009. This situation leaves the compatibility planning project without a clearly defined Master Plan to use as its basis. One possible scenario is to base the Compatibility Plan on the existing runway configuration, given that the modified configuration is not part of any official airport plan. However, both LAWA and the City of Ontario expect the new Master Plan to eventually move forward and show a modification of the runway system as shown on the Draft Plan or similar to it. Not considering the modified runways in the Compatibility Plan could potentially enable new development to occur in a manner that would be in conflict with the future configuration. Additionally, the existing runways need to be protected until such time as they are no longer in use. Accounting. for dual sets of runways in the Compatibility Plan makes the plan more complicated, but it is the best approach that provides compatibility between the airport and new land use development for both the near and long term. Therefore, an ALP was prepared showing the existing and potential future runway alignments that served as the basis for the ALUCP for ONT; accordingly, the ALP drawing was reviewed and approved by the California Division of Aeronautics in July of 2009 (Exhibit C). Airport Land Use Comoatibility Plans: The creation of Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUCs) and the preparation of Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) are requirements of the California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et. seq.) Typically, counties establish an Airport Land Use Commission to prepare an ALUCP and establish Airport Influence Areas for each airport. The fundamental purpose of an ALUC is to promote land use compatibility around airports. The compatibility plans ALUCs adopt are the basic tools they use to achieve this purpose. With limited exceptions, an ALUC is required in every county in the state and a compatibility plan is required for each public-use and military airport. Cities and agencies that fall within the Airport Influence Area within the County of San Bernardino are required by State law to adopt the LA/ONT ALUCP. State law also requires local land use plans and individual development proposals to be consistent with policies set forth in Compatibility Plans. The Compatibility Plan is separate and distinct from and affected jurisdiction's land use policy documents (General Plans, Development Code, Specific Plan, etc.), yet all of the documents are expected to be vertically consistent with each other through the incorporation of compatibility policies into the respective land use policy documents. Cities and agencies that fall within an Airport Influence Area are required to forward all Development Projects to the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency review, thus adding an additional level of review to the land use entitlement process. In the mid 1990s California State law was amended to streamline new development within the Airport Influence Areas and allow cities and agencies to conduct their own airport consistency reviews through the Alternative Process; specifically, Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c) provides for what is P99 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUB 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 6 generally referred to as an "Alternative Process" for a county to conduct airport land use compatibility planning. It eliminates the need for formation of an ALUC, but not for preparation of compatibility plans. San Bernardino County and its cities elected to follow the Alternative Process after this option became available as a result of the 1994 legislation (AB 2831). Following the passage of SB 443, which made the establishment of ALUCs permissive rather the mandatory, and in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), the County of San Bernardino and each city in the county, including the City of Ontario, withdrew from the Joint Powers Agreement, which had established individual ALUCs for the East, West and Mountain/Desert planning areas of the County of San Bernardino. The City of Ontario adopted Resolution 93-120 in November of 1993 withdrawing from the West Valley ALUC. The Alternative Process within San Bernardino was established in 1995 by resolutions of the County Board of Supervisors and city councils of cities affected by airports. Ontario City Council adopted the Alternative Process through Resolution No. 95-34. At the time of withdrawing from the West Valley ALUC, the City of Ontario was the only jurisdiction within the AIA for ONT and the Airport Environs Section of the 1992 General Plan was used as the basis for airport land use compatibility planning. The California Division of Aeronautics approved the San Bernardino County Alternative Process in 1996. The approval of the Alternative Process designated the City of Ontario as the local jurisdiction responsible for airport land use compatibility planning for ONT. The policies in the 2010 LA/ONT ALUCP amend the previously established process by City of Ontario's Resolution 95-34 to include participation by other agencies within San Bernardino County having jurisdiction over the portions of the AIA established by the lA/ONT ALUCP. Initiation of Alternative Process Ugdate for ONT: Since addressing future airport impacts affected areas outside of the City of Ontario limits, the City of Ontario recognized that a proper ALUCP should be prepared that would modify the existing Alternative Process to include all jurisdictions affected by the future projected growth at ONT. In December of 2008, the City of Ontario initiated an update to the ALUCP for ONT. The City of Ontario desires a collective and collaborative approach to compatibility planning around ONT from all affected agencies. The City of Ontario invited neighboring jurisdictions which may be affected by operations at ONT to participate and contribute to the development of the ALUCP. One of the principal goals of the ALUCP is to determine how the City of Ontario and other affected jurisdictions can mutually work together to accomplish airport land use compatibility around ONT in the most streamlined manner. Since the summer of 2009, LAWA and the other affected jurisdictions have participated in the development of the ALUCP through the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC included representatives from the following agencies: • FAA • Caltrans Division of Aeronautics • LAWA • Planning and management staff from City of Ontario (lead agency) • Planning staff from the Cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland • Planning staff from Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino P100 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUB 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 7 Ultimately, the City of Ontario is responsible for preparing the ALUCP, the environmental assessment and presenting the ALUCP to the City of Ontario City Council for adoption. The City of Ontario Planning Commission recommended approval of the ALUCP on March 22, 2011, and the City Council adopted the ALUCP on April 19, 2011. Implementation of the alternative process requires completion of several steps, which are summarized as follows: a) Preparation and adoption of an ALUCP by City of Ontario b) Adoption of the ALUCP by each affected agency c) Amending General Plans and Specific Plans by each affected agency to be consistent with the ALUCP d) California Division of Aeronautics Approval by City of Ontario ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process: The purpose of the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process is to ensure a coordinated approach to compatibility planning around ONT and implement the 2010 ONT ALUCP. The City Manager of each Affected Agency shall designate a department responsible for participating in the ONT Inter-Agency Notification process. For the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the Planning Department is the designated participating department. The ONTlnter-Agency Notification Process includes the following steps: a) For each project or land use action subject to the Alternative Process, the Submitting Agency shall complete a Project Comment Worksheet and fonr/ard it to the City of Ontario for forwarding to Affected Agencies. The Worksheet shall contain sufficient project details to enable Affected Agencies to comment upon the project's consistency with the Compatibility Plan for ONT. b) Commenting Agencies will have 20 calendar days to review and comment on the Submitting Agency's Project Comment Worksheet. Agencies that do not respond within the 20-day period would be considered to have no comments and subsequently agree with the Submitting Agency's consistency evaluation. Commenting Agencies shall limit their comments to issues related to the project's consistency with the 2010 ONT Compatibility Plan and forward their comments electronically to the City of Ontario. c) If the Submitting Agency disagrees with the comments received on the Worksheet, staff of the Submitting Agency is encouraged to collaborate with staff of the commenting agency and/or commenting agencies to seek solutions that will bring the project into voluntary compliance with the Compatibility Plan. If the proposed project is revised in response to comments received on the Project Comment Worksheet, the Submitting Agency shall submit a revised Project Comment Worksheet in the manner provided in subdivision (a). If disagreements regarding consistency remain, the Submitting Agency or any Commenting Agency may request a Mediation Board hearing to mediate the dispute. P101 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUB 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 8 d) If no comments are submitted on the Project Comment Worksheet as provided in subdivision (b), or if comments are resolved as provided in subdivision (c), the Submitting Agency shall indicate in its own public notices that the project is within the ONT AIA and has undergone a consistency evaluation and found to be consistent with this Compatibility Plan. As the City of Ontario would continue to be the principal jurisdiction impacted by operations at ONT, the City of Ontario would take the lead role in preparing updates to the ALUCP and coordinating compatibility reviews of certain projects with stakeholders and the public. Additionally, the City of Ontario would have the following responsibilities: a) Develop, maintain and distribute the Project Comment Worksheet, when necessary; b) Provide affected agencies with technical information and guidance regarding compatibility planning issues; c) Serve as a clearinghouse for major airport and land use actions within the AIA and proposed on-site development; d) Review proposed major airport and land use actions for consistency with the policies set forth in the LA/ONT ALUCP and preparing written consistency evaluations for transmittal to applicable Affected Agencies; and e) Solicit input and comments from the Federal Aviation Administration and other agencies regarding compatibly planning matters, when necessary. The types of projects within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that would be subject to ONT Inter- Agency Notification Process would be Major Land Use Actions (Exhibit H; Table 2-1). Examples include, but are not limited to: General Plan or Specific Plan Amendments; any proposed or alternation to a structure greater than 200' in height; any structure or object that would penetrate the allowable air space protection area as defined by Map 2-4 (Exhibit D). For Rancho Cucamonga, buildings that are greater than 70' in height in some areas of the Airport Influence Area (High Terrain Zone) require Inter-Agency Notification. Mediation Board: The ALUCP process provides for a Mediation Board (voting body) in the event an affected agency wishes to appeal a decision. The Mediation Board would be comprised of seven members appointed as follows: a) Two members from the City of Ontario-appointed by the City Council b) One member from LAWA-the LA/Ontario International Airport Manager c) Two members representing the agency with the disputed project, appointed by the agency's governing body. Members shall have land use planning or public hearing experience (i.e., planning commissioner or city council member). P102 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUB 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 9 d) Two members from the public (one requiring aviation experience) appointed by the Ontario City Council with recommendations from the other Affected Agencies. When acting upon a disputed action (e.g., consistency evaluation or preparation, adoption or amendment of the 2010 Compatibility Plan), the Mediation Board shall adhere to the following procedure: a) Hold a public hearing on the action under consideration b) Provide the opportunity for public input c) Issue formal findings on the disputed action d) Make decisions by a majority vote Overruling the Mediation Board: The ALUCP process provides the governing body of each Submitting Agency the opportunity to overrule the Mediation Board's decision. The overruling process for the Submitting Agency to overrule the Mediation Board is the following: 1. Make formal findings to support a conclusion that the proposed action would not: a) impair the orderly expansion of ONT; or b) adversely impact the utility or capacity of the airport (such as by reducing the instrument approach procedure minimums); or c) expose the public to excessive noise and safety hazards 2. The Notification and Voting Requirements to overrule the Mediation Board are the following: a) The Submitting Agency must provide a copy of the proposed decision and findings to overrule the Mediation Board 45 days prior to the hearing date to the City of Ontario and California Division of Aeronautics as required by State law (Public Utilities Code Section 21676). b) The governing body of the Submitting Agency must hold a public hearing on the matter. The public hearing shall be noticed consistent with the Submitting Agency's established procedures. c) A decision by the governing body to overrule the Mediation Board must be made by a vote of at least two-thirds of the body's members. d) The Submitting Agency must include any comments received from any Affected Agency, Mediation Board, Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the public record of any final decision to overrule the Mediation Board. P103 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUB 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 10 Airspace Protection: Airspace protection is concerned with the potential consequences that certain land use characteristics may have on the airport and aircraft operations. Significant airspace hazards can reduce the utility of the airport and effect instrument approach procedures. The main goal of airspace protection is to avoid the creation of land use features that can create physical, visual or electronic hazards to flight or cause a loss in airport utility. Because the FAA has no authority over local land use, limiting the height of structures falls upon the State and local land use jurisdictions, as well as an ALUC, where one exists. The ALUCP basis its height restrictions on Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), which affects the built environment at a slope of 100 to 1 within 20,000 feet (3.78 miles) from the nearest point of the runway. Building heights are calculated based upon the following formula: conical surface area minus the existing grade elevation. However, because of the rising terrain within the City of Rancho Cucamonga north of ONT, allowable building heights for future buildings within Rancho Cucamonga could be adversely impacted. To address this issue, the ALUCP has identified a High Terrain Zone within the Industrial Districts (Exhibit D) that permits building heights up to 70 feet, which is consistent with the City's Development Code. Although the 70 ft. height limit penetrates the Airspace Obstruction Surface, there are several existing features in the existing built environment (power poles, buildings) that are 70 feet in height or are slightly greater, thereby justifying the 70-foot height in the ALUCP. Dedication of an avigation easement is required for all new development within the High Terrain Zone. Proposed buildings that exceed the 70-foot height limitation would be required to obtain an exception from the FAA. If the height of an object exceeds the FAR Part 77 surfaces, thereby constituting an obstruction to navigable airspace, the project could be approved if all of the following are met: a) The FAA and the California Division of Aeronautics determine that the object would not constitute a hazard to air navigation; and b) The obstruction is marked or lighted; and c) An Avigation Easement is dedicated to the airport owner as a condition of approval Overflight Notification: Since noise from aircraft operations can be intrusive and annoying beyond the noise impact zones, overflight notification focuses on buyer awareness, not on land use restrictions. The overarching purpose of overflight notification and overflight compatibility policies is to facilitate awareness of the presence of overflights near airports so prospective buyers or tenants are able to make more informed decisions regarding the purchase or lease of real property or buildings within the affected area, particularly residential land uses. Buyer awareness is an umbrella category for several types of implementation documents, all of which have the objective of ensuring that prospective buyers of airport area property are informed of the airport's impact on the property. Buyer awareness is accomplished through the following three mechanisms: P104 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUB 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 11 a) Avigation Easement Dedication: As a condition of approval of a new development near the airport, a developer can be required to dedicate an Avigation Easement to the airport. An Avigation Easement is the most certain means of ensuring buyer awareness by conveying certain from the property owner to the party owning the easement. The advantage of an Avigation Easement is that that not only provides for buyer awareness but ensures airspace protection by limiting the heights of objects on the property. In sum, Avigation Easements are best suited to locations where height limits are substantial or where significant constraints on the development of a property are necessary for noise or safety purposes. An Avigation Easement is required for all property within the High Terrain Zone within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Refer to Maps 2-4 and 2-5 to indicate the High Terrain Zone and Overflight Notification Zones (Exhibits D and E). b) Recorded Overflight Notification: Where buyer awareness is the only objective, a Recorded Deed Notice should be considered. The primary purpose behind a Recorded Deed Notice is that information about the airport's proximity is recorded on the property deed, but a conveyance of property rights does not occur. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is not within an area affected by Recorded Overflight Notification since the City is not impacted by noise levels of 60d6 or greater from aircraft operations from ONT. c) Overflight Disclosure in Real Estate Transactions: Requirements for disclosure of airport proximity information as part of some residential real estate transactions are set forth in State law (new subdivisions and common interest developments [condominiums]). Disclosure in real estate transactions is common practice for properties within an Airport Influence Area. The overall boundary for disclosure is the Airport Influence Area for ONT. See Map 2-5 (Exhibit E) for areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga which are affected by disclosure requirements of the ALUCP. Industrial Area Soecific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685: State law requires that General Plans and Specific Plans be consistent with adopted airport compatibility plans (Government Code Section 65302.3). Following adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP, each jurisdiction within the AIA will need to achieve vertical consistency with its land use policy documents. For the City of Rancho Cucamonga, this involves three documents: The General Plan, the IASP Subarea 18 and the Industrial Districts Section of the Development Code (Section 17.30). Planning staff was able to work with the City of Ontario Planning staff during 2009-2010 and incorporate discussion, policies and implementation actions for the LA/ONT ALUCP into the 2010 General Plan; therefore, no modification to the General Plan is necessary. The forthcoming Development Code Update includes text in Article III requiring compliance with the P705 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUB 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 12 LA/ONT ALUCP; therefore, no action is required at this time to amend the current Development Code. The proposed text amendment to the IASP Subarea 18 will provide this Specific Plan with language ensuring compatibility with the LA/ONT ALUCP. Specifically, the IASP Subarea 18 Plan will be amended to be consistent with the height limitations for buildings within the Airport Influence Area within the ALUCP. The height limit will be 70 feet in the High Terrain Zone as identified in the ALUCP, unless an exception is granted from the FAA. With an exception from the FAA, the IASP Subarea 18 will permit office and hotel buildings up to 90 feet or 8 stories. The standard 70-foot height in the High Terrain Zone limit will permit up to 6-story buildings, which is consistent with the goals and objective of the 2010 General Plan and the Development Code. The 70-foot height limit will not preclude the development potential or diminish the economic potential of properties in the Industrial Districts. General Plan Analysis The City of Rancho Cucamonga's 2010 General Plan includes an Aviation Hazard Section in the Public Safety Element that was reviewed by City of Ontario's Planning staff that addresses Airspace Protection and Overflight Notification. Additionally, the General Plan contains four policies and implementation actions (P.S. 9.1-9.4) that will ensure that the City of Rancho Cucamonga and future development within the AIA is compliant with the LA/ONT ALUCP. Adoption and participation by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the LA/ONT ALUCP will fulfill the following Polices and Implementation Actions of the 2010 General Plan: Policv PS-9.1: Participate in the Technical Advisory Committee for LA/Ontario International Airport to protect Rancho Cucamonga interests regarding land use and safety. Finding/Action: The adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP will provide the formal means for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to participate in the Technical Advisory Committee in order to ensure that the City retains the greatest possible local control over property and land uses with in the ONT AIA. Policv PS-9.2: Balance the need to protect LA/Ontario International Airport aircraft from physical, visual, or electronic hazards without minimizing use restrictions on Rancho Cucamonga properties that would diminish full economic use of those properties. Finding/Action: The adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP is compatible with the goals and objectives of the 2010 General Plan and the Development Code since it will not encumber the economic development of parcels with the LAlONT AIA. The height limits and land use policies within the LA/ONT ALUCP are consistent and compatible with the City's land use goals and height limits. Policv PS-9.3: Create an appropriate strategy to address proposed development where heights exceed FAR Part 77 standards. Finding/Action: The LA/ONT ALUCP includes a High Terrain Zone within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that accounts for existing features in the built environment that are at or exceed the height limits in the LA/ONT ALUCP. This High Terrain Zone will permit building heights up to 70 feet, which is consistent with Development Code. Further, the ALUCP outlines a process to P706 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUB 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 13 notify the FAA and apply for an exemption should a development proposal exceed the height limits prescribed in the ALUCP. Policy PS-9.4: Create policies or procedures that provide flexibility regarding how prospective buyers and tenants of properties within the LA/Ontario International Airport Influence Area are informed of potential aircraft overflight impacts. Finding/Action: The LA/ONT ALUCP outlines the means (avigation easements and real estate disclosures) that will alert prospective buyers and tenants of properties within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are within the AIA that are subject to impacts from aircraft operations from ONT. The ALUCP contains Maps indicating which type of notification document is required and contains sample documents to assist property owners in fulfilling this requirement. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project (adoption of the ALUCP, Subarea 18 text amendment and Development Code Amendment). Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. CORRESPONDENCE: Since this item is the recommendation to adopt an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and related Specific Plan Amendment, this item was advertised as a public hearing (1/8 page ad) in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. CONCLUSION: Planning staff has been working with the City of Ontario Planning staff since the spring of 2009 on the development, language and technical processes outlined in the LA/ONT ALUCP. The ALUCP provides a process whereby impacted municipalities and agencies from aircraft operations at ONT are able to participate in a review process that permits local agencies to retain control of the land uses within the Airport Influence Area of ONT and address compatibility factors. Planning staff finds that the proposed ALUCP will not encumber the goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's 2010 General Plan and Development Code, or impede future development. Since the ALUCP was being drafted during the recent General Plan Update, the 2010 General Plan includes policies (PS 9.1 through 9.4) that ensure that the General Plan is in compliance with the ALUCP. Respectfully submitted, `i~/C~~ effre.~~~ Y Interim Planning Director JB:DG:Is P107 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUB 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 14 Attachments: Exhibit A -Airport Influence Area (Map 2-1) Exhibit B -Affected Jurisdictions (Exhibit 2-A) Exhibit C -Simplified Airport Diagram (Exhibit 1-6) Exhibit D -Airspace Protection Zones (Map 2-4) Exhibit E -Overflight Notification Zones (Map 2-5) Exhibit F -Flight Track Altitude: All Operations -Composite (Exhibit 1-14) Exhibit G -City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use Map Exhibit H -IASP Subarea 18 Exhibit (Planning Areas) Exhibit I -Major Land Use Actions Subject to the ONTlnter-Agency Notification Process (Table 2-1) Exhibit J -Planning Commission Workshop Minutes dated March 28, 2012 Exhibit K -Planning Commission Minutes dated May 9, 2012 Exhibit L - LA/ONT ALUCP (complete text with exhibits) available at: http://www.ontarioplan.org/index.cfm/33710 Exhibit M - LA/ONT ALUCP hard copy distributed under separate cover and available for review at the City Clerk's Office Exhibit N -Initial Study Part II Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of adoption of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, dated May 9, 2012 Draft City Council Resolution adopting the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of the Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative, dated May 9, 2012 Draft City Council Resolution adopting the Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative Agreement Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of Industrial Area Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685, dated May 9, 2012 Draft Ordinance of Approval for Industrial Area Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 P108 EXHIBIT A P109 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES ~NTARI6-r (c) Los Angeles World Airports (L.AWA) is a department of the Cit}' of Los Angeles and is the owner and operator of ONT. (d) Special entities including school districts, community college districts, and special districts whose boundaries include lands within the San Bernardino County portion of the AIA. 1.2.3 ,Jurisdictions of Los Angeles and Riverside Counties: The ONT AIA extends beyond the San Bernardino Counh~ borders and into parts of adjacent Los Angeles and Riverside Counties. For the jurisdictions of Los Angeles and Riverside Counties, the Compatibility Plan is informational only. These jurisdictions are not subject to the requirements of this Compatibility Plan. The County of Riverside has jurisdictional control over unincorporated lands within the noise-impacted areas of ONT and has elected to participate in the Alternative Process on a discretionary basis. City of Ontario X X X X All policies apply City of Chino X X X City of Fontana X X X City of Montclair X X X City of Rancho X X Cucamonga City of Upland X X County of San X X X Bernardino i ;Policies are informational; County of Riverside X X X Participating in Alternative Process on discretionary basis (see Section 1.2.3) City of Pomona, I ~ X !Policies are informational Los Angeles County i i (see Section 1.2.3) City of Claremont, i X Policies are informational Los Angeles County (see Section 1.2.31 1.3 Limitations of the Compatibility Plan 1.3.1 Airport Operations: State law explicitly precludes airport land use commissions from having jurisdiction over the operation of anv airport (Public Utilities Code Section 21G74(e)). The same limitation also applies under the Alternative Process. (a) The City of Ontario, affected local jurisdictions, and the Ivlediation Board have no authority over the operation of ONT. This authority rests with LAWA and the Federal Aviation Administration (F,~1). (b) The only actions of LA~%C'A subject to the Alternative Process and the policies of this Compatibility Plan are the adoption or amendment of the airport master plan or airport layout plan, or approval of certain facilit}' development plans that LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) EXHIBIT B 4 a Q~~ r ~~o %~~ o a ° w gg>x a° E8~ ~~ <$ ;~ ~> .~ I~ 'IS ~' ¢ O Ci I I~ ~ N x x _ o ~ ~~ O 0 1 ~ O X X O N ~ ~ ~ N ~ N v I ~ ~ N ~ ~ 4 C ~ c° J ~ C N ~' N 00 ~ W ~ ~? } J ~ r / ~ I x ~ ~ W I ~ -1 I < ~ m,a i i o l ~~ _ 1 I I I I I I I K i 1~ 1 ~~ ~,°~ I~ Q ~ I I ~I 1 ~ ~ 1 R I I I ~~~fi 1 W ~ ~ SN~~ I ~ ~,g ; X ~a ~gY~ m< _~~ ~r.io~ Re52B ~ I / a~:` ~ caN 8 e8 a ~ 3-x~ ~ - m_ >i a ~ Q xN W a b ~ W~ g "d gS~i ~z / W d ~ p W ), Q W ~g~N I , ~ EXHIBIT C '5 ~,~ ~~~ a~$ m' a ~~~ O fl. = _Qa ~ y ~ O ~ ? , :o ,.,, Z ~~ C t] d ~~ o ~~ ~~ O .., ~ ~ m a ~ r ~ W ~_ Q a _d Q. ~ z o $ 8 p - li N O ~ ~~ _ 3 ;m~W ~gmz _< a mm < m o 2 g H o v Q 0. ~ ~~~ - w d m o i g ~ F ~o'~ a050 c° ~ & ~ D Qrv y o_3 ~ o W p~ @~@ E 225 ~,b 32`vt ma 4 A ~ ~ ¢ m U~ d o? i b ~ LLl ~ bi $ pic ~- a v o v a ~ o c o m a° o I ~~ o $ o°~~ Sao= cb ~~ ~ Z ~~ . T i H ~..q h.. n' ~° ~ n m°u ~ 2 s ~ E~ E _~ .~ s m _~ E _f ~~ ~, 2 g,omo Onaan m p N }~ sv LL `n X~ 3d Zo ~ Q s inn < d ° 'uf 'u5 °~i ° U¢au Z u'S ~ -° F O Z _ ~ ~ e ~ ~ a `. ~i ° m m O ~ Cm ~ m Q~c m O N W LL ~ a g ~' ~ hp c ~m_o ~ ~~ a g €~ ~ mm¢¢ CRco ~ m ~ O na4 yp a~ ~~ Q C W~ W ~ y` G a W ti W ti III i i ~ ~ ili ~^ ~ ~ , J I I C 7 v a P110 N ad ~ ,~ ~ c m u m m ca O m ~~ V ~ m~ ~ ~ ~ o o d~ a ~ u _Q a '~ O s~ _ m''€ E E ~ ~ ~v sE 'o R ~` d V ~ 2N ~1 U "i ~ ~o~ an [~ Z C ~ ~d 5 ~ ~~ N`o ~5~ a ~ $ ~~ m8~ v ~ ~~` ~ io ~ O m m ~ m~ ~_~ C b Ip ~ a p a o t' ~~ V E ~_ a n~ ¢¢ ~pE ~ {5m a ~ c=~~~s m ~o~ oo ~ __ ~ ~~.. O r d r J C d C ~~ ~ O! ~~ O O q L 0 R~ 0 ~~ C U ~ U 2a'~~ 'p ~~ S ~ a~ .m oc d ~ ~aE a.f~ ~ ~ ~~ . m iL ~ C x aa$$m CC d acictv~w ~ qaa 2 tic ~ c3 m boa ~i g g ~ ~ j G h W o l ~ ~ a III --~~°"~'~~ W m ~Na ~~~ $ ~ _~ V Q ~~ ~ o~ ,, ~ - e j ; a ? _ ~ _ _ ,' ~ ~ ~ _:- - _ -- ~` ~ i ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ -_ a _ ~ ~ i - ~aa y > 1 1_ f "°"`~ c Z~ a i ~~~ ~ I „- _ _.i maw N~arlN+~W _ - . - ~- ... .. : o. _, i \ - k ~ i '~ ~ - !~ _, i J ~_ I . ~ ~~ --- 1 ' T h j ., ~ ~- ~~ L-_-r'. ~ n 1=XHIBIT D ~Y i I m J ~ ` r'_ - f~ Ire ~ ~ '" R7 If, r i U i~ O a I ~ , ~ - .3j~",. F ~ r ~~ 1. • ~ ' ~ 4. a+d nlaP'U~N ~ ii, I ~~ ~ ~SHQR~IsW` ~ ~ .. '~ ~r ~ .1 ` ~ - - - - ._r~ -- - ~` - .. :., ? of ~ ~ ! c ~ z - ~ ~ e~Y 4'Btu'~M' ~ ~ _ (y~ i °.--~-. i r a -L.. ~ ^, U b ~ b _ m S~) o r" s r~ , j _ "t _ ~ a ~ - ^ ~- o ~ r-- E i i _ ~ ~~ o a r~~j Q ,I` %~ c T -~ Lam' V1 P111 a Q ~o ~= g °` ~ $ ~~ 2 ~ e~ ~mg ~~ ap¢ `~ c m E o 0 o cr' S} c° ~ m ~ m ~~ H F '~ « n r l_n m 4 8~€ ~~S 19o s" <`-m o `m~,~ o c~c~a~ ~~~ ygso ~ A c~ N C m~~ g O~ y 6 ~ s~ u q~ ~` ~ =ate ~ Wpm ~ ~RaL Fg Q<~ c a ~ - ~ d a~ Z S ~~ a 5n w- ~ 4 ~Z e~vv¢wLL aa= a¢¢ ~~o~ ~~ ~~ M 4 _ b ~ O m ~ ° e'3 m i?' ~ o Z ~ , . ~ m ~l o l~~ ~ ~ ~~~X,~ ~ma w~~Z ao W C~o ~ i ~ ~ O~ aoCm ¢oa ¢m~~ aa~ J m I I i n Z_ a ^i a .n .~ ~` /r~ _ IJ //'/ , '1~ I~ I - ~ ~ ti.yau~v "}~ ~ J.~L t1 ~ i '_ ` lJ~~ I E > Q __~__, ~ r ._ J ~ ~ !I .news L r..t~ ,. .J ~ ~ { . r----- ,:: _., ~Ll 1-l_I. -\ .~, EXHIBIT E F a~ n lC C t ~ ~ 2 O N V a a C 'o 0 i Cd z a ~v ~.U ~g C 4 I O ~ w C ~ Z ~a U O.C .~ O c c U ~ / ,i ~~ U . ~~ 0 p~~ ~' F~ ~~ as t ~_ W ~ ~ u A _ C CT IO p ~L~ a 2 P112 =XHIB1 a ~ ~ a a d~ ~ ~ ~~ t la ~ .O d u °~ C 'c O. E mrno x C 5 om ~ ma~o~ G ~ ,~~' (~ U N¢` ~ m ~Fi ~ U ~}'1 ~ O (Q 1 ~b _ Nam ~o ~ W~~o ~ a t a I ~• O ~oZ' nLL cyS °i i i i i v ~~$88 ~n€ ~~ $,~c- s. ~ Z~ m ~ 41 a Uuvlw ~ i i i l i l ~ Y$ '~nc ~ m" m i ~ i a ~ C ~q O c 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ Q o m v° H ~ 'L .7 J ' L~ y N~ O vl O~ R H O q O O°~ O v b ~ 1 _ ~ ~ U O ~ fV [V ~LL m n 2~~- `^ C r P113 .~ ~ ~ N_ Ys ~~ iH ~~ m3~m f ~,~ •~ r 8 ~ tl~e~~~av a ~ a~' a ~~ e o ~o~ cod ~ 8~_8•~•8~ ~00:0:~~ I ' ~ ~ ~ x3~y.x~ g • IlIl c~ a ? V O °~ N Q O O O ~ C LL ty~ $E OC 5~ ~ D j aD D N N a~~° G o~ V ~ V rj ~ LL _ ¢¢ m m n ~ °O9 LL~ E'6 e' ao-° m oZ' ao ° m ~d $ ~ ~ O Naa~~o ~ ESE `" ~ o o Y t c~ o m ~ ~ 'yyl oVBE ~ og F = Wg mtaU y°' ~ _ a ads ~m~ B O t 3 3 ~ $g~~ v _ I~~E a FaE l~C+i % n @8 W ~ ppp ~ ~, ~ $ ~ d ~ m o Y T c ~ u ~ m 'S ~»~ ~ 22 $p Z U C7 ~ ~(~ 2 r 2UOLL uU f~q a ~ l7 cm mam omY 'v A >" ~n ~ ~~ _ _ c „ ' LL p Z I qo a I ~~~ ~° ~ ~ ~ _,\ N="'li w y ~ ~ OD r-~ i-1 1 ~,~' '~"~Li1G'1 'l~~ ~ I F eI i I ~O I I~ ~"" o Q 7 ~Z 'as ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~: 8~ ~~ €4 ~t x ~ r t` . I ~ ]'.. ~ J .s116rNriH tIr' - ~ - ~ i 'r~~~ ~ ~~ •~ a ~ ~ ~ d ~. F -. i 1 - O ~1 ~~ > ~~ rI~+.MMw, i i I i~ ~Mi .~i.~ ' ~ ~- 1---~~ ~j ~ - _ Ir i Jrf~ i f ~ j y a y h b' :. IJI Y - EXHIBIT G `I i w wwlw v z ~a oa ¢ -~ ~ _ a P ~ z ~' -- ~ z e u, a C ~ a .Q o~ ~Z u4 ~ o O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Q _= u ~ vp M ~ v ~ a o --- o, x ° ~ v ®°Z a P114 Me[ro uNC SL1[lon ~-1 Phnning Area 1B 91 ac u a e u i _~ I Sixth Street Phnning Area 7Q 18 aG Planning Area II 28 ac. i ~ Phnn;ng [ I Area rv , 1 .i Piann[n v ~ Area V r`n ~ IG7' '29 ac u~~{ a ~R i -1 ~- i Phoning Area.III 19 ac. Planning Area lA 64 ac. Planning Area n 28 ac. _lo_~ - --L/^j "-'~~Planning ~J-'~/ \Area X 7 t23~ac. '~ ~ ~. ' I~ ~i ~.li~~~~ Planning Area IR 19 ac. i Planning ' Area VID 21 ac. i J e ~":~1 ~i~ ~ 1 / ~'~ > ~~/ -~ . e ~ Planning ~I ~ I s Arrr VII I. _ ~~' I ~J' Fourth Stree[ i i~ -- Note: This figure represents the current proposed Land Use Plan for Sub Area 18 and maybe suged to future refinements and/or modifications. Reler to Section 42 Land Use Plan, Table & i Summary Land Use by Planning Area and Table 5.2 Land Use Type Oefin/liorrs for types of land uses Permitted in planning areas. gpp~ aoo' o' soa ~_- figuro 4"~~ Conceptual Land Use Plan EXHIBIT H 15 P116 o~~~~ wo~P P~Ah!.:`.G PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the ONTlnter-Agency Notification Process if located anywhere within the Airport Influence Area (Applies to all Affected Jurisdictions): -~ Expansion or creation of the sphere of influence of a city or district (e.g., annexation or incorporation) ~ General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning Amendments -~ Major capital improvements (e.g., water, sewer, roads) that would promote urban development in undeveloped or agricultural areas to the extent that such uses are not reflected in a previously reviewed general plan or specific plan. ~ Any proposal for acquisition of a new site or expansion of an existing site by a special district, school district, or community college district. ~ Any proposal for construction or alteration of a structure (including antennae) taller than 200 feet above the ground. The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the ONTlnter-Agency Notification Process only if they are located within a safety zone (Applies solely to the City of Ontario): ~ Any proposed land use within Safety Zone 1 that is not an aviation-related use. -~ Public agency acquisition of sites intended for institutional uses including hospitals, schools, jails or prisons. ~ Any discretionary development proposal for projects having a building floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater unless only ministerial approval (e.g., a building permit) is required. ~ Proposed development of airport property if such development is not an aviation-related use or has not previously been included in an airport master plan or community general plan reviewed under the Alternative Process. The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process only if they are located within a noise impact zone of 65+ d6 CNEL (Applies to the City of Ontario, City of Fontana and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County): ~ Residential development, including land divisions, consisting of five or more dwelling units or individual parcels. ~ Any nonresidential use having outdoor dining or gathering functions. + Public agency acquisition of sites intended for institutional uses including hospitals, schools, jails or prisons. The following types of Major Land Use Actions are Subject to the ONTlnter-Agency Notification Process only if they are located within an airspace protection zone (Applies to all Affected Jurisdictions): ~ Any proposed object (including buildings, antennas, and other structures) having a height that requires review by the Federal Aviation Administration in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, Subpart B. ~+ Any proposed object (including buildings, antennas, and other structures) that would penetrate the allowable height as defined by Map 2-4 or conflict with the Airspace Protection policies. ~ Any project having the potential to create electrical or visual hazards to aircraft in flight, including: Electrical interference with radio communications or navigational signals. • Lighting which could be mistaken for airport lighting. • Glare in the eyes of pilots of aircraft using the airport. Impaired visibility near the airport. ~ Any project (e.g., water treatment facilities, waste transfer or disposal facilities, parks with open water areas), plan (e.g., Habitat Conservation Plan) or proposal to acquire sites intended for lakes, ponds, wetlands, or sewer treatment ponds which would have the potential to cause an increase in the attraction of birds or other wildlife that can be hazardous to aircraft operations in the vicinity of an airport. EXHIBIT I se Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) 2-39 P717 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting March 28, 2012 Chairman Munoz called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order al 7:50 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CaliTornia. Chairman Munozthen led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Francisco Oaxaca; Ray Wimberly ABSENT. None STAFF PRESENT: Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Donald Granger, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineor; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; James Troyer, Planning Director; Tabe Van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Linda Daniels, Assistant City Manager ...,. NEW BUSINESS A. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP FOR LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND CITY OFONTARIO -A joint workshop from the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Staff and the City of Ontario Planning Staff to present the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport-Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). Related Files: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. Donald Granger, Senior Planner, gave a brief introduction regarding the purpose of the workshop. He noted that the airport is an asset and creates business synergy and the plan promotes land use compatibility. He said two main components are airspace protection and air flight notification. He then turned the meeting over to the City of Ontario team consisting of Jerry Blum, Planning Director and Lorena Mejia, Associate Planner. Mr. Blum gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the process of adopting the plan and explained that the airport creates 55,000 jobs totaling $5.4 billion (1.5 billion devoted to aviation and 3.5 billion which is spent in the local economy). He noted that the airport greatly increases the need for Class A office space. He said the plan has a 20-year horizon and this is why the impacts would extend to Rancho Cucamonga and the other neighboring cities. He said the plan is in conformance with Ontario's new General Plan. In response to Commissioner Fletcher, Mr. Blum noted that it is not likely the capacity cap of 30 million passengers will be exceeded and if R did, it would not occur for many years and at 24 billion, would require additional runways al a huge cost. EXHIBIT J P118 In response to Vice Chairman Howdyshell, Mr. Blum said the Natural Hazard Disclosure that realtors provide to their buyers will now include Air flight notifications. He said following adoption, we must meet the policies of the plan. He noted that the plan only affects new development within the area of the plan. He said some projects will have to go through a notification process and be submitted for review by the collaborative group such as: General Plan amendments, Specific Plan amendments, annexations, structures that exceed the allowable height, and those that have the potential to create electrical or visual hazards. He said that if other jurisdictions are in a dispute regarding a specific project that does not affect our jurisdiction we would not be brought into the dispute; disputes are dealt with by the mediation board. Mr. Blum emphasized that they critically analyied time, effort and cost in the development of this process. In response to Commissioner Fletcher, he said all plan amendments would be submitted for review even if they have "no effect" - it would merely be submitted as a general notification of the project. He said their response time is 20 days. He said it is their hope that sending the notification will be part of Rancho's existing process. Mr. Blum added that the committee would only be aware it a specific project was not compliant. He said unlike county commissions, our mediation group will be staffed by people that represent the cities that are most affected. James Troyer, Planning Director, noted that this is already outlined and represented in our 2010 General Plan Update. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, asked if they are looking for a specific finding. Mr. Blum said that it need only be found to be in conformance with our General Plan and policies. He said the next step is to move forward with the review of the agreement and then it would proceed to the Commission and for final approval by the City Council. Discussion of this item ended at 8:30 p.m. ...,. B. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2012-00021 -ZION ENTERPRISES LLC: A request a Planning Commission Workshop review of a mixed use project comprised of a senior sisted living and dementia care facility, a medical office building, retail and restaurant ds, and a hotel on two parcels of about 301,000 square feet (6.9 acres) in the Mixed (MU) District (Subarea 19) located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Civi enter Drive that is part of a retail and residential development generally located on fhe w side of Haven Avenue between Civic Center Drive and Foothill Boulevard; APN: 0208-3 -40 and -47. Related files: Development Review DRCDR00-79 and Tentative Tract Ma BTT16179 James Troyer, Planning Director gave a brief introduction fhe project. He introduced the design team from Zion Enterprises LLC: Brian Hunter (Man ing Partner), Charlie Zhang (Owner) and Greg Irwin (Architect), He stated that most of the bject is consistent with City policy but that the main policy question for the Commission ~- out the proposed Senior Assisted Living and Dementia care facility located on the we,~rn portion of the site. He said that the applicant has already been notified that a Use Det ination would have to be processed to determine if the Senior Assisted Living and Deme care facility use is similar to a "convalescent facility" which is currently allowed in the Haver verlay. He said if the applicant was not successful in the Use Determination process, ~n the applicant would have to file and successfully process a Development Code Ap~hdment for it to be allowed. Linda Daniels sistant City Manager, said that the use described as "Convalescent Facility" will be removed/ of be permitted in the Haven Overlay in the proposed Development Code Update that is curr , yin process and nearing completion. C Adjourned Minutes -2- March 28, 2012 P119 ner presented the staff report. In response to Vice Chairman -~-~ ~~ •~~ r~~~o~f dacrriotion_includes the garage space. In response to Commissioner concern about a view corridor, staff will work with the applicant to remedy the situation within He said sometimes homes can be shifted or re-plotted on the site to help preserve a n~ view. He noted the City does not have a 'View Ordinance". Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing. Patrick Diaz, Crestwood Communities at 520 West Citrus Edge in Glendora ey have read and agree to the conditions of approval. He said it was a pleasure to work wi a Smith; everything went smoothly. ~ Daniel Yukovich, 89 Cornwall Court said the development is next t ility easement. He asked if there are any plans for a biking or walking trail. Mr. Smith reported that there is a proposal at some point t in a trail but not adjacent to the subdivision but on the other side (to the east) and y this applicant. He said that as development occurs on either side, it will start to be bu' Chairman Munoz closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher said the project look e, it is a straightforward request, he likes the architectural amenities, it is a nice mix of 1- ry homes and the project brings added product for our residents. i Commissioner Wimberly concurred. oted he worked with the applicants at DRC and in refining the end product. He said he look and to seeing the project completed as it will be a nice addition. Commissioner Oaxaca agre "ith both commissioners. He said he is pleased to see the architectural elements incl in the elevations. He said it is nicely done. Vice Chairman Howdys complimented staff. She said it is a challenging parcel. She said she is pleased to see wher 'single-story homes will be placed. She complimented the applicants on the California Cra ,nand the California Spanish styles as they are really nice. Chairman Mu anked the applicant. He said most of the work was done by the time it got to the DRC. He s e level of design was done well. He offered kudos to the applicant and Mr. Smith. He said were 6 major changes and 2 secondary changes. He noted that the process it is easy partn good developers. Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Fletche_ r for Development Review. DR!' AYES: FLETC Q'r NONE ._..« - carried WIMBERLY of B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTANDINDUSTRIALAREASPECIFICPLANSUBAREA18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 9, 2012 P120 amend Section 5.3.2.of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Related files: LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157, and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. Staff has prepared a .Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. This item will be fowarded to the City Council for final action. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT-AND LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DRC2010-00157 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -The review and adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport-Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). Related Files: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Donald Granger, Senior Planner presented the staff report and gave a brief PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no comment, he closed the public hearing. . Vice Chairman Howdyshell complimented Mr. Granger on his-excellent report. She said she learned a lot from reading it. Commissioner Oaxaca thanked staff and the City of Ontario staff for the cooperative process over 3 years. He said they had a very useful workshop to get us to this point and it has been an effective process. Commissioner Wimberly thanked Mr. Granger for a fantastic report. He also thanked the City of Ontario for laying the foundation. Commissioner Fletcher complimented staff and for working with Ontario and the other agencies. He said localized control is a big benefit and the processes that will go into place should have an insignificant effect on our city. He said having the airport is a big asset and is important to businesses relocating into our area. Chairman Munoz thanked staff from the City of Ontario. He thanked our staff for getting this done on the ground floor and incorporating into our plans so the foundation is there. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Wimberly, carried 5-0, to adopt the Resolutions recommending approval for Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 TextAmendment DRC2010- 00685 and La/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 with the adopted of the proposed Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. These items will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried + a a w Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 9, 2012 P121 EXHIBIT L - LA/ONT ALUCP COMPLETE TEXT WITH EXHIBITS AVAILABLE AT http://www. ontarioplan. org/index. cfm/3 3710 EXHIBIT M - LA/ONT ALUCP HARDCOPY DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER AND AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE P122 BACKGROUND City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II Project File: LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685. 2. Related Files: None. See below for complete description of project 3. Location of Project: LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) is located in southwestern San Bernardino County in the City of Ontario (Figure H-1; LA/ONT ALUCP). ONT is classified as a primary commercial service airport, owned by the City of Los Angeles and operated by Los Angeles World Airways (LAWA). The geographic scope of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is the Airport Influence Area (AIA), the area in which current or future airport-related noise, safety, airspace protection and/or over flight factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA includes portions of the Cities of Ontario, Fontana, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, Pomona, Claremont, and unincorporated portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties (Figure H-2; LAIONT ALUCP). Within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the affected project area for the AIA (Airspace Protection Areas Figure PS-7 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan) is generally located south of Church Street to the City limits. 4. Description of Project: The function of the LAlOntario (ONT) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is to promote compatibility between ONT and surrounding land uses as provided in the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code [Section 21670 et seq.]). The ALUCP provides specific limitations and conditions for developing future residential, commercial, and other noise and risk sensitive uses surrounding ONT. The ALUCP consists of several components, including airport and land use information, compatibility policies and criteria, compatibility zone maps, and procedural policies for the City of Ontario and the surrounding areas and jurisdictions within the Airport Influence Area (AIA). The preparation of the ALUCP was guided by the California Department of Transportation California Airport Lane Use Planning Handbook (January 2002). It is important to note that the ALUCP only governs future land uses within the AIA; it does not regulate existing uses. Further, the ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to ONT, nor does it have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). LAWA began the master planning process for ONT, but efforts were suspended in 2008 because of the economic downturn and subsequent drop in aircraft operations. Before the planning process was suspended, LAWA developed a tentative proposal for reconfiguration of the existing runway system that would accommodate potential future passenger and air cargo volume projections for the year 2030. The State Aeronautics Act requires that an ALUCP "be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years' (Public Utilities Code, § 21676(a)). Therefore, while the ALUCP includes an airport layout plan that shifts runways of ONT to the east and south for airport land use planning purposes, the City of Ontario has no approval authority over that layout, nor does inclusion of that layout in the ALUCP facilitate expansion of the operations of ONT. Any future expansion would have to be approved by LAWA as part of an Airport Master Plan. The ALUCP takes into consideration the airport layout plan that shifts runways of ONT to the east and south for airport EXHIBIT N P123 _ = a x ~ i ~ > > ~ a E w ~ ~. U ~? LL :Or a o o ~ ~ ~ °c ~--~ z ip Q ~ w ~ ~ o V ~ ~~ J O '~ LJ oo y ~ ~ °c w e ~ Q a c `m m ~~ C .~ w ~ v v dr ~ O~ `~ O O Q ~o~-~~ooaoa J w G. Z •©11 ~ 9 ~ a o ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ > > c Z o w r ~ W n. o ~ ` U _d' C a1 ~ Q L" a ~ R C Q ~ ~ '$ C ~ ~ ~ 0 Z Q q ~. ~i O ~ ~ C _ +~+ _ ~ ~ ~ ,.. O ~ ~ ~ o e ~ ~ ~ o` r g 0 a g o o ~ .; ~ o` r g a v ¢ ~ ~ ~ 3 t Y V L V m ~pp C Q ~ . A •~ E o t •L ~ J ~ V C 0 ~ O O O ~ ~ ~~ ~ a y u s ~ ~ m J (~ =` ti O J z o ~ a ~~ ~ Q ~ ~©~~ i P124 ~? o-.r ~~ ~}- O T C C N ~ O E ~~ j ~ U ~ T o ~ ~ U ~ ~ c ~ fa~ U ~ ~ 0 p '" d ~ oo v ~ y O J ~ ~ Q y CO C ~, a o z ~ `° ~ ~ U a a ~~~ o` ~,,~; J ~W ~' ~ .. ~ s ;~ _ LS,,:>v- i 1~~~ rr-ve i._. W uu_m.A o~NOr ~ R c S = '~ '~ 3 aamNn+ 3 31YU SC3NA 5'1 13dt: ~ ,~~~ ~~ ~ tl30Nd3 d? C 3 fvrfq: °^rl:~ ~ i ~ s Haan 1~'t ~ CC i ' ~ t ¢ dtr ~ w ~ O .r na3w~ ~ ~ W ~; ~ ~ Y ~:a '~ ~ ~F 9 t ~ 'I W iy _, C g 4 (h?`11!I~a .~.~ ~ ~ K~ x I.. .N S ~ ¢ /~ ~ ~,.' z otivbo~ j J _ < ++sdn ~ ~ t rya ~ i ,' \. ~+ ~S + s ~;`~' ~~._ ~ ,A~ ~'~~ r ,~ 9 W A9a!)1 '~l~ y~ ~ DLIOtlA: ~ o s + ,_ ~ s M ~ Nlaae 3~ < _ = _ ~' a ruNwrl_a .._ .. aiG n,~ d w, ~~ ~ i x ' a `~ W 7 w J Q Z W Z O Z W a U J Q H Z O s x 0 z w a a Q W s Ol la~wv+. ?3a: --'•----7j ~ S t, ~ ~ H~ a+l~oa a N3yr.,~n' a * M Cl~Nt~i FL u 5va .E ~N'f0 doNrm, O 4 `~ r,~ ~0 A d~;lhNilf V = 1/ Y' lei ~ ~ ~ {~~n tl~l rSA143M1Y W :, Y NVn1731f _ _ N ~' 'Aa78 rr >; sl `1sT „ lsl NrY cac i, oa G fJ p I ~ I ro.<t, ry~ ~ r[ a C dtiin~ yy _ NItl3~ - f. Id.: ; QNr•1'--' C M1 ;f N11 O ~ I oy E x,~l„~~ , tr ~~ +~',~ 77,,~3'r ' w MHbc t_.~ F N t0 ~ 2 C ~ ` ~ Q 3 R d ~ _~ ~ v z -~~z LL m m ~~ _ ~ o_ ~ ~~ •L c a ~a N m 1 N 0 ~. ~ u ~ 3~ Cj ~ ; ~ 9^43' ~ p K IYi'1 ~ B ~' ~_ l_ N VII W ~ ~, V S ` V J tom.. tNCk1~'1M1+ -~ 3 1'-!l ~~ 2 ulucac~r. ^ ~. z aNV.3 T~ ~\ \ ~ ~ i b3+n+ ~~ u, a tl3NMr% ~ I N3hbi1: g `„'K'NI ' y 105~NNYf'; ~1 ~ ~S J ~ 3 T?NNd117 M33b l Y 5~ ~ 1 ':'r NYY /~~ ': ~ F u 3 OC ~~. NVA3N/, z N3-•% ~ ' ~ .+ `- = r 3Md1 a?x lr!~ b yt' a3+'~ tt u 7n: ~tf.~ o . ~ L' - ne ~ nt3i ,N08 ~ _ ~ Shav+vt~ z ~ ~ - m i +3 "I b Htla ~ m ~ i ~ !; T'tt" 3 a'. 1',Z 3Ni.1 ~~ IL~ N_!i Z~ m OINOl NV Nda ~ r.. xA' ~ ~ ' . ; y0 3NW ~ S < C ~ 3s~u A J _' ` ,~3 ., mC`rt IIIVH:N31 ci' `fl9 N19 "+IVrc `1~' .y , s~Jrt ~3•n Ta,,..~ '~ a ~NV.1-ia 'fib 5 __ N 1 j s = ~,. nlr i ~ ac A'r$ s C .1Hy .+ .::.,, 2 P125 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 2 land use planning purposes in order to property address and mitigate potential impacts from future aircraft operations and the re-configuring of the existing runways. All affected jurisdictions with the AIA within the County of San Bernardino are required to adopt the ALUCP through participation agreements, implement its policies, and amend all affected land use documents with the AIA to achieve vertical land use policy consistency. For the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the following three actions constitute the scope of the project and will achieve vertical consistency among its land use documents: 1. Adopt the LA/ONT ALUCP and enter into a participation agreement (Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative Agreement). 2. Amend the Industrial Area Subarea 18 Specific Plan to include language requiring compliance with the ALUCP for airspace protection and over flight notification. 3. Amend Section 17.30 (Industrial Districts) of the Development to include language requiring compliance with the ALUCP for airspace protection and over flight notification. Note: The City's 2010 General Plan anticipated the adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP and includes language and policies requiring compliance with the ALUCP; therefore, no text amendments to the 2010 General Plan are required. The City is currently completing a comprehensive update to the Development Code, which will include updated language to the Industrial Districts (#3 above) requiring compliance with the ALUCP for airspace protection and over flight notification. For CEQA purposes, the scope of the Initial Study includes the following: 1) adoption of the ALUCP; 2) amending Section 5.3.2.of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and 3) amending Section 17.30 (Industrial Districts) of the Development to include language requiring compliance with the ALUCP for airspace protection and over flight notification. Case File Descriptions LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -The review and adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport-Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). Related Files: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 17.30.040-D-5 (Building Height) and Section 17.030.060-J-14 (Architecture and Design) to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Related Files: LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 and Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 5.3.2.of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Related Files: LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. Rev. 11 /2010 P126 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page3 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Dept. City of Ontario, Planning Dept. 10500 Civic Center Drive 303 East "B" Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Ontario, CA 91764 Contact: Donald Granger, Senior Planner Contact: Lorena Mejia, Associate Planner 6. General Plan Designation: General Plan designations vary within the LA/ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA) within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 7. Zoning: Zoning designations vary within the LA/ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA) within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses vary within the LA/ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA) within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario. ONT is classified as a primary commercial service airport, owned by the City of Los Angeles and operated by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA). The geographic scope of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is the Airport Influence Area (AIA), the area in which current or future airport-related noise, safety, airspace protection and/or over flight notification may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA includes portions of the Cities of Chino, Claremont, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, and unincorporated portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties. Future impacts from aircraft operations at ONT are projected to affect the City of Rancho Cucamonga; hence, the adoption of the ALUCP and participation in the implementation of its policies is required. 9. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 10. Contact Person and Phone Number: Donald Granger (909) 477-2750, ext. 4314 11. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): The City of Ontario is the lead agency responsible for the drafting and administration of the LAIONT ALUCP. The City of Ontario approved the LA/ONT ALUCP on April 19, 2011. GLOSSARY -The following abbreviations are used in this report: CVWD -Cucamonga Valley Water District EIR -Environmental Impact Report FEIR -Final Environmental Impact Report FPEIR -Final Program Environmental Impact Report NPDES -National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NOx -Nitrogen Oxides ROG -Reactive Organic Gases PM,o -Fine Particulate Matter RWOCB -Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD -South Coast Air Quality Management District SWPPP -Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan URBEMIS7G -Urban Emissions Model 7G Rev. 11 /2010 P127 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than-Significant-Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. OAesthetics ()Biological Resources ()Greenhouse Gas Emissions (/) Land Use & Planning ()Population & Housing () Transportation/Traffic ()Agricultural Resources ()Cultural Resources (/) Hazards & Waste Materials ()Mineral Resources ()Public Services ()Utilities & Service Systems ()Air Quality ()Geology & Soils ()Hydrology & Water Quality ()Noise ()Recreation (/) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (/) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Prepared Reviewed significant effect on the environment. A Date: L'f' i o ~2 Date: ~I ~O/2O1~i Rev. 11/2010 P128 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Pages EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? () () () (/) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but () () () (/) not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or () () () (/) quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, () () () (/) which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a-d) The proposed Los Angeles/Ontario Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (LAIONT ALUCP), Development Code Amendment (DCA), and Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment (IASP Sub 18 TA,) do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA„ and DCA would not (a) directly or indirectly affect a scenic vista (trees, rock outcroppings); (b, damage scenic resources; (c) degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings; or (d) create a new source of light or glare, and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to aesthetics. Further, the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA„ and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or () () Q (/) Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a () () () (/) Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for,. or cause rezoing of, () () () (/) forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest () () () (/) land to non-forest use? Rev. 11 /2010 P129 Initial Study for DRC2010-00157, SPECIFIC PLAN CUCAMNONGA LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO Page 6 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, () () () (/) which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Comments: a-e) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA„ and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land, timberland or Timberland Production, agriculturally zoned and no Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA„ and DCA would not (a) directly or indirectly convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively "Farmland" to non-agricultural use; (b) conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; (c) conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 {g}), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526, or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8); or (d) result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use, since there is no forest land within the Airport Influence Area (AIA); or involve other changes in the existing environment that, because of their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland to anon-agricultural use. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA„ and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the () () () (/) applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute () () () (/) substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of () () () (/) any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant () () () (/) concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial () () () (/) number of people? Comments• a-e) The proposed LAIONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA„ and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise Rev. 11/2010 P130 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Pagel permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT), nor does the City of Ontario have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan and FPEIR analyzed the LA/ONT ALUCP and impacts associated. Therefore, the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not (a) directly or indirectly conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; (b) violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; (c) result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard; (d) expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or (e) or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not impact the environment or result in impacts to air quality. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or O O O (/) through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat () () () (/) or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally () () () (/) protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Intertere substantially with the movement of any native () () () (/) resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances () () () (/) protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat () () () (/) Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Rev. 1112010 P131 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA PageB Comments• a-f) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. It is important to note that the ALUCP only governs future land uses within the AIA; it does not regulate existing uses. Further, the ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to ONT, nor'does it have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not directly or indirectly impact biological resources or their habitat, or conflict with applicable policies protecting biological resources or an adopted or approved habitat conservation plan; and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts to biological resources. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the () () () (/) significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the () () () (/) significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological () () () (/) resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred () () () (/) outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a-d) The proposed LAJONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA ALUCP would not (a,b) directly or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or an archaeological resource; (c) directly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or (d) disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to cultural resources. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Additionally, each project located Rev. 11 /2010 P732 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page9 within the AIA area will be analyzed independently under CEQA. Therefore, there would be no impacts 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as () () () (/) delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? () () () (/) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including () () () (/) liquefaction? iv) Landslides? () () () (/) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? () () () (/) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, () () () (/) or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table () () () (/) 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use () () () (/) of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a-e) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not (a) expose people or structures to potential, substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, liquefaction, or landslides; (b) result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; (c) be located on a geologic unit that is unstable, potentially resulting in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; (d) be located on expansive soil; or (e) have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks; and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to geology and soils. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental Rev. 11/2010 P133 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 10 impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or () () () (/) indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) ~ Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? O O U (/) Comments• a-b) Reoulations and Sicnificance: The Federal government began studying the phenomenon of global warming as early as 1979 with the National Climate Protection Act (92 Stat. 601). In June of 2005, former Governor Schwarzenegger established California's Green House Gas ("GHG") emissions reduction target in Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. The EO created goals to reduce GHG emissions for the State of California to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Additionally, on December 7, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued findings regarding GHGs under rule 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: (1) that GHGs endanger human health; and (2) that this will be the first steps to regulating GHGs through the federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA defines six key GHGs (carbon dioxide [COZ], methane [CH,], nitrous oxide [NZO], hydroflourocarbons [HFCsJ, perflourocarbons [PFCs], and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6]. The combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and engines contribute to GHG pollution: The western states, including Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, already experience hotter, drier climates. California is a substantial contributor of GHGs and is expected to see an increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit (oF) over the next century. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires that the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the lead agency for implementing AB 32, determine what the statewide GHG emission level was in 1990 and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit (427 million metric tons of COZ equivalent) to be achieved by 2020 and prepare a Scoping Plan to outline the main strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline. Significant progress can be made toward the 2020 goal through existing technologies and improving the efficiency of energy use. Other solutions would include improving the State's infrastructure and transitioning to cleaner and more efficient sources of energy. The ARB estimates that 38 percent of the State's GHG emissions in 2004 was from transportation sources, followed by electricity generation (both in-State and out-of-State) at 28 percent, and industrial at 20 percent. Residential and commercial activities account for 9 percent, agricultural uses at 6 percent, high global warming potential gases at 3 percent, and recycling and waste at 1 percent. The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the Rev. 11/2010 P134 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 11 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT), nor does the City of Ontario have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not (a) generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant effect on the environment or (b) conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gas emissions. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which. the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 8. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the () () () (/) environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the () () () (/) environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or () () () (/) acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of () () () (/) hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, () () (/) ( ) where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, () () () (/) would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an () () () (/) adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of () () () (/) loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a-d) & f-h) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise Rev. 11/2010 P135 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 12 permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT), nor does the City of Ontario have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Also, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not (a) involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; (b) the emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste; (c) result in hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; or (d) involve the location of a building, structure, or public facility on a hazardous materials site compiled by the State of California pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 or affect any sites included on a list of hazardous material sites. The proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not affect the incidence of hazardous material safety hazards in the area and would not (f) result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of the nearest private airstrip; (g) affect emergency response plans or (f) affect the incidence or probability or wildland fires in the area. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. e) Pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act, the proposed ALUCP establishes criteria and Safety Zones by which safety hazards relating to aircraft activity would be evaluated. The criteria are intended to reduce the risk of exposure to the hazards of an off-airport accident by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people within the Safety Zones. The Safety Zones are completely contained within the City of Ontario and land uses were designated in the Ontario Plan to be consistent with airport operations. The proposed ALUCP further reduces risks of aircraft accident occurrence by setting policies that, consistent with federal regulations, limit the height of structures, trees, and other objects that might penetrate the airspace of the airport as defined by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, TERPS and FAA criteria. The proposed ALUCP would also decrease airport-related safety hazards by limiting incompatible development within Safety Zones (City of Ontario). The proposed ALUCP would result in a beneficial impact by reducing the number of people exposed to airport- related safety hazards, including aircraft accidents, consistent with the objectives of the State Aeronautics Act. For the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the adoption of the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would increase airport safety by amending the City's land use documents to contain policies and procedures that will ensure compliance with the airspace protection and over flight notification sections of the ALUCP. Because of the reasons stated above, the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials; conversely, the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA will limit building heights for new development in areas with the Airport Influence Area. The impact is considered less-than-significant. Rev. 11/2010 P136 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 13 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge () () () (/) requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere () () () (/) substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the () () () (/) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the () () () (/) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed () () () (/) the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? () () () (/) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as () () () (/) mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures () () () (/) that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of () () () (/) loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? () () () (/) Comments: a-j) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not (a) violate any water quality standards; (b) affect groundwater supplies; (c,d) substantially alter drainage patterns; or (e)-Q) cause runoff water which would exceed storm drains, degrade water quality or expose people or structures to significant risk in involving flooding, seiche, tsunami or mudflow; and, as Rev. 11 /2010 P137 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 14 such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to hydrology and water quality. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? () () () (/) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or () () (/) ( ) regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan () () () (/) or natural community conservation plan? Comments: a & c) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT). ONT has operated as an airport since the 1920s, and the City of Ontario has planned for appropriate land uses surrounding ONT. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not (a) physically divide an established community or (b) conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts to land use planning. Further, the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. .Additionally, each project located within the AIA area will be analyzed independently under CEQA. Therefore, there would be no impacts. b) The proposed ALUCP is a mitigating document that establishes land use measures designed to minimize the public's exposure impacts from aircraft operations at ONT. State law (Gov. Code §653025.3) requires that all agencies within an Airport Influence Area amend their general plans to be consistent with an adopted ALUCP, and other land use documents should be amended as needed to achieve vertical land use policy consistency. The ALUCP is intended, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21670 et seq., to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and is guided by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. As required by State law, the proposed ALUCP sets policies and criteria consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and within the parameters identified in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's 2010 General Plan already includes land policies that are consistent with the ALUCP; therefore no amendments to the City's General Plan are required. The IASP Sub 18 TA and DCA will make these land use policy documents Rev. 11 /2010 P138 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 CUCAMNONGA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO Page 15 consistent with the ALUCP. In summary, the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Any potential impacts from the adoption of the ALUCP and text amendments would be less than significant. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral () () () (/) resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important () () () (/) mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: a 8 b) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. No mineral resources are located within the noise and safety zones within the City of Ontario that are potentially affected by the ALUCP. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 16 TA, and DCA would not cause the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be considered to be of value to the region and residents of the state, or result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. As such, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts to mineral resources. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in () () () (/) excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive () () () (/) ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise () () () (/) levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in () () () (/) ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Rev. 11 /2010 P139 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 16 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, () () () (/) where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, () () () (/) would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a 8 e) The proposed ALUCP is a mitigating document that establishes land use measures designed to minimize the public's exposure impacts from aircraft operations at ONT. State law (Gov. Code §653025.3) requires that all agencies within an Airport Influence Area amend their general plans to be consistent with'an adopted ALUCP, and other land use documents should be amended as needed to achieve vertical land use policy consistency. The ALUCP is intended, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21670 et seq., to protect the public health, safety and welfare and is guided by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. As required by State law, the proposed ALUCP sets policies and criteria consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and within the parameters identified in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's 2010 General Plan already includes land policies that are consistent with the ALUCP; therefore no amendments to the City's General Plan is required. Further, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is outside the affected area of noise impacts from aircraft operations at ONT; therefore, there would be no impact. b-d & f) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, arid Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT), nor does the City of Ontario have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Further, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is outside the affected area of noise impacts or vibration impacts from aircraft operations at ONT; therefore, there would be no impact. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either () () () (/) directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, () () () (/) necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating () () () (/) the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Rev. 11 /2010 P140 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 17 Comments: a-c) The proposed LAIONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LAlONT International Airport (ONT). Further, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly induce population growth; rather, it would limit the location and distribution of residential and non-residential land uses with the Noise and Safety Zones (located within the City of Ontario) to minimize potential noise impacts and safety concerns. Within the City of Ontario, residential district in the Noise Impact Zones limit new residential development within 65 db CNEL and prohibits new residential land uses within the 70 db CNEL noise contour (City of Ontario). The City of Rancho Cucamonga is not within the Noise Impact Zone and is outside the affected area of noise impacts. The City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan and FPEIR analyzed the LAIONT ALUCP and impacts associated. Additionally, each project located within the AIA area will be analyzed independently under CEQA, therefore, there would be no impact. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, .need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? () () () (/) b) Police protection? () () () (/) c) Schools? () () () (/) d) Parks? () () () (/) e) Other public facilities? () () () (/) Comments: a) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT), nor does the City of Ontario have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not create a need for any new or physically altered governmental facilities. As such, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not result in any direct or indirect impacts related to public services. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above Rev. 11/2010 P141 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 18 the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and () () () (/) regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or () () () (/) require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments• a & b) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, and does not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment, and, as such, would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to recreation. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 16. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy () () () (/) establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management () () () (/) program, including, but not limited to a level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including () () () (/) either an increase in traffic levels or a change in , location that result in substantial safety risks? Rev. 11 /2010 P142 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 19 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature () () () (/) (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? () () () (/) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? () () () (/) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs () () () (/) regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Comments: a-g) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT), nor does the City of Ontario have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 16 TA, and DCA would not (a) conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit; (b) conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; (c) result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; (d) increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); (e) result in inadequate emergency access; (f) result in inadequate parking capacity or (g) conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. As such, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not result in any direct or indirect impacts related to transportation or traffic. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the () () () (/) applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or () () () (/) wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Rev. 11 /2010 P743 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 20 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm () () () (/) water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the () () () (/) project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment () () () (/) provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted () () () (/) capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and () () () (/) regulations related to solid waste? Comments• a-g) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not result in the construction of new wastewater or stormwater facilities, and would not require additional water supplies, or wastewater or landfill capacity, and, as such, would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to utilities and service systems. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Additionally, each project located within the AIA area will be analyzed independently under CEQA. Therefore, there would be no impacts. Rev. 11/2010 P144 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 21 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the () () () (/) quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will () () () (/) cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a & c) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not othervvise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT), nor does the City of Ontario have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 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; have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; or have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Nothing in the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would result in indirect impacts, such as the construction of housing, development of other types of land uses, or the expansion of any infrastructure, that would require an analysis of potentially significant impacts to wildlife, their habitats, important examples of California history, or human beings. In addition, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not result in the displacement of existing residential dwelling units, commercial, industrial, or public use structures thereby necessitating the construction of replacement housing, facilities, or infrastructure in other areas, which may result in potentially significant impacts to wildlife, Rev. 11 /2010 P145 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 22 their habitats, or important examples of California history or human beings. Therefore, there would be no impacts. b) The proposed ALUCP regulates future incompatible land uses specific to noise, airspace protection, safety and over flight impacts around ONT and affected agencies within the Airport Influence Area of ONT, which the City of Rancho Cucamonga is within. Moreover, because the proposed ALUCP is regulatory in nature and will not result in any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environmental impacts. Further, the IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. In fact, the ALUCP functions primarily as a mitigation plan designed to avoid and mitigate noise, safety, airspace protection, and over flight notification requirements that might otherwise be cumulatively significant. Therefore, any potential impact would be less-than-significant. 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 PEIR 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): (/) General Plan FPEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified May 19, 2010) (/) General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001) (/) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (/) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) (/) Industrial Area Specific Ptan, Subarea 18, EIR (SCH #93102055, certified June 15, 1994) (/) City of Ontario Initial Study for LA ONT ALUCP (City Council Approval on April 19, 2011) (/) LAIONT ALUCP (City Council Approval on April 19, 2011) Rev. 11 /2010 P146 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00964, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 23 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. Applicant's Sign Print Name and Title: Date: Z Rev. 11!2010 P147 NT~~I APPENDIX H ~. - °AtRP29Rfi PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL~REVIEW city or Ontario 'CAq~ California Environmental Qualit Act Planning Department a . - O' Y 303 East "B" Street ~ . Environmental Checklist Forms ontarlo,californla :,:, Phone: (909)395-2036 ~ Fax: (909)395-2420 Project Name: LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP or Compatibility Plan") ' Project Sponsor: City of Ontario -Planning Department, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California, 91764 Contact Person: Lorena Mejia, Associate Planner, (909) 395-2276 Project Location: LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario. The City of Ontario is located approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles from Orange County as illustrated on Figure Hl. ONT is classified as a primary commercial service airport, owned by the City of Los Angeles and operated by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA). The geographic scope of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is the Airport Influence Area (AIA), the area in which current or future airport-related noise, safety, airspace protection and/or overflight factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA includes portions of the Cities of Ontario, Fontana, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, Pomona, Claremont and unincorporated portions of San Bernardino, Riverside and Los Angeles Counties as illustrated in Figure H2. Project Description: The function of the ALUCP is to promote compatibility between ONT and surrounding land uses as provided in the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code, section 21670 et seq.). The proposed ALUCP provides specific limitations and conditions for developing future residential, commercial and other noise and risk sensitive uses surrounding ONT. The proposed ALUCP consists of several components including: airport and land use information, compatibility policies and criteria, compatibility zone maps and procedural policies. The proposed ALUCP for ONT would supplement the Airport Environs section of The Ontario Plan (Ontario's General Plan), which currently serves as ONT's airport land use plan, by providing land use compatibility policies and criteria for ONT and surrounding areas. The preparation of the proposed ALUCP was guided by the California Department of Transportations' California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002). It is important to note that the ALUCP only governs future land uses within the AIA; it does not regulate existing uses. Further, the ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor has any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviatiori Administration (FAA). LAWA began the master planning process for ONT, but suspended that effort in 200B. Before its planning process was suspended, LAWA developed a tentative proposal for reconfiguration of the runway system that would LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-1 P148 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW oauv~arPUHr+inc accommodate potential future passenger and air cargo volume in 2030. The State Aeronautics Act requires that the ALUCP "be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years." (Pub. Utilities Code, 4 21675(a).) Therefore, while the ALUCP includes an airport layout plan that shifts ONT's runways to the east and south for airport land use planning purposes, the City has no approval authority over that layout, nor does inclusion of that layout in the ALUCP facilitate expansion of ONT's operations. Any such expansion would have to be approved by LAWA as part of an Airport Master Plan. General Plan Designation: General Plan Designations vary within DNT's AIA. Zoning: Zoning varies within ONT's AIA. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan requires approval from the California Division of Aeronautics and participation agreements from the affected jurisdictions within the County of San Bernardino. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at (east one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aestheti[s Biological Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use /Planning Population /Housing Transportation/Traffic Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities/Service Systems Air Quality Geology/Soils Hydrology/Water Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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. H-2 LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) P149 O~~~P~'"~I"G ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDI% H I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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 on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 1 find that although the proposed project Could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: dk"6j-~ P s' Date: January 26, 2011 Name (print or type): Lorena Meii Title: Associate Planner LA/Ontado International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-3 P150 APPE NDI% H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Q~r~xte- MRFORiPIgNNV~G This page was left intentionally blank. H-4 LA/Ontano International AirpoR Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apnl 19, 2011) P151 x O z w a a a ~? ••-• ~~r :Z. O w j O E ~ ~, U J ~ ~ ~ cg m ~ ~ m c e, O J J Q ~ ~ ~ ~ al:-~o~aa~ ~^o~i ~~ 2 $~ m ~ v <' z i ~ z {~ ~ N Y i--~ Z < q <1 o J ~s o ~ o~ r o s" _ ~. ~ ~ Q C O ~.. .:. C 01 r R C ~~ ~ ~ o 0 r «©II I~ P152 ~? ~~ z ~~ Q W W Q z W Z Z W a U F Z O S x 0 z W a a c ~_ ~ ~ E ~ d ~ Jr~,, ~ ~ ~'i U ~ o p ~ d ~ ~, ~ ~ a~i O J ~ ~ Q Z A ~ !o ~ U a a~~ N~ C '' ~~ ; ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,(; O ~ 1 - --- 3 0 ~ -+~ r s~,!-.,, ~ I ~ PfYYwri UN:>n• t ~ ~ ¢, ,~ iS , r:r{r 6 ~ ~'. C 3 i 4 a?wnan z . ti m.'• , 11Yn a:w7ar]ll+ {1rU +I ~ 7 ~ ,ry'rt CRa.I .rvp, ~` W q~, 5 V W ~ £ n ',la~~~~y £~- iV\ 1 ~ ~ r S. z y ) ~ f : ~ t y ~~.Q ~ Y ,~,, !n ~ ~ ni..y r ~i ~ ~ . r ~ ' duh M ly{ T _- ~ M'+b f-t 1V { L~ V IS'. Nr T a S•M ~ Y t pia:+^~ vl x'a kN '+~ f-~.~: ~, j ~nww:, ~ x ~' s z . /mar* ~ a r• 7n!fev Y _ j 3 v~ u1 ~ f ~ ~ s J 7r1 ISANI T'IY u W • ~ = :~ A 3 K .tT13 awr _ ~ 'ren ~ S ~ yr 13n'f+': o - E a OarA n + m w f.rr' _ _ T W ." * 11r!.. 2 ~: j . i Yt ~. 34' l ~ „1„ r ~ :: a Z e .. _ ~ ? ~- N 10 ~ = C m ` ~ Q w i ~ ~ ~ ~~ Z ~ ~ m ~a ~ ~ C c o .` O c a °~a ~ ,~~ f4 ? + S ~ .Ll hi frd GaG.~ ~G ,r z iY~ro ~ ., ~ ~, y ~' C ~-° .ta.nl 4 ~ z Jy IOtlI: O ,', ••• loc-1 {O aalaan (~ +r1J ~ ~ lY'3 $R tWNP TIN ~ W F'M _. 3yr1T' 4 ~{ ~ n3~03n r. I'I• z y y a•rrrrlrv 1~ ~Tg~ S $p ~ o ~ rrrv . ~~b _ S t r, ~ 1e1r1e 'wr. Y' 9. gn3;s - H,tnv t A r '' aT rM?bC'. 4' z ~ a {": 3lY7{I7 qq 37Y: Ny. ~ M11fE ~'. 9 L' t 5 rh':+U r . ,r wry ~ \At'31f y11W m ry r ,n ~ Y y1p 1 eleff.+. j w] ; ~_ i ~ N3~rN F Y •W G a3nan. ~ " ~, ~P iO LL I ~ (1 WFiN~Y 2 a i;w ?Yr1 a3rirM -^.^w, O~Nrn W~i a l:.TSfyQ ~ ~ ij `- ~ ~ N z U Y.~'a3•Ir': C. AiNY ~~ !r • •.1,. mangy d Nil f'7f Y .d' Y ~~ C L N 0 i M r:' htr P~ "17. R C ,• II:'1 Ira:r:YJ 1!• t _ C 1171] NiG. NI" _ ~n ~ Y' ~ ~~ . . }~ y, L .~.7 ~ 2{.~ 3p'~ 7T Sf•4 ryp.~n.l''An +1n" +. ' I11tf C ~. ~ ~ 7 a' - Ly U 7iTrN ~lr 1 .1r W N ~r 1 ~" N • ~'~ 3.fi l ~ 3V tJJV ` 111. qNi -r'iM M ~1{.f1 - ~rtS - ~ 4 n L t r •T, a:IIi ON V al . a . .1 `-'~t{rv Y ~n "I';AkiLl:1 . ~ IfUlylc ~.. M11~ ~' C "11 1 y 171T1 ~ ? .,lily {~ ~~ ~.. '~ . ar. `Y ~t sA6^ ~Y n ~ r~Yn: vn ., } ~ ~ P153 QNTARI9=== wrtwarvuvrv:rvc ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS L. AESTHETICS .. ~ PotenUaily , ,- . - . Potentlafty,.. . S/griifftant.f)afess :: Leas.Thcn- - slgntJfcont ~ - INI[7gathfn ~SfgNJrnnt No ~ Would the proposed ojeck: ,' ~ Impaa ~ ' Yncor -rated ~ '~ Im .~ ' ` .bn d (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime X views in the area? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (d): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly affect a scenic vista, damage scenic resources, degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings, or create a new source of light or glare, and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to aesthetics. Also, the proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impact. MITIGATION None Required. LA/Ontano /ntemab'onal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-7 P153 QNTARI6=' n1lPOAi PLANNING ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS . _ _. _ ~ ~ Potentially - ,. ~ -_ .. ~ . _ ~VOtenttdtly.. SlgniflcantUnless : teas Than . ' ' ~ ~ StgnffrcoM ~. - Mktgotion ~ Sfgn~foornt - No Wdbld the propdsed o}eeh. .' ~ ~- ~~~ Im c[ ~ ' lnro rated ~ fni -tt ' ` (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime X views in the area? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (d): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly affect a scenic vista, damage scenic resources, degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site. or its surroundings, or create a new source of light or glare, and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to aesthetics. Also, the proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impact. MITIGATION None Required. LA/Ontario Intemationa/ AirpoR Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-7 P154 APPENDI% H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW -O~~P~^~ 2. AGRICULTURAL & FOREST RESOURCES (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by [he California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.) ' ~ - ;a, ` j ~' . " Patentlalty Slgnlfimnt l/n/ess Leas-Than ,:~ ° 1 * ~5~~t ~' ~S/gnJ~cnnt, ~ Mklga[lon , S/Aglfl[a'rzt No , . ~ ~Woahl"the opdsedprb7ea" .- '.-.Im na'. ~. .' In -..rated ~. .c..fmpad ~` .p vd» (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a x Williamson Act contract? (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public x Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Tmberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of x forest land to non-forest use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in ~ x - conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land tonon-forest use? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (e): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms df development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not: (a) directly or indirectly convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively, "Farmland") to a non-agricultural use; or (b) conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; or (c) conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51304(8); (d) result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, since there is no forest land within the Airport Influence Area (AIA); (e) involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland to anon-agricultural H-8 LA/On[ario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) P155 O~~I~e-= ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H use. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the AIA above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. In addition, the General Plan Land Use Designation Consistency Analysis (Appendix I) evaluated potential general plan inconsistencies with the proposed ALUCP and did not identify any agricultural or forest general plan land use designations within the AIA. Therefore, there would be no impact. MITIGATION None Required. LA/Ontario International AiryoR Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-9 P156 AP PE NDI% H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW O~~"~^"^'~~ 3. AIR QuauTy (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district maybe relied upon to make the following determinotions.J `• 'voteMivlly ' 4 sfgnlJitmt - -,. . ;, ~ Pptentlolfy ~ t/nfess Less Than - ~ ~ Slgn/Jh:aai , Mltlgatlon. .SfgnlJkaat Na `Would the proposed, rd ect ' 9mpact . .Mcd rated. '. _~Impatt .Im act (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the x applicable air quality plan? (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality x violation? (c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or x state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant x concentrations? (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial x number of people? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (e): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Although the City of Ontario, the City of Fontana and the County of San Bernardino will have to adjust their General Plan policies to account for the additional development restrictions contained in the ALUCP, those adjustments will not authorize development beyond what was assumed in the development of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Therefore, the ALUCP would not directly or indirectly conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards; expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; and; as such, would not impact the environment or result in any impacts to air quality. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of H-10 LA/Ontario /ntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) P157 Q~rnxla- nlpPOpieuHMWc ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. LA/Ontano /ntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apd/ 19, 2011) H-11 P158 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW O'~a~~`++~+~~ 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . - - ~ YotenUally -~~ ~ !?oten[la0y SfgnlJicdM Unless ~fsss~fian -. ~. .~. - '- <. ,Ytgnf/lcant .. M/tlgat/on ,Slgg}flovtd ~ ~No ~ Would the ro -sect ro ect - ~ r ~. ~ 7te ~ a -- tnco ~ rated ~ `~fti1 cc fm ct 1 (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status X species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the X California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. fish and Wildlife Service? (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife X corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree X preservation policy or ordinance? (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (f): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the ALUCP would not directly or indirectly impact biological resources or their habitat, or conflict with applicable policies protecting biological resources or an adopted or approved habitat conservation plan, and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to biological resources. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately H-12 LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) P159 _O~,`~~ ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. LA/Ontario /ntemational Airport Lend Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apd/ 19, 2011) H-13 P160 A PPENDI% H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Q~r~s-~ MIppPTGJNNINL - - ~ Cotentia(ly - - - _ SlgnlJlmnt ' . ~ - ~' ~ .YOtetrtlaHy. ' 'Unless; 'less lbaa ` . ' . ~. i °SIgMJhant'~ ,M7R/gaNaq ~ S19niflavat ~ No: would the proposed~pro'eet 'Impact '"lacorporated -"lm att .:' . nnpaa (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in % § 15064.5? (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource % pursuant to 4 15064.5? (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique % geologic feature? (d) Disturb any human remains, including those % interred outside of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (d): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or an archaeological resource; directly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to cultural resources. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. H-14 LA/Ontado International AirpoR Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) P761 ~~~w~ ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ' - ~- ' _ -.-. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ -POtentfaNy -. .. - ' - . ~. - ~ ~ Porentfally STgiiificant Unless Less~fian ~ . ' ~ ~ -Slgn!/itan{: N77tIgaNon ; SlgniJhant ~ No , Would tfie proposed ~ s'ect` - ~ ~ ~ Ym a 'Incorpomked `!m e(- -I od , (a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or X death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including X Iiquefacion? (iv) Landslides? X (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site X landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating X substantial risks to life or property? (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal X systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (e): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic- related ground failure, liquefaction, or landslides; result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; be located on a geologic unit or sail that is unstable, potentially resulting in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; be located on expansive soil; or have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks; and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to geology and soils. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-15 P162 APPENDIX N ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW p~r~i ~IRPJFI PWIIaIYG were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. H-16 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) P163 ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX N 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potent/o/ty' ~ , .. Stgntfirnnt . ,~ ~ Potenttplly ~- alnk3r .. '_ " Lessfia¢, ~ _ ~ , ~ ' -' ~ ~'S/gnlf!aont Mktgation . -3/pn(/lcant . ~ . ~ 'Wouldthe osed~ ro'ed ~ !m d ~ ~ Incbr raied cY~. No/mpott ' (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a x significant impact on the environment? (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing X the emission of greenhouse gases? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS - Thresholds (a) & (b): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP will not cause any increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. WOntado Intema6onal AirpoR Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apnl 19, 2011) H-17 P164 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW QNfARI,@~' 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS . ~ ~~' ~ PoteeNoHy-: ' - ~ :Poterttl6(ly S(z(nlfitanfUnless"-. : tes{Tizan , ~' . - ~, r " . Stgnffltont,- :' , INkFgatlon 5lQnlfrrnm No. - _~ Woutd the r osed rojedts' .. ~ ~ • ~~ ,.: , ~ ilmpatY ~ . lncoryoivted ~ , ~ lmPact "'" -:fmpoet . (a) Create a signifcant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use dr X disposal of hazardous materials? (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset X and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? " (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste X within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project result in a safety hazard for people _ , residing or working in the project area? (f) Fora project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ~ would the project result in a safety hazard for people ~ X residing or working in the project area? (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan? (h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildfres, including where X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (d) & (f) - (h): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Also, the proposed ALUCP does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; the emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste; or the location of a building, structure, or public facility on a hazardous materials site compiled by the State of California pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed ALUCP would not affect the incidence of hazardous material safety hazards in the area; H-18 LrLOntado International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) P165 Q~rnRi~-= nmvcaa v:iwrvwc ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H result in hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; affect any sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites; create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; or affect emergency response plans or the incidence of wildland fires in the area. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. Threshold (ej: Pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act, the proposed ALUCP establishes criteria and Safety Zones by which safety hazards relating to aircraft activity would be evaluated.. The criteria are intended to reduce the risk of exposure to the hazards of an off-airport aircraft accident by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people within the Safety Zones. The Safety Zones are completely contained within the City of Ontario and land uses were designated in the Ontario Plan to be consistent with airport operations. The proposed ALUCP further reduces risks of aircraft accident occurrence by setting policies that, consistent with existing federal regulations, limit the height of structures, trees, and other objects that might penetrate the airport's airspace as defined by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, TERPS and FAA criteria. The extent of the areas where regulations apply are illustrated in Appendix I. The proposed ALUCP would also decrease airport-related safety hazards by limiting incompatible development within the Safety Zones. The proposed ALUCP would result in a beneficial impact by reducing the number of people exposed to airport-related safety hazards, including aircraft accidents, consistent with the objectives of the State Aeronautics Act. Due to the reasons stated above, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials, but could limit development in areas of concern. Therefore, any potential impact would be less than significant. WI ITIGATION None Required. LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Lend Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apn/ 19, 2011) H-19 P166 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW p~r,~u 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially PotenUoftySlpnylmnt' LessThen~ ". ' Sipnlffwni Unless.Mttlgation SlgntJkoni ~ . No ' 4NOUld the r oseti~ pro ect: ~ .'. i7m ct Mcorpoiated ~ ~ impact hnpact ; (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste x discharge requirements? (b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production x rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land . uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in x a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or x substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide ~ x substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? x (g) Place housing within a 104year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard x Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect x flood flows? (i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, x including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (j) Expose people or structures to inundation by x seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (j): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not violate any water quality standards; affect H-20 LA/Ontano Intemationa/ AirpoR Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apnl 19, 2011) P167 O~T~,®°= ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPE NDI% N groundwater supplies; substantially alter drainage patterns; or expose people or structures to a significant risk involving flooding, seiche, tsunami or mudflow; and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to hydrology and water quality. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-21 P168 APPENDIX H ON7 ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OTM^"T V~'"~'~"~ lO. U1ND USE PUNNING - .. ~ .. ~ PoteMl6llY- .,: ' . _ ~ . ~Stpnylcont ' .. ~ - ' PafenNa/ty ,.,Unless ~ Less Than . _ :.°- ' _ S/gnLJfannt '1NJLigbeton StgnlflcrnL .. Would the rdposed ro ect.> ~ . ;. - ~ hnpaet ~ Inoorporoted I eL No !m c! (a) Physically divide an established community? - X (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local X coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation X plan or natural community conservation plan? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) & (c): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. ONT has operated as an airport since the 1920s, and the City has long planned for appropriate land uses surrounding ONT.. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts to land use and planning. Also, the proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. Threshold (b): The proposed ALUCP may require that affected agencies alter their general plans and zoning to reflect the noise and safety restrictions set forth in its policies. The proposed ALUCP is a mitigating document that establishes land use measures designed to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards around the ONT. Appendix I evaluates potential inconsistencies between the proposed ALUCP and the general plan land use designations of affected agencies and did not identify any general plan land use inconsistencies. Moreover, state law (Gov. Code §65302.3) requires that applicable general plans be revised if necessary to be consistent with an adopted ALUCP. It is important to note that the ALUCP is intended, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21670 et seq., to protect public health, safety, and welfare, through the adoption of land use measures that H-22 LA/Cntario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apnl 19, 2011) P169 Q~r~i~-= A4RPORi RUNN WL ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPEN DI% H minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards; and is guided by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. As required by state law, the proposed ALUCP for ONT sets policies and criteria consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and within the parameters identified in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Therefore, any potential impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION None Required. LWOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apn/ 19, 2011) H-23 P170 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW O'~~"~" ^^"'^^'" 11. MINERAL RESOURCES '. ~ ~ ~ ~- . . .. Potentially ' ~ .. . . ~. , ., Poteetlagy Slgnlffcant UnlesY~ ~ Less Than ,' ~ ~~~ S/gnf9cont ~ IN1Npotlon .," : ~Sfpnl~rcam- ~~Ne. ~ Would'thei ro o3ed. ~iaed. ~ !m ~ >' •„ ~Inm taen "ct ~ ~ 1m~ d ' (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the X region and the residents of the state? (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery Site X delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Further, no mineral resources are located within the noise and safety zones potentially affected by the ALUCP. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not cause the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resource recovery site. As such, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts to mineral resources. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. H-24 LA/Ontado International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) P171 :Q~ ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H 12. NolsE . Potent/a/ly , PotedUo/ty SlgnfJlcant Less Than ' -SlgntJ/atot ~ Unless IlrAtfgaUon ` Sfgniflcant fW 4Vouldthe~ - ro 'ed'pro edt•. ~ ~ .. ' ~ Impact ~ ..Inc6rporated ~ ~ Impact ,f (a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the x local general. plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or x groundborne noise levels? (c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels x existing without the project? (d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity x above levels existing without the projeR? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport x or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (f) For a projeR within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people x residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (b) - (d) & (~: The proposed ALUCP does not propose or entail any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act, the proposed ALUCP establishes the criteria by which the publii s exposure to airport-related noise would be evaluated and reduced by limiting the development of noise sensitive land uses within the 65 + dB CNEL. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not result in the exposure of people to increased noise or vibration levels, and, as such, would not impact their respective environment or result in any impacts related to noise. Thresholds (a) & (e): The proposed ALUCP is a mitigating document that addresses land use measures to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards around the ONT. Appendix I evaluated potential inconsistencies between the proposed ALUCP and the general plan land use designations of affected agencies and did not identify any general plan land use inconsistencies. Moreover, state law (Gov. Code 465302.3) requires that applicable general plans be revised as necessary to be consistent with an adopted ALUCP. LA/Ontario /ntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-26 P172 A PPE NOIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Q~r~xie~= ~RPORi P'JNM1':NG It is important to note that the ALUCP is intended, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21670 et seq., to protect public health, safety, and welfare, through the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards; and is guided by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. As required by state law, the proposed ALUCP for ONT sets policies and criteria consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and within the parameters identified in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Therefore, any potential impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION None Required. H-26 LA/Ontano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apnl 19, 2011) P173 0;~?~~-= S3. POPUUITION AND HOUSING ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPE NDIx H ,. .. Potentially Slgnl~tant ' .`< -. " ` ~Potentlafly :. `Unless - Less Than . - a .. ' _ . Slynfjicam ' ` ~ Mh7gaNon ~ S/gniJlc6nt ~ No : - ~. ^. Wouldlthe~ rd.. ed~ ~eti ect: `: .•Im acY - ~ '~Inco rated !_ ..ct, Im (a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new x homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement x housing elsewhere? (c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement x housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (c): The proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly induce population growth; rather, it would limit the location and distribution of residential and non-residential land uses within the Noise and Safety Zones to minimize potential noise impacts and safety concerns. The Noise Impact Zones limits new residential development within 65 db CNEL and prohibits new residential land uses within the 70 d6 CNEL noise contour. To evaluate the potential population and housing displacement the General Plan Land Use Designation Consistency Analysis Appendix I) identified and evaluated potential land use inconsistencies within the Noise Impact Zones. The Noise Analysis identified one jurisdiction, the City of Ontario, to have a Low Density Residential general plan land use designation within the 65 dB CNEL. However, because the areas identified are already developed, the restriction on additional new development would not result in displacement of potential housing units since the proposed ALUCP does not apply to existing development and only addresses future development. The Safety Zones identified within the proposed ALUCP are contained within the City of Ontario and Safety Analysis portion of Appendix I identified Low Density Residential general plan land use designations within the safety zones. However, because the areas identified are already developed, the restriction on additional new development within that zone would not result in displacement of potential housing units, since the proposed ALUCP does not apply to existing development and only addresses future development. Therefore, there is no impact since the proposed ALUCP would not result in any direct impacts to population and housing; create the displacement of existing residential dwelling units, commercial, industrial or public use structures thereby necessitating the construction of replacement housing, facilities, or infrastructure in other areas. LA/Cntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-27 P174 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW O*~w~"'~^^'"~~~ 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Potent(ally .. ~ SlgngknM , • Potetrl/a9y ! _ Unfessr •' Less flan :. . ~~ - ~ -' ~ S(gnyimnt IITiNgation ., 'S(gn(JltaM . Would the roposed project ~ Impad _ Mcorporated..- ' 7mpac[ ~ No %mpact. (a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause X significant environmental impaRS, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (i) Fire proteRion? X (ii) Police protection? X (iii) schools? X (iv) Parks? X (v) Other public facilities? X DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a): The proposed ALUCP does not propose orinvolve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not create a need for any new or physically altered governmental facilities. As such, the proposed ALUCP would not result in any direct or indirect impacts related to public services. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (ALA) above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. H-28 LA/Ontano /ntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apn/ 19, 2011) P175 0~'~~ ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX N 1S. RECREATION .. ~ .: ~ ... - -..-.. ~ ' - - ` .• '' .Potentially -. . . '" ... ~ ~ ~.-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Potentialty, .. Unless :.'LE.u fian ,, •,~ `~ ' ; ~ . ` ; Sfga/Jlmm Mltlgotian ~SIgnlJ/writ ,.- , Would the:pro seJlpin ect, - ~ fm ~ K- ~ Jnco rated ° - -! ' ct ' ~ No Impact."~ (a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that X have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) & (b~: The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities and does not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment, and, as such, would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to recreation. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-29 P176 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW O^~~P~^~~ 1G. TRANSPOR7ATION~TRAFFIC . , - - .: PatentM!!y . . .POtenNally S/gM/fcarit Wdess ~ lessThan . - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' Sfgn(/Icant hRtlgat/on ' SigntJiwnt~ ; NO WoutE the. ro osed ~ o ect ... !m u ~' . Inwrpoiated - Impact Impact (a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant X components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other X standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in % location that results insubstantial safety risks? (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X (f) Result in inadequate parking capacityl X (g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian X facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (g): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not: (a) conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit; (b) conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; (c) result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; (d) increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm H-30 LA/Ontano Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apol 19, 2011) P177 0~'uRi>IA~uNING ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H equipment); (e) result in inadequate emergency access; (f) result in inadequate parking capacity or; (g) conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. As such, the proposed ALUCP would not result in any direct or indirect impacts related to transportation or traffic. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. IV~1TIGATION None Required. LA/Ontario /ntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apnl 19, 2011) H-31 P778 o~~l APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Mavott aunwrc 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS '•> ~ Potenttolly Signf/fegni Unlesi Less 7ltan i, • . Stggfjkant "- Mhfgptfan "SlgnfJitortt r ,Na, I ~~ Watild the pro "sed~Prblfct: ~~. ~~ ~ "Impact '7rroorpurated .-• lie /mpadY~ (a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X ',, applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause - si nificant environmental effects? (d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the X project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et. Seq. ~ - (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221). (e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste X disposal needs? (g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (g): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not result in the construction of new wastewater or stormwater facilities, and would not require additional water supplies, or wastewater or landfill capacity, and, as such, would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to utilities and service systems. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. H-32 ~ LA/Ontarto International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) P179 0~~~ ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX N 1H. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE . '. ~ '. potmtldfy - . ~ ~ ~ ;lgntprnnt g ' ~ .. _ -': ; 'POtemlaffy ' ~ ~ Unless Less thon ' ~ " .. •• ~ - , ~ ~ '... Signf/tcaM ~ MklgbNOn, Slgnlfrcnnt., 's ~ LVOUId ffie.pro osed~.pro ect: ~ ~ ~. Uri ct ~ `. Incorporated Im ct', ~Ho Impact (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, suhstantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to X eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the X disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (c) Does the project have impaRS that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a project X are Considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) (d) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on X human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land rise designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP does not 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; have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; or have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the AIA above those projected for these areas in the local LA/Ontado /ntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apnl 19, 2011) H-33 P180 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW O~~I~~ agencies respective general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in the certified general plan environmental documentation. Nothing in the proposed ALUCP would result in indirect impacts such as the construction of housing, development of other types of land uses, or the expansion of any infrastructure, that would require an analysis of potentially significant impacts to wildlife, their habitats, important examples of California history, or human beings. In addition, the proposed ALUCP would not result in the displacement of existing residential dwelling units, commercial, industrial, or public use structures thereby necessitating the construction of replacement housing, facilities, or infrastructure in other areas, which may result in potentially significant impacts to wildlife, their habitats, important examples of California history, or human beings. Therefore, there would be no impacts. Thresholds (b) - (d): The proposed ALUCP regulates future incompatible land uses specific to noise, airspace protection, safety and overflight impacts around ONT. Moreover, because the proposed ALUCP is regulatory in nature and will not result in any new development, construction, or physical .changes to existing land uses or the environment, it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environmental impacts. Indeed, the proposed ALUCP serves as a mitigation plan designed to avoid certain noise and safety impacts that might otherwise be cumulatively significant. Therefore, any potential impact would be less than significant. MITIGATION None Required. H-34 LA/Ontano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apd/ 19, 2011) P181 O~~p~gr~~HG ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDI% H REFERENCE MATERIALS The following reference materials are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Initial Study pursuant to State CEO,A Guidelines section 15150: 1. State of California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, (Last updated January 2002) 2. Proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for LA/Ontario International Airport 3. California State Aeronautics Act, Pub. Util. Code, §§ 21001 et seq. 4. Ontario General Plan Final EIR/Master Environmental Assessment 5. City of Ontario General Plan (The Ontario Plan) adopted January 2010 6. General Plan of the following Cities: Fontana, Montclair, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga and Chino. 7. The General Plan of the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino. All documents listed above are on file, and are available for public review, with the City of Ontario Planning Department, 200 N. Cherry Avenue, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036. LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April f9, 2011) H-35 P182 RESOLUTION N0.12-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF DRC2010-00157, THE LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals 1. The City of Ranchc Cucamonga filed an application for DRC2010-00157, LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is referred to as "the application." 2. The City of Ontario's Resolution No. 95-34 established the City of Ontario as the responsible agency for land use compatibility planning for the LA/ONT International Airport. 3. The primary purpose of the ALUCP is to promote land use compatibility between the LA/ONT International Airport and the land uses within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) from associated impacts from aircraft operations, such as safety, noise, airspace protection and overflight notification. 4. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the AIA that will be affected by aircraft operations as described in the Simplified Airport Diagram for the LA/Ontario International Airport. 5. On February 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and continued said hearing to March 22, 2011. 6. On March 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and concluded said hearing on that date. The City of Ontario Planning Commission adopted its Resolution PC11-018, recommending approval of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to the Ontario City Council. 7. On April 5, 2011, the Ontario City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and introduced Ordinance No. 2935. 8. On April 19, 2011, the Ontario City Council adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the 2011 LA/ONT ALUCP by adopting Ordinance No. 2935. 9. On May 9, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 10. 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: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-20 LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DRC2010-00157 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 2 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on May 9, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and b. An Initial Study was prepared for the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Initial Study finds that all environmental impacts from the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan are either of no impact or less-than-significant impact; therefore, the proposed LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; c. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport; and d. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), in order to protect the public, health, safety and welfare, it is necessary for each agency within an Airport Influence Area that has an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by the lead agency (City of Ontario) to adopt and implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in order to ensure airport safety and compatible land planning; and e. The ALUCP is consistent with State Law and has a 20-year horizon, taking into consideration regional projections and future airport expansion plans that would airport activity and associated impacts. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does promote the Land Use Policies and Implementation Actions of the General Plan and will provide for development by providing a comprehensive document that will ensure aircraft safety and land use compatibility planning around the LA/Ontario International Airport and the future runway expansion; and b. The adoption of the t.A/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by ensuring that future development will not detrimentally impact aircraft operations or be a physical hazard to aircraft arriving or departing from LA/Ontario International Airportwhen the future runway expansion occurs; and c. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will prescribe building height limits in order to protect airspace protection for aircraft operations; and P183 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-20 P184 LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DRC2010-00157 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 3 d. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by providing a streamlined process by which local agencies can ensure that development within the Airport Influence Area is compliant with the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and e. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan balances the need to maintain aircraft safety without adversely impacting the full economic use of properties within the Industrial Districts by allowing building heights up to 70 feet, the same as currently permitted in the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter in paragraph 4, the subject LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is referred to as "the project") will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration, and based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Negative Declaration was prepared incompliance with CEQA; and (ii) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independentjudgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration. c. The custodian of the records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 as described in the Draft City Council Resolution shown as Attachment A. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-20 P185 LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DRC2010-00157 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY MAY 2012. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ - -" __ BY: !' ~`" Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: Candy Burnett, Senior Planner I, Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner, 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 9th day of May 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ELETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE P186 RESOLUTION NO. 12-079 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING DRC2010-00157, THE LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for DRC2010-00157, LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is referred to as "the application." 2. The City of Ontario's Resolution No. 95-34 established the City of Ontario as the responsible agency for land use compatibility planning for the LA/ONT International Airport. 3. The primary purpose of the ALUCP is to promote land use compatibility between the LA/ONT International Airport and the land uses within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) from associated impacts from aircraft operations, such as safety, noise, airspace protection and overFlight notification. 4. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the AIA that will be affected by aircraft operations as described in the Simplified Airport Diagram for the LA/Ontario International Airport. 5. On February 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and continued said hearing to March 22. 2011. 6. On March 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to considerthe Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and concluded said hearing on that date. The City of Ontario Planning Commission adopted its Resolution PC11-018, recommending approval of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to the Ontario City Council. 7. On April 5, 2011, the Ontario City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and introduced Ordinance No. 2935. 8. On April 19, 2011, the Ontario City Council adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the 2011 LA/ONT ALUCP by adopting Ordinance Nb. 2935. 9. On May 9, 2012, the Planning Commission ofthe City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. Following the hearing, Planning Commission adopted its Resolution 12-20, recommending adoption of the application. 10. On June 6, 2012, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on LAIOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and concluded said hearing on that date. 11. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Attachment A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 12-079 June 6, 2012 Page 2 B. Resolution. 1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 6, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: The application applies to the property located within the City; and b. An Initial Study was prepared for the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Initial Study finds that that all environmental impacts from the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan are either of no impact or less-than-significant impact; therefore, the proposed LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport; and d. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), in order to protect the public, health, safety and welfare, it is necessary for each agericy within an Airport Influence Area that has an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by the lead agency (City of Ontario) to adopt and implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in order to ensure airport safety and compatible land planning; and e. The ALUCP is consistent with State Law and has a 20-year horizon, taking into consideration regional projections and future airport expansion plans thatwould airport activity and associated impacts. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does promote the Land Use Policies and Implementation Actions of the General Plan by providing a comprehensive document that will ensure aircraft safety and land use compatibility planning around the LA/Ontario International Airport when the future runway expansion occurs; and b. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by ensuring that future development will not detrimentally impact aircraft operations or be a physical hazard to aircraft arriving or departing from LA/Ontario International Airport when the future runway expansion occurs; and ' c. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will prescribe building height limits in order to protect airspace protection for aircraft operations; and P187 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 12-079 June 6, 2012 Page 3 d. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by providing a streamlined process by which local agencies can ensure that development within the Airport Influence Area is compliant with the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and e. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan balances the need to maintain aircraft safety without adversely impacting the full economic use of properties within the Industrial Districts by allowing building heights up to 70 feet, the same as currently permitted in the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter in paragraph 4, the subject LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is referred to as "the project") will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. b. The City Council has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration, and based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on these findings, the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration. c. The custodian of the records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above and upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 6, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and the recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby adopts the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: P188 The lA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 shall be available for public inspection at the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall, at the Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 12-079 June 6, 2012 Page 4 The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2012 . CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of June 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: P189 ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga P190 RESOLUTION N0.12-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHING THE ONTARIO INTERNATIONALAIRPORT-INTER AGENCY COLLABORATIVE (ONT-IAC) TO ESTABLISH A COOPERATIVE PROCESS AND PARTNERSHIP IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS AND POLICES OF THE LA/ONT AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP); AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for DRC2010-00157, the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The ALUCP requires that an associated Cooperative Agreement be adopted in order for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to implement the goals and policies of the ALUCP, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) is referred to as "the application." 2. The City of Ontario's Resolution No. 95-34 established the City of Ontario as the responsible agency for land use compatibility planning for the LA/ONT International Airport. 3. The primary purpose of the Cooperative Agreement for the ALUCP is to establish a cooperative process and partnership to implement the goals and policies of the ALUCP in order to promote land use compatibility between the LA/ONT International Airport and the land uses within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) from associated impacts from aircraft operations, such as safety, noise, airspace protection and overflight notification. 4. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the AIA that will be affected by aircraft operations as described in the Simplified Airport Diagram for the LA/Ontario International Airport. 5. On February 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and continued said hearing to March 22, 2011. 6. On March 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and concluded said hearing on that date. The City of Ontario Planning Commission adopted its Resolution PC11-018, recommending approval of the 2011 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to the Ontario City Council. 7. On April 5, 2011, the Ontario City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and introduced Ordinance No. 2935. 8. On April 19, 2011, the Ontario City Council adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the ALUCP by adopting Ordinance No. 2935. 9. On May 9, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 10. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-21 P191 LA/ONT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE ONT-IAC (DRC2010-00157) - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 2 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 afl of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on May 9, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: The application applies to the property located within the City; and b. An Initial Study was prepared for the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the associated Cooperative Agreement and the Initial Study finds that all environmental impacts from the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Cooperative Agreement are either of no impact orless-than-significant impact; therefore, the adoption of the Cooperative Agreement will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport; and d. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), in orderto protect the public, health, safety and welfare, it is necessary for each agency within an Airport Influence Area that has an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan prepared by the lead agency (City of Ontario) to adopt and implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the associated Cooperative Agreement to establish the Ontario International Airport InterAgency Collaborative (ONT-IAC); and e. Adopting the Cooperative Agreement forthe ONT-IAC will ensure airport safety, promote compatible land planning, establish a cooperative process and partnership to comply with State Law for the Alternative Process, thereby implementing the goals and policies of the ALUCP; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement to establish the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) does promote the Land Use Policies and Implementation Actions of the General Plan and will provide for logical and orderly development of the built environment by providing a document that will establish a cooperative process for agencies within the LA/ONT Airport Influence Area to ensure aircraft safety and land use compatibility planning around the LA/ONT Airport and the future runway expansion; and b. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement to establish the (ONT-IAC) does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by ensuring that future development with the Airport Influence Area will adhere to an orderly review process. This review process will ensure that development will not detrimentally impact aircraft operations or be a physical hazard to aircraft arriving ordeparting from LA/Ontario International Airportwhen the future runway expansion occurs; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-21 P192 LA/ONT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE ONT-IAC (DRC2010-00157) - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 3 c. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement to establish the (ONT-IAC) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Cooperative Agreement will promote the public, health, safety and welfare by providing amulti-agency partnership that ensures that airspace and aircraft operations at LA/ONT are protected from hazards; and d. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by providing a streamlined but orderly process by which local agencies submit project reviews in order to ensure that development within the Airport Influence Area is compliant with the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and e. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement is required for municipalities within the Airport Influence Area to comply with the State Law provisions of the Alternative Process. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence thatthe adoption of the Cooperative Agreement (hereinafter. in paragraph 4, the subject Cooperative Agreement is referred to as "the project")will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration, and based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that there is rio substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission furtherfinds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independentjudgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration. c. The custodian of the records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends adoption of the Cooperative Agreement to establish the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) as described in the Draft City Council Resolution shown as Attachment A by adoption of this Resolution. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-21 LA/ONT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE ONT-IAC (DRC2010-00157) - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF 2012. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA /~ Luis Munoz, Jr., Chair an ' ATTEST: _ Candyc Burnett, Senior Planner I, Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner, 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 9th day May 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE P193 P794 RESOLUTION NO. 12-080 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHING THE ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT -INTER AGENCY COLLABORATIVE (ONT-IAC) TO ESTABLISH A COOPERATIVE PROCESS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS AND POLICES OF THE LA/ONT AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP); AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for DRC2010-00157, the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The ALUCP requires that an associated Cooperative Agreement be adopted in order for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to implement the goals and policies of the ALUCP, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) is referred to as "the application." 2. The City of Ontario's Resolution No. 95-34 established the City of Ontario as the responsible agency for land use compatibility planning for the LA/ONT International Airport. 3. The primary purpose the Cooperative Agreement for the ALUCP is to establish a cooperative process and partnership to implement the goals and policies of the ALUCP in order to promote land use compatibility between the LA/ONT International Airport and the land uses within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) from associated impacts from aircraft operations, such as safety, noise, airspace protection and overflight notification. 4. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the AIA that will be affected by aircraft operations as described in the Simplified Airport Diagram for the LA/Ontario International Airport. 5. On February 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and continued said hearing to March 22, 2011. 6. On March 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to considerthe Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and concluded said hearing on that date. The City of Ontario Planning Commission adopted its Resolution PC11-018, recommending approval of the t11/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to the Ontario City Council. 7. On April 5, 2011, the Ontario City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and introduced Ordinance No. 2935. 8. On April 19, 2011, the Ontario City Council adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the 2011 LA/ONT ALUCP by adopting Ordinance No. 2935 that established the ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA). The AIA is a geographic area that represents current and future airport-related safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight impacts that may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The ALUCP includes procedural policies that modify the previously established Alternative Process to include the required participation by all jurisdictions in San Bernardino County with lands within the AIA and forthe optional participation of Riverside County. ATTACHMENT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 12-080 June 6, 2012 Page 2 9. On May 9, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution 12-21, recommending adoption of the application. 10. State Law Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2) (Alternative Process) allows local agencies to be responsible for airport land use compatibility planning in place of an Airport Land Use Commission. 11. The County of San Bernardino and its cities elected to follow the Alternative Process in 1995 disbanding the West Valley Airport Land Use Commission and designating the City of Ontario as the responsible agency for airport land use compatibility planning for Ontario International Airport (ONT). 12. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has participated in a Technical Advisory Committee for the development of the ONT ALUCP. 13. On June 6, 2012, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and associated Cooperative Agreement for the ONT - IAC and concluded said hearing on that date. 14. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. 1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 6, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: The application applies to the property located within the City; and b. An Initial Study was prepared for the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the associated Cooperative Agreement and the Initial Study finds that all environmental impacts from the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Cooperative Agreement are either of no impact or less-than-significant impact; therefore, the adoption of the Cooperative Agreement will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport; and d. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), in order to protect the public, health, safety and welfare, it is necessary for each agency within an Airport Influence Area that has an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan prepared by the lead agency (City of Ontario) to adopt and implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Pfan and the associated Cooperative Agreement; and P195 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 12-080 June 6, 2012 Page 3 e. Adopting the Cooperative Agreement for the ONT - IAC will ensure airport safety, promote compatible land planning, establish a cooperative process and partnership to comply with State Law for the Alternative Process, thereby implementing the goals and policies of the ALUCP; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement to establish the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) does promote the Land Use Policies and Implementation Actions of the General Plan and will provide for logical and orderly development of the built environment by providing a document that will establish a cooperative process for agencies within the LA/ONT Airport Influence Area to ensure aircraft safety and land use compatibility planning around the LA/ONT Airport and the future runway expansion; and b. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement to establish the (ONT-IAC) does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by ensuring that future development with the Airport Influence Area will adhere to an orderly review process. This review process will ensure that development will not detrimentally impact aircraft operations or be a physical hazard to aircraft arriving or departing from LA/Ontario International Airport when the future runway expansion occurs; and c. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement to establish the (ONT-IAC) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Cooperative Agreement will promote the public, health, safety and welfare by providing amulti-agency partnership that ensures that airspace and aircraft operations at LA/ONT are protected from hazards; and d. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by providing a streamlined but orderly process by which local agencies submit project reviews in order to ensure that development within the Airport Influence Area is compliant with the LA/Ontario.lnternational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and e. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement is required for municipalities within the Airport Influence Area to comply with the State Law provisions of the Alternative Process. f. The Cooperative Agreement (Attachment ") establishes the Ontario International Airport -Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC), a collaborative process and partnership with the Cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland, and the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, for Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning for ONT. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the adoption of the Cooperative Agreement (hereinafter in paragraph 4, the subject Cooperative Agreement is referred to as "the project") will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the P196 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 12-080 June 6, 2012 Page 4 project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined thatthere was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. b. The City Council has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration, and based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on these findings, the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration. c. The custodiah of the records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above and upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 6, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, togetherwith public testimony, and the recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby adopts the Cooperative Agreement to establish the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) by adoption of this Resolution. 6. The effective date of the Cooperative Agreement is after Caltrans Division of Aeronautics approval. The Cooperative Agreement shall remain in effect unless and until such time as subsequent modifications are requested and approved by each of the Participating Agencies. 7. A fee schedule may be adopted at a future hearing by the City of Ontario, with the consensus of ONT-IAC members to recover costs associated with Major Land Use Actions requiring public hearing and mediation. 8. The City Council of the City of Ontario will conduct a hearing to establish, manage, and participate in the ONT-IAC, upon collecting signatures from all affected agencies and forward the signed Cooperative Agreement to the State Division of Aeronautics for approval. 9. The City of Ontario will be responsible for forwarding a copy of the signed Cooperative Agreement to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and subsequently a copy of the letter of approval from the Division of Aeronautics once received. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council ofthe City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approves the participation by the City of Rancho Cucamonga inthe ONT-IAC for the implementation of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and authorizes the City Manager of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to execute the Cooperative Agreement for the ONT-IAC. P197 The Cooperative Agreement for the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) forthe LA/ONT ALUCP (DRC2010-00157) shall be available for public inspection at the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 12-080 June 6, 2012 Page 5 Rancho Cucamonga City Hall, at the Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2012. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted.bythe City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of June 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga P198 Attachment: Cooperative Agreement for Establishing the ONT-IAC P199 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHING THE ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT -INTER AGENCY COLLABORATIVE FOR AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING This Cooperative Agreement (Agreement) is entered into by and among the City of Chino, City of Fontana, City of Montclair, City of Ontario, City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Upland and San Bernardino County in order to establish a cooperative process and partnership for Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning for Ontario International Airport (ONT) and comply with State Law provisions of the Alternative Process' (Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2)). PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to maintain local jurisdictional control of land use planning for areas within the Airport Influence Area (AIA)Z of ONT, amend the existing Alternative Process to include participation of Affected Agencies' and establish the "Ontario International Airport - Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT- IAC)". II. BACKGROUND The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code, Section 21670 et. seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) be prepared for all public-use airports with a minimum 20-year horizon taking into consideration regional growth projections and future airport expansion plans. The ALUCP is intended to address future land uses and development and does not place any restrictions on the present and future role, configuration or use of ONT. State law requires local land use plans and individual development proposals to be consistent with the ALUCP. In most counties, an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is established and responsible for preparing an ALUCP for all airports within the county, including those located within the political boundaries of cities. The ALUC also establishes an AIA for each airport and evaluates projects for consistency with an ALUCP. State law allows local jurisdictions within San Bernardino County to be responsible for airport land use compatibility planning under the "Alternative Process" in place of a county administered ALUC. Under the provisions of the Alternative Process the City of Ontario is the designated agency having responsibility for airport compatibility planning for ONT and is required to do the following pursuant to State Law: 1) Adopt processes for the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the ONT ALUCP; ~ Alternative Process -County Board of Supervisors and each affected city must individually determine that proper airport land use compatibility planning in [he county can be accomplished without the formation of an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUCI. ~ Airport Influence Area - An area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restriction on those uses as delineated in Exhibit 1-ONT AIA. 3 Affected Agency-Any county, city, or special district having lands within the ONT AIA. Page 1 P200 Ontario Internationa) Airport- Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement 2) Adopt processes for the notification of the general public, landowners,.interested groups, and other public agencies regarding the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the ONT ALUCP; 3) Adopt processes for the mediation of disputes arising from the preparation, adoption, implementation and amendment of the ONT ALUCP; and 4) Adopt processes for the amendment of general plans, specific plans and major land use actions to be consistent with the ONT ALUCP. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established for the preparation of the ONT ALUCP. The TAC consisted of representatives from the cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland and counties of San Bernardino and Riverside in conjunction with representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics. The ONT ALUCP was adopted by Ontario's City Council on April 19, 2011 (Ordinance No. 2935). The ONT ALUCP contains the ONT-IAC operational framework and identifies three framework components: 1) a technical group (ONT-IAC Technical Staff Group) comprised of senior staff members from the Affected Agencies to review projects for consistency with the ALUCP; 2) an appeals body (ONT-IAC Mediation Board) to resolve consistency evaluation disputes; and 3) an administrative function managed by the City of Ontario. III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTICIPATING AGENCIES 3.1. ADOPTION OF THE ONT ALUCP: Public Utilities Code section 21670.1(c) mandates that Participating Agencies," in compliance with all applicable provisions of State Law, adopt the ONT ALUCP or specific policies that apply to their portions of the ONT AIA. Participating Agencies are also required to, in compliance with all applicable provisions of State Law, modify their respective general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances and other land use policy documents to be consistent with the compatibility policies and criteria set forth in the ONT ALUCP. 3.2. ONT-IAC NOTIFICATION PROCESS: Each Participating Agency is required to prepare consistency evaluations for proposed Major Land Use Actions (Table 2-1 of the ONT ALUCP) within their portion of the ONT AIA and submit the evaluations to the City of Ontario. The City of Ontario is then responsible for distributing these consistency evaluations to other Participating Agencies for comment in accordance with the timelines and procedures set forth in Section 7 below. Participating Agency-The agencies participating in this Agreement (San Bernardino County and the Cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland). The County of San Bernardino and Affected cities within the ONT AIA are required to participate in this Agreement to maintain and continue to bean Alternative Process County. Page 2 P201 Ontario International Airport- Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement 3.3. CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE ONT AIA: Proposed projects that are within the ONT AIA but are not Major Land Use Actions are also subject to the ONT ALUCP. Participating Agencies are required to use the ONT ALUCP to evaluate proposed projects in accordance with the specific safety, noise, airspace protection and overflight policies that apply. Each Participating Agency shall be responsible for including a consistency finding within its staff reports/resolutions for projects within the ONT AIA, stating the following or its equivalent: The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and has been evaluated and is consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 3.4. PUBLIC NOTICING REQUIREMENTS: Any proposed project located within the AIA that is discretionary and requires public hearing notification pursuant to state and/or local law shall include the following statement or its equivalent: "The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and has been evaluated and is consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan." IV. ONT-IAC TECHNICAL STAFF GROUP 4.1. MEMBERSHIP APPOINTMENT: The City Manager or County Chief Executive Officer of each Participating Agency shall appoint a designee to represent its agency on the ONT- IAC Technical Staff Groups and submit this information to the City of Ontario, Planning Department. Members or their designees, should be middle managers or higher within their respective organization (i.e. Director, Assistant Director, Manager, Principal Planner, or as determined by each jurisdiction). 4.2. MEMBERSHIP COMPOSITION AND RESPONSIBILITIES: Members shall consist of one representative from each Participating Agency. Each member shall be responsible for participating in the ONT-IAC Notification Process and make comments on a Submitting Agency'sfi consistency evaluation within 20 calendar days of the date of notification. s ONT-IAC Technical Staff Group - A middle manager (i.e. Director, Assistant Director, Manager, Principal Planner or the equivalent) staff member from each Participating Agency appointed by the City Manager or Chief Executive Officer who will be responsible for participating in the ONT-IAC Notification Process. e Submitting Agency- The Participating Agency that is submitting the Project Comment Worksheet to the City of Ontario Planning Department for distribution to the other agencies. Page 3 P202 Ontario International Airport- Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement V. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD 5.1. FUNCTION OF ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD: The ONT-IAC Mediation Board is an official voting body established to formally hear disputes that are not resolved at the Technical Staff Group level. The ONT-IAC Mediation Board only reviews matters appealed to it by Affected Agencies. 5.2. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD MEMBERSHIP: The ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall be comprised of elected or appointed officials of the Participating Agencies as outlined below and two members representing the public. The members representing the Participating Agencies should have land use, planning, and/or public hearing experience. Members of the ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall be appointed as follows: a. City of Ontario: Two members representing the City of Ontario, appointed by the Ontario City Council. b. IAWA: One member representing LAWA, (the LA/Ontario International Airport Manager (Executive Director or his Designee). - c. Public: Two public representatives (at least one having aviation expertise), appointed by the Ontario City Council with recommendations from the other Participating Agencies. d. Other Participating Agency: Two members representing the Participating Agency within-whose jurisdiction the disputed project is located, appointed by the Participating Agency's governing body (City Council or Board of Supervisors). If the disputed project is located within the City of Ontario the ONT-IAC Mediation Board for the disputed project shall consist of afive-member board comprised of individuals identified pursuant to subsections (a) - (c) of this Section 5.2. 5.3. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD DECISIONS: When acting upon a disputed action (e.g., a consistency evaluation or the preparation, adoption or amendment of the ALUCP) the ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall follow the City of Ontario procedures for public hearings, and include, at a minimum: a. Holding a noticed public hearing on the action under consideration. b. Providing the opportunity for public input. c. Issuing formal findings on the disputed action. d. Making decisions by majority vote of the quorum. 5.4. PROJECTS SUBJECT TO THE MEDIATION DISPUTE PROCESS: State law pertaining to the Alternative Process requires that a process be established for "the mediation of disputes arising from the preparation, adoption, and amendment" of an airport land use compatibility plan (Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2)(C)). The mediation process outlined in this Agreement shall also apply.to any disputes that may arise in connection with certain land use actions of Participating Agencies-specifically, general Page 4 P203 Ontario International Airport- Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement plan amendments, zoning ordinance modifications, airport development plans, or other major land use actions that relate to the AIA. 5.5. CONVENING THE ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD: The ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall convene on an as needed basis, to resolve disputed matters brought to it by an Affected Agency. Meetings shall be convened within 30 calendar days from the date the Affected Agency requests in writing a ONT-IAC Mediation Board Hearing date to resolve a dispute. Additionally, the ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall convene once per calendar year to receive an ALUCP Annual Report' from the Ontario Planning Department. All meetings of the Mediation Board will be administered by the City of Ontario and shall be publicly noticed consistent with the City of Ontario's public hearing procedures. The Participating Agency with the dispute may elect to hold the Mediation Board Hearing at their respective jurisdictions facilities but would be responsible for incurring the costs associated with holding a public hearing at that location. 5.6. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD ACTIONS FOR NON-AIRPORT PROJECTS: When deciding whether a proposed project is consistent with the ALUCP, the ONT-IAC Mediation Board has three possible actions: a. Consistent-Find that the proposed project is consistent with the ONT ALUCP. b. Conditionally Consistent-Find that the proposed project is consistent with the ONT ALUCP subject to specified conditions or modifications. c. Inconsistent-Find that the proposed project is inconsistent with the ONT ALUCP. 5.7. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD ACilONS FOR AIRPORT PROPOSALSe: When making consistency determinations on a proposed planning and/or development action pertaining to ONT, the ONT-IAC Mediation Board has four possible actions: a. Consistent-Find that the airport proposal is consistent with the ONT ALUCP. b. Conditionally Consistent-Find that the airport proposal is consistent with the ONT ALUCP subject to specified conditions or limitations on the airport plans or use. c. Inconsistent-Find that the airport proposal is inconsistent with the ONT ALUCP. d. Consistent Upon ALUCP Revision-Modify the ONT ALUCP (after duly noticed public hearing by the Ontario City Council) to reflect the assumptions and proposals in the airport plan-thereby making the airport proposal consistent. 5.8. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS: The compatibility criteria set forth in the ALUCP are intended to be applicable to all locations within the ONT AIA. However, there may be 'ALUCP Annual Report -Identifies activity within the ONT AIA over the calendar year providing the following information: number of Project Comment Worksheets, Avigation easements, Consistency Determinations, Disputed Major Land Use Actions and Discretionary Approvals within the ONT AIA. e Airport Proposals -Are defined within the ONT ALUCP Section 2.2 of Chapter 2 and fall under three categories Airport Plans (Airport Master Plan or Airport Layout Planl, Aviation Related Development Proposals and Non- Aviation Related Development Proposals. Page 5 P204 Ontario International Airport- Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement specific situations where a normally incompatible use can be considered compatible because of terrain, specific location, or other extraordinary factors or circumstances related to the site. After due consideration of all the factors involved in such situations, the ONT-IAC Mediation Board may find an otherwise incompatible use to be acceptable. In reaching such a decision, the ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall document the nature of the extraordinary circumstances that warrant the policy exception if it can make the following specific findings: a. That the proposed project will neither create a safety hazard to people on the ground or aircraft in flight nor result in excessive noise exposure for the future occupants of the proposed use. b. That the granting of a policy exception is site specific and shall not be generalized to include other sites. 5.9. OVERRULING ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD DECISIONS: If the ONT-IAC Mediation Board determines that a proposed project is inconsistent with the ONT ALUCP, the Submitting Agency shall be notified and the governing body of that agency has the option under state law to overrule the Mediation Board's decision. The agency must make specific findings that the proposed local action is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of the California Public Utilities Code, as stated in Section 21670. Such findings may not be adopted as a matter of opinion, but must be supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the governing body of the Submitting Agency must make specific findings that the proposed project will not: a. Impair the orderly, planned expansion of ONT; or adversely affect the utility or capacity of ONT (such as by reducing instrument approach procedure minimums). b. Expose the public to excessive noise and safety hazards. 5.10. OVERRULING NOTIFICATION AND VOTING REQUIREMENTS: a. The Submitting Agency must provide a copy of the proposed decision and findings to overrule the ONT-IAC Mediation Board 45 days prior to the hearing date, to the Participating Agencies and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, as required by State law (Public Utilities Code Section 21676). b. The governing body of the Submitting Agency must hold a public hearing prior to making a decision to overrule the consistency determination of the ONT-IAC Mediation Board. The public hearing shall be noticed consistent with the Submitting Agency's established procedures. c. A decision by the governing body of the Submitting Agency to overrule the ONT-IAC Mediation Board must be made by a vote of at least two-thirds of the Submitting Agency's body's members. d. The Submitting Agency must include any comments received from the public, any Affected Agency, ONT-IAC Mediation Board, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and Page 6 P205 Ontario International Airport -Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement the FAA in the public record of any final decision to overrule the ONT-IAC Mediation Board. VI. ONT-IAC ADMINISTRATION 6.1. PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF 7HE ONT ALUCP: The City of Ontario is the lead agency responsible for preparing the ONT ALUCP and any amendments that may subsequently be proposed. The City of Ontario shall also be responsible for coordinating these efforts with Affected Agencies. Affected Agencies are responsible for maintaining consistency between the ONT ALUCP and the Affected Agency's General Plan, Specific Plans, Zoning Code and other relevant land use planning documents. 6.2. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: The City of Ontario shall perform general administrative duties for the Mediation Board including, but not limited to: a. Arranging meeting places and schedules, preparing agendas, and recording meeting minutes. b. Issuing required public notices for meetings of the ONT-IAC Mediation Board. c. Providing an annual report to the ONT-IAC Mediation Board and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics on the compatibility planning actions reviewed over the course of the year. 6.3. Administration of the ONT Inter-A¢encv Notification Process: The City of Ontario shall coordinate with and assist Affected Agencies with implementing the relevant policies of the ONT ALUCP by: a. Developing, maintaining and distributing the Project Comment Worksheet (Exhibit 2 -Sample Project.Comment Worksheet), when necessary; b. Providing Affected Agencies with technical information and guidance regarding compatibility planning issues; c. Serving as a clearinghouse for major airport and land use actions within the ONT AIA and proposed on-site airport development; d. Reviewing proposed major airport and land use actions for consistency with the policies set forth in the ONT ALUCP and preparing written consistency evaluations for transmittal to applicable Affected Agencies; e. Soliciting input and comments from the FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, pilot groups, and others regarding compatibility planning matters, when necessary; and f. Encouraging Los Angeles and Riverside Counties to adopt compatibility planning policies and criteria for the portions of the ONT AIA located within their respective jurisdictions. Page 7 P206 Ontario International Airport- Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement VII. ONT-IAC PROJECT NOTIFICATION PROCESS 7.1. PARTICIPANTS: Each Affected Agenty and LAWA shall participate in the ONT-IAC Project Notification Process for the purposes of providing technical assistance, information and oversight for the implementation of the ONT ALUCP. Participating Agencies required to participate in the Inter-Agency Notification Process include LAWA and the Cities of Ontario, Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland and the County of San Bernardino. 7.2. PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS: The ONT-IAC Project Notification Process includes the steps listed below. a. For each Major Land Use Action (project) located within the AIA, the Submitting Agency shall complete a Project Comment Worksheet9 and forward it to the City of Ontario for forwarding to Affected Agencies. The Worksheet shall contain sufficient project details to enable Affected Agencies to comment upon the project's consistency with the ONT ALUCP. b. Commenting Agencies10 will have 20 calendar days to review and comment on the Submitting Agency's Project Comment Worksheet. Agencies that do not respond within the 20-day period would be deemed to have no comments and to be in agreement with the Submitting Agency's consistency evaluation. Commenting Agencies shall limit their comments to issues related to the project's consistency with the ONT ALUCP and forward their comments electronically to the City of Ontario, Planning Department. c. If the Submitting Agency disagrees with the comments received on the Project Comment Worksheet, staff of the Submitting Agency is encouraged to collaborate with staff of the Commenting Agency and/or Commenting Agencies to seek solutions that will bring the project into voluntary compliance with the ONT ALUCP. If the proposed project is revised in response to comments received on the Project Comment Worksheet, the Submitting Agency shall submit a revised Project Comment Worksheet in the manner provided in subdivision (a). If disagreements regarding consistency remain, the Submitting Agency or any Commenting Agency may request an ONT-IAC Mediation Board hearing to mediate the dispute. 'Project Comment Worksheet - An application that is filled out by the Submitting Agency containing project details that enables Commenting Agencies [o comment upon the project's consistency with the ONT ALUCP. A sample of the Project Comment Worksheet is included as Exhibit 2 of this Agreement. 10 Commenting Agency -An Agency commenting upon a Submitting Agency's Project Comment Worksheet for a project's consistency with the ONT ALUCP. Page 8 P207 Ontario International Airport -Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement d. If no comments are submitted on the Project Comment Worksheet as provided in subdivision (b), or if comments are resolved as provided in subdivision (c), the Submitting Agency shall indicate in its own public notices that the project is within the ONT AIA and has undergone a consistency evaluation and was found to be consistent with the ONT ALUCP. VIII. REFERENCING THE ONT ALUCP IN CEQA DOCUMENTS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) requires Affected Agencies to utilize the California Airport Lond Use Planning Handbook and the ONT ALUCP as a technical resource for analyzing the environmental impacts of new projects located within the ONT AIA. Projects situated within the ONT AIA should be evaluated to determine if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels of airport-related noise or to airport-related safety hazards (Public Resources Code Section 21096). IX. DURATION OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is the date of Caltrans Division of Aeronautics approval. This Agreement shall remain in effect unless and until such time as subsequent modifications are requested and approved by each of the Participating Agencies. The Participating Agencies include the County of San Bernardino and the Cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland. X. AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS Future amendments to this Agreement shall require approval by each of the Participating Agencies requiring new signatures to the amendment. Amendments to this Agreement would require Caltrans Division of Aeronautics approval for the amendment to be effective. Any of the Participating Agencies can propose changes to this amendment at any time. The City of Ontario is the agency responsible for administrating any changes to this amendment and coordinating with all of the Participating Agencies. Changes made to Exhibit's 1 (ONT AIA) and 2 (Sample Project Comment Worksheet) are not considered amendments of this Agreement and would not require new approvals from Participating Agencies or Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. XI. GIS DATA The following GIS Data shall be submitted to the City of Ontario for the purposes of maintaining the ONT ALUCP document: General Plan, Zoning, Specific Plan, City Limits, parcels, streets and building footprints with height information for areas within the ONT AIA. GIS Data may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and the above list should be provided if data exists to assist with maintaining accurate maps. GIS Data updates should be provided on an annual basis or when amendments or changes occur such as a general plan amendment. The City of Ontario shall Page 9 P208 Ontario International Airport- Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement provide Participating Agencies with ONT ALUCP shapefiles and basemap shapefiles and provide annual updates of changes as needed. XII. FEE SCHEDULE A fee schedule may be adopted by the City of Ontario, with the consensus of the members of the ONT-IAC; if adopted, such fees would be reviewed and negotiated annually for Major Land Use Actions requiring public hearing and Mediation. No fee Schedule has been proposed at the commencement of the Agreement. Page 10 P209 Ontario International Airport- Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement SIGNATURES OF AGENCY OFFICIALS City of Chino Print Name: Title: Signature: Date: City of Fontana Print Name: Title: Signature: Date: City of Montclair Print Name: Title: Signature: Date: City of Ontario Print Name: Title: Signature: Date: City of Rancho Cucamonga Print Name: Title: Signature: Date: San Bernardino County Print Name: Title: Signature: Date: City of Upland Print Name: Title: Signature: Date: Page 11 H U - ' "" ... 3AYSfl1fil0 r°~ I i... I, W ~ -r- I -- 1 -- ~ - O ' 2 U ~f a .~ i 'O C O o, ~1r n -- ~~nre - ~ ~ 1l~H1dN2~ -~ W ~~ W N W ~ '. a q any am-r3ew N m Ana J O 2 ' _ '1 V N 0 P210 T N t Eo ~p N C7 ~ a t0 A ~ F~~1 a a_ p '- a acQ C C R W 0 c O 0 _T U c_ O ~ ~, U U ~ ~ ~, o ~ U ~ a~ m c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m Q L N ~ C J ~ (I1 ova a U N C ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ O O m Q ~. L Q U f'-~ i i.. V C O ~ ~ ~ ~ C 3 ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ o O [[ a, a d m ~ r ~ ~ ~ o Q ~ 'x ~ d ti w Q J II Q H 0 w >, ' 3 y.+ ~ N `~ ~ C ~ ~ W J °' i P211 Exhibit 2 Project Comment Worksheet For Major Land Use Actions u~thln the ONT Airport Infhrence Area ~ ALUCP File No.: ' Date Received: Distribution Date: Comment Due Date: Name, Submitting Agency: Phone No.: Applicable Compatibly Factors: E-mail: Comments: Mailing Address: -- - -- Site Address: ~~ _ Name: ' Assessors Parcel No.: Existing Land Use: Phone No.: Project File No.: E-mail: Type of Major Land Use Action: Mailing Address: Major Land Use Action Description (Attach additional sheets if necessary): The proposed oroiect is impacted by the following compatibility factors (check ail that apply): i ~ Safety ~ Noise ~ Airspace Protection ~ Overflight ~ ^ Zone 1 ^ 75 +dB CNEL ^ High Terrain Zone ^ Avigation Easement Area ^ Zone 2 ^ 70-75 d8 CNEL ^ Pierce Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces 0 Recorded Overflight ^ Zone 3 ^ 65-70 dB CNEL Notification Area ^ Zone 4 ^ 60-65 d8 CNEL ^ Real Estate Transaction ^ Zone 5 Disclosure Area Fill out the following if applicable (Attach additional sheets if necessary: 1. List the land uses proposed within each of the respective Safety Zone{s). ~ O 2. List the land uses proposed within each of the respective Noise Impact Zone(s). 3. What is the proposed buildinglstructure height (tallest feature)? ft. i 4. Describe any project characteristics which could create electrical interference, confusing lights, glare, ~ smoke or other electrical or visual hazards to aircraft in flight (attach additional sheets if necessary). AIA project vicinity Map: A map depicting the project site location in relationship to ONT. Site plan: Site boundaries and size; existing uses that will remain; location of existing and proposed structures, open spaces; ground elevations (above mean sea level) and eleva- tions of tops of structures and trees: and plot safety zones and noise contours. Residential Uses: Number of dwelling units per acre . Non-residential Uses: Floor area for each type of proposed use. Intensity Calculation: Only applies to pro- jests within the Safety Zones. Environmental Document: (initial study, draft environmental impact report, etc.) if tort} pleted. Additional information: If necessary addi- tional information requested by the affected agency to enable a comprehensive review of the proposed project. City or Area Wide Projects: Some projects may not have a specific bcation and the above mentioned items may not apply and maybe substituted with a detailed desaiption. Page 1 P212 State the Consistency Determination for the proposed project (attach additional sheets if necessary). Is the Major Land Use Action as proposed consistent with the ALUCP ? Yes ^ No ^ Name. If no, can conditions be added to achieve consistency with the ALUCP (list conditionslattach additional Phone No.: pages if needed)? Yes ^ No ^ E-mail: Would you like to meet with the other members of the ONT-IAC Technical Staff Group to discuss issues or concerns with the proposed Major Land Use Action? Yes ^ No ^ Mailing Address: Would you like to convene ON?-IAC "J~edlalion Board to make a consistency Determinat~oo'' Yes ^ No ^ ~ . •. ~ ~ Participating Agency(ies) agree w~lh the Submitt~.ng Agencys consistency Determination. Yes ^ No ^ Participating Agency(ies) disagree with the Submitting Agency's Consistency Determination for the following reasons? Does the proposed Major Land Use Action need to be revised to include changes and re-submit the Project Comment Worksheet reflecting changes? Yes ^ No ^ Does the ONT-IAC Technical Staff Group need to meet and discuss the proposed Major Land Use Action? The ONT-IAC Mediation Board is needed to make a consistency Determination? Additional Comments: Yes ^ No ^ Yes ^ No ^ Page 2 Describe any project features, during or following construction that would increase the attraction of birds or cause other wildlife hazards to aircraft operations. Such features include, but are not limited to the following: open water areas, sediment ponds, retention basins, detention basins that hold water for more than 48 hours or artificial wetlands. P213 RESOLUTION N0.12-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (IASP) SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685, A REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 5.3.2 OF THE IASP SUBAREA 18 BY ADDING LANGUAGE REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Amendment DRC2010-00685, a request to amend Section 5.3.2 of the IASP Subarea 18, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. The City of Ontario's Resolution No. 95-34 established the City of Ontario as the responsible agency for land use compatibility planning for the LA/ONT International Airport. 3. On April 18, 2011, the Ontario City Council adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the LA/ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) by adopting Ordinance No. 2935. 4. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) that will be affected by aircraft operations as described in the Simplified Airport Diagram for the LA/Ontario International Airport. 5. State law requires that General Plans and Specific Plans must be consistent with adopted airport compatibility plans (Government Code Section 65302.3). Following adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP, each jurisdiction within the AIA must achieve vertical consistency with its land use policy documents. 6. On January 11, 2012, the Planning Commission approved the initiation of IASP Subarea 18 Amendment DRC2010-00685. 7. On May 9, 2012, the Planning Commission ofthe City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on May 9, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-22 P214 INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 2 The application applies to the property located within the City; and b. An Initial Study was prepared forthe Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 text amendment and the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Initial Study finds that all environmental impacts are either of no impact or less-than-significant impact; therefore, the proposed Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport; and d. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), in order to protect the public, health, safety and welfare, it is necessary for each agency within an Airport InfluenceArea that has an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by the lead agency (City of Ontario) to adopt and implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in order to ensure airport safety and compatible land planning; and e. State law also requires land use plans and development proposals to be consistent with policies set forth in Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans. Along with each member agency being required to adopt the ALUCP, each jurisdiction within the Airport Influence Area will need to achieve vertical consistency with its land use policy documents. The proposed text amendment to the IASP Subarea 18 will provide the IASP Subarea 18with language ensuring compatibility with the LA/ONT ALUCP. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The IASP Subarea 18 amendment does promote the Land Use Policies and Implementation Actions of the General Plan and will provide for development by amending a specific plan within the Airport Influence Area of the LA/Ontario International Airport in order to achieve vertical consistency among land use documents in order to ensure aircraft safety and land use compatibility planning around the LA/Ontario International Airport and the future runway expansion; and b. The adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by ensuring that future development will not detrimentally impact aircraft operations or be a physical hazard to aircraft arriving or departing from LA/Ontario International Airport when the future runway expansion occurs; and c. The adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The IASP Subarea 18 amendment will provide language ensuring compatibilitywith the LA/Ontario International ALUCP by prescribing building height limits in order to provide airspace protection for aircraft operations; and d. The adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by providing a streamlined process by which local agencies can ensure that development within the Airport Influence Area is compliant with the LA/Ontario PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-22 P215 INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC. PLAN SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 3 International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The IASP Subarea 18 amendment will provide language so that development in Subarea 18 does not adversely impact aircraft operations from LA/Ontario International Airport; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan since the adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 amendment balances the need to maintain aircraft safety without adversely impacting the full economic use of properties within Subarea 18 by allowing building heights up to 70 feet within the High Terrain Zone, which will permit buildings up to 6 stories. Additionally, the proposed text amendment includes a provision to permit building heights up to 90 feet for offices and hotels within Subarea 18, provided an exception is obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the adoption of IASP Subarea 18 text amendment (hereinafter in paragraph 4, the subject IASP Subarea 18 amendment is referred to as "the project") will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") ahd the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined thatthere was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration, and based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independentjudgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration. c. The custodian of the records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 47.7-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of IASP Subarea 18 amendment DRC2010-00685 by adoption of this Resolution to amend Section 5.3.2 of the IASP SUBAREA 18 by adding language requiring compliance building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan as described in this Resolution by adoption of the Draft City Council Ordinance, shown as Attachment A of this Resolution. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. 12-22 P216 INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF MAY 2012. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA l' ~-'- BY: 7 ~~ Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairmap ATTEST: Cand Burnett, Senior Planner I, Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adapted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of May 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE P217 ORDINANCE NO. 854 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (IASP) SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685, AMENDING SECTION 5.3.2 OF THE IASP SUBAREA 18 BY ADDING LANGUAGE REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Amendment DRC2010-00685, a request to amend Section 5.3.2 of the IASP Subarea 18, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. The City of Ontario's Resolution No. 95-34 established the City of Ontario as the responsible agency for land use compatibility planning for the LA/ONT International Airport. 3. On April 19, 2011, the Ontario City Council adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the 2011 LA/ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) by adopting Ordinance No. 2935. 4. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) that will be affected by aircraft operations as described in the Simplified Airport Diagram for the LA/Ontario International Airport. 5. State law requires that General Plans and Specific Plans must be consistent with adopted airport compatibility plans (Government Code Section 65302.3). Following adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP, each jurisdiction within the AIA must achieve vertical consistency with its land use policy documents. 6. On January 11, 2012, the Planning Commission approved the initiation of IASP Subarea 18 Amendment DRC2010-00685. 7. On May 9, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing with respect to the above referenced Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment DRC2010-00685 and following the conclusion thereof adopted its Resolution No. 12-22 recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt IASP Subarea Text Amendment DRC2010-00685. 8. On June 6, 2012, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application. Attachment A P218 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 854 INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 2 9. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 6, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: The application applies to the property located within the City; and b. An Initial Study was prepared for the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Amendment and the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Initial Study finds that all environmental impacts are either of no impact or less-than-significant impact; therefore, the proposed Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport; and d. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), in order to protect the public, health, safety and welfare, it is necessary for each agency within an Airport Influence Area that has an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by the lead agency (City of Ontario) to adopt and implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in order to ensure airport safety and compatible land planning; and e. State law requires land use plans and development proposals to be consistent with policies set forth in Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans. Along .with each member agency being required to adopt the ALUCP, each jurisdiction within the Airport Influence Area will need to achieve vertical consistency with its land use policy documents. The proposed text amendment to the IASP Subarea 18 will provide the IASP Subarea 18 with language ensuring compatibility with the LA/ONT ALUCP; and f. The IASP Subarea 18 Amendment does promote the Land Use Policies and Implementation Actions of the General Plan by amending a specific plan within the Airport Influence Area of the LA/Ontario International Airport in order to achieve vertical consistency among land use documents in order to ensure aircraft safety and land use compatibility planning around the LA/Ontario International Airport and the future runway expansion; and g. The adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 Amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by ensuring that future development will not detrimentally P219 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 3 impact aircraft operations or be a physical hazard to aircraft arriving or departing from LA/Ontario International Airport when the future runway expansion occurs; and h. The adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The IASP Subarea 18 Amendment will provide language ensuring compatibility with the LA/Ontario ALUCP by prescribing building height limits in order to provide airspace protection for aircraft operations; and i. The adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 Amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by providing a streamlined process by which local agencies can ensure that development within the Airport Influence Area is compliant with the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The IASP Subarea 18 text Amendment will provide language so that development in Subarea 18 does not adversely impact aircraft operations from LA/Ontario International Airport; and j. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan since the adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 Amendment balances the need to maintain aircraft safety without adversely impacting the full economic use of properties within Subarea 18 by allowing building heights up to 70 feet within the High Terrain Zone, which will permit buildings up to 6 stories. Additionally, the proposed text amendment includes a provision to permit building heights up to 90 feet for offices and hotels within Subarea 18, provided an exception is obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration. SECTION 3: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the IASP Subarea 18 Amendment (hereinafter in Section 3, the subject IASP Subarea 18 Amendment is referred to as "the project") will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. b. The City Council has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on these findings, the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration. P220 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 4 c. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. SECTION 4: Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1, 2 and 3 above, this Council hereby approves Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 DRC2010- 00685 as follows: SECTION 5: SECTION 5.3.2 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: Section 5.3.2, Architecture, Building HeighUBulk/Massing: The following text shall be deleted (deleted text in ugh): SECTION 6: SECTION 5.3.2 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: Section 5.3.2, Architecture, Building Height/Bulk/Massing: The following text shall be added (new text in bold) Building height limits within Subarea 18 shall not exceed the height limits prescribed in the LA/Ontario International Airport Compatibility Plan. For Planning Areas within the High Terrain Zone, the building height limit shall be 70 feet. Buildings or structures greater than 70 feet in height within the High Terrain Zone are subject to the ONT-IAC Project Notification Process and require a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) exception (Obstruction Evaluation -Form 7460). For Planning Areas outside the High Terrain Zone, building height limits shall be governed by the LA/Ontario International Airport Compatibility Plan. Building or structures greater than LA/Ontario International Airport Compatibility Plan limits are subject to the ONT-IAC Project Notification Process and require a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) exception (Obstruction Evaluation -Form 7460-. In cases where the LA/Ontario International Airport Compatibility Plan permits heights greater than 70 feet or the FAA has granted an exception to exceed 70 foot threshold within the High Terrain Zone, the following limits shall be applied: P221 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 5 1) Maximum building or structure height shall not exceed four stories or 75 feet, whichever is greater, unless approved as a Conditional Use Permit, except hotel facilities which are permitted to a maximum height of eight stories or 90 feet, whichever is greater. 2) In Planning Area VII, office buildings are permitted to a maximum height of six stories or 90 feet, whichever is greater. SECTION 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. SECTION 8: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valfev Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. City Council Agenda June 6, 2012 Item N1. Page 94 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUB 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 Page 14 Attachments: Exhibit A -Airport Influence Area (Map 2-1) Exhibit B -Affected Jurisdictions (Exhibit 2-A) Exhibit C -Simplified Airport Diagram (Exhibit 1-6) Exhibit D -Airspace Protection Zones (Map 2-4) Exhibit E -Overflight Notification Zones (Map 2-5) Exhibit F -Flight Track Altitude: All Operations -Composite (Exhibit 1-14) Exhibit G -City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use Map Exhibit H -IASP Subarea 18 Exhibit (Planning Areas) Exhibit I -Major Land Use Actions Subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process (Table 2-1) Exhibit J -Planning Commission Workshop Minutes dated March 28, 2012 Exhibit K -Planning Commission Minutes dated May 9, 2012 Exhibit L - LAIONT ALUCP (complete text with exhibits) available at: http://www.ontarioplan.org/index.cfm/33710 Exhibit M - LA/ONT ALUCP hard copy distributed under separate cover and available for review at the City Clerk's Office Exhibit N -Initial Study Part II Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of adoption of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, dated May 9, 2012 Draft City Council Resolution adopting the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of the Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative, dated May 9, 2012 Draft City Council Resolution adopting the Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative Agreement Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of Industrial Area Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685, dated May 9, 2012 Draft Ordinance of Approval for Industrial Area Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 ~'~` ~` ~r ~~ ~~ ~~~'~~~ LA~ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL V .-.~rn ~ AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN • i1 • • • ~ 1 • Prepared for: `\ City of Ontario ~ + ~ Planning Department i `~ 0~1TAR1(~' - Jerry L Blum Planning Director Clty COUnCII 303 East B Street Ontario, CA 91764 Paul 5. Leon, Mayor Principal Planner Debra Dorst-Porada ,Mayor pro Tem Cathy Wahlstrom Alan D. Wapner, Council Member Project Manager Lorena Mejia Sheila Mautz, Council Member Jim W. Bowman, Council Member Prepared by: Mead & Hunt, Inc. Mead Chris Hughes, City Manager ~, I IUnt Otto Kroutil, Development Agency Director 133 Aviation Boulevard, suite ioo Santa Rosa, CA 95403 www.meadhunt.com • Planning Commission Project Manager Maranda Thompson Bob Gregorek, Chairman In association with: Richard Delman, Commissioner Dudek Rick Gage, Commissioner DUDE K Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. Barbara Hartley, Commissioner ~,~, Fausto Reyes, Commissioner Technology Associates International Corporation TacAnotogy~Assoclates Funded by ADOPTED BY ONTARIO CITY COUNCIL Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) APRIL 19, 201 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2935 Section 160 of Vision 100 EFFECTIVE DATE Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act MAV 19, 201 1 • • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • The City of Ontario would like to thank the Technical Advisory Committee for their time, participation and technical assistance with development of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for LA/Ontario International Airport. The City also thanks the Federal Aviation Administrption (FAA) for allocating the grant funds which made the development of this pion possible. CITY OF ONTARIO Jerry L. Blum, Planning Director Scott Murphy, Assistant Planning Director Cathy Wahlstrom, Principal Planner Barbara Paine, Principal Planner Chuck Mercier, Senior Planner Richard Ayala, Senior Plortner Lorena Mejia, Associate Planner Louis Abi-Younes, City Engineer Nabil Kassih, Assistant Ci[y Engineer Tom Donna, Traffic Engineer John Andrews, Redevelopment Director Sigfrido Rivera, Housing Manager Peter Witherow, IT Applications Monoger Robert De Casas, Senior System Analyst Dale Wishner, IT Systems Monoger ALUCP PLANNING COMMISSION SUB-COMMITTEE Richard Delman, Planning Commissioner Fred Nelsen, Vice Chair FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) Margie Drilling ,Aviation Planner, Cos Angeles ADO CALTRANS, DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS Terry Barrie, Chief, Office of Aviation Planning Ron Bolyard, Associate Aviation Land Use Planner Chris Ferrell, Associate Aviation Lond Use Planner LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS (LAWA) Jess L. Roma, Airport Monoger Paula McHargue, Supervising Transportation Planner I! Eileen Schoetzow ,Forecasting and Analysis Sheryl Thomas Perkins, Senior Government Affairs Representative CITY OF FONTANA Debbie Brazill, Deputy City Monoger Don Williams, Director of Community Development Charles Fahie, Senior Planner CITY OF MONTCLAIR Steve Lustro, Community Development Director Michael Diaz, City Planner CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA James R. Troyer, Planning Director Donald Granger, Senior Planner CITY OF UPLAND Karen Peterson, Planning Manager Jeff Bloom, Community Development Director COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Ed Cooper, Airport Cond Use Commission Director Ron Goldman, Planning Dirertor John Guerin, Principal Planner MEAD & HUNT, INC. Maranda Thompson, Project Monoger, Aviation Services Ken Brody, Senior Project Planner Keith Downs, Senior Planner Corbett Smith, Airport Planner Todd Eroh, Senior Technician DUOEK Shawn Shamlou, Environmento! Manager Lisa Lubeley, G1S Monoger HARRIS MILLER MILLER 8c HANSON, INC. Robert Behr, Senior Noise Consultant SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Mike N. Williams, A.A.E., Director of Airports lim Squire, Deputy Director Christney Barilla, Land Use Services Director Representative TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Pat Atchison, GIS Tool Monoger CITY OF CHINO Chris Lovell, Principal Planner • ~NTARI~-~' AtRPOR7 PLANNING ADOPTED APPIL 1 9, 201 1 NTARI~ AtRPORTPLANNING TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD .....................................................................................................................................................I CHAPTER Z: BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY PLANNING .............................................................................................................. 1-1 Introduction .................................................................................................... ................................. 1-1 ALUCP Five-Step Development Process ...................................................... ................................. 1-1 THE ONT COMPATIBILITY PLAN ................................................................................... ................................. 1-Z Function of the Compatibility Plan ................................................................. ................................. 1-2 Airport Influence Area .................................................................................... ................................. 1-2 Effective Date and Adoption of the Compatibility Plan ................................. ................................. 1-2 THE °ALTERNATIVE PROCESS" ..................................................................................... ................................. 1-3 State Law Requirements ................................................................................ ................................. 1-3 San Bernardino County Alternative Process .................................................. ................................ 1-3 METHODOLOGY FOR CREATING THE ONT COMPATIBILITY PLAN ..................................... ................................ 1-4 ONT Master Plan Status ................................................................................. ................................ 1-4 Planning for Future Runway Modifications ..................................................... ................................ 1-4 Future and Existing Activity Forecasts ........................................................... ................................ 1-5 • Future and Existing Airfield Configurations .................................................... ................................ 1-5 I~ND USE PLAN CONSISTENCV .................................................................................... ................................ 1-6 State Law Requirements ................................................................................ ................................ 1-6 Consistency Options ....................................................................................... ................................ 1-7 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ......................................................................................... ................................ 1-S Definitions for this Compatibility Plan ............................................................................................. 1-8 Table and Map Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 1-9 CHAPTER 1 EXHIBITS ExH161T 1-1 Airport History and Development Summary ............................................................... 1-11 Exhibit 1-2 Airport Features .......................................................................................................... 1-13 Exhibit 1-3 Airport Activity Data Summary .................................................................................. 1-15 Exhibit 1-4 ONT AIA Information ................................................................................................... 1-17 Exhibit 1-5 Simplified Airport Diagram Acceptance Letter .......................................................... 1-19 CHAPTER 1 MAP EXHIBITS Simplified Airport Diagram ................................................................................................. Exhibit 1-6 Runway Protection Zones: West ......................................................................................... Exhibit 1-7 Compatibility Factors: Safety ........................................................................................... Exhibit 1-8 • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) O~~J~ ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS - aR~R ~ v.avv n, Compatibility Factors: Noise ............................................................... ................................ Exhibit 1-9 Compatibility Factors: Existing Airspace ............................................ .............................. Exhibit 1-10 Compatibility Factors: Future Airspace .............................................. .............................. Exhibit 1-11 Compatibility Factors: Composite Airspace ....................................... .............................. Exhibit 1-12 Modeled Flight Routes ......................................................................... ............................. Exhibit 1-13 Flight Track Altitude: All Operations (Composite) ............................... ............................. Exhibit 1-14 Flight Track Altitude: Normal Operations (Arrival) .............................. ............................. Exhibit 1-15 Flight Track Altitude: Normal Operations (Departure) ........................ ............................. Exhibit 1-16 Flight Track Altitude: Santa Ana Conditions (Arrival) .......................... ............................. Exhibit 1-17 Flight Track Altitude: Santa Ana Conditions (Departure) .................... ............................. Exhibit 1-18 Existing Land Use ................................................................................ ............................. Exhibit 1-19 City of Ontario General Plan ................................................................ ............................. Exhibit 1-20 General Plan Land Use: Other Jurisdictions ....................................... ........................... Exhibit 1-21A General Plan Land Use: Jurisdictions Legend ................................... ........................... Exhibit 1-21 B CHAPTER 2: PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... .......... 2-1 • Introduction ........................................................................................................................... .......... 2-1 Section Descriptions ............................................................................................................. .......... 2-1 Criteria Table Descriptions .................................................................................................. .......... 2-2 Compatibility Policy Map Descriptions ................................................................................. .......... 2-2 SECTION 1: SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE COMPATIBILITY PLAN ..................................................... .......... 2-3 1.1 Geographic Scope ................................................................................................... .......... 2-3 1.2 Applicability of the Compatibility Plan ..................................................................... .......... 2-3 1.3 Limitations of the Compatibility Plan ........................................................................ .......... 2-4 SECTION 2: ALUCP IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS ............ .......... 2-6 2.1 Overview of ALUCP Implementation Responsibilities for Affected Agencies ......... .......... 2-6 2.2 Specific Responsibilities of LAWA ........................................................................... .......... 2-7 2.3 ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process ................................................................... .......... 2-7 SECTION 3: CITY OF ONTARIO ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................ .......... 2-8 3.1 Preparation, Adoption and Amendment of the Compatibility Plan .......................... .......... 2-8 3.2 ALUCP Implementation Administration ................................................................... .......... 2-9 SECTION 4; MEDIATION BOARD ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PROJECT DISPUTE PROCESS ............. .......... 2-9 4.1 Mediation Board Purpose and Composition ............................................................ .......... 2-9 - a.2 Mediation Board Project Dispute Process ............................................................... ........ 2-10 LA/Ontario Intemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ONTARIO TABLE OF CONTENTS ~~avORt 1-U~R+'NG 4.3 Overruling Mediation Board Decisions ............................................................................ 2-11 SECTION 5: EVALUATING LAND USE CONSISTENCY ..................................................................................... 2-12 5.1 Evaluating Consistency of New Development ................................................................. 2-12 5.2 Evaluation Tools ............................................................................................................... 2-12 SECTION 6: COMPATIBILITY POLICIES ......................................................................................................... 2-14 6.1 Safety Policies .................................................................................................................. 2-14 6.2 Noise Policies ................................................................................................................... 2-20 6.3 Airspace Protection Policies ............................................................................................ 2-2a 6.4 Overflight Policies ............................................................................................................ 2-29 6.5 Special Compatibility Policies .......................................................................................... 2-32 CHAPTER 2 TABLES Table 2-1 Major Land Use Actions .............................................................................................. 2-39 Table 2-2 Safety Criteria ............................................................................................................... 2-41 Table 2-3 Noise Criteria ................................................................................................................ 2-47 CHAPTER 2 POLICY MAPS Airport Influence Area ............................................................................ Compatibility Policy Map 2-1 Safety Zones .......................................................................................... Compatibility Policy Map 2-2 Noise Impact Zones ............................................................................... Compatibility Policy Map 2-3 Airspace Protection Zones .................................................................... Compatibility Policy Map 2-4 Overflight Notification Zones ................................................................. Compatibility Policy Map 2-5 APPENDICES APPENDIX A -STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING .................................................... A-1 Public Utilities Code ................................................................. ..................................................... A-3 Government Code ................................................................... ................................................... A-20 Education Code ...................................................................... ................................................... A-29 Public Resources Code ........................................................... ................................................... A-33 Business Professions Code ..................................................... ................................................... A-34 Civil Code ................................................................................ ................................................... A-35 Legislative History Summary ...................................................................................................... A-40 APPENDIX B -FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 ............................................................................. B-1 Exhibit B1 -FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces ..............................................................................B-14 Exhibit B2 -FAR Part 77 Notification Form .................................................................................. B-15 Exhibit 63 -FAR Part 77 Online Submittal Process ...................................................................... B-16 • ., .~ LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) mRi'OR ~ P-Ar,V Ku TABLE OF CONTENTS v~~~i~ • APPENDIX C -AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS ....................................................................... C-' Table C1 -Safety Zone Aircraft Accident Risk Characteristics ...................................................C-15 Figure C1 -Noise Footprints of Selected Aircraft ........................................................................C-16 Figure C2 -General Aviation Accident Distribution Contours, All Arrivals ...................................C-18 Figure C3 -General Aviation Accident Distribution Contours, All Departures .............................C-19 APPENDIX D -METHODS FOR DETERMINING CONCENTRATIONS OF PEOPLE ................................................... D-1 Table D1 -Occupant Load Factors ..............................................................................................D-6 APPENDIX E -SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS ................................................................................... E-1 Table E1 -General Plan Consistency Checklist ............................................................................ E-3 Table E2 -Sample Airport Overlay Zone Components ................................................................. E-4 Table E3 -Sample Avigation Easement ........................................................................................ E-5 Table E4 -Sample Overflight Notification ...................................................................................... E-7 Table E5 -Sample Project Submittal Information .......................................................................... E-8 APPENDIX F - LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DOCUMENTS ................ F-1 APPENDIX G -GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................G-1 APPENDIX H -ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/INITIAL $TUDY ................................................................................. H-1 • APPENDIX I -GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS ............................................ I-1 APPENDIX J -HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTION STUDY ...........................................J-1 • IV LA/Ontario /ntemationat Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Aprii 19, 2071) NTARI AIRPORT PLANNING FOREWORD Aviation is an important industry in the State of California. It plays a significant role in the local and regional economy. Airports provide a means of transportation, business development, recreational aviation opportunities and educational venues to the citizens of the State, as well as visitors to the region. Communities in close proximity of an airport benefit from its economic value but are also subject to airport impacts such as noise and safety. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans are documents that address airport impacts and provide implementation techniques to ensure the development of compatible land uses around airports. This Airport Lrrad Use Compatibility Plan (Compatibility Plan) addresses land use impacts around LA/Ontario International Airport. The document is organized into two chapters and a set of appendices. Chapter 1 identifies the background data and methodology utilized for the basis of this Compatibility Plan and Chapter 2 identifies the procedural policies and compatibility criteria for implementing this Plan. '~L4+ ~ •l: ~~*;'Z - mow; ~' ~ -- '- . _~ ~. ~ ='~- ~. __..-- y:.x-~ ~~..,,~ .. \ °~ . .,~ • LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) • • • BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY LA~Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan CHAPTER 1 NTARI~ AIRPORT PLANNING BACKGROUND AND METHODOLGY AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY PLANNING Introduction The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code, Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Compatibility Plan) be prepared for all public-use airports in the state to: `~rotect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimise the publics exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible land uses. " State law also requires local land use plans and individual development proposals to be consistent with policies set forth in Compatibility Plans. Compatibility Plans must have 20-year horizons, taking into consideration regional growth projections and future airport expansion plans that would increase airport activity and associated impacts. Compatibility Plans are tailored to each airport's specific land use impacts and issues. The statutes also require that local jurisdictions preparing Compatibility Plans "rely upon" the compatibility guidance provided by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics in January 2002. Five-Step Compatibility Planning Process • The development of the L,A/Ontario Internatianal.~lirport Land Use Compatibility Plan followed this fivc- step process. ~ Step 1: Initiate Process and Gather Data Conduct preliminary work needed to initiate the compatibility planning process such as identifying the responsibilities of the City of Ontario in preparing the Compatibility Plan, gathering pertinent airport data such as an airport master plan or airport layout plan, and identifying/notifying the different stakeholders. ~ Step 2: Delineate the Airport Influence Area Define the areas that need to be considered for airport land use compatibility planning by examining the four factors of compatibility that include safety, noise, airspace protection and overflight consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook). ~ Step 3: Identify Compatibility Concerns Examine the level of compatibility in the community by evaluating existing land uses and land use plans against compatibility concerns. ~ Step 4: Develop Compatibility Policies Examine the various policies and regulatory documents available (e.g. California Handbook, Public Utilities Code, FAA guidance) to guide in the development of compatibility policies that will be part of the airport land use compatibility plan. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Ilse Compatibility Plan (February 2091 Public Draft) 1-1 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY O~'~~'a`~"+~+ -y Step 5: Establish Implementation Strategies Identify and adopt strategies for implementing the compatibility plan, making local land use plans consistent with the Compatibility Plan and processing consistency reviews of future development proposals. THE ONT COMPATIBILITY PLAN Function of the Compatibility Plan The basic function of the Compatibility Plan for LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) is to promote compatibility between ONT and the land uses that surround it. As required by state law, the Compatibility Plan provides guidance to affected local jurisdictions with regard to airport land use compatibility matters involving ONT. The Compatzbility I'!an is separate and distinct from the jurisdictions' other land use policy documents-their general plans, specific plans, and zoning ordinances-yet all of the documents are expected to be made consistent with each other through incorporation of the compatibility policies into their land use policy documents. The main objective of the Compatibility Plan is to avoid future compatibility conflicts rather than to remedy existing incompatibilities. Also, the Compatibility Plan is aimed at addressing future land uses and development, not airport activity. The Compatibility Plan does not place any restrictions on the present and future role, configuration, or use of the airport. Airport Influence Area The central component of this Compatibility Plan is the set of procedural • and compatibility policies outlined in Chapter 2. These policies set limits on future land uses and development near the airport in response to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The geographic extent of these four types of impacts together constitutes the ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA). The ONT AIA encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside and Los Angeles Counties. However, this Compatibility Plan applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County; specifically, the County of San Bernardino and the Cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland, together with any special district, community ll di tri t r hool district that exists or ma be established or Note: The compatibility policies set forth herein, specifically in Chapter 2, are relevant to Los Angeles and Riverside County jurisdictions and Los Angeles and Riverside County Airport Land Use Commissions. These agencies are encouraged to adopt these policies for their portions of the ONT AIA, but are not required to. co ege s c , o sc y expanded into the AIA. The Compatibility Plan does not apply to state-owned, federal or tribal lands. The Compatibility Plan has been prepared in coordination with the applicable jurisdictions listed above and representatives of Caltrans Di~rision of Aeronautics and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Los Angeles Airports District Office. Effective Date and Adoption of the Compatibility Plan The provisions of the Compatibility Plan will take effect upon the plan's adoption by the City of Ontario. Other affected entities within San Bernardino County have options as to how to incorporate pertinent Compatibility Plan provisions into their respective local plans and policies or to dispute portions of the plan, but they cannot simply opt out of the process (Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1 (c)). • 1-2 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (February 2011 Public Draft) O~-~ooa-To..~nti~ BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER 1 THE ~~ALTERNATIVE PROCESS~r State Law Requirements In most counties, the responsibility for the preparation and adoption of compatibility plans falls to the county airport land use commission (.~1LUC). State law also provides for what is generally referred to as an "Alternative Process" wherein a county does not have to form an ALUC and the required compatibility planning responsibilities fall to local jurisdictions. San Bernardino County and its cities elected to follow the Alternative Process when this option became available as a result of the 1994 legislation (Assembly Bill 2831). Specific requirements for implementation of the Alternative Process are set forth in Public Utilities Code Section 2167U.1(c)(2) as follows: • "... [the] county and the appropriate affected cities having jurisdiction over an airport, subject to the review and approval by the Division of Aeronautics of the department, shall do all of the following: (A) Adopt processes for the prepazation, adoption, and amendment of the airport land use compatibility plan for each airport that is served by a scheduled airline or operated for the benefit of the general public. (B) Adopt processes for the notification of the general public, landowners, interested groups, and other public agencies regazding the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the airport land use compatibility plans. (C) Adopt processes for the mediation of disputes arising from the prepazation, adoption, and amendment of the airport land use compatibility plans. (D) Adopt processes for the amendment of general and specific plans to be consistent with the airport land use compatibility plans. • (E) Designate the agency that shall be responsible for the preparation, adoption, and amendment of each airport land use compatibility plan." Paragraph (3) of Section 21670.1 (c) goes on to say that: "The Division of Aeronautics of the department shall review the processes adopted pursuant to paragraph (2), and shall approve the processes if the division determines that the processes are consistent with the procedure required by this article and will do all of the following: (r1) Result in the preparation, adoption, and implementation of plans within a reasonable amount of time. (B) Rely on the height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations, as established by this article, and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, published by the division, and any applicable federal aviation regulations, including, but not limited to, Part 77 (commencing with Section 77.1) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (C) Provide adequate opportunities for notice to, review of, and comment by the general public, landowners, interested groups, and other public agencies." San Bernardino County Alternative Process Use of the Alternative Process within San Bernardino County was established in 1995 by resolutions of the County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of cities affected by airports. Specifically the Ontario City Council adopted the Alternative Process through Resolution No. 95-34 utilizing the Airport Environs Section of the General Plan as the basis for airport land use compatibility planning (see Appendix F). The California Division of Aeronautics approved the San Bernardino County • LA/Ontario tntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (February 2011 Public Drag) 1-3 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY O~~•v.a+v.ry~ • Alternative Process in 1996. The approval of the Alternative Process designated the City of Ontario as the local jurisdiction responsible for leading the compatibility planning process for ONT. The policies in Chapter 2 of this Compatibility Plan clarify and amend the process previously established by Ontario City Council Resolution No. 95-34 to include participation by the other agencies within San Bernardino County having jurisdiction over portions of the AIA established by this Compatibility Plan. Participation by these agencies will be accomplished through the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process and creation of a Mediation Board. The roles and responsibilities of the participating agencies and the Mediation Board are described in Chapter 2. The matrix below identifies the jurisdictions/entities that may be subject to the ONT Altemative Process. METHODOLOGY FOR CREATING THE ANT COMPATIBILITY PLAN State law (Public Utilities Code Section 21675(a)) dictates that airport land use compatibility plans be based upon an Airport Master Plan (AMP) or an Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Wltere an AMP is not available or is outdated, an ALP drawing can serve as the basis for compatibility planning, subject to the approval of the California Division of Aeronautics. An ALP is a drawing showing existing facilities and planned improvements. Atypical AMP includes an ALP, but also provides textual background data, a discussion of forecasts, and an examination of alternatives along with detailed description of the proposed development. ALP's and AMP's are prepared for and adopted by the entity that owns and/or operates the airport. Most large, publicly owned airports have an AMP, but many smaller or private airports do not. • ' The Cities within San Bernardino County that are required to participate in the Alternative Process include: Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, Montclair, Fontana and Upland. ` The County of Riverside having unincorporated lands within the noise impacted areas of LA/Ontario International Airport has elected to participate in the compatibility planning process for the Airport on a discretionary basis. See definition for "Special Entity" on page 1-9 of this Chapter. ONT Master Plan Status ONT has never had an adopted AMP that can serve as the basis for this Compatibility Plan. In 2002, Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) initiated a master planning effort for ONT. A tentative proposal of the AMP involved reconfiguration of the runway system, shifting both runways south and east of their present positions. This reconfiguration is regarded necessary to enable the runway system to accommodate the volume of aircraft operations associated with the numbers of airline passengers and air cargo expected to use the airport by 2030. Before the new AI~II' could be completed and adopted, however, the nationwide economic downturn, coupled with local factors, resulted in a substantial decline in activity at ONT. With this decline, the urgency for completion of the AMP largely disappeared and, consequently, LAWA suspended work on the plan development in late 2008. Planning for Future Runway Modifications 1'he discontinuation of the ONT AMP efforts left the compatibility planning project without a clearly • defined AMP to use as its basis. V~'ithout an .~1MP, the Compatibility Platt could be based on the existing 1-4 LA/Ontario lnternationaJAirport Land Use Compatibility Plan (February 2091 Public Draft) ~~'~rtpppTo4yn;; BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER 1 runway configuration or the modified configuration that was developed as part of Lr1WA's master • planning efforts. Both LAWA and the City of Ontario expect the new AMP to eventually move forward with a modified runway system either as indicated on the internal draft plan or similar to it. Not considering the modified runways in the Compatibility Plan could potentially enable new development to occur in a manner that would be in conflict with the future airport configuration. Meanwhile, the existing runways also need to be protected until such time as they are no longer in use. Accounting for dual sets of runways in the Compatibility Plan makes the plan more complicated, but it is the approach that provides the best assurance of compatibility between the airport and new land use development, both in the near and long terms. Representatives of the California Division of Aeronautics, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), LAWA and City of Ontario are in concurrence with this approach. Therefore, for the purposes of this Compatibility Plan, a Simplified Airport Diagram of the airport layout has been prepared emphasizing the features Note: The Runway Protection having implications for land use compatibility in both the near and long term. Zones are confined within the The Simplified Airport Diagram takes into account both the existing and City of Ontario, anticipated ultimate configurations of the runway system, runway protection zones (RPZ), setback requirements lateral to the runways and the airport property boundary. In accordance with state law, the Simplified Airport Diagram has been approved by the Division of Aeronautics as the basis for this Compatibility Plan (see Exhibit 1-5 and 1-6). Future and Existing Activity Forecasts The activity forecasts LAWA generated prior to the discontinuation of the A1~1P, explored several possible scenarios that the airport could experience. The Compatibility Plan is specifically focusing on two ultimate forecasts that were prepared. The "no project" and "proposed project" scenarios, as • defined in the preliminary ONT AMP, represent the two levels of airport activity which could potentially be seen by 2030 depending on the ultimate configuration of the airport. The "no project" forecast assumes that the airport configuration would remain as it is today. This lack of airfield change would limit the airport to approximately 343,000 annual aircraft operations. The preliminary ONT AMP anticipated that this level of demand would be reached by 2030. The "proposed project" forecast is based on the ultimate reconfiguration of the airport. In this configuration, the airfield will be able to accommodate approximately 465,000 operations. This forecast assumes roughly 33.4 million passengers and 3.26 million tons of air cargo enplaned and deplaned annually. The forecast of 33.4 million passengers is based on the assumption that any terminal expansion would be restricted to the north side of the airport provided that the airfield is capable of accommodating it. It is important to note that the 3.26 million tons of air cargo expected within the planning period includes both the off-airport United Parcel Sen-ice (UPS) activity, and the 1.6 million tons of air cargo served by the on-airport cargo facilities. UPS maintains a large sorting facility south of the airport with a through-the-fence access point. The UPS aircraft land and take off on the ONT runways but UPS cargo is loaded and unloaded at the private UPS site. Future and Existing Airfield Configurations The airport's present runway system consists of two parallel runways (8L/26R and 8R/26L) oriented east and west. Runway 8I.-26R is 12,200 feet in length, while Runway 8R-26L is 10,200 feet long. Runway 8L has a displaced threshold of 997 feet. Both runways are equipped with High-Intensity Runway Lights (HIRIs) and centerline lights. All runway ends are served by straight-in instrument - LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (February 2011 Public Draft) 1-5 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY OAmr':-c.e•+•:,a; approaches. Runway 26L has the lowest approach minimums with astraight-in ILS approach having a 200 foot vertical ceiling. The airport is served by an air traffic control tower which operates twenty- four hours a day. The only published noise abatement procedure for the airport requires Runway 8L for departures and Runway 26L for arrivals between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when weather conditions permit. This noise abatement procedure is also known acontra-flow. The contra-flow procedures are aimed at reducing the number of nighttime overflights of the residential neighborhoods west of the airport. The most recent official ONT ALP drawing is one dated February 17, 2009. LAWA has submitted this ALP to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and it is pending approval. It shows the runway system in its existing configuration. Also, all runway ends, except Runway 8L, are shown having the largest size of runway protection zone (RPZ); specifically, 2,500 feet long, 1,000 feet inner width, and 1,750 feet outer width. This size RPZ is associated with a runway having approach visibility minimums lower than 3/. mile and capable of serving all sizes of aircraft. The existing ALP also shows two RPZs west of the Runway 8L threshold. The approach RPZ begins 200 feet from the landing threshold and is 2,500 feet long, with a 1,000 foot inner width, and a 1,750 foot outer width. The departure RPZ begins 200 feet from the physical end of the runway and is 1,700 feet long, with a 500 foot inner width, and a 1,010 foot outer width. An ALP showing the future runway configuration was part of the discontinued AMP. That drawing, which shows both runways being shifted south and east of their current alignments, has been made available for the compatibility planning project, and a conceptual version was made public through a Notice of Preparation of a Draft 1/nvironmental Impact Report for the discontinued ONT AMP. The • relocated runway position provides a separation of 800 feet between the rivo runways, compared to 700 feet currently. This increased separation and southward shift will allow for the construction of dual taxiways on the north and a center taxiway between the two runways. The additional taxiway on the north and a center taxiway would aid in circulation and efficiency. These facilities will allow the airport to accommodate the forecast increase in operations without significant delays. Additionally, all four runway ends would have precision instrument approach capabilities and the ALP shows the RPZs accordingly. LAND USE PLAN CONSISTENCY State Law Requirements Note: FAA recommends placing Building Restriction Lines (BRLs) on ALPs to identify suitable building area locations on airports. (FAA Advisory Circular 150!5300- 13, Section 210). The BRL shown on the Simplified Airport Diagram (Exhibit 1-6) identfies the approximate locations where buildings of 35 feet in height or taller would be suitable based on FAR Part 77, Subpart C, criteria. The BRL does not account for the topography of the site and, thus, is depicted for informational purposes only and does not constitute ALUCP policy. General Plans and Specific Plans must be made consistent with adopted airport compatibility plans. Several sections of state law establish the relationship between Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans and county and city General and Specific Plans. In particular, Government Code Section 65302.3 requires that General Plans and any applicable Specific Plans "shall be consistent with" the Compatibility Plan. This requirement is reiterated in local agencies' obligations under the Alternative Process (Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2)(D)). A second point to emphasize is that the consistency requirement pertains only to future land use development. Nothing in state law or the Compatrbilily Plan requires that already existing development • be removed or modified to eliminate incompatibilities that may already exist. Furthermore, General 1-6 LA/Ontario lntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (February 2011 Public Draft) O~',ppppt'>~:Vn,,,ti~ BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER ~ Plans and Specific Plans can show such land uses as continuing even though they would be nonconforming with the Compatibility Plan criteria. Conflicts of this r<~pe do not constitute • inconsistencies between a General Plan or Specific Plan and the Compatibility Plart. Consistency Options General Plans do not need to be identical with Compatibility Plans in order to achieve consistency with them a General Plan must do two things: • It must specifically address compatibility planning issues, either directly or through reference to a zoning ordinance or other polity document; and • It must avoid direct conflicts with the Compatibility Plan development policies and criteria. Compatibility planning issues can be reflected in a General Plan in one, or a combination, of several ways: ~ Incorporate Policies into Existing General Plan Elements-One method of achieving the necessary planning consistenry is to modify existing General Plan elements. For example, airport land use noise policies could be inserted into the noise element, safety policies could be placed into a safety element and the primary compatibility criteria and associated maps plus the procedural policies might fit into the land use element. ~ti'ith this approach, direct conflicts would be eliminated and the majority of the mechanisms and procedures necessary to ensure compliance with compatibility criteria could be fully incorporated into the local jurisdiction's General Plan. ~ Adopt a General Plan Airport Element-Another approach is to prepare a separate airport element of the General Plan. Such a format may be advantageous when the community's General Plan also needs to address on-airport development and operational issues. Modification • of other plan elements to provide cross-referencing and eliminate conflicts would still be necessary. ~ Adopt Compatibility Plan as Standalone Document-A jurisdiction selecting this option would simply adopt as a local policy document [he relevant portions of the compatibility plan- specifically, the policies and maps. Applicable background information could be included as well if desired. Changes to the community's existing General Plan would be minimal. Policy reference to the Compatibility flan would need to be added and any direct land use or other conflicts with compatibility planning criteria would have to be removed. 1.inuted discussion of compatibility planning issues could be included in the General Plan, but the substance of most compatibility policies would appear only in the stand-alone document. ~ Adopt an Airport Overlay Zone- Affected jurisdictions can adopt an airport overlay zone for the areas of impact and make reference to them within their respective General Plans or Specific Plans. The airport overlay zone would aci as added layer of standards/restrictions over the existing zoning land use designation. Other than where direct conflicts need to be eliminated from the local plans, implementation of procedural and compatibility policies would be accomplished solely through the zoning ordinance. Policy reference to airport compatibility in the General Plan could be as simple as mentioning support for the compatibility planning process indicated in the compatibility plan and stating that polity implementation is by means of the overlay zone. (An outline of topics which could be addressed in an airport overlay zone is included in Appendix E.) • LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Ptan (February 2011 Public Drafr) 1-7 CHAPTERI BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY QNTARI~ bRV9R: OWJW~~ BACKGROUND INFORMATION 'I'bis Compatibility Plan is a stand-alone document that addresses airport land use compatibility issues for ONT. Although, this is the first stand-alone document created, the City of Ontario performed airport compatibility planning for the areas around ONT by implementing policies of the 1992 General Plan, Airport Environs Section. The City of Ontario's newly adopted 2010 General Plan refers to this Compatibility Plan for guidance on compatibility planning matters. Definitions for this Compatibility Plan 1. Action: A proposed General Plan, Specific Plan, policy document, or individual development project subject to review under the ONT Alternative Process defined in this chapter. Also, an airport master plan, airport layout plan, and certain types of airport improvements proposed by LAWA for ONT which would require amendment of the Airport Permit. 2. Aeronautics Act: Except as indicated otherwise, the article of the California Public Utilities Code (Sections 21670 et seg.) pertaining to airport land use commissions and airport land use compatibility planning. 3. Affected Agency: Any county, city, or special district having lands within the ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA). Consistent with state law, each county within the State of California is responsible for its own airport land use compatibility planning efforts. Thus, the policies of this Compatibility Plan apply only to the affected agencies of San Bernardino County. However, since the AIA extends beyond the limits of San Bernardino County, information about the airport impacts extending into Riverside and Los Angeles Counties • is provided for informational purposes. That is, the affected agencies of Riverside and Los Angeles Counties may use the information and compatibility policies provided herein at their discretion. (a) Affected Agencies in San Bernardino County: ~ Cities of Ontario, Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland. ~ San Bernardino County, as the jurisdiction having control over unincorporated San Bernardino County lands within the AIA. ~ Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), a department of the City of Los Angeles, as the owner and operator of LA/Ontario International Airport. dr Special entities including school districts, community college districts, and special districts whose boundaries include lands within the San Bemardino County portion of the AIA. (b) Affected Agencies outside San Bernardino County: -} Riverside County, as the jurisdiction having control over unincorporated Riverside County lands within the AIA. ~ The City of Eastvale and any future city that may be incorporated within the affected portion of Riverside County. ~ Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. r} Cities of Pomona and Claremont, each of which has jurisdiction over • portions of the AIA within Los Angeles County. 1-$ LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (February 2011 Public Draft) ~~-mrprti- fnraa~•6 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER 1 ~ The Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. • 4. Airport: LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT), a commercial airport in the City of Ontario that is owned and operated by Los Angeles World Airports (L.AWA). 5. Airport Influence Area (AIA): An area, as delineated in Map 2-1 (see Chapter 2), in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restriction on those uses. 6. Aviation-Related Use: Any facility or activity directly associated with the air transportation of persons or cargo or the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft at an airport or heliport. Such uses specifically include runways, taxiways, and their associated protection areas defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), together with aircraft aprons, hangars, fixed base operations facilities, terminal buildings, etc. 7. Alternative Process: State law provides for what is generally known as the "Alternative Process" wherein counties do not have to form an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Instead, the County and affected cities having jurisdiction over an airport are responsible for compatibility planning efforts. 8. Compatibility Plan: This document, the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 9. Local Jurisdiction: Any county or city within the ONT AIA. 10. Major Land Use Action: Actions related to proposed land uses for which compatibility with airport activity is a particular concern. These types of actions are listed in Table 2-1 of Chapter 2. Minor actions (e.g., ministerial acts) are not subject to compatibility reviews. 11. Special Entity: Special districts, school districts, and community college districts owning • property or having boundaries within the San Bernardino County portions of the Airport Influence Area. Table and Map Descriptions The exhibits at the end of this chapter illustrate the different compatibility factors and other data which were used to evaluate and guide the creation of the ONT compatibility policies and maps that are part of Chapter 2. Table Descriptions ~ Airport History & Development Summary -Exhibit 1-1 provides a historical timeline of airport events and facility improvements. -1` Airport Features Summary -Exhibit 1-2 provides a tabular summary of the airfield features at ONT. ~ Airport Activity Data Summary -Exhibit 1-3 summarizes future "no project" and "proposed project" aircraft activity data as developed by LAWA for the discontinued AMP. ~ Airport Environs Information -Exhibit 1-4 provides a summary of land use policies for neighboring jurisdictions, as well as the status of local plans. ~ Simplified Airport Diagram Acceptance Letter -Exhibit 1-5 provides a copy of the acceptance letter issued by the California Division of Aeronautics regarding the Simplified Airport Diagram which was appro~~cd nn Ju1~- 21, 2009. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (February 2011 Public Drafr) 1-9 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY O~v^C" c ~~~ • Map Descriptions d• Simplified Airport Diagram -Exhibit 1-6 is the simplified airport diagram which shows the airfield area highlighting the existing and future runway configuration, Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) and airport property. The simplified airport diagram was accepted by California Division of Aeronautics in July of 2009. ~ Runway Protection Zones: West -The Los Angeles World Airports (LA~~'A) employs the use of approach/departure RPZs for Runway 8L. However, the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) standard RPZ for runways with instrument approach minimums of less than '/4 mile is larger and would extend further beyond the airport property. The FAA's standard RPZ (1,000 feet inner width by 2,500 feet length by 1,750 feet outer width) would begin 200 feet beyond the west end of Runway 8L. Exhibit 1-7 displays the established approach/departure RPZs for Runway 8L as depicted in LA~~~A's Airport Layout Plan dated February 17, 2009. The FAA's standard RP"L is also shown for comparative purposes. ~ Compatibility Factors: Safety -The area of safety concern is depicted in Exhibit 1-8 using the generic safety zones for a large air carrier runway. These safety zones are taken from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January- 2002) published by the California Division of Aeronautics. Consistent with the Handbook, Zone 1 is adjusted to match the RPZs reflected in the Simplified Airport Diagram (see Exhibit 1-6). ~ Compatibility Factors: Noise -Two sets of noise contours are shown in Exhibit 1-9. These two sets of contours reflect the "no project" and "proposed project" activity levels of 343,100 and 465,000 annual aircraft operations respectively. ~ Compatibility Factors: Airspace -Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 airspace • surfaces for ONT are depicted in Exhibits 1-10 Existing Airspace, 1-11 Ultimate Airspace, and 1-12 Composite Airspace. The height notification surface boundary is based on the combination of the existing and future runway configurations. ~ Modeled Flight Routes -Exhibit 1-13 depicts the flight tracks which were modeled while creating noise contours for the airport. The flight envelope is shown to visualize the standard flight routes to and from the airport, including those that are infrequently flown. ~ Flight Track Altitudes: Arrivals and Departures -Radar tracks by altitude and a flight track envelope are included for Exhibits 1-14 through 1-18. The radar tracks shown reflect several days' worth of aircraft operations at ONT. The radar tracks were recorded during times or normal east to west operation as well as contra-flow operations. These tracks did not, however, record many instances of west to east operations which occur when the Santa Ana winds are blowing. The flight envelope is provided to help visualize the areas that are commonly overflown by aircraft. ~ Existing Land Use - "The existing land uses for the areas within the vicinity of the airport are shown in Exhibit 1-19. -} General Plan Land Use: City of Ontario - "The General Plan Policy Plan was adopted in January 2010 as depicted in Exhibit 1-20. ~ General Plan Land Use: Other Jurisdictions -Exhibit 1-21a display>s the neighboring jurisdictions' adopted General Plan land use designations. The land use legends are shown in Exhibit 1-21b. • 1-10 l_A/Ontario lnternationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (February 2011 Public Draft) ~~ BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTERI Situated in the southwest comer of San Bernardino County along the southern edge of the San Gabriel Mountains, ONT originated in 1923 as a dirt landing strip east of its current location serving the agricultural uses of the region. Throughout the years the airport has seen significant changes. ~ In 1929, the City of Ontario purchased additional land for the airport and it became known as Ontario Municipal Airport. ~ In 1942, with the escalation of World War II, two concrete runways were constructed along with an air traffic control tower and an instrument landing system. ~ In 1946, in recognition of the transpacific cargo flights originating from the airport, Ontario Municipal Airport was renamed Ontario International Airport. ~ During the 1950s, Lockheed, Douglas and Northrop all had facilities at the airport throughout the postwar economic boom. ~ In 1967, the Los Angeles City Department of Airports co-signed a joint powers agreement with the City of Ontario and the airport became part of Los Angeles' regional airport system. ~ In 1985, the City of Los Angeles became the official title holder for the airport. ~ In 1998, service at the new terminal complex began. ~ In 1999, the new ground transportation center opened, including six on-airport car rental companies. ~ In 2006, the Runway 8L-26R reconstruction and lengthening project was completed. ~ Today, the airport is managed by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA). The airport is currently served by a multitude of airlines, including several dedicated cargo airlines. The airport frequently sees activity from all sizes of aircraft ranging from small general aviation aircraft to 747-400s. • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) • U • CHAPTER? BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY o~~~~= ~'AC7T FlA1tY~NG This page u~as left inienlionally Glank. 1-12 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apnl 19, 2011) O+uR-GOrvuN~e~c BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER 1 1 GENERAL INFORMATION •~ Airport Ownership: Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) -} Year Opened as Public-Use Airport: 1929 current lo- cation; 1923 landing strip east of current location -F Property Size: 1,741 acres d• Airport Classification: Commercial Service -Primary -Y Airport Elevation: 944 ft. MSL AIRPORT PLANNING DOCUMENTS ~ Airport Master Plan: none . Planning effort discontinued December 2008 •f~ Airport Layout Pian Drawing: • Approved September 12, 2003 by FAA Revision dated February 17, 2009 pending approval RUNWAY/TAXIWAY DESIGN (both runways except as indigted) ^~ Airport Reference Code: D-V •~ Critical Aircraft: Boeing 747 ~ Dimensions: • Runway 8L-26R: 12,200 ft. long, 150 ft. wide . Runway 8R-26L: 10,200 ft. long, 150 ft, wide •~ Pavement Strength (main landing gear configuration): . 30,000+ lbs. (single wheel) . 200,000 lbs. (dual wheel) . 560,000 lbs. (dual-tandem wheel) • 850,000 lbs. (double dual-tandem wheel) ~ Average Gradient: • Runway 8L-26R: 0.2% (rising to the west) . Runway 8R-26L: 0.1% (rising to the west) ~ Runway Lighting: High-Intensity Runway Lights (HIRE) • Centerline Lights •~ Primary Taxiways: . Full-length parallel Taxiway N on north side . Full-length parallel Taxiway S on south side . Partial parallel Taxiway M between runways BUILDING AREA -Y Terminal Area: . North side of airfield •} General Aviation: . Southwest end of airfield -T Other Facilities: • Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) • U.S. Border Patrol . UPS (on adjacent property) •~ Services: . Fuel: 100LL, Jet A, Military Fuel (upon request) . Other: airtreight, avionics, cargo, charter, aircraft rental and sales TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND APPROACH PROCEDURES -} Airplane Traffic Patterns: • Runways SR and 26R: Right traffic • Runways 8L and 26L: Left traffic -Y Typical Pattern altitude: • 2,000 ft. MSL • Large aircraft 2,500 ft. MSL ^f Instrument Approach Procedures (lowest minimums): . Runway 8L (ILS): • Straight-in: 200 ft. ceiling, 2,400 ft. Runway Visual Range (RVR) (112 mile) . Runway 26R (ILS): • Straight-in: 200 ft. ceiling, 2,400 ft. RVR (1/2 mile) • Runway 8R (GPS): • Straight-in: 284 ft. ceiling, 5,000 ft. RVR (1 mile) • Runway 26L (ILS): • Straight-in: 200 ft. ceiling, 1,800 ft. RVR (1/3 mile) • Cat II and III provide lower minimums with speaal certification ~ Visual Approach Aids: . 26R: 4-light PAPI on left . 8R: PulsatingJsteady burning VAST on left . 26L: 4-light PAPI on right •~ Operational Restrictions! Noise Abatement Procedures: . Chino Noise Mitigation Measures (May 15, 1991); detailed information available at City of Chino (see Exhibit 1-14) . Runway 8 departures and Runway 26 arrivals between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am APPROACH PROTECTION -} Runway Protection Zones (RPZ): . Runway 8L Approach RPZ (Existing): Mostly on-airport, southwest corner off-airport • Runway SL Departure RPZ (Existing): Mostly on-airport, southwest comer off-airport Runway 8R (Existing): '/. on-airport, southwest corner off- airport . Runway 8L (Ultimate): On-airport, future easement or property acquisition Runway 8R (Ultimate): On-airport, future easement or property acquisition • Runways 26R 8 26L (Existing & Ultimate): On airport -> Approach Obstacles: • Runway 8L (Existing): Road 600' from Runway end, 250' right of centerline, clearance slope 20:1 . Runway 26R (Existing): Pole 2050' from Runway end, 400' right of centerline, clearance slope 46:1 • Runway 26L (Existing): Pole 2050' from Runway end, 400' left of centerline, clearance slope 46:1 PLANNED FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS d~ Airfield: . Relocate both runways south and east • Construct additional taxiways, inGuding center parallel taxiway ~ Property: . Easement or acquisition of remaining RPZ area • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) 1-13 CHAPTERI BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ~~~~~ • Tfiis page sear !~ intentionally blank. • • 1-14 LA/Onfario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) p~r~x~~ AIR/Or1T DlANM1K, BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER 1 L AIRPORT MASTER PLAN ACTIVITY Current' Aircraft Operations 152,870 465,000" Air Passengers (millions) 6.9 Air Cargo (thousand tons) 605 Total 2030 N/A N/A N/A RUNWAY USE DISTRIBUTION f 2030` Day 33.4 3,260° NOISE CONTOUR ACTIVITY e Current 2030 2030 2006 (No Proj) ` (Project) ` Total Operations Annual 133,590 343,000" 465,000" Average Day 366 940 1,274 Distribution by Aircraft Type ° Air Carrier 52% 60% 63% Air Cargo 27% 21 % 23% General Aviation 21 % 19% 14% Military <1% <1% <1% Evening Night Takeoffs - 2006 All Aircraft Runway 8L 3% 2% 41 Runway SR 2% 2% 41% Runway 26L 34% 44% 19% Runway 26R 62% 52% 0% Landings - 2006 All Aircraft Runway 8L 3% 3% 2% Runway 8R 2% 1% 2% Runway 26L 40% 35% 55% Runway26R 56% 61% 41% Takeoffs - 2030 (No Proj) All Aircraft Runway 8L 2% 2% 10% Runway 8R 2% 2% 24% Runway 26L 31 % 46% 32% Runway 26R 65% 50% 35% Landings - 2030 (No Proj) AN Aircraft Runway 8L 3% 3% 2% Runway 8R 1% 2% 2% Runway 26L 34% 40% 56% Runway 26R 62% 56% 40% Takeoffs - 2030 (Proj.) All Aircraft Runway 8L 2% 2% 12% Runway BR 2% 2% 26% Runway 26L 21% 35% 27% Runway 26R 74% 62% 35% Landings - 2030 (Proj.) Al! Aircraft Runway 8L 3% 3% 2% Runway 8R 2% 1% 3% Runway 26L 27% 27% 44% Runway 26R 68% 69% 51% ' Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast-Operations data is consistent with LAWA information. ' Source: HNTB Technical Memorandums, Ontario /nternationa! Airport Master Plan Uncronstrained Forecast (November 2005) and LA/Ontario International Airport Facility Constraints Analysis (December 2007) and SCAG 2008 RTP. ` No Project (No Proj.~Assumes existing runway configuration is maintained. Proposed Project (Project~Assumes reconfigured runways. ° Air cargo tonnage includes both off-airport UPS activity and 1.6 million tons by on-airport cargo facilities. ' Source: Integrated Noise Model (INM) study prepared by HNTB Corporation, June 2008. INM data does not include touch-and-go or helicopter operations. INM aircraft types manually categorized into basic aircraft categories of air carrier, air cargo, etc. ~ Source: HNTB Technical Memorandum, Noise Contours /or LA/ONT Environmental Impact Report (June 2008). ° Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. " Annual operations rounded to the nearest thousand. • • LA/Ontario Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Ptan (Adopted April 19, 2011) 1-15 • • • CHAPTERI BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY o~~~~ AMlPDAT P AY+iNG This page leas left intentionally blank. 1-16 LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April f 9, 20f 1) O~ivlMiNiFV~ BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER 1 • AIRPORT SITE ~ Location • Southwestern San Bernardino County • Within city limits of Ontario • 35 miles east of central Los Angeles . <1 mile south of Interstate 10 • 2 miles west of Interstate 15 ~ Nearby Terrain • Airport situated on valley floor south of San Gabriel Mountains and Mt. San Antonio (10,049' MSL) ONT AIA AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS ~ City of Ontario • Airport within city limits of Ontario ^T Other Jurisdictions (distance from nearest point of run- way to city/county limits) • Chino 3 miles southwest . Fontana 3 miles east . Montclair 3 miles west • Rancho Cucamonga 1.5 miles north • Upland 2 miles northwest • Unincorporated lands of San Bemardino County 4 miles east and 3 miles west . Unincorporated lands of Riverside County 2 miles southeast EXISTING LAND USES WITHIN ONT~S IMMEDIATE VICINITY -> City of Ontario General Character • Highly developed in all directions; industrial uses to south and east; residential uses to west; city center 2 miles northwest ~ Runway Approaches • West (Runway 8): Residential and industrial uses • East (Runway 26): Industrial and commercial uses; landfill to southeast AFFECTED AGENCIES GENERAL PLAN STATUS ^> City of Ontario • Ontario General Plan adopted January 2010 -} City of Chino • General Plan adopted in July 2010 ~ City of Fontana • General Plan adopted October 2003 ~ City of Montclair • General Plan adopted in 1999 -l City of Rancho Cucamonga • General Plan adopted May 2010 ~Y City of Upland • General Plan adopted June 1982; revised in 2001 • Update in progress ~ County of San Bernardino • General Plan adopted March 2007 • Update in progress ~ County of Riverside • General Plan adopted October 2003 • Update in progress GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN AIA • -> City of Ontario • North: Mixed-use areas allowing commercial-residential uses • South and East: Industrial • West: Industrial and residential ~ City of Chino .Within CNEL 60 d6 noise contour • West: Residential -T City of Fontana . Within CNEL 70 - 60 d6 noise contours • East: Industrial and residential -> City of Montclair . Within CNEL 60 d8 noise contour • West: Commercial, industrial, and residential -l City of Rancho Cucamonga • Within FAR Part 77 Horizontal and Conical surfaces • Northwest: Residential, industrial, and mixed-use -) City of Upland . Within FAR Part 77 Conical surface . Northeast: Industrial, residential, and school ~ County of Riverside • Within FAR Part 77 Horizontal and Conical surfaces 8 60 d6 noise contour • Southwest: Industrial, commercial and rural desert • LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) 1-17 • • CHAPTERI BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ~NTARI6-~ ~p709T PL1N.•1 WG ESTABLISHED AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY MEASURES' ~ Ontario General Plan (2010) • Collaborate with all stakeholders in the preparation, up- date and maintenance of airport related plans. (LU5-1) • Coordinate with airport authorities to ensure The Ontario Plan is consistent with airport law, adopted airport plans, and airport land use compatibility plans for ONT and Chino airports. (LU5-2) • Work with agencies to mitigate impacts and hazards re- lated to airport operations. (LU5-3) • Comply with state statutes regarding City-administered Airport Land Use Commission for ONT. (LU5-4) • Support and promote ONT to accommodate 30 million annual passengers and 1.6 million tons of cargo per year, as long as the impacts associated with that level of operations are planned for and mitigated. (LU5-5) 1-18 LA/Ontario lnternationa/ Airporf Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) a~~l~ BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER 1 lI` u $TA fF Orf~LlHORNL: aLtlNEti TL~w4 ATION Rmr' ,-QXy ABNOID %~!p1A~?n!KTER C DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPO,..ATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS M.S.g40 1120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942873 Flac your power! SACRAMENTO, CA 942T3-000! ~ e~A'e6~+~! PHONE (916) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY (916) 651-6827 July 2l, 2009 Ms. Maranda Thompson Airport Planner MEAD 8c HUNT, (nc. 133 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 100 Santa Rose, CA 95403 Dear Ms. Thompson: Roquest to use airport diagram as a basis for updating airpoR land use compatibility plan: The California Public Utilities Code § 21675 (a) (PUC) requires that airport land use compatibility plans (ALUCP) be based on adopted airport master plans. When no airport master plan exists, or is not current, the ALUCP should be based on a cutrertt airport layout plan (ALP). It is not necessary that a formal ALP be drawn and a more simplified diagram of the airport may be used for planning purposes. The only components essential to show one ones which may have off-airport compatibility implications-spxifically: Runways, runway protection zones (RPZ), and airport property lines. The Division of Aeronautics (Division) has reviewed and supports the Airport Diagam, dated June 2009, to be used far the purpose of updating an airport land use compatibility plan for the LA/Ontario International Airport. Our recommendation remains in effect until such time as any of the following occur: 1) a new airport master plan is adopted; 2) there are significant changes in the existing airport conditions or the proprietor's expansion plans for the airport over rho next twenty (20) years change in such a manner as to have ot~ airport land use consoquencrs. The proposed runway relocations will require an amended State airport permit. Detailed infom~tation regarding State airport permit amendments can be viewed on-line at http:!/www,doLca.gov/hq/plarming/aeronaut/sirportpennit.html. The applicant should also be advised to contact the Division's Aviation Safety Officer for San Bernardino County, Patrick Miles, at (91 ti) 654-5376, to request a State Amended/Concxted Airport Permit- Application package. When the official Airport Layout Plan is submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration, for review and approval, the Division would like the opportunity to discuss certain details about the concepts shown on this diagram. 'Cataws /Nprnvn nnMllry oerari Col(krMa" • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) 1-19 • CHAPTERI BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY QNTARIB-~ RIRCQA? 1NNL"!~ We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Ontario and Mead Hunt in connection with approval of this important ALUCP. Please let us know if we can be of any additional assistance regarding this matter. Sincerely, p -n RON BOLYARD Aviation Planner c: Fernando Yanez-FAA, Jcrry Blum-City of Ontario • "Coltrane improuea mobility acroaa California` • Exhibit 1-5, Simplified Airport Diagram Acceptance Letter, continued 1-20 l1i/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted 19, 2011) ?2 `~~ .~ r W ..r. - ~_ .; ~~i ~~ I .'~~ I ~ 2 i W ~~ ~g I . < lP ' ^ ~ ; d I ~ ~~ ?~ I ~ y I I c ,.... I w I Y~ ~ i~ I I __ I I :. I ~ ~..: i ,~ II ~; '~ I i~ ~ I I uN.~. ,~,. -.. , I I I .... i ~ I $ I I ii ~ I ~ I ~~ II~ I I I ~ol ~ I ~°~ I i~ I I I :~~ 14~ I I I l ~ ~.. . I I ~~ I o i i i , g -~ ~y _ I I ~ U e I P y C ~ I ~ ; I '? i ~~~ Q¢y¢~ .. N I QQ ~ ~ ;~ ~ ;-pq ~ s e'i ~ C. ~i W X75 ~Bx~ ga~~ a a~s~ ~ Q~ ~ ° ° ~ ~ mo N 9; ~ a~ 25~ ~` ~qK~ ~~ ~ pp W~~ g n s`KNW ~ e ~'~b~ ~ ggo 4 S~~ C Z .. W a ~ p w ~.Kq W P t^J ... iz/ ~ ~.. ~ ' O C e Q d ~0 ~+ Z o a ~~ ~ ~ E ., o ~6 ~ U o ~~ w ~ m n_ ~ l0 D '~ 0 Q d N ~_ ~ ~ ~ u a fr ~ ~ ~ A 8 gg ' 9 ~n ~g~~ ~~ ° ` 8~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ °~ ~ ~~~ s-a ~b ~ m ~~ 5 ggb~r ~~ 8 ` ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ m ~a ~ ~ ~~ ~$~ ~ a y3y3 K pp~~ E m ~ 9 I~ C LL 9 m a ~ ~ :~~i=$ g ~ X18 m N ~ '~ W u'SE~E v~~W ~8P ~ O Z ~ lV 17 f ~ .O A J RR ~ ` ~~ ~~ N ~ WO~]~ u ~ a ~~ ~ ~g s c ~LL~° z~~~ ~ ~ ~~a ~~~ 'I' ^fl~ Ali ~, ~ , J I III • • ,; ~ .. a, F Q~~ ~&F~Sc--~ C ~ C o ~$ ~ ~ $o > s~a Ec~~ g ~ Q ~ O o ~ a eF~ nEr$o~ v ~a ~•e v ~ ~ ~ gyp ~ ~USB 3`~NEB=~~,.' .~ G ~ ~ 8 a a ~¢ ¢ ¢ g o bR~~~ g¢r:~g~9 .~ ~ a ~ ~ H ~ C i ~~! P' E ~ na c E ~:Na'g °~sEv"Yo ~ C~~ ~ ~Ua •_ z r a'u7a u'1 ~ w ~ g v a °g,:S~g is"2- ~- ~ ~ ~ q ° ~ < O . 0 L~~~ ~ N's~g~~ ~as~Eg~R ~J W a t e O cFiac3 P'o ~`o <'2a~n~_ ~ o J ~ : $ Z ~ N n'# ~ ~ 1. ~. ~ ~ 8 ~ i. t . ~. i" ~ /~ I1 ~ ' ~~ . F, ' { 1 ~ •~ IS§r If -_ ~ `-' ~.t ~ ~ ~~ r-1~ - ( ~ M = ?.. ~~..~' - ~ ~ ~- 2 ~' ; ~ U O I~+ R ~ I ~° 8R % !~ ~"~ !r ,~' :~ i ~ % 'i r ~ ~ ,` ~- . ,~~ __ ~_# • '~~. ~ . ^, a' : ~ a - ~~ mm ~~ ~ m ~N~ p ' i' ~ / ~ t( t ~ - J • ~.~ _ ~ m moon oax~L t ~ ~ ~4 ,o~m_ ~ N O ~ ~ ~ V ' , ~ N ~ p C o ~ 1~ m~ m C ~~ ~IJ L O X W m m8% ~ CdN 6 1 - _ ~ U p OUH ` ~a~mn X3°o~ U.N a4W 3 x^ iW ~ O~ 1 r lL ~pQ W ,,,,~' e m VI :t ~ -- ~:. max- ~ ~~ '" ~ ~t+~ ~~ a ~ ~ :~' ~ ~ i n~ .....:~.. t~ ,, ~ - ~- - m • ~ ° v' m '- s k .~'~~ ~/ ' Ufa ~ d ~~ ~' j -- d ~ sue" ~" . f. 7 +t°~~ ~i _ r~ ^~+ F ~~ E m g a ~ g B ~ ~r.~ N a ~RR~~~~~ y~~g o ~p~ ~~@g mm g' ~ era°Ob~g' '=•d 'c~~Oe ~ E~" ~? ~F~° S ~ ~ ~ 3~ u g~ ~ m a~ 3 g ~~~ gs~o m S~s'W~ ~ ~~~ m ¢~~a~ ~ `~~ ffimsoa o ~ 9 r I • m ~ C' ~ ~ r 0 ~ ~ gg yY~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t .~ ~ ~ ~ 7 m ~ _I d ~ ~ f ~I I' ~JI ~--~ J ~I 0 A {RI I ~ ~ ~ Q a O ~ w ~ ~ LL ~C ~` =~ i O .p ~ ~" e `~ ~o ~ ~° ~ V °~ O U V o C I ~ ~ I r 0 ~~ I~ I - `, `~ ~ - ~ ~' -!- '~ , ;j ~ ,~ ~ --- 7~1 I~ i ~~ ~ _ ~ ~- ~ ~__j_i ~.~auR _II_ , ~_; ~ 'T i I I- I f it r_ I ~i i „ b 3 a a g~~~ o~ . ,, ~~ ~_ ~~ 4 ~ T ~ w vi ~./. L Dl W I~ ~ _ IV 7 ~ c W a -~ ~ ~ a • i~ i• m ~~ ~ ~t m m ~ °~ = has E ~ "' §~ ~ ~ E~ s3~~s~ o ~ ^~ a ~ ~~~°~ 0 0 ~ ~ ', ~ U ~ W R 0 y ~ p QCp J 9y! ~~4~>~r3 ~ C.7UUV U ZruW~i W 3 ~C mo'c y a~ V fb W 1~ N O O a 9 m U U U U ~~ ~~~~ y c ~ ! ; ~ ~~° °m .o oav a ZZ ~ o~ _ ~o°c ~'ml , ~ , z~~0~ a~~~~ Z- n C O c c 0 t a N 41 ~_ L _y a ~~„ ~O o ~ ~Z ac LL ~ o' _Q d ~' V ~ ~ - ~ ~ ? O -0 _ ~ a ~ ~ ~s E ~ ~ E ~~ t O U ~'o v o ~~~ ~ n p J ' O a ~ ~~ r y •~ $~ ~a ~~ ~~~ ~_ $ v ' ~" ~i •_i~ !- i - - I ilk _ ~ ~I ~::~~;_ ~~ i ~ ~~'-- '~- 1i ~Ln~ ~ ~`~- - ~.~ c x.' ~: i ~~.1 -•~--- -- ~, ~ ~z r-- r- F J ;~~,~ W~ ,~1 a~ ~r;~ 3' o a 7c~4 s 5~5~ ~ ° ~ Aa~A E 5~ 6c ~ _ ~ nNLL Yyn ~~ ~ a~y~ypp~ g r~ fi ~ ~mtv- _ ~m ~~ffi ~ ?a~~ ~ ~~ "~ ~ a~~oa~~ C ~°~ L om ~ ~E ~ ~ ~° E ~~ m c: ~ ~ S fi ~~x~~ ~ ~ LL_~n~~; o "z ~'~~ m~LL~ `off ^'ou s ~ 22 a ~ <c~E ~oV ~~ E N ~~~~~ ~V55 ~~ ~~ ~4~ti~a O 9 ~ I m ~$~A30gB ~g~7s$yS~~ H~ ~~ ~-< ~~+a0 u,. m ~ ~ ~ j n .gym.. rE~c~~g8~~ ~~3i3o t~' ~~~ ~~ f~9iov~i~a'~ .~ S I i t a z° ~ ~ ~ a ~, .~ ~~ ~ sY. ~ g! 1 ~ ~+ ~ r - -- g m~ A ~~ ~' -~1' ~~ ~ew4r~w 1 I ` ,. ---- f ~ ~~ ~ ~, ---~ ~ -' '~'i~ '~i ~. ~~ ~~ ~. r ~. -- ~ F ~, s r- !.. c ~I n ~ ^- o ~~ a o V C ~ ~ 1 {~~--~'~---r- f .~ y r ~ /; ~ f i i ' I i , ~ ti~ _~i~ o N! y ~ W O ~ i a c Q= w ~a ~ ~' ~ C O ~ ~- _ ~ ;:, . ~ ~ ~ F m IC X fl. W U p U C a~ o a a ~ ~ {{pf ate' W ~~ ~ ~~~~ . ~ ,~ a I ~J 1 ~, _. ~_ €~ J t /' r s C ~ LL 1 ~~_ i ~~ v o _~ r o U C • i• i• i• ~~ _ $ ~~ €-~ € g qP a.E c T.m~i ~ ~. ~S ~ ~~ ~ o~$.g~~ g€ ~~ 66~~2 $a tw`m°a 4 C y$ ~o m_ ~ -c ~ crS mA°_ {p m~ g y~ ~ ~ $$?E~~ 0.2 ~~ c'M~~'~-° Ede ¢a'~ C Q a g ~ °Jf °cg $m ~a Vc ¢~ ~~ s ~..x.s« ~ g ea~g~ a~ WQ6 ~ ~o ~^ l~igO c ~~~c?ic` y'$~,° ~~ tnm'cvc ~° ¢3 mom 'C ~ a \ Q _ A Tr ~ ~~ ¢p' ~'~ g~ ~ ~'-5L ymt~$ ~~° $c ~'$g~om,~ ~T~~°m m.ja °`U" E tq n = V z 7 ~¢ ~ ~o~.i '~~' ~~'~ ~~ mgt m~m ~2i~ Qzo3"- ~ `FL~~ y I I ~ °tm~~~€ US.L`~ ?c_° rmrmW~, ~° a<-$=' ~ lCp C 9 ~ i ~ ~ h 8i$~~o58g egg ~5 ~,4Qm~o ~~-L'~ uD $$ta ~ O J rn ; I ~ ~ c ~~~d8 S<~ goo ~~ ~~r°6`-~; u~~<r' fAO ~~U ~S I i~ a z_ N ~ ~, ,'';~~ ~~~~~ I r~ ---~ T ~ I I I ~~ r- ~ - /l :; ~f ~' J ~" 1 ~- ~1. ~~ w ~ O ~ t LL N W a d Q ~ U 11 f ,~jt~~~~ ~~ q ~ !tl1i~ ~~ ~ ~ ~R ~~ i` ~ ` ~. 1. I _ ~' $~ ~ ~. ^•y ~' ~ ~ ,~ ' ~ •ti ~ Q n f '' ~ ~ _ p I Y ~J /r` • $ ' C J Q ~ L ,~,~j`I~ ~ ( ~ I yy~~ ~ ffi~S !G~ ~_Cpg ~ ~b ~ ~~ ~~ m s'3 a ,@k8 ~4q 'p+ ~ ~ ~ a° m m v_ E c OAS U Egg ~z o$°~L ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g ga ~°~~ ~ $_~~ ~ ~ ¢~ Ea ~ ~Spg p9 g ~~-=m- Gy _ mGC m ~ V N W IL 0 u S ~ ~ t~. __ '" ~ t~~ q .~ F C~ O W v~ I q U II~~~~,~ ~ W ~o yN9 E ~~=.c ~~ ~~ ~ ~ I i e o =~ ~~~ ~sy~~_ i a z. o ~s ~ _ '' _ fy ~-~ ~ ~ ~~ , ~ f ~ ~ ~,L ~~ ~ ~ I C O ~~ ~ ` ~~ C I I ~~ i R LL I I ~ ~ ~ m _ . ~ J ; my~(tsr~ '~ 1 ~( ~~' ~ l~~ I A~Ir C ~' ~l ___. ~~~~~ ~ f r~ ~ ~ ~c /tom i i _ ~~ T I I I ~ ~~~ ~~ S I r -~ ., n- ~0 7 Q ~ z _ ~ `~ O ~ z aE ` C 4 ~~ m E ~, O O '~ C~ g = U ~ ~ ~~ O O M C ;,~ rC ~` W M. `o~ a ~ t V `J ~ ? H d `' m V ~ ti a ~' r N r ~ aE O UU O a~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ aa~ ~~~~ ~.~I' a ~1 L` 1 I ~~ ~_ ~i5 z: - ~: 6`= f3 - F ( ~ _ ,~,r,~„pyy c i ~ I ~ <~ ~- z-,~-r---~ ~ ,; `~ ~mu~un I - ~~ ~J ~ `I ~a /J ~ ~ r, u ' l ~ ~ r ~ 1 olfJ~ ~ / I ~ ' ~ m , . i. 3 ~- ~ r - I ~ m m ~ n~ ~a G'.~ ~ L' ~ C e I ~ ~ S C ,~.__ r o O ` - ,.I U P o~ .~ a • 1 ~J • 0 ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ i nc E a o 3 ~ m ~ /- m o o c 55 ~ a~ i H LV ri 8~ C ~ L ~0 ~c~ic~iu'fLL ~ ~i ~ i ~ O~ p~p I ~ i a ~I I ~"' ~uf ~ u~E~ m ~ 1 Q ~L Z ~ lV CI 0 Q ~_ ~ .Q ~ E m ~~ ~ U 0 Q d ~ •~ ~ G Q 0 Y U V eo 1 ~ H H ~ Q ti d a O Q 0 a ~a~ ~~8 ~. ~: C _~ J ~ z E R w ~ o ° n ~ ~ m o u ,I ,I u -~ r.~a?I•(Ki;:'s1-trL:•';~ / !'J l ~4".'.~ Ir"'~,A1J S"a^e" A?~,e~J_.rv. ~oi~\ --` • • • N 9 m ~ ~J ~ ~ ~ r b ~~ ~~ ~ € ~°B - ~~ ¢ r> ~ ~ ~ ~sr ~ Qa ~~ ~ ~ ~ m €~x ~ ~~ C a ~ a ~ ~ a v - r~Z ~ 1`a ~ c g s O eQi ,.,/ Z 3 ~ ~ g •c r-y ~ C 4 Y to ~ ~ A UUf% W LL W Q~iV Cu l$~ § - Q- ~~a q aN ~~ 6N ~~} ~ .Q 7 I ~ 1 t ~5225~~Y~ ~ SS SS~2~~ ~~ `~i`.a ~~ ~4 o Ugc' O ~ ~~•• `aI 2 Z 1 ~ ~ ae d - n ~' b7--aci ~y~ ~~ ~~ ffi~5E ~ Q C W W v i ~ 1 a~ I F ~ ~u~$~ Ada ¢'~ ~~-a 0 ~! 1 A Q( I ~ ~ I ~ ~ (V t+i e 1 Q rL Z N ~ (n -o ~ w 'ti. ~ Q Q Y N v C ~ O H '++ t ~ Q~ ~ a ti O Z 11 x (r ~ 1 - as ''- ~~ ~ • U ~~ i I\ t ___~ ~ Z -: F ~ W' ~~ ~ 1 _ 1 ~ -~ .r ~ ~ N p 8 ° •a d ~~ ~~ g ~g ~YF~ - ~ W Q ~ ~ ~ ~< n~xm a ~ C Y ~ ¢¢ ~~ ~ ao ~oF~ V ~~ O ~ (C 1 4~ N -oe y ~_ Z a .. O ~~ F u m e U ~~1 Z v ~ _ ~ T ~.8 ~~ m~D ° z~ 5 ~ 4 L O 0 ~E ~¢ w r$ g~~ ~ ~~ ~ooE O Q o ~ U I ~ d VUm LL c ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~_~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~B ~~ cg ~m~o ~ ~ o ~ O ti yWW e I 1 m l i i i i all' Du~~d ~~ a~$~ UmEb'i ~ 0 J~ I 1 9 A 1 i i i i ~ m a JJJ Z 0 _~ C 7 I 0 t_ _ & 0 :.~ ~g -- ~~ ~. '1 ;. 1~. "1 '~ - S F~ c m LL ~~ ~. ~a ^,m a~ r L • • i• • • W z V O m~ ~ z . mo E ~~ ~~ mm ~ ~ ~m Emq ~ or c ~ og m y~ ~ ~ o bed c ~ g o ~ m d~E r,~ L n 0 0 ~~~'~~ ~F ~~~~~ ~ ~~~sg ~~s 5~ e~ g z I ~ 1 ~' ~~ 8~~~ Y ~~~~~~ pLL o c~LC m ~^ Z q ~ I ~ ~ t5 ~ N ~ ` d N~~ ~ ~> q W V d ~ 1 ~ W w`~a a m a4~ pC7 I 1 11 d ~' ~ ~ O J iD I I i CC I 1-i 2 ~ ~ 0 u c c ~ a Q a~ L W a Q Q 1 Y N z p ~ V W O ~~Z ~: + ~~ ~ E a~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ H ° ` v ii U O O vii I ' t0 ~ b Q C lC S y ~., ~ ~ ` ~ ~o ~~ ~ ~' U ~ ~ ~r~ t ~ z t~E-, ~ ~ ~ D ~: i ,A H'~ 11(,.9y ~ 1 . _ y: „~~ l .. ~o 1~ . 1 Y~ ~ ~~' ~~~ 7 y~ ~\ .- W n „y v L X=~<~, ~ o ai `~ ~ ~ ~ ` Q ~b ~ ~ ~~'~ E Vg A 5~ ~ ~Q ~~F $~ ~ ~z ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~. ~o ~~~ ~~ ~Q ~~ .~~u~~~ ~ ~~~~~ z ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~$ c~8 C j ~ ~ F ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ tlLL8 ~~ m~ ~a8 ~ S ~~ Va 8s W C I ; ~ j O i i i = i F~~ 4 ~ m ¢~ ~~~~ ~~I ~ ; Q~;,, VIII z- ~ ~ . 0 a= Qa is ~ o ~~ Z ~ T rpp ~ ~~ L E ~s ~ V co =; M C m ~ ~ a ~' w r '~ = ~ a ~ ~ °' ~~ ~~ LL r ~ o ~~ 0 U a ~~ B '- $ ~~ _ ~ ~a ~~ ~.~.~ ~: • a -:>> _,: ..3 ~ = S s ~~ - y~ ~, ~ Wm `z ., ~;u v g 'ti • :7 C7 t 0 ~~ ~ Q a ~ _a _ .--, .. F ~ ~ ~5 i 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~~~~ m -a ~ ~ ~ $ e ~ ~g O » ~ml ~ , w 11111 111 3 m h c J w ,~}} ~ ~~ 4a ti m r~'r~~ Wpm O~a ~~ v~ ~T6 gi 44w~ jOL_ ~~ ~ C N ~O nman~~ma? ..QA ~a - _ " _ 'a ~o~ boy ~ t ~~° ~~¢~ Il~~v ~ ~ 2 mt m ~. a~-~ .g a < ~fia ,q ~ ~ L n ~ 1 ~ ~~f~l~ ~ ~ `OLL ~3 ~ nm m° 3 i ~ ~ °~ B~aF~ cad 7 ~w a"8c y~ e~ F- o m i as ~=<<_ `~__=coc°dd~a= o~$~ ~ l~11 ~- ~ ~ Zm~< 0 u c l'~~ _ ~-~ ~.~ aW astir,) #~ - .' I~' v ~ - • 0 N Q C 'i t6 ~a .~ Q G W ~ ~ W O Q Q Q C ~ N ~--r z .: ' V ~ ` a ~~ °= O Z H« V ~$ o ~, ~' G _ agog ~' c~ R 'r .,~ ~~~ ~~ ~. ~' /c~' IS li m E C 7 i ~ v o • • 0 0 o 0 0 0 U t • • 4 E ` y.. L O m ~ m N ^~ r ./ ,~ a ~ U o J 'L x '~ ~ _ ~' z ~ -'~ ~ `x ~_ r' ~ $ m` ~ o L «. ~ O ;r ~ ~' ~, ~ . , ~ ~ ~ m ~ O ,,Cnn v ~ V C C tt~ H U d O . Z oy~ ~c S _~ a € & n~ 9 ~~ .'~11~!~I~i1~11 1~ 1 111'IIIi]~C1 111= I 111 a a lV wq ' £ 1 D LL ~ a s ~ ~ ~ $y° gg a6a a D~~ G 6 J y it ~ e d d o a gR aq ~~ E ~` 6 ~si~~ ~~~~~~ $~IAud1~£11~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ 3~~~~=o?~~LL z ~ z W a_ a s r z~ c RR < a t z ~ c ~~ w o 7 00 ~ m~ ~g ~~ W z o~ e~~ i$ x x~ 4 z c~~ ` ~ ~ ~ W ~ ` ~}W ~ ~ z Q ~. ~ ~ s SZ ~ ~ x L'i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 4 t? g i ~ O O y n „ z~ W~ z y~¢ ~ i W d~ ~ z 5 1j ~ V~ s z~ g D s Y z i z~~ 3 x gg e~aoonnooo~~no:3~a:`OOZS~?a¢d~d°~9ag_~'a ~u ~'Y~w~s~Y`~g~~~i5 ~~f~LIUIJIf.1181161=f~~1i1o[111~1iiflllLl®IIUIIf IULILIIil~liili ~~_~~ s ~ ~ ~ ~&m~~ ~ ~~ K ~ 4 m t ~~ ~ ~8s~„~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ 1 ~oF z~88~~ u~ ~~8g g ec ~~ od~~14~~~E~~= VE°~g7LLSrc~~~c~gg~oegg~ ~~ - IIII 1 1 i11 1-1 4, a~~~~~~~~~~g~~~8 ~"~=aBBvs~~8s~8~~8 a Q ~~~~R~ zc~~m'g~a'~cic°~s' I1~ ~~' IILC11; 1'.i ~1 • • • 2 • • PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY LA~Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan NTARI ~ AIRPORT PLANNING CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND • COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER OVERVIEW Introduction Chapter 2 focuses on procedural policies, compatibility policies and compatibility criteria. The procedural policies modify the Alternative Process previously established for LA/Ontario Intemadonal Airport (ONT) in 1995. The modified Alternative Process provides for participation by all jurisdictions in San Bernardino County impacted by existing and future airport activity and for the optional participation of Riverside County. Representation by these jurisdictions will be accomplished through inter- agenry collaboration and the formation of a Mediation Board to mediate disputes. :e: State law provides for rt is generally known as "Alternative Process" 'rein counties do not e to form an Airport Land Commission (ALUC). ead, the county and cted cities having sdiction over an airport a on the compatibility ming responsibilities. The compatibility criteria in this chapter provides the foundation for compatibility policies. Affected agencies will use the compatibility policies and criteria to evaluate future airport and land use plans, as well as individual development proposals, for consistency with the ONT Compatibility Plan. The compatibility policies address four types of airport land use impacts: safety, noise, airspace protection and overflight. Section Descriptions "I'he content of each section contained wnthin this chapter is described below. ~ Section 1: Scope and Limitations of the Compatibility Plan This section provides details regarding the geographic extent of the airport influence area, the jurisdictions affected by airport impacts, the applicability of the Compatibility Plan to the affected agencies and the limitations of the plan. ~ Section 2: ALUCP Implementation Responsibilities 'Phis section identifies the responsibilities of each agency in implementing the Compatibility Plan. It also identifies the process by which projects are reviewed through the Alternative Process. ~ Section 3: City of Ontario Roles and Responsibilities This section stipulates the roles and responsibilities of the City of Ontario in implementing the Compatibility Plan, facilitating the Alternative Process, and assisting affected jurisdictions with the Compatibility Plan implementation. ~ Section 4: Mediation Board Roles, Responsibilities and Dispute Resolution Process This section stipulates the role and responsibilities of the Mediation Board, composition of the Board, and the procedures by which the Board will review disputed projects. Procedural policies for overruling decisions of the Mediation Board is also included in this section. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) 2-1 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES QNTARI~' • ~ Section 5: Evaluating Land Use Consistency This section describes the evaluation tools (tables, maps, policies in Section 6) to be used by affected agencies in evaluating the consistency of land use proposals with the Compatibility Plan . d~ Section 6: Compatibility Policies This section is divided into five sub-sections: safety, noise, airspace protection, overflight and special compatibility policies. With the exception of special policies, each section contains general information regarding the factors considered in establishing the policies and delineating the compatibility zone boundaries. Criteria Table Descriptions I'he compatibility tables at the end of this chapter provide the following information: ~ Table 2-1: Major Land Use Actions This table identifies types of development projects and land use actions that are subject to the ON'I' Inter-Agency Notification Process. d~ Table 2-2: Safety Criteria The safety criteria table provides a list of land use categories and identifies the acceptability of specific land uses within each of the five safety zones. Intensit}~ limits for nonresidential uses (i.e., maximum number of people per acre) and other safety considerations within each safety zone are also noted. ~ Table 2-3: Noise Criteria • 1'he noise criteria table provides a list of land use categories and identifies the acceptability of specific land uses within each of the noise impact zones. The interior noise level requirements within each zone are also noted for residential and nonresidential uses. Compatibility Policy Map Descriptions The geographic extent of each compatibility factor is depicted in the compatibility policy maps within this chapter. -~ Map 2-1: Airport Influence Area (AIA) The AIA boundary encompasses the geographic extents of all the compatibilit}' factors: safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight. dr Map 2-2: Safety Zones This polic}~ map displays a single set of safety zones reflecting the existing and ultimate runway configurations (i.e., shows the most restrictive set of safety zones). The safety- zones for ONT are based upon the generic safety zones provided in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Qanuary 2002). d~ Map 2-3: Noise Impact Zones The noise impact zones represent a composite of two sets of project noise contours reflecting two forecast scenarios for 2030. The "No Project" scenario assumes 343,000 annual operations on the existing runways system and the "Proposed Project" scenario reflects 465,000 annual operations on the ultimate runway configuration. ~ Map 2-4: Airspace Protection Zones The airspace protection zones are a composite of the various airspace surfaces prepared in • accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation fart 77, the United States Standard for 2-2 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ~~mrJatv,ui,vnc, PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 Terminal Instrument Procedures ('I'ERPS), and applicable obstruction clearance standards • published by the Federal Aviation Administration. The airspace surfaces reflect both the existing and ultimate runway configurations and have been merged into a single set of airspace protection zones. ~ Map 2-5: Overflight Notification Zones "I'he overflight notification zones were delineated b~~ identifying the areas overflown by aircraft flying at altitudes of less than 3,000 feet above ground level. The overflight notification zones also encompass the areas underlying the airport's critical airspace surfaces. Section 1: SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE COMPATIBILITY PLAN 1.1 Geographic Scope 1.1.1 Airport Influence Area (AIA): In accordance with state law, the ONT AIA encompasses all lands that could be negatively impacted by ONT's present or future aircraft operations or land uses that could negatively affect ONT's airport operations. The ALA depicted in Map 2-1 encompasses the geographic extent of four types of compatibility impacts, referred to as compatibility factors. They are: (a) Safety: Areas where the risk of an aircraft accident poses heightened safety concerns for people and property on the ground. (b) Noise: Locations exposed to potentially disruptive levels of aircraft noise. (c) Airspace Protection: Places where height and certain other land use characteristics, • particularly uses that attract birds, need to be restricted in order to protect the airspace required for operation of aircraft to and from the airport. (d) Overflight: Locations where aircraft overflights can be intrusive and annoying to many people. 1.1.2 Other Aitpott Impacts: Other impacts sometimes created by airports (e.g., air pollution, automobile traffic, etc.) are not addressed in this Compatibility flan and are not factors to be considered when reviewing a project for consistency with the compatibility criteria of this Compatibility Plan. 1.2 Applicability of the Compatibility Plan 1.2.1 Affected Local.jurisdictions: The ONT AIA encompasses jurisdictions within San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside Counties. Each jurisdiction is impacted differently as the geographic extents of the four compatibility factors vary in size and shape. Exhibit 2A lists each jurisdiction within the ALA and indicates the type of impact they are affected by. 1.2.2 Affected Agencies in San Bernardino County: The Compatibility Plan shall apply to the following agencies in San Bernardino County: (a) Cities of Ontario, Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland are the local jurisdictions impacted by ONT. (b) San Bernardino County has jurisdictional control over unincorporated San Bernardino County lands within the AI;~. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 2011) 2-3 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES ONTARI&~ ~'1M'OR~ >_w~: VS • (c) Los Angeles World Airports (L.AWt1) is a department of the City of Los Angeles and is the owner and operator of ONT. (d) Special entities including school districts, community college districts, and special districts whose boundaries include lands within the San Bernardino County portion of the AIA. 1.2.3 Jurisdictions of Los Angeles and Riverside Counties: The ONT AIA extends beyond the San Bernardino County borders and into parts of adjacent Los Angeles and Riverside Counties. For the jurisdictions of Los Angeles and Riverside Counties, the Compatibility Plan is informational only. These jurisdictions are not subject to the requirements of this Compatibility Plan. The County of Riverside has jurisdictional control over unincorporated lands within the noise-impacted areas of ONT and has elected to participate in the Alternative Process on a discretionary basis, City of Ontario ~ X X ', X X All policies apply City of Chino X X ~ X City of Fontana X X X City of Montclair ! X I~ X X • City of Rancho X X Cucamonga City of Upland X X ~ County of San X X X Bernardino Policies are informational; Coun of Riverside I ty ; X ~ i X X Participating in Alternative Process on discretionary basis (see Section 1.2.3) City of Pomona, X Policies are informational Los Angeles County ~ (see Section 1.2.3) City of Claremont, X Policies are informational Los Angeles Counri (see Section 1.2.3) 1.3 Limitations of the Compatibility Plan 1.3.1 Airport Operations: State law explicitly precludes airport land use commissions from having jurisdiction over the operation of any airport (Public Utilities Code Section 21674(e)). The same limitation also applies under the Alternative Process. (a) The City of Ontario, affected local jurisdictions, and the Mediation Board have no authority over the operation of ONT. This authority rests with LAWA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (b) 'The only actions of LAWA subject to the Alternative Process and the policies of this Compatibility Plan are the adoption or amendment of the airport master plan • or airport layout plan, or approval of certain facility development plans that 2-4 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) o~~~~ A~RPpRi FJUM!M.r, PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 would have off-airport compatibility implications (e.g., runway alterations, • improved instrument approach procedures), and approval of on-airport development that is not an aviation related use (e.g., commercial or industrial facilities). 1.3.2 Existing_ Land Uses: The Compatibility Plan applies only to new development or future land uses within the AIA. In accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21674(a), the policies of this Compatibility Plan do not apply to existing land uses, whether or not they are consistent with the Compatibility Plan. (a) Qualifying Criteria: Aland use is considered to be "existing" when one or more of the below conditions has been met prior to the approval date of the Compatibility Plan by California Division of Aeronautics. The determination as to whether a specific project meets the criteria below is made by the responsible jurisdiction or special entity involved. ~ T'he development and/or land use physically exists. d~ A vesting tentative parcel or subdivision map has been approved and all discretionary approvals have been obtained. ~ A development agreement has been approved and remains in effect. ~ A final subdivision map has been recorded. ~ A use permit or other discretionar}• entitlement has been approved and not yet expired. ~ A valid building permit has been issued. ~ Substantial investments in physical construction were made by the propertti~ • owner prior to the approval date of this Compatibility Plan by the California Division of Aeronautics and such investments make it infeasible for the property to be utilized for anything other than its proposed use. Substantial investment is determined by the responsible agenry. ~ Prior to the approval date of this Compatibility Plan by the California Division of Aeronautics, substantial public funds were expended for land acquisition of a project site and the responsible agency had publicly indicated support for a proposed development or development concept, even though all discretionary approvals had not }'et been obtained by that date. (b) Existing Nonconforming Uses: Existing land uses that are inconsistent with the Compatibility Play are considered to be "nonconforming" land uses. These uses are not subject to the Compatibility Plan unless changes to the use are proposed. ~ ,~1ny type of construction, renovation, or other redevelopment activity that would demolish 80% or more of the existing structure's floor area would change the nonconforming status of the use and be subject to the Compatibility Plan and any other requirements set by the local jurisdiction. ~ A structure that has been fully or partially destroyed as a result of a flood, fire and or natural disaster may be rebuilt and re-occupied b}• the same nonconforming use and is only subject to requirements set by the local jurisdiction not the Compatibility Plan. • LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 2011) 2-5 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES O~'~~~~-~•+':~'~ Section 2: ALUCP IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS 2.1 Overview of ALUCP Implementation Responsibilities for Affected Agencies 2.1.1 Adopt Compatibility Plan: The City of Ontario is responsible for leading the preparation of the I~1/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and any future amendments in coordination with affected jurisdictions (see Section 3.1). Affected Agencies are responsible for adopting the Compatibility flan or specific policies that apply to their portions of the ALA. The compatibility policies in Section 6 of this Compatibility flan are structured in a manner that recognizes that the City- of Ontario's land use authority stops at its borders. As such, policies applicable only to the City of Ontario use the word "shall." Policies applicable to the other affected agencies, as well as the City of Ontario, use the word "should." In the both instances, the policies are considered "shall" for the City of Ontario. In accordance with the provisions of the .°~ltemative Process, the other affected agencies are encouraged to adopt similar requirements for the portions of the ALA within their respective jurisdictions. 2.1.2 Attain Consistency with the Compatibility Plan: Consistent with state law, Affected Agencies are responsible for modifying their respective general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, and other policy documents to be consistent with the compatibility policies and criteria set forth in this Compatibility Plan or requesting a hearing before the ONT Mediation Board to resolre disputes. 2.1.3 ALUCP Consistency Evaluations: Affected Agencies are responsible for conducting their own consistency evaluations for new development and/or major land use actions within their portions of the ONT AIA. Major Land Use Actions (Table 2-1), are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process. 2.1.4 ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process: Each Affected Agency is required to notify the City of Ontario of proposed Major Land Use Actions within its portion of the AIA. The City of Ontario is then responsible for forwarding information regarding these proposed Major Land Use Actions to other Affected Agencies for comment. Major Land Use Actions are listed in Table 2-1 of this Chapter. 'I"he Inter-Agenry Notification Process is discussed further in Section 2.3. 2.1.5 Referencing the Compatibility Plan in CEOA Documents: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires Affected Agencies to utilize the California flirport Land Use Planning Handbook and this Compatibility Plan as a technical resource for analyzing the environmental impacts of new projects located within the AIA. Projects situated within the AIA should be evaluated to determine if the project would expose people residing or working in the project azea to excessive levels of airport-related noise or to airport-related safety hazards (Public Resources Code Section 21096). 2.1.6 Establish a Process for Mediating Disputes: State law pertaining to the Alternative Process requires that a process be established for "the mediation of disputes arising from the preparation, adoption, and amendment" of an airport land use compatibility- plan (Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2)(C)). This Compatibility Plan fulfills State Law requirements by establishing a Mediation Board. The roles, responsibilities, process and . membership of the Mediation Board are described in detai] in Section -1 of this chapter. 2-6 LA/Ontarto lnternatronal Airport Land Use Compatibrlrty Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) Osarvpa-.v,ur`~ti~ PROCEDURAL AND COMPAT181LITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 2.2 Specific Responsibilities of Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) • 2.2.1 Submit Certain Airport Actions Through Alternative Process: The LA/Ontario International Airport compatibility zones delineated on Maps 2-2 through 2-5 are based upon the existing and ultimate airport configuration and projected aircraft activity summarized in Chapter 1. If, at a future time, changes in the configuration or use of the airport are proposed and those changes could result in expansion of the airport's impacts beyond the impacts identified in this Campatibility Plan, the proposed changes shall be subject to the ONT Inter-Agenc}• Notification Process described in Section 2.3. Specifically, the following types of projects are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process: (a) Airport Plans: Adoption or amendment of the LA/Ontario International Airport Master Plan or Airport Layout Plan (Public Utilities Code Sections 21661.5 and 21664.5). (b) Aviation-Related Development Proposals: Any proposal for modification or expansion of airport facilities requiring amendment to the Airport Permit issued by the California Division of Aeronautics. Airport development projects include: ~ Proposal to acquire land for runway protection zones or airport development; ~ Construction of a new runway; ~ Extension or realignment of an existing runway; or ~ Expansion of the airport's physical facilities. (c) Nonaviation-Related Development Proposals: Any proposal for the construction of new nonaviation-related development (e.g., commercial or industrial) • requiring action by the Ciry of Ontario, 2.3 ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process 2.3.1 ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process: Each Affected Agency and LAWA shall participate in the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process for the purposes of providing technical assistance, information and oversight for the implementation of this Compatibility Plan. (a) Affected Agencies required to participate in the Inter-Agency Notification Process include LAWA and the Cities of Ontario, Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland and the County of San Bernardino. The City Manager of each Affected Agency shall designate a department responsible for participating in the ONT Inter-Agenry Notification Process. (b) The County of Riverside has elected to pazticipate in the Inter-Agency Notification Process on a discretionary basis. (c) Special entities as described in 1.2.2(d) are subject to the development criteria of this Compatibility Plan and shall participate in the Inter-Agency Notification Process by submitting Major Land Use Actions to the City of Ontario for consistency e~•aluations. 2.3.2 Proiect Review Process: The ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process includes the steps listed below. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 2011) 2-~ CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES O" r~~~~ • (a) For each project or land use action subject to the Alternative Process, the Submitting Agency shall complete a Project Comment \X`orksheet and forward it to the City of Ontario for forwarding to Affected Agencies. The Worksheet shall contain sufficient project details to enable Affected Agencies to comment upon the project's consistency with the Compatibility Plan for ONT. See Appendix E for the type of information that should be included in the Project Comment l~/orksheet. Items shall be submitted electronically to the City of Ontario (preferably in PDF format). (b) Commenting Agencies will have 15 calendar days to review and comment on the Submitting Agency's Project Comment \~'orksheet. Agencies that do not respond within the 15-day period would be considered to have no comments and subsequently agree with the Submitting Agency's consistency evaluation. Commenting Agencies shall limit their comments to issues related to the project's consistency with the Compatibility Plan and forward their comments electronically to the City of Ontario. (c) If the Submitting Agency disagrees with the comments received on the Worksheet, staff of the Submitting Agency is encouraged to collaborate with staff of the commenting agency and/or commenting agencies to seek solutions that will bring the project into voluntary compliance with the Compatibility Plan. If the proposed project is revised in response to comments received on the Project Comment Worksheet, the Submitting Agency shall submit a revised Project Comment Worksheet in the manner provided in subdivision (a). If disagreements regarding consistency remain, the Submitting Agency or any Commenting Agency may request • a Mediation Board hearing to mediate the dispute. (d) I f no comments are submitted on the Project Comment Worksheet as provided in subdivision (b), or if comments are resolved as provided in subdivision (c), the Submitting Agency shall indicate in its own public notices that the project is within the ON7' AIA and has undergone a consistency evaluation and found to be consistent with this Compatibility flan. Section 3: CITY OF ONTARIO ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 Preparation, Adoption and Amendment of the Compatibility Plan 3.1.1 Prepare and Adopt the ComnatibilitX Plan: The City of Ontario shall be the lead agency responsible for preparing the L.A/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and any amendments that may subsequently be proposed. The City of Ontario shall also be responsible for coordinating these efforts with affected jurisdictions. 3.1.2 Adoption Authority for the City of Ontario: The Ontario City Council has the authority to adopt the Compatibili~~ Plan or any amendments to the Plan as they apply to the City of Ontario. 3.1.3 Adoption Authori~for Affected Agencies: Each Affected Agency has the authority to adopt the Compatibility Plan adopted by the City of Ontario or the specific policies that apply to their portions of the AIA. • 2-8 LA/Ontario International Airport Land tlse Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! T 9, 20T 1J 0•mvoaT- v;u+~rn~ PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 3.2 ALUCP Implementation Administration • 3.2.1 Mediation Board General Administration: The City of Ontario shall perform general administrative duties for the '~4ediation Board including, but not limited to: (a) Arranging meeting places and schedules, preparing agendas, and recording meeting minutes. (b) Issuing required public notices for meetings of the Mediation Board. (c) Providing an annual report to the Mediation Board and California Division of Aeronautics on the compatibility planning actions renewed over the course of the year. 3.2.2 Administration of the ONT Inter-Agencti Notification Process: The City of Ontario shall coordinate with and assist Affected Agencies with implementing the relevant policies of the Cam~iatibi/ity Plan by: (a) Developing, maintaining and distributing the Project Comment Worksheet, when necessary; (b) Providing affected agencies with technical information and guidance regarding compatibility planning issues; (c) Serving as a clearinghouse for major airport and land use actions within the AIA and proposed on-site airport development; (d) Reviewing proposed major airport and land use actions for consistency with the policies set forth in this Corr~atibility Plan and preparing written consistencv • evaluations for transmittal to applicable Affected Agencies; (e) Soliciting input and comments from the Federal Aviation Administration, California Division of Aeronautics, pilot groups, and others regarding compatibility planning matters, when necessary; and (~ Encouraging Los Angeles and Riverside Counties to adopt compatibility planning policies and criteria for the portions of the ONT AIA located within their respective jurisdictions. Section 4: MEDIATION BOARD ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PROJECT DISPUTE PROCESS 4.1 Mediation Board Purpose and Composition 4.1.1 Function of Mediation Board: The 1liediation Board for ONT is a voting body established to formally address disputes that are not resolved at a staff level. The Mediation Board will only review matters appealed to it by Affected Agencies. 4.1.2 Membershi~of Mediation BoardMediation Board: The Mediation Board shall be comprised of elected or appointed government officials of the participating agencies and two members representing the public. The members representing the Affected Agencies shall have land use, planning, and/or public hearing experience (e.g., county • LA/Ontario lnternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 201 ?) 2-9 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES Q,1~1'fARI.B-•' • supervisor, city council member, planning/airport commissioner). Members of the Mediation Board shall be appointed as follows: (a) City of Ontario: 1'wo members representing the City of Ontario, appointed by the Ontario City Council. (b) LAWA: One member representing the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), the L..~/Ontario International Airport Manager. (c) Public: Two public representatives (at least one having aviation expertise), appointed by the Ontario City Council with recommendations from the other Affected Agencies. (d) Othet Affected Agency: Two members representing the agency with the disputed project, appointed by the agency's governing body. If the agency with the dispute is either the City of Ontario or LAWA, the two members shall not be appointed and the Mediation Board shall consist of afive-member board. 4.1.3 Mediation Board Decisions: V~'hen acting upon a disputed action (e.g., consistency evaluation or preparation, adoption or amendment of the Compatibility Plan) the Mediation Board shall: (a) Hold a public hearing on the action under consideration. (b) Provide the opportunity for public input. (c) Issue formal findings on the disputed action. (ci) Make decisions by majority vote. 4.2 Mediation Board Project Dispute Process 4.2.1 ActionsActions Omen to Mediationto Mediation: State law pertaining to the Alternative Process requires that a process be established for "the mediation of disputes arising from the preparation, adoption, and amendment" of an airport land use compatibility plan (Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2)(C)). This Compatibility Plan allows mediation to occur over certain land use actions-specifically, general plan amendments, -coning ordinance modifications, airport development plans (Section 2.2), or major land use actions. 4.2.2 Convening the Mediation Board: The Mediation Board shall convene on an as needed basis, to resolve disputed matters brought to it by an Affected Agenry. Meetings shall be convened within 30 calendar days from the date the Affected Agency requests in writing a Mediation Board Hearing date to resolve a dispute. Additionally, the Board shall convene once per calendar year to receive an annual report from the Ontario Planning Director. All meetings shall be publicly noticed consistent with Ontario's public hearing procedures. 4.2.3 Mediation Board Actions for Non-Ai~ort Projects: V~'hen deciding whether a proposed project is consistent with the Compatibility Plan, the Mediation Board has three action choices: (a) Consistent-Find that the proposed project is consistent with this Campatibility~ Plan. • 2-10 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) p~r~i~ A4P~R: V.4N~'f~G PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 (b) Conditionally Consistent-Find that the proposed project is consistent with this i Compatibility Plan subject to specified conditions or modifications. (c) Inconsistent-Find that the proposed project is inconsistent with this Compatibility Plan. 4.2.4 Mediation Board Action Choices for Airport Proposals: Vi~hen making consistency detemunations on a proposed planning and/or development action pertaining to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT), the Mediation Board has four action choices: (a) Consistent-Find that the airport plan is consistent with this Compatibility Plan. (b) Conditionally Consistent-Find that the airport plan is consistent with this Compatibility Plan subject to specified conditions or limitations on the airport plans or use. (c) Inconsistent-Find that the airport plan is inconsistent with this Compatibility Plan. (d) Consistent Upon Compatibility Plan Rerusion-Modify the Compatibility Plan (after duly noticed public hearing) to reflect the assumptions and proposals in the airport plan-thereby making the airport plan consistent-or establish an intent to modify the Compatibility Plan at a later date. 4.2.5 Overriding Considerations: The compatibility criteria set forth in this Compatibilit~~ Plan are intended to be applicable to all locations within the ONT AIA. However, • there may be specific situations where a normally incompatible use can be considered compatible because of terrain, specific location, or other extraordinary factors or circumstances related to the site. After due consideration of all the factors involved in such situations, the Mediation Board may find a normally incompatible use to be acceptable. In reaching such a decision, the Mediation Board shall document the nature of the extraordinary circumstances that warrant the polity exception and make the following specific findings: (a) 'T'hat the proposed project will neither create a safety hazard to people on the ground or aircraft in flight nor result in excessive noise exposure for the future occupants of the proposed use. (b) That the granting of a special condition exception is site specific and shall not be generalized to include other sites. 4.3 Overruling Mediation Board Decisions 4.3.1 neral: If the Mediation Board determines that a proposed project is inconsistent with the Compatibility Plan, the Submitting Agency shall be notified and the governing body of that agency has the option under state law to overrule the Mediation Board decision. To do so, however, the Submitting Agency must make specific findings (see Section 4.3.2). 4.3.2 Findings: The agenry must make specific findings that the proposed local action is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of the California Public Utilities Code, as stated in Section ? I Ci?! ). Such findings ma~~ not be adopted as a matter of opinion, • LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 99, 2091) 2-11 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES ~~~j'"l'; • but must be supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the governing body of the Submitting Agency must make specific findings that the proposed project will not: (a) Impair the orderly, planned expansion of L.A/Ontario International Airport (ONT); adversel}' affect the utility or capacity of the airport (such as by reducing instrument approach procedure minimums). (b) Expose the public to excessive noise and safety hazards. 4.3.3 Notification and Voting Requirements: (a) The Submitting Agency must provide a copy of the proposed decision and findings to overrule the Mediation Board 45 days prior to the hearing date, to the City of Ontario and California Division of Aeronautics, as required by State law (Public Utilities Code Section 21676). (b) The governing body of the Submitting Agenry must hold a public hearing on the matter. 71~e public hearing shall be noticed consistent with the Submitting Agency's established procedures. (c) A decision by the governing body to overrule the Mediation Board must be made by a vote of at least two-thirds of the body's members. (d) The Submitting Agency must include any comments received from any Affected Agency, Mediation Board, Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAt1) in the public record of any final decision to overrule the Mediation Board. • Section 5: EVALUATING LAND USE CONSISTENCY 5.1 Evaluating Consistency of New Development 5.1.1 Evaluating Compatibility of Proposed Development: The compatibility of proposed projects within the ONT :'CIA shall be evaluated in accordance with the specific safety, noise, airspace protection, overflight policies, and special compatibility policies set forth in Section 6, including the criteria listed in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria and Table 2-3: Noise Criteria, and the compatibility zones depicted in Maps 2-2 through 2-5. 5.2 Evaluation Tools 5.2.1 Safety and Noise Criteria Tables: Table 2-2: Safety Criteria and Table 2-3: Noise Criteria list general land use categories and indicate each use as being either "normally compatible," "conditionally compatible," or "incompatible" depending upon the compatibility zone in which it is located. When evaluating a proposed development, each land use component of a project shall be evaluated as separate developments and must meet the criteria for the respective land use category in Table: 2-2 Safety Criteria and Tabie 2-3: Noise Criteria. 5.2.2 Evaluation Considerations: (a) Land uses not specifically listed in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria and Table 2-3: Noise Criteria shall be evaluated using the criteria for similar listed uses. 2-12 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) OMrtvp*i-o;iu+wr~ns PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 (b) Multiple land use categories and the compatibility criteria associated with them • may apply to a single project (e.g., mixed-use developments). Each land use component shall individually satisfy the criteria for the respective land use categor.- in Table: 2-2 Safety Criteria and Table 2-3: Noise Criteria (see Exhibit 2B). 5.2.3 Land Use Compatibility Determinations: (a) Normally Compatible means that common examples of the use are compatible with the airport; uncommon examples of the use may require review to ensure compliance with compatibility criteria. (b) Conditionally Compatible means that the use is compatible if the listed conditions are met. (c) Incompatible means that the use should not be permitted under any circumstances. 5.2.4 Policies Pertaining to Special Compatibility Concerns: In addition to satisfti7ng the compatibility criteria defined in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria and Table 2-3: Noise Criteria, land use actions must comply with the specific safety, noise, airspace protection, overflight and special compatibility policies set forth in Section 6. Exhibit 26: Mixed-Use Development Example In this example, the proposed mixed-use development includes four distinct types of land uses. Each land use component must be evaluated against the criteria for the respective land use category in Table 2.2: Safety Criteria and Table 2-3: Noise Criteria: I ,` - ~ ~ Restaurant - ~, ~ • I - ~ Residential Use I y Residential Use -, with density greater I than 8 dulac I~ ~ I i ~ ~ 45 ~ within t 65d6 CNEL - -__ ~ 65 noise contour j ~ ~'' * sound attenuation 1 • ~ ~ ~ required Restaurant Rail - -- _ • LA/Ontario lnternationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 2011) 2-13 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES O~'~~'sar~.~'+u~O • Section 6: COMPATIBILITY POLICIES 6.1 Safety 6.1.1 Policy Objective: The intent of the safety compatibility policies is to minimize the risks associated with an off-airport aircraft accident or emergency landing. The policies focus on reducing the potential consequences of such events when they occur. The potential risks to people and property within the ONT AIA and to people on board the aircraft are considered. Note: See Section 6.3, Airspace Protection, for land use features that can pose hazards to aircraft in flight 6.1.2 Safety Affected Agency The safety compatibility policies and criteria of this section apply only to the City of Ontario since the safety zones are located solely within Ontario's city limits. 6.1.3 Factors Considered in Establishing Safes Zones: The principal factors considered in setting the policies applicable within each safety zone are: r~ • (a) California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook: The Califarnfa Airpon Lind U.re Planning Handbook Qanuary 2002) provides risk information, accident data, and analyses for air carrier airports. The Handbook identifies the locations, delineated with respect to the airport runways, where aircraft accidents near air carrier airports have historically occurred and the relative concentration of accidents within these locations. These concentrations represent likely future risk levels. Furthermore, the Handbook recommends applying the most stringent land use controls to the areas with the greatest potential risks. The safety zones utilized for ONT reflect the Handbaok'.r suggested zones for Large Air Carrier Runways. (b) Specific Airport Features: The existing and ultimate runway configuration, approach categories, normal flight patterns, and aircraft fleet mix for ONT are factors reflected in the safety zone shapes and sizes. (c) Measures of Risk Exposure: For the purposes of this Compatibrlily Plarr, the risk that potential aircraft accidents pose to lands around ONT is defined in terms of the geographic distribution of where accidents are most likely to occur. Because aircraft accidents are infrequent occurrences, the pattern of accidents at any one airport cannot be used to predict where future accidents are most likely to happen around that airport. Reliance must be placed on data about aircraft accident locations at similar airports nationally, refined with respect to information about the types and patterns of aircraft usage at the individual airport. This methodology, as further described in Appendix C, is used to delineate the safety zones for ONT shown in Map 2-2: Safety Zones. 6.1.4 Factors Considered in Setting Safety Policies: To minimize risks to people and property on the ground, the safety compatibility criteria in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria set limits on: (a) Residential Uses: The density of residential development is measured by the number of dwelling units per acre. Consistent with the California Airport I1rnd I'.re Planr~inR f iandbook (2002) guidelines, a greater degree of protection is warranted for residential uses. 2-14 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) 01~ PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 (b) Nonresidential Uses: The intensity of nonresidential development is measured • by the number of people per acre concentrated in areas most susceptible to aircraft accidents. 6.1.5 Safety Zones for LA/Ontario International Airport: The five safety zones depicted in Map 2-2: Safety Zones are a composite of existing and ultimate airfield configurations, the methodology for this approach is explained in Chapter 1 of this Compatibility Plan: (a) Safety Zones 1 - 5: A composite set of safety zones were created for ONT to reflect both the existing and ultimate airfield configurations. The safety zones for each configuration were combined to create one set of composite safety zones utilizing the most stringent conditions. The ultimate runway configuration shifts both runways south and east of their current alignments. (b) Safety Zone 1: Safety Zone 1 reflects the airport's established Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) as shown in the Airport Layout Plans prepared by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Simplified Airport Diagram accepted by California Division of Aeronautics on July 2009 as the basis of this Compatibility Plan (see Exhibit 1-6 in Chapter 1). (c) Overlay Safety Zone lA: Overlay Safety Zone 1A was created to reflect the PAA's standard RPZ (],000 feet inner width by 2,500 feet length by 1,750 feet outer width) beginning 200 feet beyond the west end of Runway 8L. (See Chapter 1 for additional RPZ discussion and Policy S5). 6.1.6 . afety Standards for New Development: To minimize risk-sensitive development • in high-risk areas around ONT, the safety compatibility of new development shall be evaluated in accordance with the safety policies set forth in this section, including the criteria listed in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria and the safety zones depicted on Map 2- 2: Safety Zones. Other policies may be applicable to uses of special concern (see Policy S4). SAFETY POLICIES Sl Residential Development: New residential development is incompatible within all Safet}• Zones (1 through 5). Policies Sla and Slb are exceptions to this policy, if applicable. Sla Single-Family Home: The construction of asingle-family home on a legal lot of record is allowed in Safety Zones 2, 3, and 4 if the use is permitted by the City of Ontario's land use regulations. See Policy SP2 with regard to development by right. Slb Second-Unit: A second-unit as defined by state law is allowed within Safety Zones 2, 3 and 4 if the use is permitted by the City of Ontario's land use regulations. • LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Agri! 19, 2011) 2-15 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES V^~J~••o.~~:kti~ • Sle Family Day Care: In accordance with state law, a family day care home serving 14 or fewer children may be established in any dwelling by the policies of this Compatibility Plun. Std Residential Mixed-Use Developments: New mixed-use developments will locate the residential component outside of all safety zones. S2 Occugancy Limits For Nonresidential Development: Table ~2: Safety Criteria indicates the usage intensity (number of people per acre) limit for each safety zone. The usage intensity limits represent the safety criteria for new nonresidential development. The usage intensity limits measure intensity in two forms: 1) Sitewide average intensity which sets intensity limits for the entire project site; and 2) Single-acre intensity which sets intensity limits on any single acre within the project site (see Exhibit 2C for a graphical example). r1s a condition of approval, all new nonresidential development within the Safety Zones shall comply a*ith both forms of intensity limits as described further below. Exhibit 2C: Land Use Intensity Calculation Example • In this example, both the sitewide and single-acre intensity of a proposed Research t£ Development (R&D) 1 warehouse facility is calculated using the common occupancy load factors [numt~er of square feet per person] information in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria together with project-specrfic data. The results are then compared with the maximum sitewide and single-acre intensity limits to determine consistency of the project with the safety criteria. Table 1: Safety Criteria SareN Zone 9 Nrtensky Umitstions Max. sitewide AwraOe Intenalty: too peoplehcn Mu. SlnpltAcn iManafty: 250 peopldscn RJper Person warehouse es,ooo sq. R Research d Development 25,000 sq. R sq. R =110,000 sq. R M=3K/ef !=3 = 18.580 w. R =19 people 1,000 cq. k. per person = 66.110 sa. R = 85 people 1,000 sq. R per person • Research 8 25.000 sa. R ^ 83 people Development 300 sq. R per parson Ske NAde Ave rane Belovr tha Tool t of oeo ds = 167 = 56 people n"""tw'm Average site acreage 3 ac per acre I„~„hy Slnak Acre A venas BNow ~ jatai R of oeo de ^ 14j_ =102 people S mmctmum inytt-At~t SInpM age 1st ~ iGTe Y 2-16 LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Aprif 19, 2011) ~~~xi~ Amv~RT v~MW~NG PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 S2a Sitewide Avetage Intensity is calculated by determining the total number of people expected to be on the site at any given time under normal operating conditions and dividing by the total number of acres of the project site. S2b Single-acre Intensity of a proposed development is calculated by determining the total number of people expected to be within any one-acre portion of the site, typically the most intensively used building or part of a building. The 1.0-acre area calculations represent building footprints that are generally rectangular and not elongated in shape or, for buildings larger than 1.0 acre, represent a portion of the building. S2c Usage Intensity calculations customers/visitors) who may be or during normal operating conditions, Safety Criteria indicates the normal occupanry load factor (number of square feet per person} and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for many nonresidential uses. These numbers are interrelated with the intensity limits (number of people per acre) and can be used to calculate the usage intensity of a proposed project (see Exhibit 2D). Note that the safety criteria are the Sitewide and single-acre intensity limits (number of people per acre). The occupancy load factors and FARs are provided as methods for calculating the intensity of a proposed project. includes all people (e.g., employees, the property at any single point in time whether indoors or outdoors. Table 2-2: Exhibit 2D: Intensity Limits The interrelationship between Intensity limit, normal occupancy load factor and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is indicated in the two examples below. The examples reflect Zone 3 criteria: intensity limit of 100 people per acre, occupancy load factor of 200 square feet per person, and 0.46 FAR. Example 1 200 square feet per person (occupancy load factor) x 100 people per acre (intensity limit) 20,000 square foot building 43.560 square feet per acre 0.46 FAR Example 2 43,560 square feet per acre x 0.46 FAR 20,000 square foot building - 200 square feet per person (occupancy load factor) 100 people per acre (intensity limit) 1. Occupancy Load Factors: The occupancy load factors (minimum number of square feet per person) provided in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria vary from one land use to another. As shown in Exhibit 2C, the Sitewide average usage intensity of a project having multiple uses can be calculated bv: ~ Dividing the number of square feet of each component use by the number of square feet per person (occupanry load) for that use as indicated in Table 2-2; ~ Adding together the number of people for each component use; and ~ Dividing the total number of people by the total number of acres of the project site to get the Sitewide average intensity. I 1 ~J • ;7 LA/Ontario Infemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 2011) 2-~ 7 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES oA'~~'"-~'+~~ • ~ Where occupancy load factors are not indicated in the table or if the assumed occupanry load factor for a particular proposal or component thereof is not applicable to the project, then the number of occupants is estimated in another manner -for example, the number of seats and employees at a restaurant or the number of parking places times the vehicle occupanry for an industrial plant. 2. Floor Area Ratios (FARs): The allowable FAR is indicated in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria for a particular safety zone and vary from one land use to another. Each component use is calculated as occupying a share of the total project site equal to its percentage of the total floor area in the project. Mathematically, this means that the FAR for each component use will be the same as the FAR for the entire building. 3. Alternative Intensity Calculations: An alternative method for measuring compliance with the usage intensity limits is acceptable. For example, a method based upon the City's parking space requirements may be used together with an assumed number of people per vehicle as a means of determining the number of occupants for uses that are vehicle oriented (this method would not be suitable for land uses where many users arrive by transit, bicycle, or other means of transportation). 4. Mixed-Use Development: Each component use within a nonresidential mixed-use development shall comply with Table 2-2: Safety Criteria unless the use is ancillary (less than 10% of total building floor area). 5. Ancillary Uses: Up to 10% of the total floor area of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use of another type, including a use with a higher occupancy load factor that is shown as incompatible in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria. Ancillary uses may be excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations (but not the sitewide average intensity limits) provided that the ancillary use is neither: -~ An assembly room having more than 750 square feet of floor area (this criterion is intended to parallel Building Code standards) and a capacity of more than 50 people; nor -~ A children's school (grades K-12), day care center or other risk- sensitive use that is "incompatible" within the safety zone where the primary use is to be located. 6. Uncommon Land Use Considerations: If a particular development proposal is uncommon-that is, there would be more floor area per person and lower usage intensity-the local agency may consider that information in determining the safety compatibility of the proposal. In considering any such exceptions, the local agency shall also take into account the potential for the use of a building to change over time. A building could have planned low-intensity use initially, but later be converted to a higher- intensity use. Local agenry permit language or other mechanisms to ensure continued compliance with the usage intensity criteria must be put in place. 7. Parcels within Multiple Safety Zones: For the purposes of evaluating consistencS~ with the usage intensity criteria set forth in Table 2-2: Safety 2-18 LA/Ontario lnternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Aprii 19, 2011) per PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 Criteria, any parcel that is split by safety zone boundaries shall be considered as if it were multiple parcels divided at the safety zone boundary line. However, the intensity of nonresidential development allowed within the more restricted portion of the parcel can (and is encouraged to) be transferred to the less restricted portion. This full or partial reallocation of intensity is permitted even if the resulting intensity in the less restricted area would then exceed the limits which would otherwise apph within that safety zone (see Exhibit 2E). S3 S4 Exhibit 2E: Transferring Usage Intensity An example of transferring usage intensity to the less restrictive safety zone is provided below. Zone 3 intensity limit: 100 people per acre Zone 4 intensity limit: 160 people per acre Proposed -ntensity in Zone 3: 80 people per acre Proposed intensity in Zone 4: 100 people per acre ~ The proposed intensity for Zone 3 (80 people per acre) is encouraged to be transferred to Zone 4 for a total of 180 people per acre, even if it exceeds the Zone 4 intensity limit of 160 people per acre. Land Use Event Exceptions: The City of Ontario may make exceptions for "conditional" or "incompatible" land uses associated with raze special events (e.g., an air show at the airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be taken as appropriate. Land Uses of $~ecial Concern: Certain types of land uses represent special safety concerns irrespective of the number of people associated with those uses. Table 2- 2: Safety Criteria indicates the criteria applicable to these uses. In some cases, these uses are not allowed in portions of the safety zones regardless of the number of occupants associated with the use. In other instances, these uses should be avoided i.e., allowed only if an alternate site outside of the safety zone would not work. When allowed, special measures should be taken to minimise hazards to the facility and occupants if the facility were to be struck by an aircraft. Land uses of particular concern and the nature of the concern are: S4a Land Uses Having Vulnerable Occupants: These land uses are ones in which the majority of occupants are children, elderly, and/or disabled- people who have reduced effective mobility or may be unable to respond to emergency situations. These uses include: ~ Children's schools (grades K-12). '} Day care centers (facilities with 15 or more children, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code). '} Hospitals, health care centers, and similar facilities, especially where patients remain overnight. '} Nursing homes. '} Inmate facilities. • • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Pfan (April 19, 2011) 2-~ 9 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES O~cvoaTO_4vI • Sob Hazardous Materials Storage: Materials that are flammable, explosive, corrosive, or toxic constitute special safety compatibility concerns to the extent that an aircraft accident could cause release of the materials and thereby pose dangers to people and property in the vicinity. Facilities in this category include: ~ Facilities such as oil refineries and chemical plants that manufacture, process, and/or store bulk quantities (tank capacities greater than G,000 gallons) of hazardous materials generally for shipment elsewhere. ~ Facilities associated with otherwise compatible land uses where hazardous materials are stored in smaller quantities primarily for on- site use (tank capacities greater than 6,000 gallons). S4c Critical Community Infrastructure: The damage or destruction of public uifrastructure facilities which would cause significant adverse effects to public health and welfare well beyond the immediate vicinity of the facility. Among these facilities are: ~ Emergency services facilities such as police and fire stations. ~ Emergency communications facilities, power plants, and other utilities. S5 Ovetlav Safety Zone 1A: New development proposed within Overlay Safety Zone lA is encouraged to locate buildings outside the overlay zohe, when feasible, otherwise utilize the intensity limits of the underlying Safety Zone. • S6 Avigation Easements: The City of Ontario shall require dedication of an avigation easement as a condition for approval of all proposed. development situated off- airport within Safety Zones I through 5 in accordance with Policy SPl (see Section G.5). The Safety Zones and this polity affect only the City of Ontario. 6.2 Noise 6.2.1 Policy Objective: The purpose of noise compatibility policies is to avoid the establishment of noise-sensitive land uses in the portions of the ONT AIA that are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. 6.2.2 Noise Affected Agencies: The noise impact zones for ONT affect lands within the Cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, and Ontario and unincorporated areas of the Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside. The noise compatibility policies and criteria of this section apply only to the jurisdictions and special entities (e.g., school districts) in San Bernardino County. 6.2.3 Factors Considered in Establishing Noise Impact Zones: The factors considered in setting the policies within each noise impact zone are: (a) Measures of Noise Exposure: The magnitude of the airport-related noise to which properties near ONT are exposed must be measured in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). (b) Noise Contours: In accordance with state law, the planning time frame utilized in this Compatzbilfty Plan extends at least 20 years into the future. The noise contours depicted herein represent the greatest annualized noise impact, 2-20 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) Q~r~xle~ ~*o02~c,+snanG PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 measured in terms of CNEL, anticipated to be generated by the airport over the • planning tithe frame. 6.2.4 Factors Considered in Setting Noise Policies: The factors considered in setting the noise policies for this section and the criteria in Table 2-3: Noise Criteria are described below. These factors must also be considered when conducting compatibility assessments of individual development projects. (a) Noise Regulations: State regulations and guidelines, including noise compatibility recommendations in the California Airport Land U.ce Planning Handbook (2002) provide the foundation for the noise policies. (b) Ambient Noise levels: Ambient noise levels influence the potential intrusiveness of aircraft noise upon land uses within a community. Ontario is characterized as an urban community with higher ambient noise levels than that of a suburban community. Highway and rail noise contribute significantly to the ambient noise levels in the community. (c) Noise-Sensitive Uses: The extent to which noise would intrude upon and interrupt the activity associated with a particular use affects whether the use is compatible with a particular noise exposure. (d) Noise-Generating Uses: Land uses with operating conditions that generate noise are typically more compatible with high external noise exposure than uses that are internally quiet. ' (e) Outdoor Uses: The extent of outdoor activities associated with a particular land use, especially activities for which quiet is important, is a key determinant of • noise exposure compatibility because the sound attenuation that a structure would provide does not exist. Outdoor activities are particularly susceptible to aircraft overflight noise in that sound walls and other devices that can serve as shields from highway, railroad, and other ground-level noises are not practical. (~ Sound Attenuation: Indoor uses associated with a particular land use that would otherwise be incompatible may be made consistent with this Compatibility Plan with the application of sound attenuation standards in accordance with Policy N4. (g) Single-event noise levels: Single-event noise levels are taken into account in Table 2-3: Noise Criteria with respect to the acceptability of highly noise- sensitive land uses. Single-event noise levels are considered when assessing the compatibility of highly noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, libraries, and outdoor theaters. Susceptibility to speech interference and sleep disturbance aze among the factors that make certain land uses noise sensitive. Single-event noise levels are especially important in areas that are regularly overflown by aircraft, but that do not produce significant CNEL contours (helicopter overflight areas are a particular example). Flight patterns for ONT must be considered in the review process. Acoustical studies or on-site noise measurements could also be required to assist in determining the compatibility of sensitive uses. 6.2.5 Noise Impact Zones for ONT: The noise impact zones depicted in Map 2-3 were prepared for ONT in conjunction ~~7th the master planning efforts conducted by Los • LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 2011) 2-21 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES O+~ro~*~_•ti~ • Angeles World Airports (LAWA) in the mid 2000s. "The noise exposure contours represent a composite of two sets of projected noise contours reflecting two forecast scenarios. The "No Project" scenario reflects the existing runway configuration and a 2030 forecast of 343,000 annual operations. "I'he "Proposed Project" scenario reflects the ultimate runway configuration and a 203() forecast of 465,000 annual operations. Aircraft activity data upon which the contours are based are summarized in Chapter 1 of this Compatibility Plan. The City of Ontario, as the agenry responsible for this Compatibility Plan, should periodically review the projected CNEL contours and, in conjunction with LAWA, update them as necessary to ensure that they continue to have a future time horizon of at least 20 years. 6.2.6 Noise Standards for New Development: To minimize noise-sensitive development in noisy- areas around ONT, new development should be evaluated in accordance with the policies set forth in this section, including the criteria listed in Table 2-3: Noise Criteria and the noise impact zones depicted on Map 2-3: Noise Impact Zones. NOISE POLICIES N1 Residential Development. New residential development is incompatible within the projected CNEL 65 dB contour of ONT except as described in Policy N2 and SP3e. N2 Residential Development Exceptions: The following types of residential • developments are allowed ~nthin the CNEL 65 dB contour, if the structure is capable of attenuating exterior noise from all noise sources to an indoor CNEL of 45 dB or less. N2a Multi-Family Residential: Multi-family residential is allowed within the CNEL 65 dB contour if the development can achieve a density that is greater than 8 dwelling units per acre and incorporate interior common space and recreational facilities. N2b Caretaker's Unit: A caretakers unit that is ancillary to a primary use located within the projected CNEL 65 dB contour should be deemed compatible with this Compatibility Plaa provided that there is no more than 1 dwelling unit. N2e Existing Residential Lots: Exceptions are provided for existing residential lots (see Policy SP2 with regard to development by right). N2d Composite Industrial/Residential Use: A single-family residential use combined with an industrial land use should be deemed compatible within the projected CNEL 65 dB contour due to the high ambient noise levels generated by the industrial use. However, new structures developed for residential purposes should achieve noise attenuating standards consistent with the California Building Code. N3 Non-residential Development: New nonresidential development is incompatible in locations where the airport-related noise exposure would be highly disruptive to the specific land use. The applicable criteria are indicated in Table 2-3: Noise • Criteria. 2-22 LA/Ontario lnternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ~~t- v,u;wN~ PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 N4 Maximum Interior Noise Level: To the extent that the criteria in Table 2-3: • Noise Criteria and other policies herein permit the development, land uses with interior activities that may be easily disrupted by aircraft noise should be required to incorporate exterior-to-interior noise level reduction (NLR) design features for all new structures. The land uses listed in Policies N4a and Nob are considered acceptable if proper sound attenuation standards are applied and the maximum interior noise level indicated in Policies N4a and Nob are not exceeded. N4a CNEL 45 dB Interior Noise Level ~ Any habitable room of single- or multi-family residences. ~ Hotels, motels, and other lodging. ~ Hospitals, nursing homes, and related uses where patients remain overnight. ~ Places of worship, meeting halls, theaters, and mortuaries. ~ Schools, libraries, and museums. Nob CNEL 50 dB Interior Noise Level ~ Offices and office areas of industrial facilities. ~ Eating and drinking establishments. ~ Retail centers and stores. -~ Miscellaneous other uses as listed in Table 2-3: Noise Criteria. N4c Noise Attenuation Criteria: Where Table 2-3: Noise Criteria indicates that buildings associated with a particular land use must be capable of • attenuating exterior noise to the specified ma_limum interior noise level, acoustical data documenting that the structure will be designed to comply with the criteria should be provided. The noise impact zones depicted in Map 2-3 should be used in calculating compliance with these criteria. The calculations should assume that windows are closed. Nod Noise Attenuation Exceptions: Exceptions to the interior noise level criteria set in Policy N4a may be allowed if evidence is provided that the indoor noise generated by the use itself exceeds the listed criteria. Noe Parcels with Multiple Noise Contour Ranges: When a proposed building lies within multiple CNEL range zones (e.g., partly in 60-65 dB and partly in 65-70 dB), the higher range zone should apply for the purposes of determining sound attenuation requirements unless less than 25% of the building floor area is within the least restrictive zone. In such case, the lower range zone may be used. See Exhibit 2F for graphical example. N5 Avigation Easements: The City of Ontario shall require dedication of an avigation easement in accordance with Policy SP1 as a condition of approval for proposed noise-sensitive developments situated within the City of Ontario portion of the CNEL 65 dB. Affected Agencies that have authority over lands elsewhere within CNEL 65 dB contour are encouraged to establish a similar requirement for development within their jurisdictions. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 2011) 2-23 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES p~r~re-~ 11iP~R' ~.AHNN4 • Exhibit 2F: Interior Noise Limit Requirement Example In this example, the proposed buildings with less than 25% of the building floor area ratio in the 65 dB CNEL contour does not require noise insulation. Interior noise limit requirements are provided for each land use category in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria. - -i'~ I)r tttlrtNlt attttti tttttt~ltt ,-~ Ittl• ti^t ttttttttti ° ~ Io within Not within 15 85 noise wntour 85 noise contour 'sound attenuation 'sound attenuation NOT required NOT required ,.\ 65d8 CNEL 45 X 100 X within 8 contour 85 noise conWur ' sound attenuation 'round attenuation required requited it tttll~ ~^~ tttttrtu^ ~ ~ ttttttttl ,r.rat tr .. _.. .._. .. ._ .~.._.._..~..t .. b .. 6.3 Airspace Protection 6.3.1 Polies Objective: Airspace protection compatibility policies seek to prevent creation of land use features that can be hazards to aircraft in flight and have the potential for causing an aircraft accident to occur. Such hazards may be physical, visual, or electronic. 6.3.2 Affected Agencies: Considering the topography v~zthin the Ally, the airspace protection zones for ONT primarily affect lands within the Cities of Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and L`pland. The Cities of Chino, Fontana, and Montclair and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County are affected to a lesser extent. Portions of the aixspace protection zones also extend into the Counties of Riverside and Los Angeles however Airspace protection policies are only informational. 6.3.3 Factors Considered in Establishing Airspace Protection Zones: The principal factors considered in setting the airspace protection zones are: (a) Federal Regulations: Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, set the requirements for notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of certain proposed construction or alteration projects (Subpart B, Notice of Construction or Alteration) and establish standards for determining obstructions to navigable airspace (Subpart C, Obstruction Standards). The airspace protection zones for ON'I' also considered the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (I'ERPS), the One-Engine Inoperative (OEI) 2-24 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) p~r~e-~ A'RPJR1 P,MPP~ PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 obstacle identification surface and other applicable obstruction clearance • standards published by the FAA in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 15. Appendix B provides a copy of FAR Part 77. (b) SpeciSc Airport Features: The current and ultimate runway alignments with precision approaches to all runway ends, OEI obstacle identification surfaces associated with the existing and future departure procedures, and the TF_RPS surfaces for the existing approach procedures at ONT were also considered. The TERPS surfaces for the ultimate runway arc not considered as the FAA establishes these surfaces for specific instrument approach procedures. (c) High Terrain Zone: Objects in high terrain areas are closer to the airport's airspace surfaces and thus have a greater potential of creating airspace hazards. In accordance with FAR Part 77, Subpart B, a proposed structure which would penetrate the Part 77 airspace surfaces would be considered an airspace obstruction and thus requires an aeronautical review by the FAA. However, Section 77.15 of the regulations stipulate that FAA review is not required for new structures that would penetrate the airport's airspace surfaces if the proposed structure would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial character of equal or greater height. In 2010, the City of Ontario surveyed the heights of existing structures within the High Terrain Zone area to establish a height threshold for future objects (see Appendix J). The survey revealed that existing structures within the high terrain areas Borth of ONT have heights of up to 70 feet above ground. This information is considered when delineating the High Terrain Zone described in Section 6.3.5(d). 6.3.4 Factors Considered in Setting Airspace Protection Policies: The factors i considered in setting the airspace protection policies in this section are described below. These factors should also be considered when conducting compatibility assessments of individual development projects. The factors are: (a) Fedetal and State Regulations: The airspace protection policies outlined in this section arc based upon and intended to help implement the regulations enacted by the FAA and the State of California. State airspace protection standards mostly mirror those of the FAA. A key difference is that state law gives the Califomia Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics and local agencies the authority to enforce the standards. (b) Flight Hazards: The FAA has well-defined standards by which potential hazards to flight, especially airspace obstructions, can be assessed. However, the FAA has no authority to prevent creation of such hazards. 'T'hat authority rests with state and local governments. There are three categories of flight hazards: physical, visual, and electronic. ~ Height of structures and other objects situated near the airport are a primary determinant of physical hazards to the airport airspace. d' Land use features that have the potential to attract birds and certain other wildlife to the airport area also need to be evaluated as a form of physical hazard. ~ Visual hazards of concern include certain types of lights, sources of glare, and sources ~f dust, steam, thermal plumes, or smoke. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 201 l) 2-25 AQT ~R~ P~AV'ti \5 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES V~~~~ • ~ Electronic hazards are ones that may cause interference with aircraft communications or na~~igation. (c) Airspace Obstructions: The criteria for determining the acceptability of a project with respect to height are based upon the standards set forth in: Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, Subpart C, Obstruction Standards; the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS); the One-Engine Inoperative (OEI) obstacle identification surface and other applicable airport design standards published by the F~1A. (d) OEI and TERPS Surfaces: The OEI and TERPS surfaces associated with the current instrument approach and departure procedures at ONT are a significant airspace protection factor. In some locations, these surfaces establish height limitations lower than the FAR Part 77 surfaces used by the FAA in evaluating airspace obstructions. (e) Local Topography: The topography underlying the airport's airspace surfaces is a significant factor in determining the allowable height of a structure. 'The terrain north of ONT slopes upwards towards the San Gabriel Mountains, thereby reducing the allowable heights of objects in those areas. In the high terrain areas north of ONT, the heights of existing structures (natural or manmade) that are of a permanent and substantial character are considered in establishing the allowable heights of future objects. Appendix J documents the heights of existing structures within the High Terrain Zone. • 6.3.5 Airspace Protection Zones for ONT: The airspace protection zones depicted in Map 2-4 were prepared for ONT in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (I~AR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace; the United States Standard for 'T'erminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), the One-Engine Inoperative (OEI) obstacle identification surface and other applicable obstruction clearance standards published by the Federal Aviation Administration (FA.-~) in Advisor} Circular 150/5300-13, Change 15. (a) FAA Height Notification Surface: Established in accordance with FAR Part 77, Subpart B, this airspace surface extends outward and upward at a slope of 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the airport runways. (b) Airspace Obstruction Surfaces: Includes the controlling portions of the FAR Part 77, Subpart C, TERPS, and OEI surfaces extending out to a point where these surfaces terminate at the outer limits of the FAA Height Notification Surface. Objects which penetrate these surfaces are subject to airspace evaluation by the FAA and the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process, Objects which penetrate the Approach/Departure Surfaces which extend beyond the FAA fleight Notification Surface require evaluation by the FAA but would not be subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process. (c) Allowable Heights: To determine the allowable heights of future objects, the underlying ground elevation is compared with the elevation of the controlling portions of the FAR Part 77, TERPS, and OEI surfaces. These are depicted as color bands in Policy Map 2-4, each color band represents a range of distance, measured in vertical feet, between the ground and overlt~ing surface. • 2-26 LA/Ontario lntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 20J 1) o~~i AAOpRT P,AMY ~u PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 (d) High Terrain Zone: Based on a height survey conducted by the City of Ontario in 2010, existing objects within the high terrain areas north of ONT have heights of up to 70 feet (see Appendix ]). Therefore, the High Terrain Zone is delineated to include portions of the FAR Part 77, Subpart C, airspace surfaces where the ground either penetrates or lies within 70 feet of the airspace surface. (e) Airspace Avigation Easement Area: Includes portions of the FAR Part 77, Subpart C, approach and transitional airspace surfaces and the TERPS and OEI surfaces extending out to a point where these surfaces intersect the horizontal surface, which is situated 150 feet above the airport elevation of 944 feet MSL. 6.3.6 Airspace Protection Standards for New Development: The airspace protection compatibility of proposed land uses within the AIA of ONT should be evaluated in accordance with the policies in this section, including the existing and future airspace protection surfaces depicted in Map 2-4. AIRSPACE PROTECTION POLICIES Al FAA Height Notification Surface: Except as provided in Policy Alb, if a project contains proposed structures or other objects that would penetrate the FAA Height Notification Surface for ONT, the project proponent should submit notification of the proposal to the FAA, as required by the provisions of FAR Fart 77, Subpart B, and by the California Public Utilities Code, Sections 21658 and 21659. The FAA will conduct an "aeronautical study" of the object(s) and detemune whether the object(s) would be of a height that would constitute a hazard to air navigation. A copy of the completed FAR Part 77 notification form submitted to the FAA and the resulting F.~A aeronautical study findings should be supplied to the local jurisdiction by the project proponent. The results of the FAA aeronautical study should be taken into account by the local agency when conducting compatibility reviews of the proposed project. A copy of the FAA notification form and online submittal procedures are provided in Appendix B. A requirement for submitting notice to the FAA does not necessarily result in a requirement that the proposed object also be reviewed under the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process. Proposed objects are subject to the ONT process only as specified in Policy A2. The FAA notification requirements apply to the following: Ala Penetrations to the FAA Height Notification Surface: With ]irriited exceptions, the FAA requires notification for all objects which penetrate the FAA Height Notification Surface, including structures, antennas, trees, mobile objects, and temporary- objects such as construction cranes. Alb Structures in Excess of 200 feet: The FAA requires that it be notified about any proposal to construct or alter a structure that would be taller than 200 feet above the ground level regardless of the structure's proximity to ONT or any other airport. Alc FAR Part 77 Notification: FAA requires project proponents to submit notification of the proposal where required by the provisions of FAR Part 77, and by the California Public Utilities Code, Sections 21658 and 21659. See L • • LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 2011) 2-27 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES ONTTCll\l~ • Appendix B for FAA notification requirements and online submittal process of Form 7460-1, Notice of Prnpo,red Conrhrrctro>r orAlieration. A2 Airspace Obstruction Surfaces: Except as provided in Policies Ala and Alb, no object should have a height that would result in a penetration of the Airspace Obstruction Surface depicted for ONT in Map 2-4. Any object that penetrates the Airspace Obstruction Surface and is located outside of the High Terrain Zone should satisfy the conditions set forth in Policy AZa. These requirements apply to all objects including structures, antennas, trees, mobile objects, and temporary objects such as construction cranes. Ala Airspace Obstacle Criteria and Review Process: Except as indicated in Policy Alb, a proposed object having a height that penetrates ONT's airspace obstruction surfaces is subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process and should be allowed only if all of the following apply: ~ The FAA conducts an aeronautical study of the proposed object and determines that the object would not be a hazard to air navigation. ~ FAA or other expert analysis conducted under the auspices of the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), as the airport owner, concludes that, despite being an airspace obstruction, the object would not cause any of the following: ^ An increase in the ceiling or visibility minimums df the airport for an existing or planned instrument procedure (a planned .procedure is one • that is formally on file with the FAA); ^ A reduction of the established operational efficiency and capacity of the airport, such as by causing the usable length of the runway to be reduced; or ^ A conflict with the visual flight rules (VFR) airspace used for the airport traffic pattern or en route navigation to and from the airport. ~ Marking and lighting of the object will be installed as directed by the FAA aeronautical study or the California Division of Aeronautics and in a manner consistent with FAA standards in effect at the time the construction is proposed (Ad~~isory Circular 70/7460-1J, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, or any later guidance). ->~ An avigation easement is dedicated in accordance with Policy SPl to the LAWA as owner of the airport. ~ The proposed project complies with all policies of this Compatibility Plan related to noise and safety compatibility. Alb High Terrain Zone Exception: The High Terrain Zone is confined to portions of Upland, Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga (Map 2-4). A proposed structure of up to 70 feet in height (subject to local agency zoning limits) is exempt from the ONT Inter-Agenry Notification Process, even if it penetrates the Pazt 77 airspace surfaces and thus constitute an airspace obstruction, as the object would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial character of equal or greater height. Submitting • notice of the proposed project to the FAA for an airspace evaluation in 2-28 LA/Ontario lnternationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 20i 1) O~rRp3~7'p~u~nyr~G PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 accordance with FAR Part 77, Subpart B, is at the discretion of the project • applicant. Dedication of an avigation easement is required in accordance with Policy SP1. A3 Flight Hazards: Land uses that may cause visual, electronic, or wildlife hazards, particularly bird strike hazards, to aircraft in flight or taking off or landing at the airport should be prohibited within the AIA consistent with FAA rules and regulations. To resolve any uncertainties with regard to the significance of flight hazards, local agencies should consult with the FAA, California Division of Aeronautics, and/or ONT officials. Specific characteristics to be avoided include: ~ Sources of glare (such as from mirrored or other highly reflective buildings or building features) or bright lights (including search lights and laser light displays). ~ Distracting lights that could be mistaken for airport lights. ~ Sources of dust, steam, or smoke that may impair pilots' vision. ~ Sources of steam or other emissions that cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air. ~ Sources of electrical interference with aircraft communications or navigation. ~ Any proposed use that creates an increased attraction for wildlife and that is inconsistent with FAA rules and regulations including, but not limited to FAA Advisory Circulars 150/5200-33B, Hatiardous 1k~ildlife,Attractants On or Near ,Air~oris and 150/5200-34A, Construction or Establishment of Ilrndfillr • near Pxblic ;Airrorts. Of particular concern are landfills and certain recreational or agricultural uses that attract large flocks of birds which pose bird strike hazards to aircraft in flight. A4 Avigation Easements: In accordance with Policy SP1, the City of Ontario shall require dedication of an avigation easement as a condition of approval for proposed development that either penetrates the Airspace Obstruction Surfaces (see Policy Ala) or is situated within the High Terrain Zone (see Policy AZb) or Airspace Avigation Easement Area (see Policy SP1). Affected Agencies that have the authority over other lands elsewhere within these airspace protection areas are encouraged to establish a similar requirement for new development within their jurisdictions. 6.4 Overflight 6.4.1 Policy Objective: Noise from individual aircraft operations, especially by comparatively loud aircraft, can be Note: Overnight policies and intrusive and anno n in locations be and the limits of the criteria are informational for Yl g Y Riverside and Los Angeles noise impacts addressed by the policies in Section 6.2. Counties Sensitivity to aircraft overflights varies from one person to another. The purpose of overflight compatibility policies is to help notify people about the presence of overflights near airports so that they can make more informed decisions regarding acquisition or lease of property in the • LA/Ontano IntemationalAirport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 2011) 2-29 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES ~NTARIB-! • affected areas. Overflight compatibility is particularly important with regard to residential land uses. 6.4.2 Affected Local Agencies: The overflight zones for ONT affect the Cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. Portions of the Cities of Claremont and Pomona in Los Angeles County and the unincorporated areas of Riverside County are also within the overflight zones. The overflight policies of this section apply only to the jurisdictions and other entities in San Bemardino County. 6.4.3 Factors Considered in Establishing Overflight Zones: (a) State Law: State statutes (Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and Civil Code Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353) define an AIA as "the area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as determined by an airport land use commission." (b) Measures of Overflight Exposure: The loudness of individual aircraft noise events is a key determinant of where airport proximity and aircraft overflight notification is warranted. The FAA has detemuned that overflight exposure is not significant where aircraft are flying at an altitude of 3,000 feet or more above ground level. The boundary of the overflight area for ONT, as depicted on Map 2-5, is drawn to encompass locations where aircraft approaShing and departing the airport typically fly at an altitude of 3,000 feet or less, together with locations • underlying the airspace protection and height notification surfaces. 6.4.4 Factors Considered in Setting Overflight Compatibility Criteria: Factors include: (a) Limitations of Local Agency Authority over Existing Uses: To be most effective, overflight policies should apply to transactions involving existing land uses, not just future development. However, local agencies have little authority to set requirements for existing development. The intent of this polity is to define, on an advisory basis, the boundaries within which required real estate transfer disclosure under state law is appropriate. Implementing the real estate transaction disclosure requirement is the responsibility of the property owner and real estate agent. The local agency is responsible only for providing a map to a property owner or real estate agent that defines the areas within which the real estate disclosure requirement should be applied. (b) Limitations of California Real Estate Transaction Disclosure Law: State law applies to existing development, but not to all transactions. Specifically, California state statutes (Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and Civil Code Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353) require that, as part of many residential real estate transactions, information be disclosed regarding whether the property is situated within an AIA. The Business and Professions Code applies the disclosure requirement to the sale or lease of newly subdivided lands and condominium conversions and to the sale of certain existing residential property. The Civil Code applies the disclosure requirement to existing residential property transfers only when certain natural conditions (earthquake, fire, or flood hazards) warrant disclosure. 2-30 LA/Ontario International Airport Zand Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 20? 1) 0,~~„p'o;~rn, PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 {c) Need for Continuity of Notification to Future Property Owners and • Tenants: To the extent that this Compatibility Plan sets notification requirements for new development, the policy should ensure that the notification runs with the land and is provided to prospective future owners and tenants. These types of notifications are described in Policy SPl, Avigation Easements and Policy 01, Recorded Overflight Notification. (d) Inappropriateness of Avigation Easement Dedication Solely for Buyer Awareness Purposes: Avigation easements involve conveyance of property rights from the property owner to the part} owning the easement and are thus best suited to locations where land use restrictions for noise, safety, or airspace protection purposes are necessary. While avigation easements also provide a form of buyer awareness, property rights conveyance is not needed solely for buyer awareness purposes. 6.4.5 Overflr_ght Notification Zones for ONT: The boundaries of the overflight notification zones around ONT are shown on Map 2-5 and include: (a) Avigation Easement Dedication: The boundary identifies the high-risk, noise- impacted, and critical airspace protection areas of ONT. Although not strictly an overflight notification boundary, the Avigation Easement Dedication boundary is established in accordance with Policy SPl and reflected on the Map 2-5. (b) Recorded Overflight Notification: The boundary- identifies the primary overflight area for the airport. The polity boundary matches the CNEL 60 dl3 noise impact zone depicted on Map 2-3. The Recorded Overflight Notification boundary encompasses the traffic pattern areas where aircraft typically fl~• at • altitudes of less than 2,500 feet above ground level. (c) Real Estate Transaction Disclosure: The boundary, which reflects the ONT AIA, encompasses areas underlying the common aircraft traffic patterns where aircraft are typically flying at altitudes of 3,00() feet or less. The AIA also includes the areas underlying the Height Notification Surface and Airspace Obstruction Surfaces defined for ONT in Map Z-5. The policy boundary follows roads and government boundary lines where practical. 6.4.6 Overflight Policies: Unlike the function of the noise, safety, and airspace protection compatibility policies in this Compatibility Plan, the overflight compatibility policies set forth in this section do not restrict the manner in which land can be developed or used. The policies in this section serve only to establish the language and recommended geographic coverage for notification about airport proximity and aircraft overflights to be given in conjunction with local agency approval of new development and with certain real estate transactions involving existing development. OVERFLIGHT POLICIES Ol Recorded Overflight Notification: The City of Ontario shall require the recording of an overflight notification running with the land as a condition for approval of new residential development that falls within CNEL GO dB noise contour, as depicted in Map 2-5. Affected Agencies having authority over other lands elsewhere within this • LA/Ontario lntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 2011) 2-31 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES ONTTC1111V • noise contour are encouraged to establish a similar requirement. Other conditions include: O1a Notification Language: 'The overflight notification should contain language dictated by state law with regard to real estate transaction disclosure (see Policy O2a} and should be formatted similar to the example shown in Appendix E. O1b Property Deed Recording: The overflight notification should be evident to future purchasers of the property by appearing on the property deed. Olc Avigation Easement Exception: A separate recorded overflight notification is not required where an avigation easement is provided in accordance with Policy SPl. Old Nonresidential Exception: Recording of an overflight notification is not required for nonresidential development unless the project is a mixed-use development containing residential uses on the same property. 02 Real Estate Transaction Disclosure: Airport proximity disclosure information should be provided in accordance with state law (Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and Civil Code Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353. See Section 6.4.4 (b) and Appendix A for information on these laws. O2a Disclosure Language: State Law provides the following disclosure language: • NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, ~~ibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. O2b Airpott Influence Area: Consistent with state law, as the entity authorized to prepare the Compatibility Plan for ONT, the City of Ontario in coordination with other affected jurisdictions deems airport proximity disclosure to be appropriate within the AIA identified on Maps 2-1 through 2-5. The AIA boundary is identical on each map. O2c Responsibility of Local Jurisdictions: Local jurisdictions should make available to property owners and the public a copy of Map 2-5: Overflight Zones depicting the AIA boundary in which the airport proximity disclosure is required. 6.5 Special Compatibility 6.5.1 Special Compatibility Policies: These policies are intended to address unique land • use concerns. 2-32 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) O^' p~"~,„G PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 SPECIAL COMPATIBILITY POLICIES • SPl Avigation Easement Dedication: An a~~gation easement should be dedicated to the owner/operator of ONT for new development as specified in Policies SPla and SPlb. An example of an avigation easement is provided in Appendix E. SP1a Avigation Easement Dedication Requirements: Within portions of the AIA inside the City of Ontario, avigation easement dedication shall be required for new development requiring discretionary as described below. Affected Agencies having authority over comparable affected portions of the AIA are encouraged to establish similar requirements. However, an avigation easement dedication is not considered necessary for ministerial actions as defined by each jurisdiction. Map 2-5, depicts the locations where an avigation easement dedication would be appropriate. ~ Safety Zones' All new development within Safety Zones 1 through 5 as depicted on Map 2-2. (Safety- zones contained solely within the City of Ontario) ~ 1Vaire Impact Zones: Development of new noise-sensitive land uses within the CNEL G5 dB noise contour depicted on Map 2-3. Noise sensitive land uses include residential, schools public and private), places of worship, hospitals and convalescent homes. (The projected CNEL 65 dB noise contour extends into portions of the Ontario, Fontana and unincorporated portions of San Bernardino County.) ~ ,=lirrpace Protection Zones: All new development ui locations beneath the critical portions of the approach and transitional surfaces to where these surfaces intersect with the horizontal surface. (Located solely within the City of Ontario, see Airspace Avigation Easement Area on Map 2-4.) ~ High Terrain Zone: All new development within the High Terrain Zone as depicted in Map 2-5. (Applies to portions of the City of Ontario, Upland and Rancho Cucamonga. SPlb Avigation Easement Purpose: The avigation easement should do the following: ~ Bight of Flight: Provide the right of flight in the airspace above the property. ~ Noise Impacts: Allow the generation of noise and other impacts associated with aircraft overflight. ~ Physical Hatiards: Restrict the height of structures, trees and other objects in accordance with the policies in Section 6.3 and the airspace protection surfaces depicted on Map 2-4. ~ Obstruction Markin: Permit access to the property, with appropriate advance notice, for the removal or aeronautical marking of objects exceeding the established height limit. ~ Other ,9irspace Hazards: Prohibit electrical interference, glare, and other potential hazards to flight from being created on the property. • LA/Ontario international Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 2011) 2-33 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES ONTTf1111V • SP2 Development by Right: Ocher than in Safety Zones 1 and 5 and within the projected CNEL 70 dB contour of the airport, nothing in these policies prohibits the types of development specified in Policies SP2a, SP2b, and SP2c. SP2a Residential Uses: Construction of asingle-family detached home, including a second unit as defined by state law, on a legal lot of record as of the date of adoption of this Compatibility Plan is acceptable if such use is permitted by local land use regulations. SP2b Existing Uses: Construction of other types of uses is permitted if local agency approvals qualify the development as an existing land use (see Section 1.3.2 for definition of an existing land use). In accordance with Policies N4, sound attenuation should be required. SP2c Lot Line Adjustments: Lot line adjustments are permitted provided that new developable parcels would not be created and the resulting density or intensity of the affected property would not exceed the applicable criteria indicated in the Table 2-2: Safety Criteria and Table 2-3: Noise Criteria. SP3 Infill: Within the AItI, Infill development of nonconforming land uses should be allowed to occur provided that the following conditions and restrictions are met: SP3a Safety Zone 1 Restriction: No type of Infill development should be permitted in Safety Zone 1 (the runway protection zones and within the runu-ay primary surface). SP3b Safety Zones 1, 2 and 5 Residential Restriction: Residential Infill development should not be permitted within Safety Zones 1, 2, and 5. See Policy Sl for exceptions. SP3c Safety Zone 3 and 4 Density Residential Restriction: For Infill residential development in Safety Zones 3 and 4, the average development density (dwelling units per acre) of the site should not exceed the median density represented by all existing residential lots that lie fully or partially within a distance of 1,000 feet from the boundary of the defined Infill area. SP3d Nonresidential Development : For nonresidential Infill development, the average sitewide usage intensity (the number of people per acre) of the site's proposed use should not exceed the lesser of the two intensity results (See Exhibit 2G for example) ~ Option 1: The median intensity of all existing nonresidential uses that lie fully or partially within a distance of 1,000 feet from the boundary of the defined Infill area; or d' Option 2: Double the intensity permitted in accordance with the criteria for that location as indicated in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria. SP3e Residential Noise Restriction: Residential Infill development should not be allowed in areas exposed to exterior noise levels equal to or greater than CNEL 70 dB. SP3f Other Applicable Policies for Infill Development: The single-acre intensity limits described in Policy S2 and listed in Table 2-2: Safety • Criteria are applicable to Infill development. tllso, the sound attenuation and 2-34 LA/Ontario lntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) a~ri~~ PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 avigation easement dedication requirements set by Policies N4 and SPl, respectivel}', should apply to infill development. SP4 Nonconforming Uses: The policies within this Compatibilit}~ Plan do not apply to e~sting land uses even if those uses are not in conformance with the compatibility criteria set forth in this Compatibility Plun. Local jurisdictions have limited ability to cause reduction or removal of incompatible land uses from the ALA. However, proposed changes to existing uses that would change or result in increased nonconformity with the compatibility criteria are subject to the provisions of this chapter and the requirements of the :alternative Process set forth in Section 2 of this Compatibility Plan. Specifically, proposed changes to parcel or building) are limited as follows: Exhibit 2G Nonresidential Infill Calculation Examples Example 1: Option 1: Median intensity of existing nonresidential uses = 150 people per acre Option 2: Double the intensity permitted in Zone 3 = 100 x 2 = 200 people per acre "The intensity limit for the proposed development is 150 people per acre (the lesser of the two results) Example 2: Option 1: Median intensity of existing nonresidential uses = 225 people per acre Option 2: Double the intensity permitted in Zone 3 = 100 x 2 = 200 people per acre • The intensity limit for the proposed development is 200 people per acre (the lesser of the two results) existing nonconforming uses (including a SP4a Residential uses: A nonconforming residential land use may be continued, sold, leased, or rented without restriction or review. SP4b SP4c Nonconforming Single-family: A nonconforming single-family dwell may be maintained, remodeled, reconstructed (see Policy SPSa) or expanc in size. The lot line of an existing single-family residential parcel may adjusted. Also, a new single-famil}' residence may be constructed on existing lot in accordance with Policy SP2. The above noted prope improvements may occur if improvements do not increase the number units and lot line adjustments do not result in allowing for additional dwell units. Examples include: Any remodeling, reconstruction, or expansion must not increase the number of dwelling units. For example, a bedroom could be added to an e~sting residence, but an additional dwelling unit could not be built on the parcel unless that unit is a secondary dwelling unit as defined by state and local laws. A single-family residential parcel may not be di~dded for the purpose of allowing additional dwellings to be constructed. Nonconforming Multi-family (> S du/ac): Nonconforming multi-family residential dwelling units may be maintained, remodeled, or reconstructed (see Policy SP5a). The size of individual dwelling units may be increased, but additional dwelling units may not be added. The sound attenuation and a~~igation easement dedication requirements set by Policies N4 and SPl, respectively, apply. / 1 C: • LA/Ontario /ntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 2011) 2-35 ~'t+~URi o_44N'rcG CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES ONTARI~~ • C SP4d Nontesidential uses: A nonconforming, nonresidential use may be continued, sold, leased, or rented without restriction or review. Nonconforming, nonresidential facilities may be maintained, altered, or, if required by state law, reconstructed (see Policy SP5). However, any such work: ~ Should not result in expansion of either the portion of the site devoted to the nonconforming use or the floor area of the buildings; and ~ Should not result in an increase in the usage intensity (the number of people per acre) above the levels existing at the time of approval of this Compatibility Plan by California Division of Aeronautics. SP4e Schools: Children's schools (including grades K-12, day care centers with more than 14 children, and school libraries) may be continued, reconstructed (see Policy SP5), expanded with the following restrictions per State Law: -~ Land acquisition for new schools or expansion of existing schools is not permitted within the CNEL G5 dB contour as depicted in Map 2-3. Land acquisition for new schools or expansion of existing schools is not permitted in any safety zone (see Map 2-4). ~ Replacement or expansion of buildings at existing schools is also not allowed in any safety zone, except that in Safety Zone 4 an expansion that accommodates no more than 50 students is allowed. This limitation does not preclude work required for normal maintenance or repair. SP4f Other Applicable Policies for Nonconforming Development: As a condition of local agency approval, a proposed modificarion of an existing nonconforming development is subject to the sound attenuation and avigation easement dedication requirements set by Policies N4 and SPl, respectively. SP5 Reconstruction of Nonconforming Uses: An existing nonconforming building, structure, or use that has been partially or completely destroyed as the result of a fire, flood or natural disaster may be rebuilt under the conditions listed in Policies SP5a through SPSe so long as it does not violate local ordinances. The requirements listed in this policy do not restrict normal maintenance and repairs as defined by the local jurisdiction. SP5a Residential: Nonconforming residential uses may be rebuilt provided that the reconstruction does not result in more dwelling units than existed on the parcel at the time of the damage. Addition of a secondary dwelling unit to a single-family residence is permitted if in accordance with state law and local zoning regulations. SP5b Nonresidential: A nonconforming nonresidential development may be rebuilt provided that the reconstruction does not increase the floor area of the previous structure or result in an increased intensity of use (i.e., more people per acre). • SP5c Reconstruction Requirements: uses listed in Policies SP5a and requirements: The reconstruction of nonconforming SP5b should comply with the following 2-36 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) OnmvOR7- v,~rran•G PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 ~ A permit to rebuild the structure should be obtained by the local agenry • within twenty-four (24) months of the date the damage occurred. ~ Ne~~ structures should incorporate sound attenuation features consistent with Policy N4 and California Noise Standards. ~ The property should be required to dedicate an avigation easement to the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) as the airport proprietor, if required under Policy SPl. ~ The new structure should comply with FAR Part 77, TERPS, and applicable airport obstruction clearance standards published by the FAA. • LA/Ontario lntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (April 19, 2011) 2-37 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES D~~xl~ • This f~age tva.r l~ intentionally blank. • • 2-38 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility olan (Adopted Aprif 19, 201 f) ~~~~~ PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 R7RVQRt RAhNIYG The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process if located anywhere within the Airport Influence Area (Applies to all Affected Jurisdictions): ~ Expansion or creation of the sphere of influence of a city or district (e.g., annexation or incorporation) a General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning Amendments C ~ Major capital improvements (e.g., water, sewer, roads) that would promote urban development in undeveloped or agricultural areas to the extent that such uses are not reflected in a previously reviewed general plan or speck plan. ~ Any proposal for acquisition of a new site or expansion of an existing site by a special district, school district, or community college district. -~ Any proposal for construction or alteration of a structure (including antennae) taller than 200 feet above the ground. The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process only if they are located within a safety zone (Applies solely to the City of Ontario): ~ Any proposed land use within Safety Zone 1 that is not an aviation-related use. -! Public agency acquisition of sites intended for institutional uses including hospitals, schools, jails or prisons. -~ Any discretionary development proposal for projects having a building floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater unless only ministerial approval (e.g., a building permit) is required. ~ Proposed development of airport property rf such development is not an aviation-related use or has not previously been included in an airport master plan or community general plan reviewed under the Alternative Process. The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process only if they are located within a noise impact zone of 65+ d6 CNEL (Applies fo the City of Ontario, City of • Fontana and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County): ~ Residential development, including land divisions, consisting of five or more dwelling units or individual parcels. ~ Any nonresidential use having outdoor dining or gathering functions. ~ Public agency acquisition of sites intended for institutional uses including hospitals, schools, jails or prisons. The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process only if they are located within an airspace protection zone (Applies to all Affected Jurisdictions): ~ Any proposed object (including buildings, antennas, and other structures) having a height that requires review by the Federal Aviation Administration in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, Subpart B. ~ Any proposed object (including buildings, antennas, and other structures) that would penetrate the allowable height as defined by Map 2-4 or conflict with the Airspace Protection policies. -1' Any project having the potential to create electrical or visual hazards to aircraft in flight, including: Electrical interference with radio communications or navigational signals. Lighting which could be mistaken for airport lighting. Glare in the eyes of pilots of aircraft using the airport. Impaired visibility near the airport. -> Any project (e.g., water treatment facilities, waste transfer or disposal facilities, parks with open water areas), plan (e.g., Habitat Conservation Plan) or proposal to acquire sites intended for lakes, ponds, wetlands, or sewer treatment ponds which would have the potential to cause an increase in the attraction of birds or other wildlife that can be hazardous to aircraft operations in the vicinity of an airport. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) 2-39 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES ~~~I,®-` • • This page was left intentionally blank. 2-40 LA/Ontario lnternationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ~~` ~u,~;;~ PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 Legend: Land Use Compatibility (A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided on pg 2~6 of this table) Normally Compatible Conditional Incompatible Land Use Land Use (FAR) Land Use • A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfes the maximum intensity I~mits andior other listed conditions. • Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development (see Policy S2c). Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and exGuded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits. Land Use Cates~orv' _ Criteria for Conditional Uses Note: Multiple land use categories and 1 2 3 ~ 5 Note: The numbers below indicate mne in which li iti compatibility criteria may apply to a project i es. cond on app Max Sitewide Average Intensity (people/acre) ' 10 60 100 160 ~ 160 • Nonresidential development must satisfy both fomts of intensity limits. Max Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre) 20 120 250 400 400 • Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally applicable to a/!nonresidential development Compatible as well as Conditional land uses Outdoor Uses (limited or no activities in buildings) Natara! Laro Areas desert. brush lands' 1 Objects above runway elevation not ', allowed in Object Free Area (OFA) Water: flood plains, wetlands, lakes, ~ ~ 1-5: Objects above runway elevation not reservoirs s allowed in Object Free Area (OFA) Agriculture (except residences and 1-5: Not allowed in Object Free Area (OFA) livestock): crops, orchards, vineyards, pasture, range land 3 _ _ _ Livestock Uses: feed lots, stockyards, breeding, fish hatcheries, horse stables' Outdoor Major Assembly Facilities:' spectator-0riented outdoor stadiums, amphitheaters, fairgrounds, zoos Group Recreation (limited spectator stands; 3,4: Allowed only if alternative site outside athletic fields, water recreation facilities, zone would not serve intended function picnic areas Small/Non-Group Recreation: golf courses, 2-4: Allowed only if alternative site outside tennis courts, shooting ranges a zone would not serve intended function and intensity criteria met Local Parks: children-oriented neighborhood 3-5: Allowed only if alternative site outside parks, playgrounds zone would not serve intended function and intensity criteria met Camping: campgreunds, recreational 3.4: Allowed only if intensity criteria met vehicle/ motor home parks _~? Cemeteries (except chapels) Residential and Lodging Uses Residential (<8 d u !acre). individual a., dwellings, townhouses, mobile homes, bec 8~ breakfast inns s Residential (Z8 d.u./acre) e Long-Term Lodging (>30 nights): extended stay hotels, dormitories / ~I J • • WOntario lntemationalAirport Land Use Compatibility Plan (AdoptedApri! 19, 2011) 2-4~ • • • CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES 0 . • - Legend: Land Use Compatibility (A detailed expianatron of each land use acceptability category is provided on pg. 2~6 of this table) Normally Compatible Conditional Incompatible Land Use Land Use (FAR) Land Use ' ^ A yellow cell Indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the mawmum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions. • Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development (see Policy S2c). Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits. Land Use Catestorv' Criteria for Conditional Uses Note: Multiple land use categories and l l 1 2 3 Note' The numbers below indicate zone in which 4 5 compatibi ity criteria may app y to a project a - ~ ondition applies. Max Sitewide Average Intensity (people/acre) - 10 - 60 - 100 -- - 160 160 • Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms of intensity limits. Max Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre) applicable to all nonresidential development 20 120 250 400 400 • Maximum intensity criteria apply to Nonnalty Compatible as well as Conditional land uses Short-Term Lodging (< 30 nights). hotels, 3. 4 FAR limits as indicated motels, other transient lodging (except 0.46 0.74 conference/assembly facilities) [approx. 200 s.f./person] Congregate Care: retirement homes, assisted living, nursing homes, intermediate care faalities Educational and Institutional Uses Family day care homes (~ 14 children) e Children's Schools: K-12, day care centers 4 No new sites or land acquisition; Bldg (>14 children); school libraries replacement/expansion allowed for existing schools; expansion limited to <_50 students Adult Education classroom space: adult I 3, 4: FAR limits as indicated; also see schools, colleges, universities 0 09 15 individual components of campus facilities 0 [approx. 40 s.f,/person] . (e.g., assembly facilities, offices, gymnasiums) Community Libraries 0 23 37 3, 4: FAR limits as indicated 0 [approx. 100 s.f./person] . . Major Indoor Assembly Facilities °: i auditoriums, conference centers, concert ~ halls, arenas _ Large Indoor Assembly Facilities `: movie :i a FAR limis as and Gated theaters, places of worship, cemetery 0 03 0 06 chapels, mortuaries . [approx. 15 s.f./person] Indoor Recreation: gymnasiums, club 3, 4: FAR limits as indicated houses, athletic Gubs, dance studios 0 14 0.22 [approx. 60 s.f.lperson] In-Patient Medical: hospitals. mental 3, 4: No new sites or land acquisition; hospitals replacement/expansion of existing facilities ~~ limited to existing size 2-42 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) p~r~~~ ~m9f5g7 C~ANNMG PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 Legend: Land Use Compatibility (A detailed exp!aoa'. n^ o` each la^.d use accer~tab~'~'v category is provided on pg 2~6 of this tablet Normally Compatible Conditional Incompatible Land Use Land Use (FAR) Land Use ^ A yellow cell Indicates a use that Is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum Intensity limas and/or other listed conditions. ^ Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development (see Policy S2c). Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits. d Use Cate orv' L - Criteria for Conditional Uses ~ an Note: Multiple land use categories and 1 2 3 4 5 Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which compatibilay criteria may apply to a protect ~ condition applies. Max sitewide Average Intensity (people/acre) 10 ~~ 60 100 160 160 • Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms of intensity limits. Max Single-Acre Intensity (peoplelacre) app/icable to all nonresidential developmen? 20 120 ; 250 400 400 • Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally Compatible as well as Conditional land uses Out-Patient Medical. health care centers. 3 4 FAR limits as indicated clinics 0 55 0.88 [approx. 240 s.f./person; Penal Institutions: prisons, reformatories Public Safety Facilities: police, fire stations i, 3-5: Allowed only if alternative site outside _ zone would not serve intended public function 5: Allowed only if airport serving Commercial, Office, and Service Uses Ma)or Retail. regional shopping centers. ~ 3, 4: FAR limits as indicated; evaluate eating/ j 'big box' retail 0.25 0.40 drinking areas separately if >10% of total [approx. 110 s.f./person] floor area Local Retail: community/neighborhood 3, 4: FAR limits as indicated; evaluate eating/ shopping centers, grocery stores 0.39 0.62 drinking areas separately if >10% of total [approx. 170 s.f./person] floor area Eating/Drinking Establishments: 3-5: FAR limits as indicated restaurants, fast-food dining, bars 0.14 0 22 0.22 [approx. 60 s.f./person] Limited RetailMJholesale: furniture, 2, 3: FAR limits as indicated; design site to automobiles, heavy equipment, lumber 034 0 57 place parking inside and bldgs outside of yards, nurseries I~ zone if possible [approx. 250 s.f./person] ~ ~~ Offices: professional services, doctors, i ~ _ 2-5: FAR limits as indicated finance, civic; radio, television & recording studios, office space ~ 0.30 0.49 0.79 0.79 associated with other listed uses [approx. 215 s.f./person; Personal & Miscellaneous Services: ~ ~ 2-5: FAR limits as indicated barbers, car washes, print shops 0.28 0.46 0 74 0.74 [approx. 200 s.f./persona I. Vehicle Fueling: gas stations, trucking & 5: Allowed only if airport serving transportation terminals i ,~ u • • LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) 2-43 • • • CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES ~t4P0YT ~LAlJNM1~ . . Legend: Land Use Compatibility (A detailed explanat~or of each land use acceptability category is provided on pg. 2116 of this table) _ Normally Compatible Conditional Incompatible Land Use Land Use (FAR) Land Use • A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum Intensity limits and/or other listed conditions. ^ Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development (see Policy S2c). Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits. Land Use Cates~ont' - Criteria for Conditional Uses Note: Multiple Land use categories and l ~ 2 3 4 5 Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which compatibility aiteria may app y to a project -- -- condition applies. Max sitewide Average Intensity (people/acre) ' 10 60 ~ 100 ' 160 160 Nonresidential development must sattsy both fonts of intensity limits. Max Single-Acre Intensity (peoplelacre) 20 120 250 400 400 • Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally app/rcable to all nonresidential development Compatible as well as Conditional land uses Industrial, Manufacturfng, and Storage Uses Hazardous Matenais Production oil refineries, chemical plants (? 6,000 gallons) Heavy Industrial ~ 4: Avoid bulk storage of hazardous I+lammable, explosive, corrosive, or toxic) materials; permitting agencies to evaluate possible need for special measures to minimize hazards if struck by aircraft Light Industrial, High Intensity: food ~-4: FAR limits as indicated; avoid bulk products preparation, electronic storage of hazardous (flammable, explosive, equipment 0 28 0 46 74 corrosive, or toxic} materials; permitting 0 . [approx. 200 s.f./person] . . agencies to evaluate possible need for special measures to minimize hazards if struck by aircraft Light Industrial, Low Intensity: machine ~ I 2-4: FAR limits as indicated shops, wood products, auto repair 5: Single story only; max. 10% in mezzanine [approx. 350 s.f./person] 2-5: Avoid bulk storage of hazardous 0.48 0.80 1.29 (flammable, explosive, corrosive, or toxic) materials; permitting agencies to evaluate possible need for special measures to minimize hazards if struck by aircraft _ Research 8~ Development _ 3. 4: FAR limits as indicated; avoid bulk [approx. 300 s.f./person] storage of hazardous (flammable, explosive, 0 69 10 corrosive, or toxic) materials; permitting 1 . agencies to evaluate possible need for special measures to minimize hazards if struck by aircraft Indoor Storage: wholesale sales, 2 Single story only; max. 10% in mezzanine warehouses, mini/other indoor storage, barns, greenhouses [approx. 1,000 s.f./person] Outdoor Storage: public works yards, automobile dismantling 2-44 LA/Onfario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Ptan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) ~~~~~ IIRObAT ~LANNI\G PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 Legend: Land Use Compatibility (A detailed explanaticr o` each land use acceptability category Is provided on pg 2-46 of this table) Normally Compatible Conditional Incompatible Land Use Land Use (FAR) Land Use ^ A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and;or other listed conditions. ^ Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development (see Policy S2c). Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits. Land Use Cates~orv' = Criteria for Conditional Uses Note: Multiple land use categories and 1 Z 3 4 5 Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which li compatibility criteria may apply to a project condRion app es. 160 i 160 Max sitewide Average Intensity (peoplelacre) '. 10 60 100 ^ Nonresidential development must satisfy both 1 1 forms of intensity limits. 400 Max Single-Acre Intensity (peoplelacre) 20 120 250 400 applicable to a/I nonresidential developmen~ ~ • Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally Compatible as well as Conditional land uses Mining & Extraction e I Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Airport Terminals: airline. general aviation Rail & Bus Stations 2: Allowed only if altemative site outside zone would not serve intended public function 5: Allowed only if airport serving Transportation Routes: road 81 rail rights- 1: Not allowed in Object Free Area' of-way, bus stops Auto Parking: surface lots, structures 1: Not allowed in Object Free Area' Communications Facilities: emergency 3-5: Allowed only if alternative site outside communications, broadcast ~ cell towers ' zone would not serve intended public function; not allowed within '/ mile of runway Power Plants' 3, 4: Primary plants not allowed; peaker plants only Electrical Substations' ~ 2, 5: Allowed only if alternative site outside I zone would not serve intended public function Wastewater Facilities: treatment, disposal ~ 2, 5: Allowed only if altemative site outside zone would not serve intended public function Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: landfill, 2: Allowed only if altemative site outside zone incineration' i would not serve intended public function Solid Waste Transfer Facilities, Recycle Centers' • C LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) 2-45 • •AP!;oi ~a!vhc;G CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPAT181LITY POLICfES V~~~~ c ~ o ~ Normaiiy ~ Normal examples of the use are compatible under the presumption that usage intensity criteria will be Compat/bie I met. Atypical examples may require review to ensure compliance with usage intensity criteria. Noise, airspace protection, and/or overflight limitations may apply. Use is compatible if indicated Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or other listed conditions are met. Conditional should not be permitted under any circumstances. J Notes Land uses not specifically listed shall be evaluated using the criteria for similar uses. z Safety zones for ONT tie entirely within the limits of the City of Ontario. Avigation easement dedication required as condition of approval for all properties within safety zones. a Although these uses may satisfy the Safety criteria, they may be inconsistent with the Airspace Protection criteria as these uses may attract birds or other wildlife that could pose hazards to flight (see Policy A3). ` A MajorAssembly Facility is defined as having a capacity of>_1,000 people, while a Large Assembly Facility has a capacity of 300 to 999 people. Source: International Building Code. s Construction of asingle-family home, including a second dwelling unit as defined by state law, allowed on a legal lot of record if such use is permitted by local land use regulations. A family day care home (serving <_14 children) may be established in any dwelling. See Policy S1. e These uses may generate dust or other hazards to flight. See Policy A3 for applicable policies. ' Power lines or other tall objects associated with these uses may be hazards to flight. s Common occupancy load factors source: Mead ~ Hunt, Inc. based upon information from various sources including the intemational building code. 2-46 LA/Ontario lnternationai Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2017) ~~~~ PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 • - Legend: Land use compatibility (A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided on pg. 2-50 of this table. ) Normally Compatible Conditional Incompatible Land Use ~ Land Use (45150) Land Use ^ Cells that are conditionally compatible that have a number, indicate the interior noise level standard condition for use consistency. Land Use Category' ~ . Criteria for Conditional Uses Note.• Mulfiple land use categories and compatibility ~ ~ • ~ Note: Interior noise level limits shown in yeI- low ceNs also appty (See Potfcy N4) 60- 65- TO- ~ 75 criteria may apply to a project ~ 60 65 70 75 Outdoor Uses (limited or no activities in buildings) Natural Land Areas: desert, brush lands Compatible at levels indicated, but noise ~ disruption of natural quiet will occur Water: flood plains, wetlands, lakes, reser- voirs Agriculture (except residences and lives- tock): crops, orchards, vineyards, pasture, range land Livestock Uses: feed lots, stockyards, ~, ~ Exercise caution with uses involving breeding, fish hatcheries, horse stables Inoise-sensitive animals Outdoor Major Assembly Facilities: specta- Exercise caution if clear audibility by tor-oriented outdoor stadiums, amphithea- users is essential tern, fairgrounds, zoos s Group Recreation (limited spectator stands): Exercise caution if clear audibility by athletic fields, water recreation facilities, users is essential picnic areas _ ~ Small/Non-Group Recreation: golf courses, Exercise caution if clear audibility by tennis courts, shooting ranges users is essential Local Parks: children-oriented neighborhood Exercise caution if clear audibility by parks, playgrounds users is essential Camping: campgrounds, recreational ve- hicle/motor home parks Cemeteries {excluding chapels) Compatible at levels indicated, but noise ~~ disruption of outdoor activities will occur Residential and Lodging Uses Residential (<8 d.u./acre): individual dwel- lings, townhouses, mobile homes, bed & 45 breakfast inns ° Residential (?8 d.u./acre)' ~ 45 45 Long-Term Lodging (>30 nights): extended- 45 45 stay hotels, dormitories Short-Term Lodging (<_ 30 nights): hotels, motels, other transient lodging (except 45 45 conference/assembly facilities} • • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2019) 2-47 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES QNTtIl11iV • • , - Legend: Land use compatibility (A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided on pg. 2-SO of this table ) Normally Compatible Conditional Incompatible Land Use Land Use (45/50) Land Use • Cells that are conditionally compatible that have a number, indicate the interior noise level standard condition for use consistency. Land Use Cateaorv' - .. ~ Criteria for Conditional Uses Note.' Multiple land use categories and compatibility ~ Note: Interior noise level limifs shown in yel- criteria may apply to a project ~ 60 60- 65- 70- ~ 75 low Celts also apply (See Policy N4) 65 70 75 ~ ' Congregate Care: retirement homes, as- _ sisted living, nursing homes, intermediate care facilities 45 45 Educational and Institutional Uses Family day care homes (<_14 children) ° 45 Children's Schools: K-12, day care centers ~ i (>14 children); school libraries Adult Education classroom space: adult !Applies only to classrooms; offices, la- schools, colleges, universities ~ boratory facilities, gymnasiums, outdoor 45 45 athletic facilities, and other uses to be evaluated as indicated for those land _ use categories Community Libraries 45 Indoor Major Assembly Facilities: audito- i riums, conference centers, concert halls, 45 45 indoor arenas s Indoor Large Assembly Facilities: movie theaters, places of worship, cemetery cha- 45 45 pels, mortuaries s Indoor Recreation: gymnasiums, club hous- _ ~ 50 ~ es, athletic clubs, dance studios In-Patient Medical: hospitals, mental hospit- 45 45 ' als ~ Out-Patient Medical: health care centers, qtr 45 45 clinics Penal Institutions: prisons, reformatories 45 45 Public Safety Facilities: police, fire stations 50 50 Commercial, Office, and Service Uses Major Retail: regional shopping centers, 'big 50 50 Outdoor dining or gathering places in- box' retail 'compatible above CNEL 70 d6 Local Retail: communitylneighborhood 50 50 Outdoor dining or gathering places in- shopping centers, grocery stores compatible above CNEL 70 d6 Eating/Drinking Establishments: restaurants, 50 50 Outdoor dining or gathering places in- fast-food dining, bars compatible above CNEL 70 d6 Limited Retail/VNholesale: furniture, automo- biles, heavy equipment, lumber yards, nur- ~ 50 50 ' series 2-48 LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 20f i) NTARI9-r uve(`q. o;uwrK PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 • Legend: Land use compatibility (A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided on pg. 2-50 of this table 1 Normally Compatible Conditional Incompatible Land Use Land Use (45/50) Land Use • Cells that are conditionally compatible that have a number, indicate the interior noise level standard condition for use consistency. Land Use Cateaorv' .. - Criteria for Conditional Uses Note: Multiple land use categories and compatibility ~ Note: Inferior noise level limits shown in yel- criteria may apply to a project ~ 60 60- 65- 70- ~ 75 low Dells also apply (See Poticy N4) 65 170 75 Offices: professional services, doctors, finance, civic; radio, television 8 recording 50 50 studios, office space associated with other listed uses _ _ Personal 8 Miscellaneous Services: bar- i 50 50 tiers, car washes, print shops Vehicle Fueling: gas stations, trucking 8 50 50 transportation terminals Industrial, Manufacturing, and Storage Uses Hazardous Materials Production: oil refine- ries, chemical plants (;'6,000 gallons) ' _ Heav Industrial Light Industrial, High Intensity: food products 50 50 preparation, electronic equipment Light Industrial, Low Intensity: machine 50 50 shops, wood products, auto repair Research 8 Development 50 '~ 50 Indoor Storage: wholesale sales, ware- houses, mini/other indoor storage, barns, greenhouses _ ___ __ Outdoor Storage: public works yards, auto- mobile dismantling Mining 8 Extraction Transportation, Communication, and Ut ilities Rail 8 Bus Stations i 50 I 50 Transportation Routes: road 8 rail rights-of- way, bus stops Auto Parking: surface lots, structures Communications Facilities: emergency communications, broadcast 8 cell towers Power Plants _ Electrical Substations Wastewater Facilities: treatment, disposal Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: landfill, inci- neration Solid Waste Transfer Facilities, Recycle Centers • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 20? i) 2-49 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES ~NTARI~ ~tlM1 JF1 ~IU,hlti~ • , ~ ~ ( ~ Indoor Uses: Either the activities assocated with the iand use are inherently noisy or standard con- struction methods will sufficiently attenuate exterior noise to an acceptable indoor community noise Normally equivalent level (CNEL); for land use types that are compatible because of inherent noise levels, Compatible sound attenuation must be provided for associated office, retail, and other noise-sensitive indoor spaces sufficient to reduce exterior noise to an interior maximum of CNEL 50 dB Outdoor Uses: Except as noted in the table, activities associated with the land use may be carried out with minimal interference from aircraft noise Indoor Uses: Building structure must be capable of attenuating exterior noise from all noise sources to the indoor CNEL indicated by the number in the cell (either 45 or 50) Conditlonal Outdoor Uses: Caution should be exercised with regard to noise-sensitive outdoor uses; these uses are likely to be disrupted by aircraft noise events; acceptability is dependent upon characteristics of the specific use s Indoor Uses: Unacceptable noise interference if windows are open; at exposures above CNEL 65 d6, extensive mitigation techniques required to make the indoor environment acceptable for performance Incompatible of activities associated with the land use Outdoor Uses: Severe noise interference makes the outdoor environment unacceptable for perfor- mance of activities associated with the land use Notes ' Land uses not specifically listed shall be evaluated using the criteria for similar uses. s For the purposes of these criteria, the exterior noise exposure generated by aircraft activity at ONT is defined by the projected noise impact zones illustrated on Map 2-3 of this Compatibility Plan. 3 A Major Assembly Facility is defined as having a capacity of >1,D00 people, while a Large Assembly Facility has a capacity of 300 to 999 people. Source: International Building Code. 4 In accordance with Policies S1, N2, and 5P2, construction of asingle-family home, including a second dwelling unit • as defined by state law, is allowed on a legal lot of record if such use is permitted by local land use regulations. A family day care home (serving <14 children) may be established in any dwelling. s Noise-sensitive land uses are ones for which the associated primary activities, whether indoor or outdoor, are sus- ceptible to disruption by loud noise events. The most common types of noise-sensitive land uses include, but are not limited to, the following: residential, hospitals, nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, educational facilities, li- braries, museums, places of worship, child-care facilities, and certain types of passive recreational parks and open space. • 2-50 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 99, 2091) • • :7 i• i• i• • a ~~ sa rz ~~ _~ • i• i• U 0 a ~ ~ ~ m ~c o~ ~~ ~ .y ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ o $ E _ gc [p Y E ~ q ~ ~ V N n ~~ ; n 0 ~ W J 6 2~ o ~2fin ¢ ~ ~ y~ g}p~~n ¢ 3 m p C Z_~ c~ C b4' ~ ~` d~ `o i ~ vi g-po~ m = ~€~ ~ - ~ ~ p y °~-., y ~ ~€ gar w ai~uvgi u'S~ z a a $az~ '~ J~-:_ ~ a ~a~ 'Z p C~ I I ~ ~ ~, ~ ~oo ~ 8 w v i ~ ~I ~ r8 < III a ~Ir~~.! _ W ~~~ ~ ~~~ yW~ ~ i ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~~.~ d~ J~ I I~ i a Z ~ c: ei -~~ I N C. ~ ~ a t0 C ~ ~ N o. ~ v a a c 'a o v~ a«- v +; Z ~ ,0 ~ M z "' c a ` ~ ~5 ~ p , ~ ~ ~~ ' m ~.+ ~ ~ ~ ~ w O `.° a O ~a a~ v a 0 ~~ b~ p~pCgu m y ~~ H O O CG[ ~UU m o~S . ,~ T~~ a., ~J 1.- .: ` .~ `w. I A _iJ~ i .4 i~_ ~_I 7 ; _4 i- -. _ ~_ a _~ m ~~ f >ti, ~~, ~ _ _ iY-^ W ~. ~A v ~:_ ~ ,~'~ u.. • $ ~,. o ~ ~; ' ~ p N '^~ N ~ a ~_ g ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~~ ~ ~~~ ~C ~~ ~ ~ ~_ V C E a 9 0 g~ a s G z ~3 z ~ `m - « o ~ ~ ~ ~ a acy i u'3 ~ = aa3 Z axa c €~~~ ~ 9 Y' ~ ~ ~ O W L ggC &9 g '- C V U V v ~. a ~ O C C r 7 ~ ~ I I r C ~~ a ~~~ W Ti a ~a UU ~ ~~g 4~ ~ D V ~ Z ~ i ~ ~ E ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~~ < ~~~ d~ O J~ I I i a° 2_ H ri . ~n s +~ r~ r Y,r_ 5- ~ n( M ''~~~ f~ ^+ is ~ ~~~;~{~ 4 -'~ 1; ~'' ~-~,,, ,~ ~ y'" ~. ', ~ T ~`~ ~~ A rte;` a _A ,r {a _ (., s, I . ,,,~qg d ~ I [[ ~ ~-. 1'~.U' ~h'~ 11',}r ' ,,,~' ~ ~i `. !. `fir I ( ,~'~t; J n t. _+ ~ ~q 1 t:'. ~ _.. _. 'ifi ;~ ~ ~ ~ },.~ ,~ ~ r~ r ~~~~ ~.~ ~~. ., -~ } ~Jh:.{r.. ~ ~~ r +~, tr ~~ t In (',. ~~ ! ~`~ ~r.~: ~ _ lJ,,.l ~_. ` ~- ! t i ~' I J~ f~ u f ~`r.,y ; . v~ ~ E ,A ~ N,< ~ s l Lr i -,d' ~v ~` ~ a~ rig '-:~ c ~a E r ~ ~ fit. - ... ,~1 WW c~ ~-~~-~ '~~..i ~_~ °a~...r ~ ~ ~. - ~. ~: r~ u 1l J1 u • • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan APPENDICES LA~Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan APPENDIX • • NTARI~ APPENDIXA AIRPORT PLANNING STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING Table of Contents • • (as of)anuary 2010) Public Utilities Code Seciio~u 21670 - 21679.5 Airport Land Use Commission ...........................................................A-3 (complete article) 21402 - 21403 Regulation of Aeronautics ................................................................. A-16 (excerpts pertaining to rights of aircraft flight) 21655, 21658, 21659 Regulation of Obstructions ................................................................A-17 (excerpts) 21661.5, 21664.5 Regulation of Airports ........................................................................A-19 (excerpts pertaining to approval of new airports and airport expansion) Government Code Sections 65302.3 65943 - 65945.7 66030 - 66031 66455.9 Education Code S'ecrions 17215 Authority for and Scope of General Plans .......................................A-20 (excerpts pertaining to general plans consistency with airport land use plans) Application for Development Projects ............................................A-21 (excerpts referenced in State Aeronautics Act) Mediation and Resolution of Land Use Disputes ...........................A-26 (excerpts applicable to ALUC decisions) School Site Re~-iew ..............................................................................A-28 (excerpts applicable to ALUCs) School Facilities, General Provisions ................................................A-29 (excerpts pertaining to Department of Transportation review of elementary and secondary school sites) 81033 Community Colleges, School Sites ....................................................A-31 (excerpts pertaining to Department of Transportation review of community college sites) !A/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) A-1 p~r~l~ APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING j109Q"°~h~~'~' Public Resources Code • Sections 21096 California Em~ironmental Quality Act, Airport Planning ..............A-33 (excerpts pertaining to projects near airports) Business and Professions Code Sections 11010 Regulation of Real Estate Transactions, Subdivided Lands..........A-34 (excerpts regarding airport influence area disclosure requirements) Civil Code Sections 1103 - 1103.4 Disclosure of Natural Hazards upon Transfer of Residential Property ........................................................................................A-35 1353 Common Interest Developments .....................................................A-39 (excerpts regarding airport influence area disclosure requirements) Legislative History Summary Airport Land ['sc Commi~.ic~n ~r3tutcs ......................................................................................A-40 • • q-2 LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April f 9, 2011) QNTARI~ r~voRl0.~nNi*~ STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A AERONAUTICS LAW PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE Division 9-Aviation Part 1-State Aeronautics Act Chapter 4-Airports and Air Navigation Facilities Article 3.5-Airport Land Use Commission 21670. Creation; Membership; Selection (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that: (1) It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. (2) It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minunize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not ahead}~ devoted to incompatible uses. • (b) In order to achieve the purposes of this article, every county in which there is located an airport v~-hich is served by a scheduled airline shall establish an airport land use commission. Every county, in which there is located an airport which is not served by a scheduled airline, but is operated for the benefit of the general public, shall establish an airport land use commission, except that the board of supervisors of the county may, after consultation with the appropriate airport operators and affected local entities and after a public hearing, adopt a resolution finding that there are no noise, public safety, or land use issues affecting any airport in the county which require the creation of a commission and declaring the county exempt from that requirement. The board shall, in this event, transmit a copy of the resolution to the Director of Transportation. For purposes of this section, "comnssion" means an airport land use commission. Each commission shall consist of seven members to be selected as follows: (1) Two representing the cities in the county, appointed by a city selection committee comprised of the mayors of all the cities within that county, except that if there are any cities contiguous or adjacent to the qualifying airport, at least one representative shall be appointed therefrom. If there are no cities within a county, the number of representatives provided for by paragraphs (2) and (3) shall each be increased by one. (2) Two representing the count}, appointed by the board of supenrisors. (3) Two having expertise in a~nation, appointed by a selection committee comprised of the managers of all of the public airports within that county. (4) One representing the general public, appointed by the other six members of the commission. (c) Public officers, whether elected or appointed, may be appointed and serve as members of the commission during their terms of public office. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) A-3 ~NTARIB-r APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING ~~atautiviw (d) Each member shall promptly appoint a single proxy to represent him or her in commission affairs • and to vote on all matters when the member is not in attendance. The proxy shall be designated in a signed written instrument which shall be kept on file at the commission offices, and the prox-~- shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing member. A vacancy in the office of proxy shall be filled promptly by appointment of a new proxy. (e) A person having an "expertise in aviation" means a person who, by way of education, training, business, experience, vocation, or avocation has acquired and possesses particular knowledge of, and familiarity with, the function, operation, and role of airports, or is an elected official of a local agency which owns or operates an airport. (f) It is the intent of the Legislature to clarify that, for the purposes of this article, that special districts, school districts and community college districts are included among the local agencies that are subject to airport land use laws and other requirements of this article. 21670.1. Action by Designated Body Instead of Commission (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, if the board of supervisors and the city selection committee of mayors in the county each makes a determination by a majority vote that proper land use planning can be accomplished through the actions of an appropriately designated body, then the body so designated shall assume the planning responsibilities of an airport land use commission as provided for in this article, and a commission need not be formed in that county. (b) A body designated pursuant to subdivision (a) that does not include among its membership at least two members having expertise in aviation, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 21670, shall, when acting in the capacity of an airport land use commission, be augmented so that body, as • augmented, will have at least two members having that expertise. The commission shall be constituted pursuant to this section on and after March 1, 1988. (c) (1) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), and subdivision (b) of Section 21670, if the board of supervisors of a county and each affected city in that county each makes a determination that proper land use planning pursuant to this article can be accomplished pursuant to this subdivision, then a commission need not be formed in that county. (2) If the board of supervisors of a county and each affected city makes a determination that proper land use planning may be accomplished and a commission is not formed pursuant to paragraph (1), that county and the appropriate affected cities having jurisdiction over an airport, subject to the review and approval by the Division of Aeronautics of the department, shall do all of the following: (A} Adopt processes for the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the airport land use compatibility plan for each airport that is served by a scheduled airline or operated for the benefit of the general public. (B) Adopt processes for the notification of the general public, landowners, interested groups, and other public agencies regarding the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the airport land use compatibility plans. (C) Adopt processes for the mediation of disputes arising from the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the airport land use compatibility plans- (D) Adopt processes for the amendment of general and specific plans to be consistent with the airport land use compatibilit<- plans. - • q-4 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) NTARI&~ -RvcR`~^~.~••'.: STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • (F.) Designate the agency that shall be responsible for the preparation, adoption, and amendment of each airport land use compatibility plan. (3) The Division of Aeronautics of the department shall review the processes adopted pursuant to paragraph (2), and shall approve the processes if the division determines that the processes are consistent with the procedure required by this article and will do all of the following: (A) Result in the preparation, adoption, and implementation of plans within a reasonable amount of time. (B) Rely on the height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations, as established by this article, and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, published by the division, and any applicable federal aviation regulations, including, but not limited to, Part 77 (commencing with Section 77.1) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (C) Provide adequate opportunities for notice to, review of, and comment by the general public, landowners, interested groups, and other public agencies. (4) If the county does not comply with the requirements of paragraph (2) within 120 days, then the airport land use compatibility plan and amendments shall not be considered adopted pursuant to this article and a commission shall be established within 90 days of the determination of noncompliance by the division and an airport land use compatibility plan shall be adopted pursuant to this article within 90 days of the establishment of the commission. (d) r1 commission need not be formed in a county that has contracted for the preparation of airport • land use compatibility plans with the Division of Aeronautics under the California Aid to Airports Program (Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 4050) of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations), Project I{er-VAR 90-1, and that submits all of the following information to the Division of Aeronautics for review and comment that the county and the cities affected by the airports within the county, as defined by the airport land use compatibility plans: (1) Agree to adopt and implement the airport land use compatibility plans that have been developed under contract. (2) Incorporated the height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations as established by this article, and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, published by the di~~sion, and any applicable federal aviation regulations, including, but not limited to, Part 77 (commencing with Section 77.1) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations as part of the general and specific plans for the counn• and for each affected city. (3) If the county does not comply with this subdivision on or before May 1, 1995, then a commission shall be established in accordance with this article. (e) (1) A commission need not be formed in a county if all of the following conditions are met: (A) The county has only one public use airport that is owned by a city. (B) (i) The county and the affected city adopt the elements in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d), as part of their general and specific plans for the county and the affected city. (ii) The general and specific plans shall be submitted, upon adoption, to the Division of Aeronautics. If the county and the affected city do not submit the elements specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d), on or before May 1, 1996, then a commission • shall be established in accordance with this article. LA/Ontario lnternationat Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Aprii 19, 2011) A-5 ~NTARI@-~ APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING AvDDC7nLR';r,iv: 21670.2. Application to Counties Having over 4 Million in Population • (a) Sections 21670 and 21670.1 do not apply to the County of Los Angeles. In that county, the county regional planning commission has the responsibility for coordinating the airport planning of public agencies within the county. In instances where impasses result relative to this planning, an appeal may be made to the county regional planning commission by any- public agency im•olved. The action taken by the county regional planning commission on an appeal may be overruled by a four-fifths vote of the governing body of a public agency whose planning led to the appeal. (b) By January 1, 1992, the county regional planning commission shall adopt the airport land use compatibility plans required pursuant to Section 21675. (c) Sections 21675.1, 21675.2, and 216795 do not apply to the County of Los Angeles until January 1, 1992. If the airport land use compatibility plans required pursuant to Section 21675 are not adopted by the county regional planning commission by January 1, 1992, Sections 21675.1 and 21675.2 shall apply to the County of Los Angeles until the airport land use compatibility plans are adopted. 21670.3 San Diego County (a) Sections 21670 and 21670.1 do not apply to the County of San Diego. In that county, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, as established pursuant to Section 170002, shall be responsible for the preparation, adoption, and amendment of an airport land use compatibility plan for each airport in San Diego County. (b) The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority shall engage in a public collaborative planning • process when preparing and updating an airport land use compatibility plan. 21670.4. Intercounty Airports (a) As used in this section, "intercounty airport" means any airport bisected by a county line through its runways, runway protection zones, inner safety zones, inner turning zones, outer safety zones, or sideline safety zones, as defined by the department's Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and referenced in the airport land use compatibility plan formulated under Section 21675. (b) It is the purpose of this section to provide the opportunity-to establish a separate airport land use commission so that an intercounty airport may be served by a single airport land use planning agency, rather than having to look separately to the airport land use commissions of the affected counties. (c) In addition to the airport land use commissions created under Section 21670 or the alternatives established under Section 21670.1, for their respective counties, the boards of supervisors and city selection committees for the affected counties, by independent majority vote of each county's two delegations, for any intercounty airport, may do either of the following: (1) Establish a single separate airport land use commission for that airport. That commission shall consist of seven members to be selected as follows: (A) One representing the cities in each of the counties, appointed by that county's city selection committee. (B) One representing each of the counties, appointed by the board of supervisors of each county. • q-g LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ~A~~ STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • (C) One from each county having expertise in aviation, appointed b~~ a selection committee comprised of the managers of all the public airports within that county. (D) One representing the general public, appointed b}~ the other six members of the commission. (2) In accordance with subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 21670.1, designate an existing appropriate entity as that airport's land use commission. 21671. Airports Owned by a City, District, or County In any county where there is an airport operated for the general public which is owned by a city or district in another county or by another county, one of the representatives provided by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 21670 shall be appointed by the city selection committee of mayors of the cities of the county in which the owner of that airport is located, and one of the representatives provided by paragraph (2) subdivision (b) of Section 21670 shall be appointed by the board of supervisors of the county in which the owner of that airport is located. 21671.5. Term of Office (a) Lxcept for the terms of office of the members of the first commission, the term of office of each member shall be four years and until the appointment and qualification of his or her successor. "I'he members of the first commission shall classify themselves by lot so that the term of office of c>nc member is one year, of two members is two years, of two members is three years, and of two members is four years. The body that originally appointed a member whose term has expired shall appoint his or her successor for a full term of four years. Any member may be removed at any time and without cause by the body appointing that member. The expiration date of the term of office of each member shall be the first Monday in May in the year in which that member's term is to expire. Any vacancy in the membership of the commission shall be filled for the unexpired term by appointment by the body which originally appointed the member whose office has become vacant. The chairperson of the commission shall be selected by the members thereof. (b) Compensation, if any, shall be determined by the board of supervisors. (c) Staff assistance, including the mailing of notices and the keeping of minutes and necessary quarters, equipment, and supplies, shall be provided by the county. The usual and necessary operating expenses of the commission shall be a county charge. (d) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the commission shall not employ any personnel either as employees or independent contractors without the prior approval of the board of supervisors. (e) The commission shall meet at the call of the commission chairperson or at the request of the majority of the commission members. .°~ majority of the commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. No action shall be taken by the commission except by the recorded vote of a majority of the full membership. (~ The commission may establish a schedule of fees necessary to comply with this article. Those fees shall be charged to the proponents of actions, regulations, or permits, shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service, and shall be imposed pursuant to Section 66016 of the Government Code. Except as provided in subdivision (gl, after 1unc 30, 1991, a !A/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 209 9) A-7 QNTARI~ APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING •ROp4'F',AhvlvS commission that has not adopted the airport land use compatibility plan required by Section 21675 • shall not charge fees pursuant to this subdivision until the commission adopts the plan. (g) In any county that has undertaken by contract or otherwise completed airport land use compatibility plans for at least one-half of all public use airports in the county, the commission may continue to charge fees necessary to comply with this article until June 30, 1992, and, if the airport land use compatibility plans are complete by that date, may continue charging fees after June 30, 1992. If the airport land use compatibility plans are not complete by June 30, 1992, the commission shall not charge fees pursuant to subdivision (f) until the commission adopts the land use plans. 21672. Rules and Regulations Each commission shall adopt rules and regulations with respect to the temporary• disqualification of its members from participating in the review or adoption of a proposal because of conflict of interest and with respect to appointment of substitute members in such cases. 21673. Initiation of Proceedings for Creation by Owner of Airport In any county not having a cotntnission or a body designated to carry out the responsibilities of a commission, any owner of a public airport may initiate proceedings for the creation of a comnssion by presenting a request to the board of supervisors that a commission be created and showing the need therefor to the satisfaction of the board of supervisors. 21674. Powers and Duties • 'I"he commission has the following powers and dunes, subject to the limitations upon it jurisdiction set forth in Section 21676: (a) To assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of all new airports and in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses. (b) To coordinate planning at the state, regional, and local levels so as to provide for the orderly de- velopment of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. (c) To prepare and adopt an airport land use compatibility plan pursuant to Section 21675. (d) 1"o review the plans, regulations, and other actions of local agencies and airport operators pursuant to Section 21676. (e) The powers of the commission shall in no way be construed to give the commission jurisdiction over the operation of any airport. (f) In order to carry out its responsibilities, the commission may adopt rules and regulations consistent with this article. • q-$ LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) per STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • 21674.5. Training of Airport Land Use Commission's Staff (a) The Department of Transportation shall develop and implement a program or programs to assist in the training and development of the staff of airport land use commissions, after consulting with airport land use commissions, cities, counties, and other appropriate public entities. (b) The training and development program or programs are intended to assist the staff of airport land use commissions in addressing high priority needs, and may include, but need not be limited to, the following: (1) The establishment of a process for the development and adoption of airport land use compatibility plans. (2) The development of criteria for determining the airport influence area. (3) The identification of essential elements that should be included in the airport land use compatibility plans. (4) Appropriate criteria and procedures for reviewing proposed developments and determining whether proposed developments are compatible with the airport use. (5) Any other organizational, operational, procedural, or technical responsibilities and functions that the department determines to be appropriate to provide to commission staff and for which it determines there is a need for staff training or development. (c) The department may provide training and development programs for airport land use commission staff pursuant to this section by any means it deems appropriate. Those programs may be • presented ui any of the following ways: (1) By offering formal courses or training programs. (2) By sponsoring or assisting in the organization and sponsorship of conferences, seminars, or other similar events. (3) By producing and making available written information. (4) Any other feasible method of providing information and assisting in the training and development of airport land use commission staff. 21674.7. Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (a) An airport land use commission that formulates, adopts or amends an airport land use compadbilin- plan shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the Airport Land LJse Planning Handbook published by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature to discourage incompatible land uses near existing airports. Therefore, prior to granting permits for the renovation or remodeling of an existing building, structure, or facility, and before the construction of a new building, it is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies shall be guided by the height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations, as established by this article, and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, published by the division, and any applicable federal a~7ation regulations, including, but not limited to, Part 77 (commencing with Section 77.1) of Tide 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to the extent that the criteria has been incorporated into • the plan prepared by a commission pursuant to Section 21675. This subdivision does not limit the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) A-9 QNT,~RIE~ APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING "1g4~'T'~^"'"~~+' jurisdiction of a commission as established by this article. 'T'his subdii~ision does not limit the • authority of local agencies to overrule commission actions or recommendations pursuant to Sections 21676, 21676.5, or 21677. 21675. Land Use Plan (a) each conunission shall formulate an airport land use compatibility plan that will provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The commission airport land use compatibility plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years. In formulating an airport land use compatibility plan, the commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and determine building standards, including soundproofing adjacent to airports, within the airport influence area. The airport land use compatibility plan shall be reviewed as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purposes, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year. (b) The commission shall include, within its airport land use compatibility plan formulated pursuant to subdivision (a), the area within the jurisdiction of the commission surrounding any military airport for all of the purposes specified in subdivision (a). The airport land use compatibility plan shall be consistent with the safety and noise standards in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone prepared for that military airport. This subdivision does not give the commission any jurisdiction or authority over the territory or operations of any military airport. (c) "1'he airport influence area shall be established by the commission after hearing and consultation • with the involved agencies. (d) The commission shall submit to the Division of Aeronautics of the department one copy of the airport land use compatibility plan and each amendment to the plan. (e) If an airport land use compatibility plan does not include the matters required to be included pursuant to this article, the Di~nsion of Aeronautics of the department shall notify the commission responsible for the plan. 21675.1. Adoption of Land Use Plan (a) By June 30, 1991, each commission shall adopt the airport land use compatibility plan required pursuant to Section 21675, except that any county that has undertaken by contract or otherwise completed airport land use compatibility plans for at least one-half of all public use airports in the county, shall adopt that airport land use compatibility plan on or before June 30, 1992. (b) Until a commission adopts an airport land use compatibility plan, a city or county shall first submit all actions, regulations, and permits within the vicinity of a public airport to the commission for review and approval. Before the commission approves or disapproves any actions, regulations, or permits, the commission shall give public notice in the same manner as the city or county is required to give for those actions, regulations, or permits. As used in this section, "vicinity" means land that will be included or reasonably could be included within the airport land use compatibility plan. If the commission has not designated an airport influence area for the airport land use compatibilit<~ plan, then "vicinity" means land within two Holes of the boundar~~ of a public airport. • A-10 LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) QNTARI&~ Amvpp7 ~A!.AIA$ STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • ;c) The commission may approve an action, regulation, or permit if it finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, all of the following: (1) The commission is making substantial progress toward the completion of the airport land use compatibility plan. (2) There is a reasonable probability that the action, regulation, or permit will be consistent with the airport land use compatibility plan being prepared by the commission. (3) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted airport land use compatibility plan if the action, regulation, or permit is ultimately inconsistent with the airport land use compatibility plan. (d) If the commission disapproves an action, regulation, or permit, the commission shall notify the city or county. The city or county may overrule the commission, by atwo-thirds vote of its governing body, if it makes specific findings that the proposed action, regulation, or permit is consistent with the purposes of this article, as stated in Section 21670. (e) If a city or county overrules the commission pursuant to subdivision (d), that action shall not relieve the city or county from further compliance with this article after the commission adopts the airport land use compatibility plan. (f) If a city or county overrules the commission pursuant to subdivision (d) with respect to a publicly owned airport that the city or county does not operate, the operator of the airport is not liable for damages to property or personal injury resulting from the city's or county's decision to proceed with the action, regulation, or permit. • (g) :1 commission may adopt rules and regulations that exempt any ministerial permit for single-family dwellings from the requirements of subdivision (b) if it makes the findings required pursuant to subdivision (c) for the proposed rules and regulations, except that the rules and regulations may not exempt either of the following: (1) More than two single-family dwellings by the same applicant within a subdivision prior to June 30, 1991. (2) Single-family dwellings in a subdivision where 25 percent or more of the parcels are undeveloped_ 21675.2. Approval or Disapproval of Actions, Regulations, or Permits (a) If a commission fails to act to approve or disapprove any actions, regulations, or permits within 60 days of receiving the request pursuant to Section 21675.1, the applicant or his or her representative may file an action pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to compel the commission to act, and the court shall give the proceedings preference over all other actions or proceedings, except previously filed pending matters of the same character. (b) The action, regulation, or permit shall be deemed approved only if the public notice required by this subdivision has occurred. If the applicant has provided seven days advance notice to the commis- sion of the intent to provide public notice pursuant to this subdivision, then, not earlier than the date of the expiration of the time limit established by Section 21675.1, an applicant may provide the required public notice. If the applicant chooses to provide public notice, that notice shall include a description of the proposed action, regulation, or permit substantially similar to the descriptions which are com- monly used in public notices by the commission, the location of any proposed development, the appli- • cation number, the name and address of the commission, and a statement that the action, regulation, or LA/Ontario tntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) A-11 QNTARIt~ APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING ~eROtr°~""''"' pernvt shall be deemed approved if the commission has not acted within 60 days. If the applicant has • provided the public notice specified in this subdivision, the time limit for action by the commission shall be extended to 60 days after the public notice is provided. If the applicant provides notice pur- suant to this section, the commission shall refund to the applicant any fees which were collected for providing notice and which were not used for that purpose. (c) Failure of an applicant to submit complete or adequate information pursuant to Sections 65943 to 65946, inclusive, of the Government Code, may constitute grounds for disapproval of actions, regulations, or permits. (d) Nothing in this section diminishes the commission's legal responsibility to provide, where applicable, public notice and hearing before acting on an action, regulation, or permit. 21676. Review of Local General Plans (a) Each local agency whose general plan includes areas covered by' an airport land use compatibility plan shall, by July 1, 1983, submit a copy of its plan or specific plans to the airport land use com- mission. The commission shall determine by August 31, 1983, whether the plan or plans are consistent or inconsistent with the airport land use compatibility plan. If the plan or plans are inconsistent with the airport land use compatibility plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall have another hearing to reconsider its airport land use compatibility plans. The local agenry may propose to overrule the commission after the hearing by atwo-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule the commission, the local agenry governing body shall provide the commission and the division a • copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may provide comments to the local agency governtng body within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the division or the commission are advisory- to the local agency governing body. The local agency governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the final record of any final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by atwo-thirds vote of the governing body. (b) Prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary established by the airport land use commission pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall first refer the proposed action to the commission. If the commission determines that the proposed action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the commission by atwo-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings, If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the division or the commission are advisory to the local agenry governing body. The local agency governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the public record of any final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by atwo-thirds vote of the governing body-. • A-12 LA/Ontario tntemationai Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) ~xmeeaivtu.'yi~:V STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • (c) Each public agency owning any airport within the boundaries of an airport land use compatibility plan shall, prior to modification of its airport master plan, refer any proposed change to the airport land use commission. If the commission determines that the proposed action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The public agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the commission by atwo-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule the commission, the public agency governing body shall provide the commission and the division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may provide comments to the public agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this time limit, the public agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the division or the commission are advisory to the public agency governing body. The public agency governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by atwo-thirds vote of the governing body. (d) Each commission determination pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c) shall be made within 60 days from the date of referral of the proposed action. If a commission fails to make the determination within that period, the proposed action shall be deemed consistent with the airport land use compatibility plan. 21676.5. Review of Local Plans (a) If the commission finds that a local agency has not revised its general plan or specific plan or overruled the commission by atwo-thirds vote of its governing body after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670, the commission may require that the local agency submit all subsequent actions, regulations, and permits to the commission for review until its general plan or specific plan is revised or the specific findings are made. If, in the determination of the commission, an action, regulation, or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the airport land use compatibility plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its plan. The local agenry may propose to overrule the commission after the hearing by atwo-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall pro~~de the commission and the division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the division or the commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by atwo-thirds vote of the governing body. (b) Whenever the local agenry has revised its general plan or specific plan or has overruled the commission pursuant to subdivision {a), the proposed action of the local agency shall not be subject to further commission review, unless the commission and the local agency agree that individual projects shall be reviewed by the commission. • LA/Ontario lnternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) A-13 p~r~l~- APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING "^4D~TP~'~'`~''° 21677. Marin County Override Provisions • Notwithstanding the two-thirds vote required by Section 21676, any public agency in the County of Marin may overrule the Marin County Airport Land Use Commission by a majority vote of its governing body. At least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule the commission, the public agency governing body shall provide the commission and the division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may provide comments to the public agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this time limit, the public agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the division or the commission are advisory to the public agency governing body. The public agency governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the public record of the final decision to overrule the commission, which may be adopted by a majority vote of the governing body. 21678. Airport Owner's Immunity With respect to a publicly owned airport that a public agency does not operate, if the public agency pursuant to Section 21676, 21676.5, or 21677 overrules a commission's action or recommendation, the operator of the airport shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency's decision to overrule the commission's action or recommendation. 21679. Court Review (a) In any county in which there is no airport land use commission or other body designated to • assume the responsibilities of an airport land use commission, or in which the commission or other designated body has not adopted an airport land use compatibility plan, an interested party may initiate proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to postpone the effective date of a zoning change, a zoning variance, the issuance of a permit, or the adoption of a regulation by a local agency, that directly affects the use of land within one mile of the boundary of a public airport within the county. (b) The court may issue an injunction that postpones the effective date of the zoning change, zoning variance, permit, or regulation until the governing body of the local agency that took the action does one of the following: (1) In the case of an action that is a legislative act, adopts a resolution declaring that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. (2) In the case of an action that is not a legislative act, adopts a resolution making findings based on substantial evidence in the record that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. (3) Rescinds the action. (4) Amends its action to make it consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670, and complies with either paragraph (1) or (2), whichever is applicable. (c) The court shall not issue an injunction pursuant to subdivision (b) if the local agency that took the action demonstrates that the general plan and any applicable specific plan of the agency accomplishes the purposes of an airport land use compatibilin~ plan as provided in Section 21675. • A-14 LA/~ntario lnternationa! Airpor! Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) • • • QNTARI,B-~' STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A (d) An action brought pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be commenced within 30 days of the decision or within the appropriate time periods set by Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, whichever is longer. (e) If the governing body of the local agency adopts a resolution pursuant to subdivision (b) with respect to a publicly owned airport that the local agency does not operate, the operator of the airport shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury from the local agency's decision to proceed with the zoning change, zoning variance, permit, or regulation. (f) As used in this section, "interested party" means any owner of land within two miles of the boundary of the airport or any organization with a demonstrated interest in airport safety and efficiency. 21679.5. Deferral of Court Review (a) Until Junc 30, 1991, no action pursuant to Section 21679 to postpone the effective date of a zoning change, a zoning variance, the issuance of a permit, or the adoption of a regulation by a local agenry, directly affecting the use of land within one mile of the boundary of a public airport, shall be commenced in any county in which the commission or other designated body has not adopted an airport land use compatibility plan, but is making substantial progress toward the completion of the airport land use compatibility plan. (b) If a commission has been prevented from adopting the airport land use compatibility plan by June 30, 1991, or if the adopted airport land use compatibility plan could not become effective, because of a lawsuit involving the adoption of the airport land use compatibility plan, the June 30, 1991 date in subdivision (a) shall be extended by the period of time during which the lawsuit was pending in a court of competent jurisdiction. (c) Any action pursuant to Section 21679 commenced prior to January 1, 1990, in a county in which the commission or other designated body has not adopted an airport land use compatibility plan, but is making substantial progress toward the completion of the airport land use compatibility plan, which has not proceeded to final judgment, shall be held in abeyance until June 30, 1991. If the commission or other designated body adopts an airport land use compatibility plan on or before June 30, 1991, the action shall be dismissed. If the commission or other designated body does not adopt an airport land use compatibility plan on or before June 30, 1991, the plaintiff or plaintiffs may proceed with the action. (d) An action to postpone the effective date of a zoning change, a zoning variance, the issuance of a permit, or the adoption of a regulation by a local agency, directly affecting the use of land v~zthin one mile of the boundary of a public airport for which an airport land use compatibility plan has not been adopted by June 30, 1991, shall be commenced within 30 days of June 30, 1991, or within 30 days of the decision by the local agency, or within the appropriate time periods set by Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, whichever date is later. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) A-15 APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING ~~~®-` AERONAUTICS LAW • PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE Division 9, Part 1 Chapter 3-Regulation of Aeronautics (excerpts) 21402. Ownership; Prohibited Use of Airspace The ownership of the space above the land and waters of this State is vested in the several owners of the surface beneath, subject to the right of flight described in Section 21403. No use shall be made of such airspace which would interfere with such right of flight; provided, that any use of property in conformity with an original zone of approach of an airport shall not be rendered unlawful by reason of a change in such zone of approach. 21403. Lawful Flight; Flight Within Airport Approach Zone (a) Flight in aircraft over the land and waters of this state is lawful, unless at altitudes below those prescribed by federal authority, or unless conducted so as to be imminentl}' dangerous to persons or property lawfully on the land or water beneath. The landing of an aircraft on the land or waters of another, without his or her consent, is unlawful except in the case of a forced landing or pursuant to Section 21662.1. The owner, lessee, or operator of the aircraft is liable, as pro~Zded b~- • law, for damages caused by a forced landing. (b) The landing, takeoff, or taxiing of an aircraft on a public freeway, highway, road, or street is unlawful except in the following cases: (1) A forced landing. (2) A landing during a natural disaster or other public emergency if the landing has received prior approval from the public agency having primary jurisdiction over traffic upon the freeway, highway, road, or street. (3) When the landing, takeoff, or taxiing has received prior approval from the public agency having primary jurisdiction over traffic upon the freeway, highway, road or street. The prosecution bears the burden of proving that none of the exceptions apply to the act which is alleged to be unlawful. (c) The right of flight in aircraft includes the right of safe access to public airports, which includes the right of flight within the zone of approach of any public airport without restriction or hazard. The zone of approach of an airport shall conform to the specifications of Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations of the Federal Aviation Adminis[ration, Department of Transportation. • A-16 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) O~»CR_*~u•~~u•~ STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A AERONAUTICS LAW PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE Division 9, Part 1 Chapter 4-Airports and Air Navigation Facilities Article 2.7-Regulation of Obstructions (excerpts) 21655. Proposed Site for Construction of State Building Within Two Miles of Airport Boundary Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the proposed site of any state building or other enclosure is within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway, or runway proposed by an airport master plan, which is nearest the site, the state agency or office which proposes to construct the building or other enclosure shall, before acquiring title to property for the new state building or other enclosure site or for an addition to a present site, notify the Department of Transportation, in writing, of the proposed acquisition. The department shall investigate the proposed site and, within 30 working days after receipt of the notice, shall submit to the state agency or office which proposes to construct the building or other enclosure a written report of the investigation and its recommendations concerning acquisition of the site. • If the report of the department does not favor acquisition of the site, no state funds shall be expended for the acquisition of the new state building or other enclosure site, or the expansion of the present site, or for the construction of the state building or other enclosure, provided that the provisions of this section shall not affect title to real property once it is acquired. 21658. Construction of Utility Pole or Line in Vicinity of Aircraft Landing Area No public utilit}~ shall construct any pole, pole line, distribution or transmission tower, or tower line, or substation structure in the vicinity of the exterior boundary of an aircraft landing area of any airport open to public use, in a location with respect to the airport and at a height so as to constitute an obstruction to air navigation, as an obstruction is defined in accordance with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Federal Aviation Administration, or any corresponding rules or regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration, unless the Federal Aviation Administration has determined that the pole, line, tower, or structure does not constitute a harard to air navigation. This section shall not apply to existing poles, lines, towers, or structures or to the repair, replacement, or reconstruction thereof if the original height is not materially exceeded and this section shall not apply unless just compensation shall have first been paid to the public utility by the owner of any airport for any property or property rights which would be taken or damaged hereby. 21659. Hazards Near Airports Prohibited (a) No person shall construct or alter any structure or permit any natural growth to grow at a height which exceeds the obstruction standards set forth in the regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration relating to objects affecting navigable airspace contained in Title 14 of the Code of • LA/Ontario Infernationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) A-17 QNTARIB-~ APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING a~ar~atraknir; Federal Regulations, Part 7?, Subpart C, unless a permit allowing the construction, alteration, or i growth is issued by the department. (b) The permit is not re9uired if the Federal Aviation Administration has determined that the construction, alteration, or growth does not constitute a hazard to air navigation or would not create an unsafe condition for air navigation. Subdivision (a) does not app]y to a pole, pole line, distribution or transmission tower, or tower line or substation of a public utility. (c) Section 21658 is applicable to subdivision (b). • • A-18 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) • • ~i p~r~xle-~ ~tP.P~IIT PLANNING STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A AERONAUTICS LAW PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE Division 9, Part 1, Chapter 4 Article 3-Regulation of Airports (excerpts) 21661.5. City Council or Board of Supervisors and ALUC Approvals (a) No political subdivision, any of its officers or employees, or any person may submit any application for the construction of a new airport to any local, regional, state, or federal agency unless the plan for such construction is first approved by the board of supervisors of the county, or the city council of the city, in which the airport is to be located and unless the plan is submitted to the appropriate commission exercising powers pursuant to Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9, and acted upon by such commission in accordance with the provisions of such article. (b) A county board of supervisors or a city council may, pursuant to Section 65100 of the Government Code, delegate its responsibility under this section for the approval of a plan for construction of new helicopter landing and takeoff areas, to the county or city planning agency. 21664.5. Amended Airport Permits; Airport Expansion Defined (a) An amended airport permit shall be required for every expansion of an existing airport. An applicant for an amended airport permit shall comply with each requirement of this article pertaining to permits for new airports. The department may by regulation provide for exemptions from the operation of this section pursuant to Section 21661, except that no exemption shall be made limiting the applicability of subdivision (e) of Section 21666, pertaining to environmental considerations, including the requirement for public hearings in connection therewith. (b) As used in this section, "airport expansion" includes any of the following (1) The acquisition of runway protection zones, as defined in Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/1500-13 [.ric: -should be 150/5300-13], or of any interest in land for the purpose of any other expansion as set forth in this section. (2) The construction of a new runway. (3) The extension or realignment of an existing runway. (4) Any other expansion of the airport's physical facilities for the purpose of accomplishing or which are related to the purpose of paragraph (1), (2), or (3). (c) This section does not apply ro any expansion of an existing airport if the expansion commenced on or prior to the effective date of this section and the expansion met the approval, on or prior to that effective date, of each governmental agency that required the approval by law. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) A-19 APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING QNTARI9-~ ARP04T PLAN"ANG PLANNING AND ZONING LAW GOVERNMENT CODE Title 7-Planning and Land Use Division 1-Planning and Zoning Chapter 3-Local Planning Article 5-Authority for and Scope of General Plans (excerpts) 65302.3. General and Applicable Specific Plans; Consistency with Airport Land Use Plans; Amendment; Nonconcurrence Findings (a) The general plan, and an}~ applicable specific plan prepared pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450), shall be consistent with the plan adopted or amended pursuant to Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code. (b) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan, shall be amended, as necessary, within 180 days of any amendment to the plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code. (c) If the legislative body does not concur with any of the provisions of the plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, it may satisfy the provisions of this section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. (d) In each county- where an airport land use commission does not exist, but where there is a military airport, the general plan, and any applicable specific plan prepared pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450), shall be consistent with the safety and noise standards in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone prepared for that military airport. 1/ 11 u • • A-2Q L.4/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) O.mrJRTw.r.ni~ STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • PLANNING AND ZONING LAW GOVERNMENT CODE Title 7, Division 1 Chapter 4.5-Review and Approval of Development Projects Article 3-Application for Development Projects (excerpts) I~'ote: The following ~avernment code sections are refer>°nced in Section 21 G75.2(c) of the ALUC statutes. 65943. Completeness of Application; Determination; Time; Specification of Parts not Complete and Manner of Completion (a) Not later than 30 calendar da~~s after any public agent}r has received an application for a development project, the agency shall determine in writing whether the application is complete and shall immediately transmit the determination to the applicant for the development project. If the written determination is not made within 30 days after receipt of the application, and the application includes a statement that it is an application for a development permit, the application shall be deemed complete for purposes of this chapter. Upon receipt of any resubmittal of the application, a new 30-day period shall begin, during which the public agency shall determine the completeness of the application. If the application is determined not to be complete, the agency's determination shall specify those parts of the application which are incomplete and shall indicate • the manner in which they can be made complete, including a list and thorough description of the specific information needed to complete the application. 'I"he applicant shall submit materials to the public agency in response to the list and description. (b) Not later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the submitted materials, the public agency shall determine in writing whether they are complete and shall immediately transmit that determination to the applicant. If the written determinaton is not made within that 30-day period, the application together with the submitted materials shall be deemed complete for the purposes of this chapter. (c) If the application together with the submitted materials are determined not to be complete pursuant to subdivision (b), the public agency shall provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. A city or county shall provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. There shall be a final written determination by the agent}' of the appeal not later than 60 calendar days after receipt of the applicant's written appeal. The fact that an appeal is pertTUtted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the 60-da}T period. Notwithstanding a decision pursuant to subdivision (b) that the application and submitted materials are not complete, if the final written detetYnination on the appeal is not made within that 60-day period, the application with the submitted materials shall be deemed complete for the purposes of this chapter. (d) 'Nothing in this section precludes an applicant and a public agency from mutually agreeing to an extension of ant• time limit provided bt~ this section. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) A-21 o~~l~ APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING ""~0~~~0'•^A''W~ (e) A public agency may charge applicants a fee not to exceed the amount reasonably necessan to • provide the service required by this section. If a fee is charged pursuant to this section, the fee shall be collected as part of the application fee charged for the development permit. 65943.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any appeal pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943 involving a permit application to a board, office, or department within the California Environmental Protection Agency shall be made to the Secretary for Environmental Protection. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any appeal pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943 invohnng an application for the issuance of an environmental permit from an en- vironmental agency shall be made to the Secretary for Environmental Protection under either of the following circumstances: (1) The environmental agenry has not adopted an appeals process pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. (2) The environmental agency declines to accept an appeal for a decision pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. (c) For purposes of subdivision (b), "environmental permit" has the same meaning as defined in Section 72012 of the Public Resources Code, and "environmental agency" has the same meaning as defined in Section 71011 of the Public Resources Code, except that "environmental agency" does not include the agencies described in subdivisions (c) and (h) of Section 71(.111 of the Public Resources Code. • 65944. Acceptance of Application as Complete; Requests for Additional Information; Restrictions; Clarification, Amplification, Correction, etc; Prior to Notice of Necessary Information (a) After a public agency accepts an application as complete, the agency shall not subsequently request of an applicant any new or additional information which was not specified in the list prepared pursuant to Section 65940. The agency may, in the course of processing the application, request the applicant to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information required for the application. (b) The provisions of subdivision (a) shall not be construed as requiring an applicant to submit with his or her initial application the entirety of the information which a public agency may require in order to take final action on the application. Prior to accepting an application, each public agenry shall inform the applicant of any information included in the list prepared pursuant to Section 65940 which will subsequently be required from the applicant in order to complete final action on the application. (c) This section shall not be construed as limiting the ability of a public agency to request and obtain information which may be needed in order to comply with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (d) (1) after a public agency accepts an application as complete, and if the project applicant has identified that the proposed project is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation or within special use airspace or beneath aloes-level flight path in accordance with Section 65940, the public agency shall provide a copy of the complete application to any branch of the • /x_22 LA/Ontario /ntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) V'1VTARI,V STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • United States Armed Forces that has provided the Office of Planning and Research with a single California mailing address within the state for the delivery of a copy of these applications. This subdivision shall apply only to development applications submitted to a public agency 30 days after the Office of Planning and Research has notified cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of Department of Defense information on the Internet pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65940. (2) Except for a project within 1,000 feet of a military installation, the public agency is not required to provide a copy of the application if the project is located entirely in an "urbanized area." An urbanized area is any urban location that meets the definition used by the United State Department of Commerce's Bureau of Census for "urban" and includes locations with core census block groups containing at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding census block groups containing at least 500 people per square mile. (e) Upon receipt of a copy of the application as required in subdivision (d), any branch of the United States Armed Forces may request consultation with the public agency and the project applicant to discuss the effects of the proposed project on military installations, low-level flight paths, or special use airspace, and potential alternatives and mitigation measures. (~ (1) Subdivisions (d), (e), and (~ as these relate to low-level flight paths, special use airspace, and urbanized areas shall not be operative until the United States Department of Defense provides electronic maps of low-level flight paths, special use airspace, and military installations, at a scale and in an electronic format that is acceptable to the Office of Planning and Research. (2) Within 30 days of a determination by the Office of Planning and Research that the information provided by the Department of Defense is sufficient and in an acceptable scale and format, the office shall notify cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of the information on the Internet. Cities, counties, and cities and counties shall comply with subdivision (d) within 30 days of receiving this notice from the office. 65945. Notice of Proposal to Adopt or Amend Certain Plans or Ordinances by City or County, Fee; Subscription to Periodically Updated Notice as Alternative, Fee (a) At the time of filing an application for a development permit with a city or county, the city or county shall inform the applicant that he or she may make a written request to retrieve notice from the city or county of a proposal to adopt or amend any of the following plans or ordinances: (1) A general plan. (2) A specific plan. (3) A zoning ordinance. (4) An ordinance affecting building permits or grading permits. The applicant shall specify, in the written request, the types of proposed action for which notice is requested. Prior to taking any of those actions, the city or county shall give notice to any applicant who has requested notice of the type of action proposed and whose development project is pending before the city or county if the city or county determines that the proposal is reasonably related to the applicant's request for the development permit. Notice shall be given only for those • types of actions which the applicant specifies in the request for notification. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2091) A-23 ~NTARI~ APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING A~"iiRTPLAk`:Il:v The city or county may charge the applicant for a development permit, to whom notice is provided pursuant to this subdivision, a reasonable fee not to exceed the actual cost of providing that notice. If a fee is charged pursuant to this subdivision, the fee shall be collected as part of the application fee charged for the development permit. (b) As an alternative to the notification procedure prescribed by subdivision (a), a city or county may inform the applicant at the time of filing an application for a development permit that he or she may subscribe to a periodically updated notice or set of notices from the city or county which lists pending proposals to adopt or amend any of the plans or ordinances specified in subdivision (a), together with the status of the proposal and the date of any hearings thereon which have been set. only those proposals which are general, as opposed to parcel-specific in nature, and which the city or county determines are reasonably related to requests for development permits, need be listed in the notice. No proposals shall be required to be listed until such time as the first public hearing thereon has been set. The notice shall be updated and mailed at least once every six weeks; except that a notice need not be updated and mailed until a change in its contents is required. The city or county may charge the applicant for a development permit, to whom notice is provided pursuant to this subdivision, a reasonable fee not to exceed the actual cost of providing that notice, including the costs of updating the notice, for the length of time the applicant requests to be sent the notice or notices. 65945.3. Notice of Proposal to Adopt or Amend Rules or Regulations Affecting Issuance of Permits by Local Agency other than City or County; Fee At the time of filing an application for a development permit with a local agency, other than a city or • county, the local agenry shall inform the applicant that he or she may make a written request to receive notice of any proposal to adopt or amend a rule or regulation affecting the issuance of development permits. Prior to adopting or amending any such rule or regulation, the local agenry shall give notice to any applicant who has requested such notice and whose development project is pending before the agency if the local agency determines that the proposal is reasonably related to the applicant's request for the development permit. The local agency may charge the applicant for a development permit, to whom notice is provided pursuant to this section, a reasonable fee not to exceed the actual cost of providing that notice. If a fee is charged pursuant to this section, the fee shall be collected as part of the application fee charged fox the development permit. 65945.5. Notice of Proposal to Adopt or Amend Regulation Affecting Issuance of Permits and Which Implements Statutory Provision by State Agency At the time of filing an application for a development permit with a state agency, the state agency shall inform the applicant that he or she may make a written request to receive notice of any proposal to adopt or amend a regulation affecting the issuance of development permits and which implements a statutory provision. Prior to adopting or amending any such regulation, the state agenry shall give notice to any applicant who has requested such notice and whose development project is pending before the state agency if the • A-24 LAIOnfarlo International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) O~ovOa-1~tu.nn:~ STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • state agency determines that the proposal is reasonably related to the applicant's request for the development permit. 65945.7. Actions, Inactions, or Recommendations Regarding Ordinances, Rules or Regulations; Invalidity or Setting Aside Ground of Error Only if Prejudicial do action, inaction, or recommendation regarding any ordinance, rule, or regulation subject to this Section 65945, 65945.3, or 65945.5 by any legislative body, administrative body, or the officials of any state or local agency shall be held void or invalid or be set aside by any court on the ground of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect or omission (hereinafter called "error' as to any matter pertaining to notices, records, determinations, publications, or any matters of procedure whatever, unless after an examination of the entire case, including evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of was prejudicial, and that by reason of such error the party complaining or appealing sustained and suffered substantial injury, and that a different result would have been probable if such error had not occurred or existed. There shall be no presumption that error is prejudicial or that injury was done if error is shown. 65946. (Replaced by AB2351 Statutes of 1993] • • LA/Ontario lntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) A-25 QNTARIB-r APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING "xoJaT~at:"''`~ PLANNING AND ZONING LAW • GOVERNMENT CODE Title 7, Division 1 Chapter 9.3-Mediation and Resolution of Land Use Disputes (excerpts) 66030. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) Current law provides that aggrieved agencies, project proponents, and affected residents may bring suit against the land use decisions of state and local governmental agencies. In practical terms, nearly anyone can sue once a project has been approved. (2) Contention often arises over projects involving local general plans and zoning, redevelopment plans, the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), development impact fees, annexations and in- corporations, and the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920)). (3) When a public agency approves a development project that is not in accordance with the la~~, or when the prerogative to bring suit is abused, lawsuits can delay development, add uncertainty and cost to the development process, make housing more expensive, and damage • California's competitiveness. This litigation begins in the superior court, and often progresses on appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, adding to the workload of the state's already overburdened judicial system. (b) It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature to help litigants resolve their differences by establishing formal mediation processes for land use disputes. In establishing these mediation processes, it is not the intent of the Legislature to interfere with the ability of litigants to pursue remedies through the courts. 66031. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any action brought in the superior court relating to any of the following subjects may be subject to a mediation proceeding conducted pursuant to this chapter: (1) The approval or denial by a public agency of any development project. (2) Any act or decision of a public agency made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (3) The failure of a public agenry to meet the time limits specified in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920), commonly known as the Permit Streamlining Act, or in the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)). (4) Fees determined pursuant to Sections X3080 to 530$2, inclusive, or Chapter 4.9 (commencing with Section 65995`.. • A-26 LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) ~NTARt@~ STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • • • (5) Fees determined pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000). (6) The adequacy of a general plan or specific plan adopted pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 65100). (7) "I'he validity of any sphere of influence, urban service area, change of organization or reorganisation, or any other decision made pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Loca] Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Division 3 (commencing with Section 56000) of Title 5). (8) The adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code). (9) The validity of any zoning decision made pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 65800). (10) The validity of any decision made pursuant to Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code. (b) Within five days after the deadline for the respondent or defendant to file its reply to an action, the court may invite the parties to consider resolving their dispute by selecting a mutually acceptable person to serve as a mediator, or an organization or agency to provide a mediator. (c) In selecting a person to serve as a mediator, or an organization or agency to provide a mediator, the parties shall consider the following: (1) The council of governments having jurisdiction in the county where the dispute arose. (2) Any subregional or countywide council of governments in the county where the dispute arose. (3) Any other person with experience or training in mediation including those with experience in land use issues, or any other organization or agency which can provide a person with ex- perience or training in mediation, including those with experience in land use issues. (d) If the court invites the parties to consider mediation, the parties shall notify the court within 30 days if they have selected a mutually acceptable person to serve as a mediator. If the parties have not selected a mediator within 30 days, the action shall proceed. The court shall not draw any implication, favorable or otherwise, from the refusal by a party to accept the invitation by the court to consider mediation. Nothing in this section shall preclude the parties from using mediation at any other time while the action is pending. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Ptan (Adopted April 19, 2011) A-27 QNTARI~ APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING "1R°~kT°ta+:vnr. PLANNING AND ZONING LAW GOVERNMENT CODE Title 7-Planning and Land Use Division 2-Subdivisions Chapter Procedure Article 3-Review of Tentative Map by Other Agencies (excerpts) 66455.9. VG'henever there is consideration of an area within a development for a public school site, the advisory agenry shall give the affected districts and the State Department of Education written notice of the proposed site. The written notice shall include the identification of any existing or proposed runways within the distance specified in Section 17215 of the Education Code. If the site is within the distance of an existing or proposed airport runway as described in Section 17215 of the Education Code, the department shall notify the State Department of Transportation as required by the section and the site shall be investigated by the State Department of Transportation required by Section 17215. • A_28 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) ~.e~Ot~t:u,~,r;s STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • EDUCATION CODE Title 1-General Education Code Provisions Division 1-General Education Code Provisions Part 10.5-School Facilities Chapter 1-School Sites Article 1-General Provisions (excerpts) 17215. (a) In order to promote the safety of pupils, comprehensive community planning, and greater educational usefulness of school sites, before acquiring title to or leasing property for a new school site, the governing board of each school district, including any district governed by a city board of education or a charter school, shall give the State Department of Education written notice of the proposed acquisition or lease and shall submit any information required by the State Department of Education if the site is within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway or a potential runway included in an airport master plan that is nearest to the site. (b) Upon receipt of the notice required pursuant to subdivision (a), the State Department of Education shall notify the Department of Transportation in writing of the proposed acquisition or lease. If the Department of Transportation is no longer in operation, the State Department of • Education shall, in lieu of notif~-ing the Department of Transportation, notifi~ the United States Department of Transportation or any other appropriate agenry, in writing, of the proposed acquisition for the purpose of obtaining from the department or other agency any information or assistance that it may desire to give. (c) The Department of Transportation shall investigate the proposed site and, within 30 working days after receipt of the notice, shall submit to the State Department of Education a written report of its findings including recommendations concerning acquisition or lease of the site. As part of the investigation, the Department of Transportation shall give notice thereof to the owner and operator of the airport who shall be granted the opportunity to comment upon the site. The Department of Transportation shall adopt regulations setting forth the criteria by which a site will be evaluated pursuant to this section. (d) The State Department of Education shall, within 10 days of receiving the Department of Transportation's report, forward the report to the governing board of the school district or charter school. The governing board or charter school may not acquire title to or lease the property until the report of the Department of Transportation has been received. If the report does not favor the acquisition or lease of the property for a school site or an addition to a present school site, the governing board or charter school may not acyuire title to or lease the property, If the report does favor the acquisition or lease of the property for a school site or an addition to a present school site, the governing board or charter school shall hold a public hearing on the matter prior to acquiring or leasing the site. (e) If the Department of Transportation's recommendation does not favor acquisition or lease of the proposed site, state funds or local funds may not be apportioned or expended for the acquisition of that site, construction of any school building on that site, or for the expansion of any existing • site to include that site. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Ptan (Adopted April 19, 2011) A-29 QNTARIB-r APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING ~wpaTat~nr,rG (~ 'T'his section does not appl}- to sites acquired prior to ]anuary 1, 1966, nor to any additions or • extensions to those sites. • A-30 LA/Ontario international Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) V~~+tii+:~ STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A EDUCATION CODE Title 3-Postsecondary Education Division 7-Community Colleges Part 49-Community Colleges, Education Facilities Chapter 1-School Sites Article 2-School Sites (excerpts) 81033. Investigation: Geologic and Soil Engineering Studies; Airport in Proximity (c) "I'o promote the safety of students, comprehensive community planning, and greater educational usefulness of community college sites, the governing board of each community college district, if the proposed site is within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway, or a runway proposed by an airport master plan, which is nearest the site and excluding them if the property is not so located, before acquiring title to property for a new community college site or for an addition to a present site, shall give the board of governors notice in writing of the proposed acquisition and shall submit any information required by the board of governors. Immediately after receiving notice of the proposed acquisition of property which is within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway, or a runway proposed by an airport master plan, which is nearest the site, the board of governors shall notify the Division of • Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, in writing, of the proposed acquisition. The Division of Aeronautics shall make an investigation and report to the board of governors within 30 working days after receipt of the notice. If the Division of Aeronautics is no longer in operation, the board of governors shall, in lieu of notifying the Division of Aeronautics, notify the Federal Aviation Administration or any other appropriate agency, in writing, of the proposed acquisition for the purpose of obtaining from the authority or other agenry such infornation or assistance as it may desire to give. The board of governors shall investigate the proposed site and within 35 working days after receipt of the notice shall submit to the governing board a written report and its recommendations concerning acquisition of the site. The goveming board shall not acquire title to the property until the report of the board of governors has been received. If the report does not favor the acquisition of the property for a community college site or an addition to a present community college site, the governing board shall not acquire title to the property until 30 days after the department's report is received and until the board of governors' report has been read at a public hearing duly called after 10 days' notice published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the community college district, or if there is no such newspaper, then in a newspaper of general circulation within the county in which the property is located. (d) If, with respect to a proposed site located within two miles of an operative airport runway, the report of the board of governors subnutted to a community college district goveming board under subdivision (c) does not favor the acquisition of the site on the sole or partial basis of the unfavorable recommendation of the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, no state agency or officer shall grant, apportion, or allow to such community college district for expenditure in connection with that site, any state funds otherwise made • a~-ailable under ant• state law whatever for a communih• college site acquisition or college building LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) A-31 APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING p~~er- construction, or for expansion of existing sites and buildings, and no funds of the community college district or of the county in which the district lies shall be expended for such purposes; provided that provisions of this section shall not be applicable to sites acquired prior to January 1, 1966, nor any additions or extensions to such sites. If the recommendations of the Division of Aeronautics are unfavorable, such recommendations shall not be overruled without the express approval of the board of governors and the State Allocation Board. • • A-32 LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) ~rm~'aratM~nl'~;, STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATUTES PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE Division 13-Environmental Quality Chapter 2.6-General (excerpts) 21096. Airport Planning (a) If a lead agency prepares an environmental impact report for a project situated w7thin airport land use compatibility plan boundaries, or, if an airport land use compatibility plan has not been adopted, for a project within two nautical miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, in compliance with Section 21674.5 of the Public Utilities Code and other documents, shall be utilized as technical resources to assist in the preparation of the environmental impact report as the report relates to airport-related safety hazards and noise problems. (b) A lead agency shall not adopt a negative declaration for a project described in subdivision (a) unless the lead agency considers whether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the project area. • LA/Ontario tnternationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) A-33 QNTARIB-~ APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING AiR°OATPL'U`"°P~' BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE Division 4-Real Estate Part 2-Regulation of Transactions Chapter 1-Subdivided Lands Article 2-Invesfigation, Regulafion and Report (excerpts) 11010. (a) Except as otherwise provided pursuant to subdivision (c) or elsewhere in this chapter, any person who intends to offer subdivided lands within this state for sale or lease shall file with the Department of Real Estate an application for a public report consisting of a notice of intention and a completed questionnaire on a form prepared by the department. (b) The notice of intention shall contain the following information about the subdivided lands and the proposed offering: [Sub-Sections (1) through (12) omitted] (13) (A) The location of all existing airports, and of all proposed airports shown on the general plan of any city or county, located within two statute miles of the subdivision. If the property is located within an airport influence area, the following statement shall be included in the notice of intention: NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. (B) For purposes of this section, an "airport influence area," also known as an "airport referral area," is the area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as determined by an airport land use commission. • A-34 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ONTARIO ~tcvORT 0.F':fcIHG STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A CIVIL CODE Division 2-Property Part 4-Acquisition of Property Title 4-Transfer Chapter 2-Transfer of Real Property Article 1.7-Disclosure of Natural Hazards Upon Transfer of Residential Property (excerpts) 1103. (a) Except as provided in Section 1103.1, this article applies to anti transfer by sale, exchange, installment land sale contract, as defined in Section 2985, lease with an option to purchase, any other option to purchase, or ground lease coupled with improvements, of any real property described in subdivision (c), or residential stock cooperative, improred with or consisting of not less than one nor more than four dwelling units. (b) Except as provided in Section 1103.1, this article shall apply to a resale transaction entered into on or after January 1, 2000, for a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code, that is classified as personal property intended for use as a residence, or a mobilehome, as defined in Section 18008 of the Health and Safety Code, that is classified as personal property intended for use as a residence, if the real property on which the manufactured • home or mobilehome is located is real property described in subdivision (c). (c) "Phis article shall apply to the transactions described in subdivisions (a) and (b) only if the transferor or his or her agent are required by one or more of the following to disclose the property's location within a hazard zone: (1) A person who is acting as an agent for a transferor of real property that is located within a special flood hazard area (any type Lone "A" or "V'~ designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or the transferor if he or she is acting without an agent, shall disclose to any prospective transferee the fact that the property is located within a special flood hazard area if either: (A) The transferor, or the transferor's agent, has actual knowledge that the property is within a special flood hazard area. (B) The local jurisdiction has compiled a list, by parcel, of properties that are within the special flood hazard area and a notice has been posted at the offices of the county recorder, county assessor, and county planning agency that identifies the location of the parcel list. (2) ... is located within an area of potential flooding ... shall disclose to any prospective transferee the fact that the property is located within an area of potential flooding .. . (3) ... is located within a very high fire hazard severity zone, designated pursuant to Section 51178 of the Public Resources Code ... shall disclose to any prospective transferee the fact that the property is located within a very high fire hazard severity zone and is subject to the requirements of Section 51182... • LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) A-35 QNTARI~ APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING '"R°oaT°;nwuv~ (4) ... is located within an earthquake fault zone, designated pursuant to Section 2622 of the • Public Resources Code ... shall disclose to any prospective transferee the fact that the property is located within a delineated earthquake fault zone ... (5) ... is located within a seismic hazard zone, designated pursuant to Section 2696 of the Public Resources Code ... shall disclose to any prospective transferee the fact that the property is located within a seismic hazard zone ... (6) ... is located within a state responsibilin~ area determined by~ the board, pursuant to Section 4125 of the Public Resources Code, shall disclose to any' prospective transferee the fact that the property is located within a wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards and is subject to the requirements of Section 4291 ... (d) Any waiver of the requirements of this article is void as against public policy. 1103.1. (a) This article does not apply to the following transfers: (1) Transfers pursuant to court order, including, but not limited to, transfers ordered by a probate court in administration of an estate, transfers pursuant to a writ of execution, transfers by any foreclosure sale, transfers by a trustee in bankruptcy, transfers by eminent domain, and transfers resulting from a decree for specific performance. (2) Transfers to a mortgagee by a mortgagor or successor in interest who is in default, transfers to a beneficiary of a deed of trust by a trustor or successor in interest who is in default, transfers by any foreclosure sale after default, transfers by any foreclosure sale after default in an • obligation secured by a mortgage, transfers by a sale under a power of sale or any foreclosure sale under a decree of foreclosure after default in an obligation secured by a deed of trust or secured by any other instrument containing a power of sale, or transfers by a mortgagee or a beneficiary under a deed of trust who has acquired the real property at a sale conducted pursuant to a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust or a sale pursuant to a decree of foreclosure or has acquired the real property by a deed in lieu of foreclosure. (3) Transfers by a fiduciary in the course of the administration of a decedent's estate, guardianship, conservatorship, or trust. (4) Transfers from one coowner to one or more other coowners. (5) Transfers made to a spouse, or to a person or persons in the lineal line of consanguinity of one or more of the transferors. (6) Transfers between spouses resulting from a judgment of dissolution of marriage or of legal separation of the parties or from a property settlement agreement incidental to that judgment. (7) Transfers by the Controller in the course of administering Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 1500) of Title 10 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (8) Transfers under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 3691) or Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 3771) of Part 6 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (9) Transfers or exchanges to or from any governmental entity. (b) Transfers not subject to this article may be subject to other disclosure requirements, including those under Sections g~R9.3, RSR9.-1, and 311H35 of the C;overnment Code and Sections 2621.9, A-36 LA/Ontario fntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Aprii 19, 2011) ~•~ov'~w:Ni~ STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • 2G94, and 4136 of the Public Resources Code. In transfers not subject to this article, agents may make required disclosures in a separate writing. 1103.2. (a) The disclosures required by this article are set forth in, and shall be made on a copy of, the following Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement: [content omitted]. (b) If an earthquake fault zone, seismic hazard zone, very high fire hazard severity zone, or wildland fire area map or accompanying information is not of sufficient accuracy or scale that a reasonable person can determine if the subject real property is included in a natural hazard area, the transferor or transferor's agent shall mark "Yes" on the Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement. The transferor or transferor's agent may mark "No" on the Natural I-iazard Disclosure Statement if he or she attaches a report prepared pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1103.4 that verifies the property is not in the hazard zone. Nothing in this subdivision is intended to linut or abridge any existing duty of the transferor or the transferor's agents to exercise reasonable care in making a determination under this subdivision. [Sub-Sections (c) through (h) omitted] [Section 1103.3 omitted] 1103.4. (a) Neither the transferor nor any listing or selling agent shall be liable for any error, inaccuracy, or omission of any information delivered pursuant to this article if the error, inaccuracy, or omission was not within the personal knowledge of the transferor or the listing or selling agent, and was based on information timely pro~zded by public agencies or by other persons providing information as specified in subdivision (c) that is required to be disclosed pursuant to this article, and ordinary care was exercised in obtaining and transmitting the information. (b) The delivery of any information required to be disclosed by this article to a prospective transferee by a public agency or other person providing information required to be disclosed pursuant to this article shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of this article and shall relieve the transferor or any listing or selling agent of any further duty under this article with respect to that item of information. (c) The delivery of a report or opinion prepared by a licensed engineer, land surveyor, geologist, or expert in natural hazard discovery dealing with matters within the scope of the professional's license or expertise, shall be sufficient compliance for application of the exemption provided by subdivision (a) if the information is pro~-ided to the prospective transferee pursuant to a request therefor, whether written or oral. In responding to that request, an expert may indicate, in writing, an understanding that the information provided will be used in fulfilling the requirements of Section 1103.2 and, if so, shall indicate the required disclosures, or parts thereof, to which the information being famished is applicable. Vt-'here that statement is furnished, the expert shall not be responsible for any items of information, or parts thereof, other than those expressly set forth in the statement. (1) In responding to the request, the expert shall determine whether the property is within an airport influence area as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code. If the property is within an airport influence area, the report shall contain • the following statement: LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April i9, 2011) A-37 ONTARIO APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING AfR70RTPLANNPi~ NOTICE OF 1IRPORT IN VICINITY 'T'his property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. [Remainder of Article 1.7 omitted] L_J • • A-38 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) • QNTARI~-' ~11roDR1 ~r~+r+rvG STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A CIVIL CODE Division 2, Part 4 Title 6-Common Interest Developments (excerpts) 1353. (a) (1) .~ declaration, recorded on or after Januar}~ 1, 1986, shall contain a legal description of the common interest development, and a statement that the common interest development is a community apartment project, condominium project, planned development, stock cooperative, or combination thereof. The declaration shall additionall}- set forth the name of the association and the restrictions on the use or enjoyment of any portion of the common interest development that are intended to be enforceable equitable servitudes. If the property is located within an airport influence area, a declaration, recorded after January 1, 2004, shall contain the following statement: NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN L'ICINITY • This property is presentl}~ located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. (2) For purposes of this section, an "airport influence area," also known as an "airport referral area," is the area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as determined by an airport land use commission. (3) [Omitted (4) The statement in a declaration acknowledging that a property is located in an airport influence area does not constitute a title defect, lien, or encumbrance. (b) The declaration may contain any other matters the original signator of the declaration or the owners consider appropriate. • LA/Ontario tnternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) A-39 0~~~ APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING A+ReJ?TPLAHNIK~ LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SUMMARY • PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE Sections 21670 et seq. Airport Land Use Commission Statutes And Related Statutes 1967 Original ALUC statute enacted. • Establishment of ALL'Cs required in each county containing a public airport served by a certificated air carrier. • The purpose of ALUCs is indicated as being to make recommendations regarding height restrictions on buildings and the use of land surrounding airports. 1970 Assembly Bill 1856 (Badham) Chapter 1182, Statutes of 1970-Adds provisions which: • Require ALUCs to prepare comprehensive land use plans. • Require such plans to include along-range plan and to reflect the airport's forecast growth during the next 20 years. • Require ALUC review of airport construction plans (Section 21661.5). • Exempt Los Angeles County from the requirement of establishing an ALUC. 1971 The function of ALUCs is restated as being to rec3uire new construction to conform to Department of Aeronautics standards. • 1973 ALUCs are permitted to establish compatibilit~~ plans for nulitar~~ airports. 1982 Assembly Bill 2920 (Rogers) Chapter 1041, Statutes of 1982-Adds major changes which: • More clearly articulate the purpose of ALUCs. • Eliminate reference to "achieve by zoning." • Require consistency between local general and specific plans and airport land use commission plans; the requirements define the process for attaining consistency, they do not establish standards for consistency. • Eliminate the requirement for proposed individual development projects to be referred to an ALUC for review once local general/specific plans are consistent with the ALUC's plan. • Require that local agencies make findings of fact before overriding an ALUC decision. • Change the vote required for an override from 4/5 to 2/3. 1984 Assembly Bill 3551 (Mountjoy) Chapter 1117, Statutes of 1984-Amends the law to: • Require ALUCs in all counties having an airport which serves the general public unless a county and its cities determine an ALUC is not needed. • Limit amendments to compatibility plans to once per year. • Allow individual projects to continue to be referred to the ALUC by agreement. • Extend immunity to airports if an ALUC action is overridden by a local agency not owning the airport. • A~0 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) p~r~~~- R»vo+~~ui:~a~s STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • • Provide state funding eligibility for preparation of compatibility plans through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program process. 1987 Senate Bill 633 (Rogers) Chapter 1018, Statutes of 1987-Makes revisions which: • Require that a designated body serving as an ALUC include two members having "expertise in aviation." • Allows an interested party to initiate court proceedings to postpone the effective date of a local land use action if a compatibility plan has not been adopted. • Delete sunset provisions contained in certain clauses of the law. Allows reimbursement for ALUC costs in accordance with the Commission on State Mandates. 1989 Senate Bill 255 (Bergeson) Chapter 54, Statutes of 1989- • Sets a requirement that comprehensive land use plans be completed by June 1991. • Establishes a method for compelling ALUCs to act on matters submitted for review. • Allows ALUCs to charge fees for review of projects. • Suspends any lawsuits that would stop development until the ALLtC adopts its plan or until June 1, 1991. 1989 Senate Bill 235 (Alquist) Chapter 788, Statutes of 1989-Appropriates X3,672,000 for the payment of claims to counties seeking reimbursement of costs incurred during fiscal years 1985-86 through 1989-90 pursuant to state-mandated requirement (Chapter 1117, Statutes of 1984) for creation of ALUCs in most counties. This statute was repealed in 1993. • 1990 Assembly Bill 4164 (Mountjoy) Chapter 1008, Statutes of 1990-Adds section 21674.5 requiring the Division of Aeronautics to develop and implement a training program for ALUC Staffs. 1990 Assembly Bill 4265 (flute) Chapter 563, Statutes of 1990-With the concurrence of the Division of Aeronautics, allows ALUCs to use an airport layout plan, rather than along-range airport master plan, as the basis for preparation of a compatibility plan. 1990 Senate Bill 1288 (Beverly) Chapter 54, Statutes of 1990-Amends Section 21670.2 to give Los Angeles County additional time to prepare compatibility plans and meet other provisions of the ALUC statutes. 1991 Senate Bill 532 (Bergeson) Chapter 140, Statutes of 1991- • Allows counties having half of their compatibility plans completed or under prepazation by June 30, 1991, an additional year to complete the remainder. • Allows ALUCs to continue to charge fees under these circumstances. • Fees may be charged only until June 30, 1992, if plans are not completed by then. 1993 Senate Bill 443 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Chapter 59, Statutes of 1993- Amends Section 21670(b) to make the formation of ALUCs permissive rather than mandatory as of )tine 30, 1993. (Note: Section 21670.2 which assigns responsibility for coordinating the airport planning of public agencies in Los Angeles County is not affected by this amendment.) 1994 Assembly Bill 2831 (Mountjoy) Chapter 644, Statutes of 1994 -Reinstates the language in Section 21670(b) mandating establishment of ALUCs, but also provides for an alternative airport land use planning process. Lists specific actions which a county and affected cities • must take in order for such alternative process to receive Caltrans approval. Requires that LA/Ontario lnternationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) A,41 o~~~~- APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING ~'aoQ°Ta'-'^~~'`' ALUCs be guided by information in the Caltrans Airport Land U.re Planning Handbook when formulating airport land use plans. 1994 Senate Bill 1453 (Rogers) Chapter 438, Statutes of 1994-Amends California Em~ironmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes as applied to preparation of environmental documents affecting projects in the vicinity of airports. Requires lead agencies to use the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook as a technical resource when assessing the airport-related noise and safety impacts of such projects. 1997 Assembly Bill 1130 (Oller) Chapter 81, Statutes of 1997-Added Section 21670.4 concerning airports whose planning boundary straddles a county line. 2000 Senate Bill 1350 (Rainey) Chapter 506, Statutes of 2000-Added Section 216700 clarifying that special districts are among the local agencies to which airport land use planning laws are intended to apply. 2001 Assembly Bill 93 (VZ'ayne) Chapter 946, Statutes of 2001-Added Section 21670.3 regarding San Diego County Regional Airport Authority's responsibility for airport planning within San Diego County. 2002 Assembly Bill 3026 (Committee on Transportation) Chapter 438, Statutes of 2002-Changes the term "comprehensive land use plan" to "airport land use compatibility plan." 2002 Assembly Bill 2776 (Simitian) Chapter 496, Statutes of 2002-Requires information regarding the location of a property within an airport influence area be disclosed as part of certain real estate transactions effective January 1, 2004. 2002 Senate Bill 1468 (Knight) Chapter 971, Statutes of 2002-Changes ALUC preparation of airport land use compatibility plans for military airports from optional to required. Requires that the plans be consistent with the safety and noise standards in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone for that airport. Requires that the general plan and any specific plans be consistent with these standards where there is military airport, but an airport land use commission does not exist. 2003 Assembly Bill 332 (Mullin) Chapter 351, Statutes of 2003-Clarifies that school districts and community college districts are subject to compatibility plans. Requires local public agencies to notify ALUC and Division of Aeronautics at least 45 days prior to deciding to overrule the ALUC. 2004 Senate Bill 1223 (Committee on Transportation) Chapter 615, Statutes of 2004-Technical revisions eliminating most remaining references to the term "comprehensive land use plan" and replacing it with "airport land use compatibility plan." Also replaces the terms "planning area" and "study area" with "airport influence area." 2005 Assembly Bill 1358 (Mullin) Chapter 29, Statutes of 2005-Requires a school district to notify the Department of Transportation before leasing property for a new school site. Also makes these provisions applicable to charter schools. ~J • • q-42 LA/Ontario lntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) • • LA~Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan APPENDIX NTARI~ AIRPORT PLANNING APPENDIX B FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 • OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE Amdt. 77-13, Effective January 18, 2011 Subpart A GENERAL 77.1 PURPOSE. This part establishes: (a) The requirements to provide notice to the FAA of certain proposed construction, or the alteration of existing structures; (b) The standards used to determine obstructions to air navigation, and navigational and communication facilities; (c) The process for aeronautical studies of obstructions to air navigation or navigational facilities to determine the effect on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace, air navigation facilities or • equipment; and (d) The process to petition the FAA for discretionary review of determinations, revisions, and extensions of determinations. 77.3 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this part: "Non-precision instrument runway" means a runway having an existing instrument approach procedure utilizing air navigation facilities with only horizontal guidance, or area type navigation equipment, for which astraight-in non-precision instrument approach procedure has been approved, or planned, and for which no precision approach facilities are planned, or indicated on an F ~~ planning document or military service military airport planning document. Planned or proposed airport is an airport that is the subject of at least one of the following documents received by the FAA: (1) Airport proposals submitted under 14 CFR Part 157. (2) Airport Improvement Program requests for aid. (3) Notices of existing airports where prior notice of the airport construction or alteration was not provided as required b~~ 14 CFR Part 15~. (4j .Airport la}'out plans. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) B-'1 ~NTARI~ APPENDIX B FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 e~Dnra~a!:nri; • ;~) DOD proposals for airports used only by the U.S. Armed Forces. (6) DOD proposals on joint-use (civil-military) airports. • (7) Completed airport site selection feasibility study. "Precision instrument runway" means a runway having an existing instrument approach procedure utilizing an Instrument Landing System (II,S), or a Precision Approach Radar (PAR). It also means a runway for which a precision approach system is planned and is so indicated by an FAA-approved airport layout plan; a military service approved military airport layout plan; any other FAA planning document, or military service military airport planning document. "Public use airport" is an airport available for use by the general public without a requirement for prior approval of the airport owner or operator. "Seaplane base" is considered to be an airport only if its sea lanes are outlined by visual markers. "Utility runway" means a runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven aircraft of 12,500 pounds maximum gross weight and less. `visual runway" means a runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures, with no straight-in instrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated on an FAA-approved airport layout plan, a military service approved military airport layout plan, or by any planning document submitted to the FAA by competent authority. Subpart B NOTICE REQUIREMENTS 77.5 APPLICABILITY. (a) If you propose any construction or alteration described in X77.9, you must provide adequate notice to the F.~1A of that construction or alteration. (b) If requested by the FAA, you must also file supplemental notice before the start date and upon completion of certain construction or alterations that are described in X77.9. (c) Notice received by the FAA under this subpart is used to: (1) Evaluate the effect of the proposed construction or alteration on safety in air commerce and the efficient use and preservation of the navigable airspace and of airport traffic capacity at public use airports; (2) Determine whether the effect of proposed construction or alteration is a hazard to air navigation; (3) Determine appropriate marking and lighting recommendations, using FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting; (4) Determine other appropriate measures to be applied for continued safety of air navigation; and • ~2 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ~NTARI~ amaoar°ur.~,r:; FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B (5) Notify the aviation community of the construction or alteration of objects that affect the navigable airspace, including the revision of charts, when necessary. 77.7 FORM AND TIME OF NOTICE. (a) If you are required to file notice under X77.9, you must submit to the FAA a completed FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. FAA Form 7460-1 is available at FAA regional offices and on the Internet. (b) You must submit this form at least 45 days before the start date of the proposed construction or alteration or the date an application for a construction permit is filed, whichever is earliest. (c) If you propose construction or alteration that is also subject to the licensing requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), you must submit notice to the FAA on or before the date that the application is filed with the FCC. (d) If you propose construction or alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 ft. in height above ground level (AGL), the FAA presumes it to be a hazard to air navigation that results in an inefficient use of airspace. You must include details explaining both why the proposal would not constitute a hazard to air navigation and why it would not cause an inefficient use of airspace. (e) The 45-day advance notice requirement is waived if immediate construction or alteration is required because of an emergency involving essential public services, public health, or public safety. You may provide notice to the FAA by any available, expeditious means. You must file a completed FAA Form 7460-1 within 5 days of the initial notice to the FA:~. Outside normal business hours, the nearest flight service station will accept emergency nonccs. • 77.9 CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION REQUIRING NOTICE. If requested by the I~A.~~, or if you propose any of the follov~ing types of construction or alteration, you must file notice with the FAA of: (a) Any construction or alteration that is more than 200 ft. AGL at its site. (b) Any construction or alteration that exceeds an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at any of the following slopes: (1) 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 ft. from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport described in paragraph (d) of this section with its longest runway more than 3,200 ft. in actual length, excluding heliports. (2) 50 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 ft. from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport described in paragraph (d) of this section with its longest runway no more than 3,200 ft. in actual length, excluding heliports. (3) 25 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000 ft. from the nearest point of the nearest landing and takeoff area of each heliport described in paragraph (d) of this section. (c) Any highway, railroad, or other traverse way for mobile objects, of a height which, if adjusted upward 17 feet for an Interstate Highway that is part of the National System of Military and Interstate Highways where overerossings are designed for a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance, 15 feet for any other public roadway, 10 feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would • l1VOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) B-3 p~r~l~ APPENDIX B FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 "9O0iT°~"""rv~ • normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road, 23 feet for a railroad, and for a waterway or any other traverse way not previously mentioned, an amount equal to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it, would exceed a standard of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. (d) Any construction or alteration on any of the following airports and heliports: (1) A public use airport listed in the Airport/Facility Directory, Alaska Supplement, or Pacific Chart Supplement of the U.S. Government Flight Information Publications; (2) A military- airport under construction, or an airport under construction that will be available for public use; (3) An airport operated by a Federal agency or the DOD. (4) An airport or heliport with at least one FAA-approved instrument approach procedure. (e) You do not need to file notice for construction or alteration of: (1) Any object that will be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial nature or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height, and will be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement where the shielded structure will not adversely affect safety in air navigation; (?j Any air navigation facility, airport visual approach or landing aid, aircraft arresting device, or meteorological device meeting FAA-approved siting criteria or an appropriate military service • siting criteria on military airports, the location and height of which are fixed b`~ its functional purpose; (3) Any construction or alteration for which nonce is required by any other FAA regulation. (4) Any antenna structure of 20 feet or less in height, except one that would increase the height of another antenna structure. 77.11 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS. (a) You must file supplemental notice with the F.~A when: (1) The construction or alteration is more than 200 feet in height AGL at its site; or (2) Requested by the FAA. (b) You must file supplemental notice on a prescribed FAA form to be received within the time limits specified in the FAA determination. If no time limit has been specified, you must submit supplemental notice of construction to the FAA within 5 days after the structure reaches its greatest height. (c) If you abandon a construction or alteration proposal that requires supplemental notice, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the project is abandoned. (d) If the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. • B-4 LA/Ontario lnternationa/ Airport Land Use Compafibifity Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) QNTARI~ FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B Subpart C Standards for Determining Obstructions to Air Navigation or Navigational Aids or Facilities 77.13 APPLICABILITY. This subpart describes the standards used for determir-ing obstructions to air navigation, navigational aids, or navigational facilities. These standards apply to the following: (a) :~1ny object of natural growth, terrain, or permanent or temporary construction or alteration, including equipment or materials used and any permanent or temporary apparatus. (b) The alteration of any permanent or temporary existing structure by a change in its height, including appurtenances, or lateral dimensions, including equipment or material used therein. 77.15 SCOPE. (a) .This subpart describes standards used to determine obstructions to air navigation that may affect the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace and the operation of planned or existing air navigation and communication facilities. Such facilities include air navigation aids, communication equipment, airports, Federal airways, instrument approach or departure procedures, and approved off-airway routes. • (b) Objects that are considered obstructions under the standards described in this subpart arc • presumed hazards to air navigation unless further aeronautical study concludes that the object is not a hazard. Once further aeronautical study has been initiated, the FAA will use the standards in this subpart, along with FAA policy and guidance material, to determine if the object is a hazard to air navigation. (c) The FAA will apply these standards with reference to an existing airport facility, and airport proposals received by the FAA, or the appropriate military service, before it issues a final determination. (d) For airports having defined nanways with specially prepared hard surfaces, the primary surface for each runway extends 200 feet beyond each end of the runway. For airports having defined strips or pathways used regularly for aircraft takeoffs and landings, and designated runways, without specially prepared hard surfaces, each end of the primary surface for each such runway shall coincide with the corresponding end of the runwa}'• At airports, excluding seaplane bases, having a defined landing and takeoff area with no defined pathways for aircraft takeoffs and landings, a determination must be made as to which portions of the landing and takeoff area are regularly used as landing and takeoff pathways. Those determined pathways must be considered runways, and an appropriate primary surface as defined in X77.19 will be considered as longitudinally centered on each such runway. Each end of that primary surface must coincide with the corresponding end of that runway. (e) The standards in this subpart apply to construction or alteration proposals on an airport (including heliports and seaplane bases with marked lanes) if that airport is one of the following before the issuance of the final determination: • LA/Ontario lntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) o~~l~ APPENDIX B FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 r'~~T"'a'`~''~" (1) Available for public use and is listed in the Airport/Facility Directory, Supplement Alaska, or Supplement Pacific of the U.S. Government Flight Information Publications; or (2) A planned or proposed airport or an airport under construction of which the FAA has received actual notice, except DOD airports, where there is a clear indication the airport will be available for public use; or, (3) An airport operated by a Federal agency or the DOD; or, (4) An airport that has at least one FAA-approved instrument approach. 77.17 OBSTRUCTION STANDARDS. (a) An existing object, including a mobile object, is, and a future object would be an obstruction to air nav igation if it is of greater height than any of the following heights or surfaces: (1) A height of 499 feet AGL at the site of the object. (2) A height that is 200 feet AGL, or above the established airport elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport, excluding heliports, with its longest runway- more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the proportion of l0O feet for each additional nautical mile from the airport up to a maximum of 499 feet. (3) A height within a terminal obstacle clearance area, including an initial approach segment, a departure area, and a circling approach area, which would result in the vertical distance • between any point on the object and an established minimum instrument flight altitude within that area or segment to be less than the required obstacle clearance. (4) A height within an en route obstacle clearance area, including turn and termination areas, of a Federal Airway or approved off-airway route, that would increase the minimum obstacle clearance altitude. (5) The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any imaginary surface established under X77.19, 77.21, or 77.23. However, no part of the takeoff or landing area itself will be considered an obstruction. (b) Except for traverse ways on or near an airport with an operative ground traffic control service furnished by an airport traffic control tower or by the airport management and coordinated with the air traffic control service, the standards of paragraph (a) of this section apply to traverse ways used or to be used for the passage of mobile objects only after the heights of these traverse ways are increased by: (1} 17 feet for an Interstate Highway that is part of the National System of Military and Interstate Highways where overcrossings are designed for a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance. (2) 15 feet for any other public roadway. (3) 10 feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road. • (4) 23 feet for a railroad. B-6 LA/Ontario Internafiona! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April i9, 2011) 0~+~J?tv`An'~'`^;; FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B (5) For a waterwa}• or any other traverse way not previously mentioned, an amount equal to nc~ • height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it. 77.19 CIVIL AIRPORT IMAGINARY SURFACES. The following civil airport imaginan' surfaces are established with relation to the airport and to each runway. The size of each such imaginary surface is based on the category of each runway according to the type of approach available or planned for that runway. The slope and dimensions of the approach surface applied to each end of a runway are determined by the most precise approach procedure existing or planned for that runway end. (a) Horizontal surface. A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by Swinging arcs of a specified radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway of each airport and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. The radius of each arc is: (1) 5,000 feet for all runways designated as utility or visual; (2) 10,000 feet for all other runways. The radius of the arc specified for each end of a runway will have the same arithmetical value. That value will be the highest determned for either end of the runway. When a 5,000-foot arc is encompassed by tangents connecting two adjacent 10,000-foot arcs, the 5,000-foot arc shall be disregarded on the construction of the perimeter of the horizontal surface. (b) Conical surface. A surface extending outward and upward from the peripher}~ of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. • (c) Primary surface. A surface longitudinally centered on a runway. ~X'hen the runway has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway; but when the runway has no specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface ends at each end of that runway. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. The width of the primary surface is: (1) 250 feet for utility runways having only visual approaches. (2) 500 feet for utility runways having non-precision instrument approaches. (3) For other than utility runways, the width is: (i) 500 feet for visual runways having only visual approaches, (ii) 500 feet for non-precision instrument runways having visibility minimums greater than three-fourths statue mile. (iii) 1,000 feet for anon-precision instrument runway having anon-precision instrument approach with visibility minimums as low as three-fourths of a statute mile, and for precision instrument runways. (iv} The width of the primary surface of a runway will be that width prescribed in this section for the most precise approach existing or planned for either end of that runway. (d) Approach surface. A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. An approach surface is LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) B-~ p~r~e-~ APPENDIX B FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 A4tPpRT%FI.`.I`~i • applied to each end of each runway based upon the type of approach available or planned for that runway end. (1) The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and it expands uniformly to a width of: (i) 1,250 feet for that end of a utility runway with only visual approaches; (ii) 1,500 feet for that end of a runway other than a utility runway with only visual approaches; (iii) 2,000 feet for that end of a utility runway with anon-precision instrument approach; (iv) 3,500 feet for that end of anon-precision instrument runway other than utility, having Visibility minimums greater that three-fourths of a statute mile; (v) 4,000 feet for that end of anon-precision instrument runway, other than utility, having a non-precision instrument approach with visibility minimums as low as three-fourths statute mile; and (vi) 16,000 feet for precision instrument runways. (2) The approach surface extends for a horizontal distance of: (i) 5,000 feet at a slope of 20 to 1 for all utility and visual runways; (ii) 10,000 feet at a slope of 34 to 1 for all non-precision instrument runways other than • utility; and (iii) 10,000 feet at a slope of 50 to 1 with an additional 40,000 feet at a slope of 40 to 1 for all precision instrument runways. (3) The outer width of an approach surface to an end of a runway will be that width prescribed in this subsection for the most precise approach existing or planned for that runway end. (e) Transitional surface. These surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces. Transitional surfaces for those portions of the precision approach surface which project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface, extend a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach surface and at right angles to the runway centerline. 77.21 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) AIRPORT IMAGINARY SURFACES. (a) Related to airport reference points. These surfaces apply to all military airports. For the purposes of this section, a military airport is any airport operated by the DOD. (1) Inner horizontal surface. A plane that is oval in shape at a height of 150 feet above the established airfield elevation. The plane is constructed by scribing an arc with a radius of 7,500 feet about the centerline at the end of each runway and interconnecting these arcs with tangents. • B-8 LA/Onfario lnternationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ~/~e?PO~'1~~'.Mni; FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B (2) Conical surface. A surface extending from the periphery of the inner horizontal surface • outward and upward at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 7,000 feet to a height of 500 feet above the established airfield elevation. (3) Outer horizontal surface. A plane, located 500 feet above the established airfield elevation, extending outward from the outer periphery of the conical surface for a horizontal distance of 30,000 feet. (b) Kelated to runways. These surfaces apply to all military airports. (1) Primary surface. A surface located on the ground or water longitudinally centered on each runway with the same length as the runway. The width of the primary surface for runways is 2,000 feet. However, at established bases where substantial construction has taken place in accordance with a previous lateral clearance criteria, the 2,000-foot width may be reduced to the former criteria. (2) Clear zone surface. A surface located on the ground or water at each end of the primary surface, with a length of 1,000 feet and the same width as the primary surface. (3) Approach clearance surface. An inclined plane, symmetrical about the runway centerline extended, beginning 200 feet beyond each end of the primary surface at the centerline elevation of the runway end and extending for 50,000 feet. The slope of the approach clearance surface is 50 to 1 along the runway centerline extended until it reaches an elevation of 500 feet above the established airport elevation. It then continues horizontally at this elevation to a point 50,000 feet from the point of beginning. The width of this surface at the runway end is the same as the primar~~ surface, it flares uniforml~•, and the width at 50,000 is • 1 G,000 feet. (4) Transitional surfaces. ~I7~ese surfaces connect the primar}~ surfaces, the first 200 feet of the clear zone surfaces, and the approach clearance surfaces to the inner horizontal surface, conical surface, outer horizontal surface or other transitional surfaces. The slope of the transitional surface is 7 to 1 outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline. 77.23 HELIPORT IMAGINARY SURFACES. (a) Primary surface. The area of the primary surface coincides in size and shape with the designated take-off and landing area. This surface is a horizontal plane at the elevation of the established heliport elevation. (b) Approach surface. The approach surface begins at each end of the heliport primary surface with the same width as the primary surface, and extends outward and upward for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet where its width is 500 feet. The slope of the approach surface is 8 to 1 for civil heliports and 10 to 1 for military heliports. (c) Transitional surfaces. These surfaces extend outward and upward from the lateral boundaries of the primary surface and from the approach surfaces at a slope of 2 to 1 for a distance of 250 feet measured horizontally from the centerline of the primary and approach surfaces. • LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2D11) B-9 p~r~le-~- APPENDIX 8 FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 A~RDOR7 %.Afi~P{', • Subpart D AERONAUTICAL STUDIES AND DETERMINATIONS 77.25 APPLICABILITY. (a) This subpart applies to any aeronautical study of a proposed construction or alteration for which notice to the FAA is required under 77.9. (b) The purpose of an aeronautical study is to determine whether the aeronautical effects of the specific proposal and, where appropriate, the cumulative impact resulting from the proposed construction or alteration when combined with the effects of other existing or proposed structures, would constitute a hazard to air navigation. (c) The obstruction standards in subpart C of this part are supplemented by other manuals and directives used in determining the effect on the navigable airspace of a proposed construction or alteration. When the FAA needs additional information, it may circulate a study to interested parties for comment. 77.27 INITIATION OF STUDIES. The FAA will conduct an aeronautical study when: (a) Requested by the sponsor of any proposed construction or alteration for which a notice is • submitted; or (b) The FAA determines a study is necessary. 77.29 EVALUATING AERONAUTICAL EFFECT. (a) The FAA conducts an aeronautical study to determine the impact of a proposed structure, an existing structure that has not yet been studied by the FAA, or an alteration of an existing structure on aeronautical operations, procedures, and the safety of flight. These studies include evaluating: (1) The impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under visual flight rules; (2) The impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under instrument flight rules; (3) The impact on existing and planned public use airports; (4) Airport traffic capacity of existing public use airports and public use airport development plans received before the issuance of the final determination; (5) Minitnum obstacle clearance altitudes, minimum instrument flight rules altitudes, approved or planned instrument approach procedures, and departure procedures; (6) The potential effect on ATC radar, direction finders, ATC tower line-of--sight visibility, and physical or electromagnetic effects on air navigation, communication facilities, and other • surveillance systems; X10 LAIOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibrfity Plan (Adopted Apn! 19, 2011) O~~tyo+Ta~n':tius FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART T7 APPENDIX B (7) The aeronautical effects resulting from the cumulative impact of a proposed construction or alteration of a structure when combined with the effects of other existing or proposed structures. (b) If you withdraw the proposed construction or alteration or revise it so that it is no longer identified as an obstruction, or if no further aeronautical study is necessary, the FAA may terminate the study. 77.31 DETERMINATIONS. (a) The FAA will issue a determination stating whether the proposed construction or alteration would be a hazard to air navigation, and will advise all known interested persons. (b) The FAA will make determinations based on the aeronautical study findings and will identify the following: (1) The effects on VFR/IFR aeronautical departure/arrival operations, air traffic procedures, minimum flight altitudes, and existing, planned, or proposed airports listed in ~77.15(e) of which the FAA has received actual notice prior to issuance of a final determination. (2) The extent of the physical and/or electromagnetic effect on the operation of existing or proposed air navigation facilities, communication aids, or surveillance systems. (c) The FAA will issue a Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation when the aeronautical study concludes that the proposed construction or alteration vnll exceed an obstruction standard and would have a substantial aeronautical impact. • (d) A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation will be issued when the aeronautical study concludes that the proposed construction or alteration will exceed an obstruction standard but would not have a substantial aeronautical impact to air navigation. A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation may include the following: (1) Conditional provisions of a determination. (2) Limitations necessary to minimize potential problems, such as the use of temporary construction equipment. (3) Supplemental notice requirements, when required. (4) Marking and lighting recommendations, as appropriate. (e) The FAA will issue a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation when a proposed structure does not exceed any= of the obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. 77.33 EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF DETERMINATIONS. (a) A determination issued under this subpart is effective 40 days after the date of issuance, unless a petition for discretionary review is received by the FAA within 30 days after issuance. The determination will not become final pending disposition of a petition for discretionary re~~iew. • LA/Ontario lnfernational Airport Land fJse Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) B-11 ~NTARIE-~ APPENDIX B FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 AtS~'ORT?1.44A1`13 i (b) Unless extended, revised, or terminated, each Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation issued under this subpart expires 18 months after the effective date of the determination, or nn the date the proposed construction or alteration is abandoned, whichever is earlier. (c) A Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation has no expiration date. 77.35 EXTENSIONS, TERMINATIONS, REVISIONS AND CORRECTIONS. (a) You may petition the FAA official that issued the Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation to revise or reconsider the determination based on new facts or to extend the effective period of the determination, provided that: (1) Actual structural work of the proposed construction or alteration, such as the laying of a foundation, but not including excavation, has not been started; and (2) The petition is submitted at least 15 days before the expiration date of the Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. (b) A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation issued for those construction or alteration proposals not requiring an FCC construction permit may be extended by the FAA one time for a period not to exceed 18 months. (c) A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation issued for a proposal requiring an FCC construction permit may be granted extensions for up to 18 months, provided that: • (1) You submit evidence that an application for a construction permit/license was filed with the FCC for the associated site within 6 months of issuance of the determination; and (2) You submit evidence that additional time is warranted because of FCC requirements; and {3) Where the FCC issues a construction permit, a final Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation is effective until the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of the construction. If an extension of the original FCC completion date is needed, an extension of the FAA determination must be requested from the Obstruction Evaluation Service (OES). {4) If the Commission refuses to issue a construction permit, the final determination expires on the date of its refusal. • 8-12 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2019) aN,oORt v~rJ;~n+; FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B 4~~~ Subpart E PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW 77.37 GENERAL. (a) If you are the sponsor, provided a substantive aeronautical comment on a proposal in an aeronautical study, or have a substantive aeronautical comment on the proposal but were not given an opportunity to state it, you may petition the FAA for a discretionary review of a determination, revision, or extension of a determination issued by the FAA. (b) You may not file a petition for discretionary review for a Determination of No Hazard that is issued for a temporary structure, marking and lighting recommendation, or when a proposed structure or alteration does not exceed obstruction standards contained in subpart C of this part. 77.39 Contents of a petition. (a) You must file a petition for discretionary review in writing and it must be received by the FAA within 30 days after the issuance of a determination under 77.31, or a revision or extension of the detertination under 77.35. (b) The petition must contain a full statement of the aeronautical basis on which the petition is made, and must include new information or facts not previously considered or presented during the aeronautical study, including valid aeronautical reasons why the determination, revisions, or extension made by the FAA should be reviewed. (c) In the event that the last day of the 30-day filing period falls on a weekend or a day the Federal government is closed, the last day of the filing period is the next day that the govemment is open. (d) The FAA will inform the petitioner or sponsor (if other than the petitioner) and the FCC (whenever anFCC-related proposal is involved) of the filing of the petition and that the determination is not final pending disposition of the petition. 77.41 Discretionary review results. (a) If discretionary review is granted, the FAA will inform the petitioner and the sponsor (if other than the petitioner) of the issues to be studied and reviewed. The review may include a request for comments and a review of all records from the initial aeronautical study. (b) If discretionary review is denied, the FAA will notify the petitioner and the sponsor (if other than the petitioner), and the FCC, whenever aFCC-related proposal is involved, of the basis for the denial along with a statement that the determination is final. (c) After concluding the discretionary review process, the FAA will revise, affirm, or reverse the determination. • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) B-13 APPENDIX B FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 ~AwtroaTllu\F • • .--_~ A N~ ~~ B Cl T1 ~ ~ -A w ~ 71 f L ~ )1 71 7t - - A -sl• - - _~ r. H~mNru suaFACE t50 FEET ABOVE ~' E9TABU8HED AA'1oORT $ ~ I ~ EU:VATION. ~ O t - 2D:1('iOMDAL>~1RFAtlE 1 IBMI (AINRI c D R OIMEN81ONAL $TANDAROs (FEET) DIM ~ ITEM At~, u2Ti w6T FaEraa b 12 1MAY T 1 A B A ' C j D - A ~Y fU01fACE AND w10TN OF VII AFIROACH SIMFACE WIDTN AT 220 200 i f00 f00 t,0p0 l 7,000 ENO b - b ! ~ - f RAD1W OF NObQONTAt tl2RFADE 2.000 0.000 6.000 ~ 10,000_70,000 10.000 N2U-, NONigECN10N A7Hg6LN lyilwlllNT AF-Iq~C~ NFGlp1 ~ f C O ~ r _ b , ~RCICN A B A AMROACN p721FACE WgTN AT END 1.200 7,600 7.000 1.600 x.000 16.000 .000 _ 0.000 tOl10D 10.000. APF'NOA(.'N 211bFACE L606TN ~ 2.000 ! 0 ~~ E _ AVPROACN 2l0VE ~p'7 201 Mt 11.7 iA:t ' ~ A~UTILITY RUNWAYb IA6~TYrEiCftlK'1E957YW1 OR 60U7L TO t2.i0012t2) ' ~~ ! ~ gUNWAV2 lAR0ER T'NIW UTILITY C • h&bILITY MINI W W OREATEq THAN L1 MLE tS~ D YIbIBILIT' W NIW Yb Ab LOW AS i/A MILE _ . F'AECi810N INlTRUYENT AVP'110ACN bLORE Is Sp't FOR INNER 70.000 FEET AND a0 t FOR AN ADDITIONAL s0.D00 FEET ••. v6e61TY6aw.AAw2 91WM+CN APPROApt RATFB ~ t, ~ CONICAL SURFACE I PREC1910N INSTRUMENT APPROACH Q i - VISUAL OR NON•PRECISION APPROACH (SLOPE - E) _ f a+ - 112 C • '~ . - -~ .. - - \\ , /l ~~ ~l Y9 . i1tl 410K 6i WtNFD 11 w 106 yr0 ~ . ~! H.F + .~ ~ ~ ~ ~h -1/2 A ` ~^ RUNWAY CENTERLINES 1/2 A ISOM~IC~~~SECTION A~ Source: Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Exhibit B1 FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces • 8-14 LA/Ontario lnternafiona/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Ptan (Adopted April 19, 2011) Vt1aC;uf,aV FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B ~aeooeT oLU~tiivc Fadum To PYwde AI/Requselsd IrAametivn May Delay Rncesairp of Your /Johte fOR fAA USE OMLY ave.rrca~ amey M.,r. f;~,~,,°' ~~„ Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration - - - 1. Sponso- ()xrec+t omipeny, etc. prcposhg tlMa actioN ' . 9.lattluds: e ~ Attn. of Name: . I pY _~Ip Z 8poneorY Reprosentatlve (! otHN CNn I-f) ACn d Name' Address: I ~ 91Ne .pia 4. Dtretlan: ^ Pemlanent ^ Tertporary I months dsys) 5. Work 6chedule: Oegeinlnq End 0. Type: ^ Antenna Tower ^ Ctene ^ Buadlnp ^ Power LIM ^ Landlfll ^ 1Neter Tank ^ OtMr 7. Yarkhg/Palntlrp andor LlpAtlrq Prolsrtad: ^ Red Ugh and Paint ^ DuN - Rsd end Medklm Intansky W1rns ^ WiUte - McOUm InfMSity ^ Dwi -Red end High mtensny Wnlte ^ Whks - HIS IMangty ^ OIMr 0. fCC Mtema llruduro Repkiratbn Numt»r (aapp#cedy 21. GomplNe Deeorlptlon of Propoaat: Frequency/Pows+ IkW) the ndlee I Hereby eertlfy that all of the eDOVe stetemenh made by me sro tlus, complNS, and cortec[ to the best o1 my kroWedps. M addNton, 1 apron to I marts and/or Ilpht the struKture In accordance wMh establkMd marktnp and Ilphtlnq standards as necessary. pate Typed ar PrtMed name end Tltle of Person Felnp Notke Signature Exhibit 62 FAR Part 77 Notification Form FAA Form 7460-1 C • 10. Lonpltude: e 11. Dalurn: ^ NAD 87 ^ NAD 17 ^ Oltar 12. MearoN: Cky 91Ne~_ 1J. Neerosl PuDllc-use (nd pm~ete-usela MlMtery Nryart or Heliport 11. Distance from H3, to Struduro. 15. Diradfon korrr M15. to Shuduro 18. aRe gsvatlon (AMSIJ n- 17. Total 8hucture NNpM (AOU ~ 1 t. Overall hNNpfN (M1 & ~ •17. ((AM3U }L 19. Prevtow FAA AeronauRlcel t>tudy Number (if applipdey -OE 20. Deserlptbn of Location: (AIUM a U969 7 5 minute Ouadrengle Map w~ Cie Drodx she marked and any ttAMed survey l LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) 8-15 APPENDIX B FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 o~~~~ at?~pZT ~L~~hl1; Exhibit 63 • Online Submittal of "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" Historically a paper form called a "7460-1" was required to be submitted to the FAA for any project proposed on airport property and certain projects near airports. Recently, the FAA has moved from paper forms to an on-line system of evaluating the effects of a proposed project on the national airspace system. dd The on-line system can be accessed at httos:lloeaaa.faa.aov. This new system allows project proponents to submit and track their proposal as it progresses through the FA.g evaluation process. Tmhe purpose of this guidance is to supplement and clarify the FAA user guide for the 7460 website. !~i available at: https://oeaaa faa.aovloeaaa/extemallcontent/OEexternal Guide v3 l.pdf \X%e recommend that the user first read the entire guide provided by the FAA, and then use this document to clarify some of the more complicated aspects of the online 7460 system. WHEN A PROJECT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE FAA CFR 'I"itle 14 Part 77.13 states that any person/organization who intends to sponsor any of the following construction or alterations must notify the Administrator of the FAA: • ~ Any construction or alteration exceeding 200 ft above ground level The FAA has been ~ Any construction or alteration: continuously improving the oe/aaa website to be more • within 20,000 ft of a public use or military airport which exceeds a user friendly and increase the 100:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with at on-line functionality. The look least one runway more than 3,200 ft and feel of the website may change in the future, but the • within 10,000 ft of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 50:1 majority of the content should surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest remain as is. runway no more than 3,200 ft • within 5,000 ft of a public use heliport which exceeds a 25:1 surface ~ Any highway, raikoad or other traverse way whose prescribed adjusted heigh t would exceed the above noted standards -I~ When requested by the FAA ~ Any construction or alteration located on a public use airport or helipo rt regardless of height or location. Create an account Before accessing the features of the website, the user will be required to create a username and password to access the website. • Ei-16 LA/Ontario lnternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B Obstruction Evr.lurtlon I Airport Alrspsce Anatysls (OElAAA) ~ r.,nt Mif D.q• In admmistennq TRIe 11 ofthe Code of Federal Requlabons CFR Part 71, the prime oblectroes of the FM are to promote au safety and the etnuent use ofthe naapable avspace TO accOmptish Cris mission, aeronautical sNdies are conducted basetl on infortnabon provitled by proponents on an FAA Form 7460.1, Nobca of Prbposed ConsWcbon or 1Uterabon Adrison Circular TOf71rS4 ~ K, Obstructlon Marlrinp and Uphbnp, describes the standards for marking and eghbnp structures such as bwldinps. chimneys, antenna towers, coohnq towers, storage tanks, supporbnp structures of overhead vnres, etc (~ AAA Fiinp Roceas v~•r arcvl.ne•d c••u Ifyour organ¢abon is plamm~q to sponsor env construction or alterations rvhtch may affect navigable airspace, You must fie a Nedce of Proposed CrnMhuctlon a MNafbn (Form 7ag1}t t rvrtti the Fpq Sa•rch Ardrrvar Dornload Rrdrwar _ ~~ \~ Gird. 8•nch For cases grda surdr for Mrp°rtr r •:~/'c1 . t'-.. Dirvabonary Raviav F~Qf - - Nohu CrMru T°•I H coriiigructlon or aBuatien IS MOT LOCATED on an abport: M COgIg1YCfFOn of alnratfon IS LOCATED on an alrpo¢ D°DDratin,lnarv You may fi~eforms7Y60taria7/60?electrontcalNviathiswebsde- Ybumavtlle/orms7/60-Ielecttonl[alNrtethiswebsrte-NewUSer sd••nlnq TOOL New'_~59~~ep'~SUdf~On RrgiilydL~ll Dia•nw C•Icul•6°n Tool OI ?" You m e forms 74641 and 71642 ea US Poatel Man to' Login Processing Center ederal Awabon Aemmishabon Nw Uaar Raglttratlon SO Ultiwe4l ReglOnBl OtCC! Ohshucbon Evaluation SeMte,A1R-322 2601 Meacham Boulevard Fort wont, Tfc 76193 ~M Acronym. °p ^^' Ousstiotts~ Please corrtact the appropriate rspresarttatrve R•q~latory pollee Find the FM A+rports Region / Dtsbrct Ofice havtnq junstl¢bon over the alrptlrl On WhICh Ma tOnapUCbdn 15 IOtated, and Ole t0 thal aedress Once a user has created an account, they will be able to log in and will be directed to the OE/r`lAA Portal Page. This page displays a summary of any projects which have been entered into the website, categorized by off-airport and on-airport projects. Adding a Sponsor Before a user can enter project specific information, a project sponsor must be created. A sponsor is the person who is ultimately responsible for the construction or alteration. All FAA correspondence will be addressed to the sponsor. The sponsor could be the airport manager for projects proposed by the airport, or the developer proposing off airport construction. To create a sponsor contact, click "Add New Sponsor" on the "portal" page. from there the user can add sponsors for various projects. • • LA/Ontarro Intemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apn! i 9, 2011) 8-17 • APPENDIX B FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 o~~i~ AMtPDAT P~Atir:i•!~ OEfAAA Portal Pape MY Accoam Menra: rM Cases tOIfAWerO I Atltl New Case (01lAImor1) Ilsw Nrs[w: MS' SDOnsors I Atld New Sponsor Legln TMs: PJr TrafAC Areas psaesponalnrtltr o ~drhess Actlaro: 1MraCC Neat Updab A[CDUM rntOTYaaon Cnange Password LOg0u1 NOTE Please use this sectlon for Ahnq or.anpon [Onetnl[tlons ele[troN[alry • Email NoNflcelbm Circulsraetl Case Nonncancr• asY Canes M status Draft 0 Ac[epted 0 60ensron Reguesl Atld Letter 0 work in Prpgress 0 Delermmetl D Cuculartzed 0 Terminated 0 NI D Molp OF1NN SuDDOR Desk PIMne: 102-580-1500 Nnait oeaaa_helDdeskpcghlech cam ~ ~,~,,. rr,,, ~.~. On Alrpon Conenuttlon lexdndes on Military AI[porA M C ases duo Anvlr:,~ I ACV` •. N.": rsa :v.. Nrpo~L krr 80artsors AOO Neu. St;or sot ~~ arpprts Ragronu corttanc uy cases M Sts[n: Deaf, 0 WaNnq 0 AcreDleO 179 AOtl Letter 0 Wor-In Peoprost 6a Dtde+mrnetl ~ Tennmried 0 DNeted D M 1~7 Documema JEJAM Srstem VSe~ 4~~~de rPA AC f0 nym e When the user selects "Add New Sponsor", they will be presented with the following screen: Add New Sponsor . _. _ ~ Dnnt this Page The Sponsor can be You, your company, or Your client The sponsor is the person or business ultlmateh responsible forthe tonstrucbon or alteration The sponsor appears as the addressee on all cartespondence from the FAA Please populate the following form to add or update a Sponsor. Required Nelda indicated rith ' • • Spenser Nartkss • A4Mktion Qf[ • Aadf..a[ ~eare..z[ • cter[ ~ StsEes v -OR- • Non-us sr„c.: ' teuntrys United States ~ • iip /Pose Loder O Plwn.r ~~_~ er,t O • Fax[ ~-~-~ ' EmaM[ TE: The party submitting Irmation through the FAA site DOES NOT have to the same as the sponsor. en, a consultant or other ty under direction from the Insor makes the submittal ~uoh the website E~18 LA/Ontario lntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Agri! f9, 20f 1) FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX 6 Creating a New Submittal There are two options for creating a new 7460 submittal. Again on the left side, either click "Add New Case (off airport)" or "Add New Case (on airport)" OE/AAA Portal Page lily Account FAA OE/AAA Offigs Viw Determined Casts Viw Proposed Casas Viw Supplemental Notices (Form 7460-2) Vier Circularized Cases Seardi Arehwas DOrnlOad ArdllVet Ctrd• Surch for Cases ..~ru. ~ ..,~ ...~ ....~..... Dlscetbnery Reviar FAQs Notiu Criteria Tool Do0 preliminary Scnemnp Tool Distmw Calculation Tool Name: User NafINl: LoyYr Time: IP Address: Anions: Vyhat's New Update Account InTOrmation Change PBSSWOrtl Logout Portal Page My Cates (Off Airport} My Cazes (On Airport) My Sponsors Add Ner Caf1 (Off Update User Account What's Ner Chanye Password Loyout Email Nofiflcations C~rcularaea Case rJOtifra9~r` There are some differences in the required fields for "on airport" vs. "off airport" but the differences are minor and self explanatory. One tip: for off airport submittals there is a field for "requested marking/lighting". If the user does not have a preference, select other from the pull down menu and in the "other field" state "no prefcrence". • • LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Ptan (Adopted April 19, 2011) B-~ 9 APPENDIX B FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 O~~D~'i'un+rc; Notice of Proposed Construction or AReration -Off Airport ~, P. ,~ h:x o,9e • Spoeeer (peteen, coepatty, etc. propoelnq Mls action) ' ~~ v Constnctlen / AMeratloa Iofennatbn Structure Summary • NsMC.~ Of! ~ • SlIYCOn! Type OVStlon1 ~ ' SbVCt1e! NeIt~1 NTemporary : MonlHs~ Q oev._ Q Fcc N,enban O waAt SdxadlM - Steen ~ ~y (mrrJdd/vvvv) prior ASN, O - ~ . ~ . of Wseh fdredrM - Endx O '~' (mMddlvvvv) Steil iiq, Stroctur'a DetNle Common FreVueecy eanas latlttsder ~• ~ ~• ry v ^ Lnw Fns Nl~h Feet Frq Unit 61D HtP UnH • ~d~, ^_ ~1, O„ W r ^ BOe 81{ MHx 400 W •~~~ DatMwr tlAD83 v ^ e21 B19 MHx 500 W ' 515 Elevaeen (SE)r ^ 831 86b MHx 500 W ~(neanrtfoot) ^ 869 841 MHt 500 W • S4VCdw 11MpA! (AGtJr O (nearest foot) ^ 096 901 MHe 500 W • Reeuw4ed MadrYre/UpAtYgx Ngip v ^ 90l 402 MHe 7 W ~thQr: ^ 930 931 MHr 3500 W Mde111eue1 WernYre Syedm(AVW4)r ^ ^ 931 032 MHe 3300 W Y•s ^ 932 932.3 MHt 17 dgW • lYerent Markeq/lphfYgr Select One ^ 935 9{0 MHe 1000 W O(llBf: ^ 9.0 9{1 MHt 3500 W + Wer~et Cflyr ^ 1830 )9l0 MHr 16{0 W ^ 7930 1990 MHr 1610 W • r4erwet Stedr v ^ 2303 2310 MNr 2000 W • Deec+~OOn of lecNlont ^ 2313 2360 MHx 2000 W SpacMicFreduendss ~~ e. p~~t Accurate lat/long and site ~nnspel,r~ :,e,ue0cv elevation is critical for an accurate airspace determination. • Aaatnee.llec«tan(e) It is recommended that survey quality data be ®® obtained from a recent survey, a GPS unit, or worst case, scaled from a topo quad. -~ 'Ihe most common "notice of is construction. Select from pull down menu. -~ Latitude and longitude must be entered for the structure/construction activity. ~ Most 7460 submittals will require multiple points with lat/long unless the 7460 is for apole/tower/ or other single point object. Buildings and construction areas all require points indicating the extents of the building or area. More information is provided below on how to add additional points to a submittal. -~ There is a field to describe the activity taking place. In some complex activities the field does not provide enough room for the required text. An additional explanatory letter can be attached. additional information is provided in this section on how to add a letter or document to the submittal. ~ Red asterisks indicate the required fields. ~ Unless there has been a pre~nous aeronautical study for this submittal leave the "prior study" fields blank. ~ Only select "common frequency bands" if the proposed structure will transmit a signal. If the submittal is a building or construction area that is more than a single lat/long point the user must save the data first. Click save at the bottom of the page. This will bring up a summary screen of the case. To add more mints click "clone" under the heading "actions". X20 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) a,~t~o~TCU~r:v',; FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B Noticf o/ Propwfd Conftruetlon or Altsrttrtbn -Off Airport (wy.1e a..... tESn-ooou9eaa9 9....e~ a.tw Prolaet Sutmury : TESTt-00011ffDa-0f =Dr. -n~Ma~ Case tc r~~z F~•: ~e] ~a ~r fMe tat/1/M MM .d F.. T. 30. 30' 30.00' A X .~~ •, OrMI 9S• 30 30.00' W .•d• •QM1, Tx 30' 30 3.00' ~ X Y••er Wo Or.R 9Y 11' 1.00' W •dF. 3x 30. 30 30.00' • K .1~.t. N.. DM! 93' : 00' W ••e•'. •dfv. TY 30' 30' 9.00' rY X v«rW wp D:sR 9t• 4' 7.00' W :.0' •dF.. T• 30• Nl' 13.00 M X .• •. Or•k 93• {! 1.00' W 7o suGmd Ittis prgeC you must verM tfte coordinates o1 each case Ilgted a00R h.+t i'+.c o•q• 111t1sa• C• •r• G~•.• C7oM up~~•d • 06F w.e. u Clc•• • pCc ONN• ao... Upload • Wf ON•r• Clan• uc~ead • pDF The clone tool copies all the relevant information to a new page where an additional lat/long and elevation can be entered. However, the clone process does not number the various points of a proposed project. When entering the details for a point (see Image 5) it is helpful if the user assigns a number to the point and references the total number of points for the project (e.g. point 2 of 20). The numbering can be included in the project "description/remarks" field for each point. It should be noted that each individual point associated with a project (e.g. each corner of a building) is evaluated individually, thus the importance of including a numbering system (2 of 20) in the text/description box. Once done, click "save" again. Now the user will see two records under the "project summary" heading. Continue this process of cloning for all the remaining points. Once all the points have been entered, each point must be verified. There is a red X with the words "verify map" indicating the user has not verified the location. Click Verify Map, a popup will display the lat/long point on a topo map and the user must verify that it is in the correct location. After clicking "verify map" on the popup, the red X will become a blue checkmark. It seems to be more efficient to enter all of the points associated with a project and then return to verify each point on the map at one time. • • LA/Onfario international Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apnl 19, 2011) 8-21 APPENDIX B FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 O~*~atv.,~a~ws • 0 0 ~ ~ Zmmin 7mndt Pm _ lieaxre Total dlft~nco: ~ Segment distances ~~ ~ Norttt g 3 All on-airport project submittals must have a "project sketch" included. under the "actions" column select "upload a PDF". Once you have uploaded a sketch for all the points associated with the project the red X under "sketch" will turn to a green check mark. Off-airport projects do not require a "project sketch", but the user can still upload one for informational purposes. If the user needs to add any other information such as an explanatory letter, clicking on "upload a PDF~" will allow the user to upload more documents, although only one at a time. Keep in mind that if additional PDFs or information are being provided, like the project sketch it must be uploaded to every point associated with the project. Once the maps have been verified and sketches uploaded for all points associated with the case, the user will be able to submit the 74GQ to the FAA for review. Status of Submitted Projects To check the status of a submittal, click on either "my cases (off airport)" or "my cases (on airport)" to see a list of what has been submitted. F_ach of the multiple points associated with one project will be listed as if they are separate, although still associated. The points will have a status: • WOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) . s«,th By wNfy:np th• coordinates npnunbd on the map, you ^pr~• ttrat th• location of the case you haves •nter~d is coma to th• bert of your knodedpe. FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B ALL of My Cass (OR Airport) $tr ar, F.lbs N aff wt.s art eNrfffro Acboe • S~r• =r'Cffrf ~. '~f/- ~• r ~ccfp tf0:0 4,f4Mhegnii i0; Tef0-2 AefeaaC rO Ntld hair 0 0.r..m~•.e p: u mel,rtf.d ',e' .. gar- .. RBNrOs t t,+ 70 0131 FapE t of 2 f j.ft Ilwr 9tr.c4fr. lrwr. ASII !bM O.b Aen}rA Dab MWr M.v ~q' 6br _f' 3?E-/r~ ~ 'rf. 200'-lSW-tt973~OE T.•.n,n.rW :2~2]/2C0' .~~.27Z]C7 Teat 'T Ct'} -^u03C 59Y7~[' ,d• OnR 11Wnafd AS CxT+-OOOC7fN]•CT Oran lwAOC TK C3TT •QOOOfOf7f-C7 Ofannf OnR leaaWnren VA O~vp •OM103TN•Of N:W.d. OnR tbmfNf TM TfR •OOOOt73N•C7 DnR Teft TK Tf7T •OCOCITl97-C7 OnR Teft v~ Tff'T -00003N33•C! -1 Teff 3003-AlW-lf00.OE TennNftad 10l2U2003 O173f7200f Tut TX T[fT•0000~37:}Cf OnR Teft ~' iEfT•OOC07fff0.Of Gnk Mrmr wi TE!'-006M2111-G' ei. 3007-.9W-2f91-CE Terttftnalad OY7L 200] 03']t'2001 Teat T% TE8T-OOOOMM!-0' 'ut 3007•afww9f-OE TBnmurard OdON200) 06106.'2007 Taft TK TE9T-00007070]-07 Teit 200 i-ML-lf9-0E Te•frflrteted 0(02072007 06'2$/2001 bit .K T6iT-0000731ff-07 Taft 20D7•A9W 4K!-OE Tennenbd 07/1'072007 0]!3$7300] Tef! TK TEST-00001f UB-0' Tfft G,e 3007•nSW-7fID`UF Temenabd OH73N3007 09/2V2007 Teft Tf TflT-OOOOfOfa}O1 Taft 2007•f1fW-ff if-l7E Tffnanated SO/3312oOT 10733:2007 Tut TK TEHT-0600091Tf-Of Teft 300f-14W-if]7-OE Tem,4uted 02/3&'3008 0272$/2000 Taft Tt Tt31'-000t00M~-Of rft 300f•A!w•SIBf•OE T.rminabd oB/04720CH 0870!/200e T.ft TK TFSTdOt :023f7-OB reH 2008-49W-lf9H-OE Temfmated OV 26(3000 t0/03/2008 Teft TY Tf4T-OOO:GH9-Of r,t SOOf-~9W 4317-OE TarmYfafed IO'03'3008 !0/09/2008 Mt TK ROwS Oet Pape 30 .' rled pipe' RacorOS 1 to 20 0131 PfpH: 1 Pape 1 of 2 Project Status Definitions: Draft: Cases that have: been saved by the user but have not been submitted to the Ft1.~1. • Waiting: Cases that have not been submitted to the FAA and are waiting for an action from the user, either to verify the map or attach a sketch. Accepted: Cases that have been submitted to the FAA. Add Letter: Cases that have been reviewed by the FAA and require additional information from the user. Work in Progress: Cases that are being evaluated by the FAA. Determined: Cases that have a completed aeronautical study and an F ~A determination. Terminated: Cases that are no longer valid. These definitions are also shown at the bottom of the summary screen. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) X23 • • • APPENDIX B FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 This page was left intentiona!!y blank. ~!~I1'ARIB-~ A'Qt'b',' aLFM1?.I'i i B-24 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) • IA~Ontario international Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan APPENDIX • .7 NTARI AIRPgRT PLANNING APPENDIX C AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS INTRODUCTION This appendix provides basic information regarding the concepts and rationale used to develop the compatibility policies and maps set forth in Chapter 2 of this L,.A/Ontarza International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Some of the material is excerpted directly from the California Airport Land Use Plan- ning Handbook published by the California Division of Aeronautics in January 2002. Other portions are based upon concepts that evolved from technical input obtained during review and discussion of pre- liminary drafts of key policies. State law requires that airport land use commissions "be guided by" the information presented in the Handbook. Despite the statutory reference to it, though, the Handbook does not constitute formal state policy or regulation. Indeed, adjustment of the guidelines to fit the circumstances of individual airports is suggested by the Handbook. The Handbook guidance and the information in this appendix does not supersede or otherwise take precedence over the policies contained in the LA/Ontario International Air- port Land Use Compatibility Plan. ~'1s outlined in the Handbook, the noise and safety compatibility concerns fall into four categories: • ~ Noise.• As defined by cumulative noise exposure contours describing noise from aircraft opera- tions near an airport. ~ Overflighi.• The impacts of routine aircraft flight over a community. ~ Safety: From the perspective of minimizing the risks of aircraft accidents beyond the runway en- vironment. ~ Airspace Protection: Accomplished by limits on the height of structures and other objects in the airport vicinity and restrictions on other uses that potentially pose hazards to flight. The documentation in the remainder of this appendix is organized under the four compatibility catego- ries. Under each of the four compatibility category headings, the discussion is organized around four topics: ~ Compatibility Objective: The objective to be sought by establishment and implementation of the compatibility policies; ~ Measurement: The scale on which attainment of the objectives can be measured; ~ Compatibility Strategies: The types of strategies which, when formulated as compatibility policies, can be used to accomplish the objectives; and ~ Basis for Setting Criteria: The factors which should be considered in setting the respective compa- tibility criteria. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apn! 19, 2011) C-1 QNTARIB- APPENDIX C AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS a~avpRr ?~aNniNG NOISE Noise is perhaps the most basic airport land use compatibility concern. Certainly, it is the most notice- able form of airport impact. Compatibility Objective The purpose of noise compatibility policies is to avoid establishment of new noise-sensitive land uses in portions of an airport influence area that are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise, taking into account the characteristics of the airport and the community surrounding the airport. Measurement For the purposes of airport land use compatibility planning, noise generated by the operation of aircraft to, from, and around an airport is primarily measured in terms of the cumulative noise levels of all air- craft operations. In California, the cumulative noise level metric established by state regulations, in- cluding for measurement of airport noise, is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Cumula- tive noise level metrics measure the noise levels of all aircraft operating at an airport on an average day {1 /365) of the year. The calculations take into account not only the number of operations of each air- craft type and the noise levels they produce, but also their distribution geographically (the runways and flight tracks used} and by time of day. To reflect an assumed greater community sensitivity to nighttime and evening noise, the CNEI. metric counts events during these periods as being louder than actually measured. • Cumulative noise level metrics provide a single measure of the average sound level in decibels (dB) to which any point near an airport is exposed over the course of a day. Although the maximum noise le- • vets produced by individual aircraft are a major component of the calculations, cumulative noise level metrics do not explicitly measure these peak values. Cumulative noise levels are usually illustrated on airport area maps as contour lines connecting points of equal noise exposure. Mapped noise contours primarily show areas of significant noise exposures--ones affected by high concentrations of aircraft takeoffs and landings. For civilian airports, noise contours are typically calculated using the Federal Aviation Administration's Integrated Noise Model (INM) computer program. The input information that generate this model are of two basic types: standardized data regarding aircraft performance and noise levels generated (this data can be adjusted for a particular airport if necessary); and airport-specific data including aircraft types and number of operations, time of day of aircraft operations, runway usage distribution, and the location and usage of flight tracks. Airport elevation and surrounding topographic data can also be en- tered. For airports with airport traffic control towers, some of these inputs can be obtained from rec- orded data. Noise monitoring and radar flight tracking data available for airports in metropolitan areas are other sources of valuable information. At most airports, though, the individual input variables must be estimated. Compatibility Strategies The basic strategy for achieving noise compatibility in an airport's vicinity is to limit development of land uses that are particularly sensitive to noise. The most acceptable land uses are ones that either involve few people (especially people engaged in noise-sensitive activities) or generate significant noise levels themselves (such as other transportation facilities or some industrial uses). • C-2 LA/Ontarfo Intemationa! AirpoR Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Aprit 19, 2011) p~r~l~ ~'~2'°i~'~~'~'= AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS APPENDIX C • California state law regards any residential land uses as normally incompatible where the noise exposure exceeds 65 dB CNEL (although the state airport noise regulations explicitl}' apply only to identified "noise problem airports" in the context of providing the ability of these airports to operate under a noise variance from the State, the Handbook and other state guidelines extend this criterion to all air- ports as discussed below). This standard, however, is set with respect to high-activity airports, particu- larly major air carrier airports, in urban locations, where ambient noise levels are generally higher than in suburban and rural areas. As also discussed below and as provided in the Handbook, a lower thre- shold of incompatibility is often appropriate at certain airports, particularly around airports in suburban or rural locations where the ambient noise levels are lower than those found in more urban areas. In places where the noise exposure is not so severe as to warrant exclusion of new residential develop- ment, the ideal strategy is to have very low densities-that is, parcels large enough that the dwelling can be placed in a less impacted part of the property. In urban areas, however, this strategy is seldom via- ble. The alternative for such locations is to encourage high-density, multi-family residential develop- ment with little, if any, outdoor areas, provided that the 45 dB CNEL interior noise standard and limita- tions based upon safety are not exceeded. Compared to single-family subdivisions, ambient noise levels are typically higher in multi-family developments, outdoor living space is less, and sound insulation fea- tures can be more easily added to the buildings. All of these factors tend to make aircraft noise less in- trusive. Sound insulation is an important requirement for residential and other noise-sensitive indoor uses in high noise areas. The California Building Code requires that sufficient acoustic insulation be pro~~ided in any habitable rooms of new hotels, motels, dormitories, dwellings other than detached single-family residences to assure that aircraft noise is reduced to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL or less. To • demonstrate compliance w7th this standard, an acoustical analysis must be done for any residential structure proposed to be located where the annual CNEL exceeds 65 dB. The Compatibility Plan further requires dedication of an avigation easement as a condition for development approval in locations where these standards come into play. Basis for Setting Criteria Compatibility criteria related to cumulative noise levels are well-established in federal and state laws and regulations. 1'he Califomia Airport Noise Regulations (California Code of Regulations Section 5000 ei ,req.) states that: "The level of noise acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of an airport is es- tablished as a community noise equivalent level (CNEL) value of 65 dB for purposes of these regulations. This criterion level has been chosen for reasonable persons residing in urban residen- tial areas where houses are of typical California construction and may have windows partially open. It has been selected with reference to speech, sleep and community reaction." No airport declared by a county's board of supervisors as having a "noise problem" is to operate in a manner that result in incompatible uses being located within the 65 dB CNEL contour. Incompatible uses are defined as being: residences of all types; public and private schools; hospitals and convalescent homes; and places of worship. However, these uses are not regarded as incompatible where acoustical insulation necessary to reduce the interior noise level to 45 dB CNEL has been installed or the airport proprietor has acquired an avigation easement for aircraft noise. As noted in the regulations, the 65 dB CNEL standard is set with respect to urban areas. For many air- ports and many communities, 65 dB CNEL is too high to be considered acceptable to "reasonable per- sons." Through a process called "normalization," adjustments can be made to take into account such • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apn! 19, 2011) C-3 p~r~l~ APPENDIX C AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS +~Krcoa-~uvtiw7 factors as the background noise levels of the community and previous exposure to particular noise • sources. This process suggests, for example, that 60 dB CNEL may be a more suitable criterion for suburban communities not exposed to significant industrial noise and 55 dB CNEL may be appropriate for quiet suburban or rural communities remote from industrial noise and truck traffic. On the other hand, even though exceeding state standards, 70 dB CNEL may be regarded as an acceptable noise ex- posure in noisy urban residential communities near industrial areas and busy roads. Industrial activity and transportation noise are undoubtedly two of the most prominent contributors to background noise levels in a community. According to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study however, the variable that correlates best with ambient noise levels across a broad range of com- munities is population density (Population Distribution of the United States as a Function of Outdoor Noise Level, EPA Report No. 550/9-74-009, June 1974). This study established the following formula as a means of estimating the typical background noise level of a community: DNLE;I,,, = 22 + 10 * log(p) where "p" is the population density measured in people per square statute mile. These factors are reflected in the policies of this Compatibility Plan. The Compatibility Plan considers the 70 dB CNEL the maximum normally acceptable noise exposure for new multi-family residential and 65 dB CNEL for new single-family residential development near LA/Ontario International Airport. The Compatibility Plan also establishes noise insulation standards for residential and nonresidential develop- ment in areas exposed to noise levels of 65 dB CNEL or greater. Based upon the above EPA equation, these criteria are a minimum of 5 dB above the predicted ambient noise levels in the respective com- munities. Similar considerations come into play with respect to establishing maximum acceptable noise exposure • for nonresidential land uses, particularly those that are noise sensitive. For schools, lodging, and other such uses, a higher noise exposure may be tolerated in noisy urban communities than in quieter subur- ban and rural areas. For uses that are not noise sensitive or which generate their own noise, the maxi- mum acceptable noise exposure levels tend to be the same regardless of ambient noise conditions. The criteria listed in Chapter 2 of this Compatibility Plan are set with these various factors in mind. OVERFLIGHT Experience at many airports has shown that noise-related concerns do not stop at the boundary of the outermost mapped CNEL contours. Many people are sensitive to the frequent presence of aircraft overhead even at low levels of noise. These reactions can mostly be expressed in the form of annoyance. The Handbook notes that at many airports, particularly air carrier airports, complaints often come from locations beyond any of the defined noise contours. Indeed, heavily used flight corridors to and from metropolitan areas are known to generate noise complaints 50 miles or more from the associated air- port. The basis for such complaints may be a desire and expectation that outside noise sources not be intrusive-or, in some circumstances, even distinctly audible-above the quiet, natural background noise level. Elsewhere, especially in locations beneath the traffic patterns of general aviation airports, a fear factor also contributes to some individuals' sensitivity to aircraft overflights. While these impacts may be important community concerns, the question of importance here is wheth- er any land use planning actions can be taken to avoid or mitigate the impacts or otherwise address the concerns. Commonly, when overflight impacts are under discussion in a community, the focus is on modification of the flight routes. Indeed, some might argue that overflight impacts should be ad- • C~ lA/Ontario lnternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS APPENDIX C • dressed solely through the aviation side of the equation-not only flight route changes, but other mod- ifications to where, when, and how aircraft are operated. Such changes are not always possible because of terrain, aircraft performance capabilities, FAA regulations, and other factors. In any case, though, ALUCs, or other designated bodies, are particularly limited in their ability to deal with overflight con- cerns. Most significantly, they have no authority over aircraft operations. The most they can do to bring about changes is to make requests or recommendations. Even with regard to land use, the au- thority of ALL?Cs/designated bodies extends only to proposed new development and the delineation of an airport's overall influence area. The authority and responsibility for implementing the Compatibility Plan's policies and criteria rests with the local governments. These limitations notwithstanding, there are steps which ALUCs/designated bodies can and should take to help minimize overflight impacts. Compatibility Objective The compatibility objective with respect to overflight is the same as for noise: avoid new land use de- velopment that can disrupt activities and lead to annoyance and complaints. However, given the exten- sive geographic area over which the impacts occur, this objective is unrealistic except relatively close to the airport. A feasible objective of overflight compatibility policies therefore is to help notify people about the presence of overflights near airports so that they can make informed decisions regarding ac- quisition or lease of property in the affected areas. Measurement Cumulative noise metrics such as CNEL are well-suited for use in establishing land use compatibility • policy criteria and are the only noise metrics for which widely accepted standards have been adopted. However, these metrics are not very helpful in determining the extent of overflight impact areas. Loca- tions where overflight concerns may be significant are typically well beyond where noise contours can be drawn with precision. Flight tracks tend to be quite divergent and noise monitoring data is seldom available. Moreover, even if the contours could be drawn precisely, the noise levels they would indicate may not be much above the ambient noise levels. For the purposes of airport land use compatibility planning, two other forms of noise exposure infor- mation are more useful. One measure is the momentary, maximum sound level (L,,,,,~ experienced on the ground as the aircraft flies over while landing at and taking off from a runway. These noise levels can be depicted in the form of a noise "footprint" as shown in Figure C1 for a variety of airline and general aviation aircraft. Each of these footprints is broadly representative of those produced by other aircraft similar to the ones shown. The actual sound level produced by any single aircraft takeoff or landing will vary• not only among specific makes and models of aircraft, but also from one operation to another of identical aircraft. In examining the footprints, two additional points are important to note. One is the importance of the outermost contour. This noise level (65 dBA L,,,,,~ is the level at which interference with speech begins to be significant. Land uses anywhere within the noise footprint of a given aircraft would experience a noise level, even if only briefly, that could be disruptive to outdoor conversation. Indoors, with win- dows closed, the aircraft noise level would have to be at least 20 dBA louder to present similar impacts. A second point to note concerns the differences among various aircraft, particularly business jets. As the data shows, business jets manufactured in the 1990s are much quieter than those of 10 and 20 years earlier. The impacts of the 1990s era jets are similar to those of twin-engine piston aircraft and jets be- ing made in the 2000s are quieter yet. At many general aviation airports, the size of the CNEL con- • tours is driven by a relatively small number of operations b~~ the older, noisier business jets. These air- LA/Ontario /ntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) C-5 p~r~l~ APPENDIX C AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS r!aooarvLnnwu~ craft are gradually disappearing from the nationwide aircraft fleet and are likely to be gone within 20 • years, but at this point in time it is uncertain when they will be completely eliminated. Another useful form of overflight information is a mapping of the common flight tracks used by air- craft when approaching and departing an airport. VL'here available, recorded radar data is an ideal source for flight track mapping. Even more revealing is to refine the simple flight track mapping with data such as the frequency of use and/or aircraft altitudes. Chapter 1 includes a sample of actual flight tracks and flight altitudes of aircraft using LA/Ontario International Airport. Compatibility Strategies The ideal land use compatibility strateg}~ with respect to overflight annoyance is to avoid development of new residential and other noise-sensitive uses in the affected locations. However, as mentioned be- fore this approach is not practical and other strategies need to be explored. The strategy emphasized in this Compatibility Plan is to help people with above-average sensitivity to air- craft overflights-people who are highly annoyed by overflights-to avoid living in locations where fre- quent overflights occur. This strategy involves making people aware of an airport's proximity and its current and potential aircraft noise impacts on the community before they move to the area. This can be accomplished through buyer awareness measures such as dedication of avigation or overflight ease- ments, recorded deed notices, and/or real estate disclosure statements. In new residential develop- ments, posting of signs in the real estate sales office and/or at key locations in the subdivision itself can be further means of alerting the initial purchasers about the impacts (signs, however, generally do not remain in place beyond the initial sales period and therefore are of little long-term value). A second strategy is to minimize annoyance by promoting land uses that tend to mask or reduce the in- trusiveness of aircraft noise. Although this strategy does not directly appear in the overflight policies of • this Compatibility Plan, the objectives of the plan would be well-served if local jurisdictions take this con- cept into consideration in their own planning efforts. For example, multi-family residential uses would be a better choice to place within aircraft overflight areas because they tend to have comparatively little outdoor living areas, fewer external walls through which aircraft noise can intrude, and relatively high noise levels of their own. However, low-density single family residential with densities of 1 unit per acre are discouraged since background noise levels are likely to be low making residents more suscepti- ble to aircraft noise. Basis for Setting Criteria In California, definitive guidance on where overflight impacts are significant or what actions should be taken in response comes from a state law that went into effect on January 2004. California statutes (Business and Profession Code Section 11010 and Civil Code Sections 1103 and 1353) now require most residential real estate transactions, including new subdivisions, to include disclosure that an airport is nearby. The area encompassed by the disclosure requirements is two miles from the airport or the airport influence area established by the county's airport land use commission. The law defines the air- port influence area as "the area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or air- space protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as de- termined by an airport land use commission." This Compatibility Plan requires that the disclosure of airport proximity be applied to all new residential development within the airport influence area and re- commends that disclosure be provided as part of all real estate transactions involving private property, especially any sale, lease, or rental of residential property. • C-6 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) o~~~~ ArtcraerP~atiNiNG AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS APPENDIX C • SAFETY Compared to noise, safety is in many respects a more difficult concern to address in airport land use compatibility policies. A major reason for this difference is that safety policies address uncertain events that may occur with occasional aircraft operations, whereas noise policies deal with known, more or less predictable events which do occur with every aircraft operation. Because aircraft accidents happen in- frequently and the time, place, and consequences of an individual accident's occurrence cannot be pre- dicted, the concept of risk is central to the assessment of safety compatibility. Compatibility Objective The overall objective of safety compatibility criteria is to minimize the risks associated with potential off-airport aircraft accidents and emergency landings beyond the runway environment. There are two components to this objective: ~?• Safety on the Ground.• The most fundamental safety compatibility component is to provide for the safety of people and property on the ground in the event of an aircraft accident near an airport. ~ Safety forAircraft Occupants. The other important component is to enhance the chances of surviv- al of the occupants of an aircraft involved in an accident that takes place beyond the immediate runway environment. Measurement Because aircraft accidents happen infrequently, measuring the risks associated with their occurrence is • difficult. It is necessary to look beyond an individual airport in order to assemble enough data to be statistically valid. It is beyond the intent of this discussion to provide statistical data about aircraft acci- dents. Much can be found on that topic in the Handbook. However, certain aspects of aircraft acci- dents are necessary to discuss in that they have a direct bearing on land use compatibility strategies. From the standpoint of land use planning, two variables determine the degree of risk posed by potential aircraft accidents: frequency and consequences. The frequenry variable measures inhere and when aircraft accidents occur in the vicinity of an airport. More specifically, these two elements can be described as follows: ~ Spatial Element: The spatial element describes where aircraft accidents can be expected to occur. Of all the accidents that take place in the vicinity of airports, what percentage occurs in any given location? ~ Time Element: The time element adds a when variable to the assessment of accident frequency. In any given location around a particular airport, what is the chance that an accident will occur in a specified period of time? Spatial Distribution of Aircraft Accidents Of these two elements, the spatial element is the one most meaningfully applied to land use compatibil- ity planning around an individual airport. Looking at airports nationwide, enough accidents have oc- curred to provide useful data regarding where accidents are most likely to occur. The Handbook uses accident data to define a set of safety zones. Additionally, the relative concentration of accidents in cer- tain parts of the airport environs is a key consideration in the establishment of compatibility criteria ap- plicable within those zones. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2091) C-7 0~'~~ APPENDIX C AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS "'AP~RTPt~*^~~"~ In contrast, the time element is not very useful for land use compatibility planning purposes for several i reasons. First, at any given airport, the number of accidents is, with rare exceptions, too few to be sta- tistically meaningful in determining where future accidents might occur. Secondly, a calculation of ac- cident frequency over time depends upon the size of the area under consideration-the smaller the area examined, the less likely it is that an accident will occur in that spot. Lastly, even if the accident fre- quency over a period of time is calculated, there are no clear baselines with which to compare the re- sults. The Handbook presents a set of diagrams indicating where accidents arc most likely to occur around air- line and general aviation airports. Figures C2 and C3 show the spatial distribution of general aviation aircraft accidents in the vicinity- of airports. (Note that these charts show data for all general aviation accidents in the Handbook database. Data on accidents associated with different lengths of runway is al- so provided. The Handbook accident distribution data plus the generic safety zones for air carrier run- ways is considered in delineation of the safety zones depicted in Chapter 1 of this Compatibility Plan.) The charts reveal several facts: ~ About half of arrival accidents and a third of departure accidents take place within the FAA- defined runway protection zone for a runway with aloes-visibility instrument approach proce- dure (a 2,500-foot long trapezoid, varying from 1,000 feet wide at the inner edge to 1,750 feet in width at the outer end). This fact lends validity to the importance of the runway protection zones as an area within which land use activities should be minimal. ~ Although accident risk levels are the highest within the runway protection zones, a significant degree of risk exists well beyond the runway protection zone boundaries. Among all near- airport (within 5 miles) accidents, over 80% are concentrated within 1.5 to 2.0 miles of a runways end. • ~ Arrival accidents tend to be concentrated relatively close to the extended runway centerline. Approximately 80% occur within a strip extending 10,000 feet from the runway landing thre- shold and 2,000 feet to each side of the runway centerline. ~ Departure accidents are comparatively more dispersed laterally from the runway centerline, but are concentrated closer to the runway end. Many departure accidents also occur lateral to the runway itself, particularly when the runway is long. Approximately 80% of the departure acci- dent sites lie within an area 2,500 feet from the runway centerline and 6,000 feet beyond the runway end or adjacent to the runway. To provide some sense of order to the scatter of individual accident points, an analysis presented in the Handbook involves aggregating the accident location points (the scatter diagrams of where accidents have occurred relative to the runway) in a manner that better identifies where the accident sites are most concentrated. The results are presented as risk intensity contours-Figure C2 shows arrival acci- dent risks and Figure C3 portrays departure accident risks. The two drawings divide the near-airport accident location points into five groups of 20% each (note that only accident sites that were not on a runway, but were within 5 miles of an airport are included in the database). The 20% contour represents the highest or most concentrated risk intensity, the 40% contour represents the next highest risk intensity, and so on up to 80%. The final 20% of the accident sites are beyond the 80% contour. Each contour is drawn so as to encompass 20% of the points within the most compact area. The con- tours are irregular in shape. No attempt has been made to create geometric shapes. However, the risk contours can serve as the basis for creating geometric shapes that can then be used as safety zones and the Handbook contains several examples. C-8 LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ONTARI@~ ~JItPORT?CANNING AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS APPENDIX C • The Handbook takes the additional step of translating the risk contours into several sets of generic safety zones having regular geometric shapes. Generic safety zones are illustrated for different types and lengths of runways. The shapes of these zones reflect not just the accident distribution data, but also the ways in which different phases of aircraft operations create different accident risk characteristics near an airport. For most runways, the ]-fandbook suggests creation of six safety zones. The locations, typical dimensions, and characteristics of the accident risks within each zone are outlined in Table C1. The degree of risk exposure within each safety zone is listed below. ~ Zone 7 clearly is exposed to the greatest risk of aircraft accidents. For civilian airports, the di- mensions of this zone are established by FAA standards. FAA encourages airport ownership of this zone and provides specific land use standards. Where the land is not airport owned, the FAA says these standards sen'e as recommendations. -~ ZOtIP 2 lies beyond Zone 1 and also has a significant degree of risk as reflected in both national anal local accident location data. ~ Zone 3 has less risk than Zone 2, but more than Zones 4, ~, or 6. Zone 3 encompasses locations where aircraft often turn at low altitude while approaching or departing the runway. ~ Zone 4 lies along the extended runway centerline be}'ond Zone 2 and is especially significant at airports that have straight-in instrument approach procedures or a high volume of operations that results in an extended traffic pattern. d• Zone 5 is a unique area lying adjacent to the runwati• and, for most airports, lies on airport proper- ty. The risk is comparable to Zone 4. ~ Zone 6 contains the aircraft traffic pattern. Although a high percentage of accidents occur within "Lone 6, for any given runway '/.one 6 is larger than all the other zones combined. Relative to the other zones, the risks in Zone G are much less, but are still greater than in locations more distant from the airport. Although accident location data, together with information on how aircraft flight parameters affect where accidents occur, are the bases for delineation of the generic safety zones, the Handbook indicates that adjustments to the zone sizes and shapes must be made in recognition ofairport-specific characte- ristics. Among these characteristics arc: d~ The particular mix of aircraft types operating at the airport. Larger aircraft generally are faster than smaller planes and thus fly longer and wider traffic patterns or make straight-in approaches. ~ The overall volume of aircraft operations. At busy airports, a larger traffic pattern is common because aircraft have to get in sequence for landing. ~ Nearby terrain or other airports. These physical features may, for example, limit a traffic pattern to a single side of the airport or dictate "nonstandard" approach and departure routes. ~ Instrument approach procedures. Aircraft following these procedures typically fly long, straight- in, gradual descents to the runway. In some cases, though, an approach route may be aligned at an angle to the runway rather than straight in. -} Existence of an air traffic control tower. When a tower is present, controllers may direct or al- low pilots to fly unusual routes in order to expedite traffic flow. By comparison, at relatively busy but non-towered airports, aircraft mostly follow the "standard" pattern dictated by federal aviation regulations. • LA/Ontario lnfemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 79, 2011) C-9 p~r~~ APPENDIX C AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS ARtP~RTP(,ANNING ~ A dominant direction of traffic flow. As reflected in the Handbook analysis of accident loca- • tions, landing aircraft tend to follow routes directly in line with the runway during final descent and thus accident sites also are concentrated along this alignment. Departing aircraft are more likely to turn to head to their intended destination and the accident pattern is thus more dis- persed. On runways where the flow of aircraft operations is almost always in one direction, this distinction in accident patterns is considered. Radar data is particularly helpful in showing exactly where aircraft fly when approaching or departing an airport. This data can be used to further support adjustments to the safety zones based upon the above characteristics. Accident Consequences The consequences variable describes what happens when an aircraft accident occurs. Specific measures can be defined in terms of deaths, injuries, property damage, or other such characteristics. In many re- spects, the consequences component of aircraft accident risk assessment is a more important variable than accident frequency. Not only can a single accident cost many li~-es, it can indirectly force opera- tional changes or even airport closure. Relatively little data is available specifically documenting the consequences of aircraft accidents. Except with regard to numbers of deaths or injuries to people on the ground, data on various aspects of air- craft accidents must be used to infer what the consequences have been. Swath size is one useful piece of information. It indicates the area over which accident debris is spread. Swath size in turn depends upon the type of aircraft and the nature of the accident: was the aircraft in controlled flight (an engine failure for example), but then collided with something on the ground or did a catastrophic event (such as a mid-air collision or stall-spin) result in the aircraft making an uncontrolled descent? For small gen- • eral aviation aircraft, the swath size data suggests that a controlled emergency landing in which the air- craft occupants have a strong chance of surviving is possible in an area about the size of a football field: 75 feet by 300 feet or about 0.5 acre. For larger aircraft, the minimum flight speed is so much higher that the consequences for people on board and anyone on the ground are likely to be high regardless of the land use or terrain characteristics. Compatibility Strategies The relatively low numbers of deaths and injuries from aircraft accidents is sometimes cited as indicat- ing that the risks are low. Clearly, though, the more people occupying the critical areas around airports, the greater the risks are. Aircraft accidents may be rare occurrences, but when they occur, the conse- quences can be severe. From a land use compatibility perspective, it is therefore essential to avoid conditions that can lead to catastrophic results. Basically, the question is: what land use planning measures can be taken to reduce the severity of an aircraft accident if one occurs in a particular location near an airport? Although there is a significant overlap, specific strategies must consider both components of the safety compatibility objective: protecting people and property on the ground; and, primarily for general aviation airports, enhancing safety for aircraft occupants. In each case, the primary strategy is to limit the intensity of use (the number of people concentrated on the site) in locations most susceptible to anoff-airport aircraft accident. This is accomplished by three types of criteria. • C-10 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ~~~I~ 1raw~ervunHive AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS APPENDIX C Density and Intensity Limitations Establishing criteria that limits the maximum number of dwellings or people in areas close to the air- port is the most direct method of reducing the potential severity of an aircraft accident. In setting these criteria, consideration must be given to the two different forms of aircraft accidents: those in which the aircraft is descending, but is flying and under directional control of the pilot; and those in which the air- craft is out of control as it falls. Limits on usage intensity-the number of people per acre-must take into account both types of potential aircraft accidents. The policies in Chapter 2 address both of these circumstances. Limiting the average usage intensity over a site reduces the risks associated with either type of accident. In most types of land use development, though, people are not spread equally throughout the site. To minimize the risks from an uncontrolled accident, the policies also limit the ex- tent to which people can be concentrated and development can be clustered in any small area. Open Land Requirements Requirements of undeveloped open land near an airport addresses the objective of enhancing safety for the occupants of an aircraft forced to make an emergency landing away from a runway. If sufficiently large and clear of obstacles, open land areas can be valuable for light aircraft anywhere near an airport. For large and high-performance aircraft, however, open land has little value for emergency landing pur- poses and is useful primarily where it is an extension of the clear areas immediately adjoining a runway. Highly Risk-Sensitive Uses Certain critical types of land uses-particularly schools, hospitals, and other uses in which the mobility of occupants is effectively limited-should be avoided near the ends of runways regardless of the num- ber of people involved. Critical community infrastructure also should be avoided near airports. These types of facilities include power plants, electrical substations, public communications facilities and other facilities, the damage or destruction of which could cause significant adverse effects to public health and welfare well beyond the immediate vicinity of the facility. Lastly, aboveground storage of large quantities (6,000 gallons or greater) of highly flammable or hazardous materials may pose high risks if involved in an aircraft accident and therefore are incompatible close to runway ends. Basis for Setting Criteria As with noise contours, risk data by itself does not answer the question of what degree of land use re- strictions should be established in response to the risks. Although most compatibility- policies restrict certain land use activities in locations beyond the runway protection zones, the size of the area in which restrictions are established and the specific restrictions applied vary from one county to another. Data useful in defining the geographic extent of airport safety areas was discussed above. To set safety compatibility criteria applicable within these zones presents the fundamental question of what is safe. Expressed in another way: what is an acceptable rzsk? In one respect, it may seem ideal to reduce risks to a minimum by prohibiting most types of land use development from areas near airports. However, as addressed in the Handbook, there are usually costs associated with such high degrees of restrictiveness. In practice, safety criteria are set on a progressive scale with the greatest restrictions established in loca- tions with the greatest potential for aircraft accidents. Little established guidance is available to ALUCs/designated bodies regarding how restrictive to make safety criteria for various parts of an airport's environs. Unlike the case with noise, there are no formal federal or state laws or regulations which set safety criteria for airport area land uses for civilian airports except within runway protectzon tiones (and with regard to airspace obstructions as described separately in • LA/Ontario international Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) C-11 p~r~l~ APPENDIX C AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS araaoa?ttaNn;Ne the next section). Federal Aviation Administration safety criteria primarily are focused on the runway • and its immediate environment. Runway protection zones-then called clear hones-were originally es- tablished mostly for the purpose of protecting the occupants of aircraft which overrun or land short of a runway. Now, they are defined by the FAA as intended to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The most useful place from which ALUCs/designated bodies can begin to determine appropriate safety compatibility criteria for airport environs is the Handbook itself. Although not regulatory in nature, state law obligates ALUCs/designated bodies to "be guided by" the information presented in the Handbook. Suggested usage intensity limitations, measured in terms of people per acre, are set forth along with other safety criteria. Reference should be made to that document for detailed description of the sug- gested criteria. Three risk-related variables discussed in the Handbook are worth noting here, however. ~ Kumvay Proximity: In general, the areas of highest risk are closest to the runway ends and secon- darily along the extended runway centerline. However, many common aircraft flight tracks do not follow along the runway alignment, particularly on departures. Also, where an aircraft crash- es may not be along the flight path that was intended to be followed. As indicated in Figures C2 and C3, these factors affect the risk distribution. ~ Urban versus RuralAreas: Irrespective of airports, people living in urban areas face different types of risks than those living in rural areas. The cost of avoiding risks differs between these two set- tings as well. The Handbook acknowledges these differences by indicating that usage intensities can be higher in heavily developed urban areas compared to partially undeveloped suburban areas or minimally developed rural locations, yet be equivalent in terms of the level of acceptable risk. ~ Existing versus Proposed Uses: Another distinction in compatibility policies can be drawn between • existing and proposed development. It is reasonable for safety-related policies to be established which prohibit certain types of new development while considering identical existing develop- ment to be acceptable. The Handbook notes that cost is an important factor in this regard. The range of risks can be divided into three levels (see page 9-15 of the Handbook). At the bottom of this scale are negligible and acceptable risks for which no action is necessary. At the top are in- tolerable risks for which action is necessary regardless of the cost. In between are risks that are significant, but tolerable. Whether action should be taken to reduce these risks depends upon the costs involved. Typically, the cost of removing an incompatible development is greater than the cost of avoiding its construction in the first place. Preparation of this Compatibility Plan has been greatly guided by the Handbook information. The Hand- book, though, also recognizes the importance of tailoring compatibility plans to local circumstances. Such has been the case with the safety compatibility criteria included in this Compatibility Plan. AIRSPACE PROTECTION Relatively few aircraft accidents are caused by land use conditions that are hazards to flight. The poten- tial exists, however, and protecting against it is essential to airport land use safety compatibility. In ad- dition, and importantly, land use conditions that are hazards to flight may impact the continued viability of airport operations and limit the ability of an airport to operate in the manner identified by the airport proprietor >n an adopted airport master plan and airport layout plan. • C-12 LA/Ontario lntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 20i 1) V•~p"'iTS~~~^+~ AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS APPENDIX C • Compatibility Objective Because airspace protection is in effect a safety factor, its objective can likewise be thought of in terms of risk. Specifically, the objective is to avoid development of land use conditions that, by posing ha- zards to flight, can increase the risk of an accident occurring. The particular hazards of concern are: d• Airspace obstructions; -;~ Wildlife hazards, particularly bird strikes; and ~ Land use characteristics that pose other potential hazards to flight by creating visual or electronic interference with air navigation. The purpose of airspace protection policies is to ensure that structures and other uses do not cause ha- zards to aircraft in flight within the airport vicinity. Hazards to flight include physical obstructions to the navigable airspace, wildlife hazards (particularly bird strikes), and land use characteristics that create visual or electronic interference with aircraft navigation or communication. This is accomplished by creating policies that place limits on the height of structures and other objects within the airport vicinity and restrictions on other uses that potentially pose hazards to flight. Measurement The measurement of requirements for airspace protection around an airport is a function of several va- riables including: the dimensions and layout of the runway system; the type of operating procedures es- tablished for the airport; and, indirectly, the performance capabilities of aircraft operated at the airport. ~ Airppace Obstructions: Whether a particular object constitutes an airspace obstruction depends upon two factors: the height of the object relative to the runway elevation; and its proximity to the airport. The acceptable height of objects near an airport is most commonly determined by application of standards set forth in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Aizrpace. These regulations establish athree-dimensional space in the air above an air- port. Any object which penetrates this volume of airspace is considered to be an "obstruction" and may affect the aeronautical use of the airspace. Additionally, as described below, another set of airspace protection surfaces is defined by the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures, known as TERPS. Although the intended function of these standards is in design of instrument approach and departure procedures, they can be important in land use compatibility planning in situations where ground elevations near an airport exceed the FAR Part 77 criteria. d~ Wildlife and Other Hazards to Flight.• The significance of other potential hazards to flight is princi- pally measured in terms of the hazards' specific characteristics and their distance from the airport and/or its normal traffic patterns. Compatibility Strategies Compatibility strategies for the protection of airport airspace are directly associated with individual types of hazards: ~ Airspace Obstructions: Buildings, antennas, other types of structures, and trees should be limited in height so as not to pose a potential hazard to flight. -~ Wildlife and Other Hazards to Flight.• Land uses that may create other types of hazards to aircraft in flight near an airport should be avoided or modified to remove the potential hazard. • LA/Ontario lnternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) C-13 p~r~xi APPENDIX C AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS ~mcoaTau""i"~ Basis for Setting Criteria • The criteria for determining airspace obstructions have been long-established in FAR Part 77. Also, state of California regulation of obstructions under the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code, Section 21659) is based on FAR Part 77 criteria. A shortcoming of FAR Part 77 criteria, however, is that they often are too generic to fit the conditions specific to individual airports. The airspace protec- tion surfaces defined in these regulations can be either more or less restrictive than appropriate for a particular airport. The surfaces can be less restrictive than essential in instances where an instrument approach procedure or its missed approach segment are not aligned with the runway. FAR Part 77 also does not take into account instrument departure procedures which, at some airports, can have critical airspace requirements. Oppositely, FAR Part 77 provides no useful guidance as to acceptable heights of objects located where the ground level already penetrates the airspace surfaces. To define airspace protection surfaces better suited to these situations, reference must be made the TERPS standards mentioned above. These standards are used for creation of instrument approach and departure procedures. Thus they exactly match the procedures in effect at an individual airport. Unlike the FAR Part 77 surfaces, the elevations of which are set relative to the runway end elevations irrespec- tive of surrounding terrain and obstacles, the TERPS surface elevations are directly determined by the location and elevation of critical obstacles. By design, neither the ground nor any obstacles can pene- trate a TERPS surface. However, construction of a tall object that penetrates a TERPS surface can dic- tate immediate modifications to the location and elevation of the surfaces and directly cause minimum flight visibility and altitudes to be raised or the instrument course to be realigned. In severe instances, obstructions can force a procedure to be cancelled altogether. A significant downside to use of TERPS surfaces for compatibility planning purposes is that they are highly complex compared to the relative simplicity of FAR Part 77 surfaces. Also, the configuration and/or elevations of TERPS surfaces can • change not only in response to new obstacles, but as implementation of new navigational technologies permits additional or modified instrument procedures to be established at an airport. In the Compatibility Policy Map: Airspace Protection Zones presented in Chapter 2 of this Compatibility Plan, primary reliance is placed upon FAR Part 77 criteria. Where an instrument approach procedure is established, the associated TERPS surfaces are depicted as well. In most locations, the 7'ERPS surfaces are well above the underlying terrain and present no significant constraint on land use development. As a precaution to help ensure that tall towers or antennas located on high terrain do not penetrate a TERPS surface, places where the ground elevation comes within 100 feet of a TERPS surface are shown on the map. Among other hazards to flight, bird strikes no doubt represent the most widespread concern. The FAA recommends that uses known to attract birds-sanitary landitlls being a primary example-be kept at least 10,000 feet away from any runway used by turbine-powered aircraft. More information re- garding criteria for avoidance of uses that can attract wildlife to airports can be found in FAA Advisory Circulars 150/5200-34 and 150/5300-33. Other flight hazards include land uses that may cause visual or electronic hazards to aircraft in flight or taking off or landing at the airport, Specific characteristics to be avoided include sources of glare or bright lights, distracting lights that could be mistaken for airport lights, sources of dust, steam, or smoke that may impair pilot visibility, and sources of electrical interference with aircraft communica- tions or navigation. C-14 LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 20??) p~r~l~ nBPORr a~nr+Nwc AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS APPENDIX C • • • ~ • a ~ Nominal Dimensions Relative % ofAccidents Nature ofAccident Zone Description (California Airport Land Use Risk in Zone Risk Planning Handbook) Level (Handbook Database) Runway Protection Depending upon approach vi- Very Landing undershoots Arrivals: 28%-56% 1 Zone sibility minimums: 1,200 feet High and overshoots; over- Departures: 23%- and minimum, 2,700 feet maxi- runs on aborted takeoffs; 29% within Runway mum beyond runway ends; loss of control on takeoff Total: 33%-39% Primary Surface 125 to 500 feet from center- line adjacent to runway (zone primarily on airport dimensions established by property; airport FAA standards) ownership encour- aged Acreage (one runway end): 8 to 79 (RPZ only) Inner Safety Zone Along extended runway cen- High Aircraft at low altitude Arrivals: 9%-15% 2 terline, to a distance of 2,000 with limited directional Departures: 3%-28% feet minimum, 6,000 feet options in emergencies: Total: 8%-22% maximum beyond runway typically under 400 feet ends on landing; on takeoff, Acreage (one runway end): engine at maximum 44 to 114 stress Inner Turning Zone Fan-shaped area adjacent to Moderate Turns at low altitude on Arrivals: 2%-6% 3 Zone 2 extending 2,000 feet arrival for aircraft flying Departures: 5%-9% minimum, 4,000 feet maxi- tight base leg present Total: 4%-7% mum from runway ends stall-spin potential; likely touchdown area if emer- Acreage (one runway end): gency at low altitude on 50 to 151 takeoff, especially to left of centerline Outer Safety Zone Along extended runway cen- Low to Low altitude overflight fo Arrivals: 3%-8% 4 terline extending 3,500 feet Moderate aircraft on straight-in ap- Departures: 2%~4% minimum, 10,000 feet maxi- proaches, especially in- Total: 2%-6% mum beyond runway ends strument approaches; on departure, aircraft nor- Acreage (one runway end): malty complete transition 35 to 92 from takeoff power and flap settings to climb mode and begin turns to en route heading Sideline Zone Adjacent to runway, 500 feet Low to Low risk on landing; Arrivals: 1 %-3% 5 primarily on airport minimum, 1,000 feet maxi- Moderate moderate risk from loss Departures: 5%-8% property mum from centerline of directional control on Total: 3%-5% takeoff, especially with Acreage: varies with runway twin-engine aircraft length Traffic Pattern Oval area around other Low Significant percentage of Arrivals: 10%-21% 6 Zone zones: 5,000 feet minimum, accidents, but spread Departures: 24%- (applicable only to 10,000 feet maximum beyond over wide area; widely 39% general aviation runway ends; 4,500 feet min- varied causes Total: 18%-29% runways) imum, 6,000 feet maximum from runway centerline Acreage: varies with runway length LA/Ontario lntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apnl 19, 2011) C-15 o~~l~ APPENDIX C AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS am~ar~~.ureres Figure C1 Noise F ootprints of Selected Aircraft General Aviation Aircraft TAIQ:OFF I.ANOwtr, ~ ~~ ~~ light, Single-F.npine Propeller Airpillrt• tpt elon r~p"e wdm r.ea-p~icn pap: uewiry rred ~d~p pe~1 7' ~--pis` ~°°s High Performance. 5mgle•Enpilte Propeller Airplane (p sw* npM nN+ gntOb-P~kh A'aP; u~r ~avaarw ir+er+p a.n 5rnall. Twin-Engine Propeller Airplane (pskn e^0^es) r Aire rb i i T E T i ne ng u op ue+, n- op Med w - -- 19705 Ere Business Jet (tv~oolu «gnesl • 18!306 Ere Business Jet ;awry ivbo}en enpnes) Early 1990s Era Business Jet or Regional AirNrte JOl tu.~mw, ~~r TAKEOPI IJWOYq ~---~ ~ ~ TAA drawings on thesB iwo pages show tM relative noise levels plteduodd Small Helicopar by dlNererrt types of iNrprah during rsnding end takeoff T1re contours represent the momentary maximum sound ~i expenellpYd on tha around as the aircraft flies over. The outerrrwat contour for ~ .~~ a~raaft indicates a 85 dBA sound level. Additional contours arp at 10 dBA ~ ""°' ' increments (75, 85. and in most cases 95 dBA). (Rlrprdt not tp Scale) • C-16 LA/Ontario Jntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) 0~~~ a:evov-v:a!~N~wc AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS APPENDIX C • Boeing 727-200 Serbs with Hush Klt ,t 1 _-_ McDonnell Doug185AA083 8o~ing 737-700 Senes Lockheed Martin C•5A `~ ` tilneral Dynamics F-16 Figure C1, continued • LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) C-17 ~NTARI~ APPENDIX C AIRPORT LAND USE COMPAT181LITY CONCEPTS ~ra!~aTruawNc 5,000' • Landing • Threshold 0' .. • 20°k 40°k • 60°~ 80% ~ ¢` • • , -5,000' • ' -t o,ooa -5,000' 0' 5,000' Notes: a45 arrival accidents in database -each dot represents one accident site. contours represent relative intensities (highest concentrations) of points in 20°b increments. Figure C2 General Aviation Accident Distribution Contours All Arrivals • • • C-18 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 79, 2011) O^~TP~"''`'~ AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS APPENDIX C • • C7 10,000' 5,000' 0' Departure End of Runway -5,000' _10,000' -5,000' 0' 5,000' Notes: 428 departure accidents in database -each dot represents one accident site. contours represent relative intensities {highest concentrations) of points in 20°k, increments. Figure C3 General Aviation Accident Distribution Contours All Departures • 20% , • ~ 40% • 'r ~60% • 80% L • y C a m LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 20J 1) C-19 Q~r~u~ APPENDIX C AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS aBapRivLaN4~NG This page was left intentionally blank. • • C-20 LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) • • • LA~Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan APPENDIX NTA.RI AIRPORT PLANNING APPENDIX D • METHODS FOR DETERMINING CONCENTRATIONS OF PEOPLE INTRODUCTION The underlying safety compatibility criteria utilized in this Compatibility Plan is "usage intensity"-the maximum number of people per acre that can be present in a given area at any one time. If a proposed use exceeds the maximum intensity, it is considered incompatible and inconsistent with the compatibility planning policies. The usage intensity concept is identified in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook as the measure best suited for assessment of land use safety compatibility with airports. The Handbook is published by the California Division of Aeronautics and is required under state law to be used as a guide in preparation of airport land use compatibility plans. It is recognized, though, that "people per acre" is not a common measure in other facets of land use planning. This Compatibility Plan therefore also utilizes the more common measure of floor area ratio (FAR) as a means of implementing the usage intensity criteria on the local level. This appendix both provides guidance on how the usage intensity determination can be made and defines the relationships between this measure, FAR, and other measures found in land use planning. For a discussion of the rationale for use of people per acre as a measure of risk exposure, see Appendix C. COUNTING PEOPLE The most difficult part about calculating land use intensity is estimating the number of people expected to use a particular facility under normal circumstances. All people-not just employees, but also customers and visitors-who may be on the property at any single point in time, whether indoors or outdoors, must be counted. The only exceptions are for rare special events, such as an air show at an airport, for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be taken as appropriate. Ideally, the actual number of people for which the facility is designed would be known. For example, the number of seats in a proposed movie theater can be determined with high accurary once the theater size is decided. Other buildings, though, may be built as a shell and the eventual number of occupants not known until a specific tenant is found. Furthermore, even then, the number of occupants can change as future tenants change. Even greater uncertainty is involved with relatively open uses not having fixed seating-retail stores or sports parks, for example. When a clear number of measurable occupancy does not exist, other sources must be relied upon to estimate the number of people in a proposed development. Survey of Similar Uses A survey of similar uses already in existence is one option, however gathering data can be time- consuming and costly. Also, unless the survey sample is sufficiently large enough and conducted at • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Aprr119, 2011) D-1 p~r~l~ APPENDIX D METHODS FOR DETERMINING CONCENTRATIONS OF PEOPLE rmMJarF~"""'"G • various times, inconsistent numbers may result. Except for uncommon uses for which occupancy levels cannot be estimated through other means, surveys may not be appropriate. Maximum Occupancy A second option for estimating the number of people who will be on a site is to rely upon data indicating the maximum occupancy of a building measured in terms of occupanry load factors-the number of square feet per occupant. The number of people on the site, assuming limited outdoor or peripheral uses, can be calculated by dividing the total floor area of a proposed use by the occupancy load factor. The challenge of this methodology lies in establishing realistic figures for square feet per occupant. The number varies greatly from one use to another and, for some uses, occupancy load factors can change over time as well. A commonly used source of maximum occupancy data is the standards set in the California Building Code (CBC). The chart reproduced as Table D1 indicates the occupancy load factors for various types of uses. The CBC is intended primarily for purposes of structural design, fire and safety and represents a legal maximum occupancy in most jurisdictions. A CBC-based methodology consequently results in occupancy numbers that are higher than normal maximum usage in most instances. The numbers also are based upon usable floor area and do not take into account corridors, stairs, building equipment rooms, and other functions that are part of a building's gross square footage. Surveys of actual occupancy load factors conducted by various agencies have indicated that many retail and office uses are generally occupied at no more than 50% of their maximum occupancy levels, even at the busiest times of day. Therefore, the Handbook indicates that the number of people calculated for office and retail uses can usually be divided in half to reflect the actual occupancy levels before making the final • people-per-acre determination. Even with this adjustment, the CBC-based methodology typically produces intensities at the high end of the likely range. Another source of data on square footage per occupant comes from the facility management industry. The data is used to help businesses determine how much building space they need to build or lease and thus tends to be more generous than the CBC standards. The numbers vary not only by the type of facility, as with the CBC, but also by type of industry, The following are selected examples of square footage per employee gathered from a variety of sources. ~ Call centers 150 - 175 ~ Typical offices 180 - 250 ~ Law, finance, real estate offices 300 - 325 ~ Research & development, light industry 300 - 500 ~ Health services 500 The numbers above do not take into account the customers who may also be present for certain uses. For retail business, dining establishments, theaters, and other uses where customers outnumber employees, either direct measures of occupancy-the number of seats, for example-or other methodologies must be used to estimate the potential number of people on the site. Parking Space Requirements For many jurisdictions and a wide variety of uses, the number of people present on a site can be calculated based upon the number of automobile parking spaces that are required. Certain limitations and assumptions must be considered when applying this methodology, however. An obvious limitation • is that parking space requirements can be correlated with occupancy numbers only where nearly all D-2 LA/Ontario lnternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) Q~r~xl~ ~m70aTVtnNN~NG METHODS FOR DETERMINING CONCENTRATIONS OF PEOPLE APPENDIX D users arrive by private vehicle rather than by public transportation, walking, or other method. • Secondly, the jurisdiction needs to have awell-defined parking ordinance that lists parking space requirements for a wide range of land uses. For most uses, these requirements are typically stated in terms of the number of parking spaces that must be provided per 1,000 square feet of gross building size or a similar ratio. Lastly, assumptions must be made with regard to the average number of people who will arrive in each car. Both of the critical ratios associated with this methodology-parking spaces to building size and occupants to vehicles-vary from one jurisdiction to another even for the same types of uses. Research of local ordinances and other sources, though, indicates that the following ratios are typical. -} Parking Space Ratios-These examples of required parking space requirements are typical of those found in ordinances adopted by urban and suburban jurisdictions. The numbers are ratios of spaces required per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Gross floor area is normally measured to the outside surfaces of a building and includes all floor levels as well as stairways, elevators, storage, and mechanical rooms. • Small Restaurants 10.0 • Medical Offices 4.0 - 5.7 • Shopping Centers 4.0 - 5.0 • Health Clubs 3.3 - 5.0 • Business Professional Offices 3.3 - 4.0 • Retail Stores 3.0 - 3.5 • Research & Development 2.5 - 4.0 • Manufacturing 2.0 - 2.5 • Furniture, Building Supply Stores 0.7 - 1.0 d~ Vehicle Occupancy-Data indicating the average number of people occupying each vehicle parking at a particular business or other land use can be found in various transportation surveys. The numbers vary both from one community or region to another and over time, thus current local data is best if available. The following data represent typical vehicle occupancy for different trip purposes. • Work 1.05 -1.2 • Education 1.2 - 2.0 • Medical 1.5 -1.7 • Shopping 1.5 - 1.8 • Dining, Social, Recreational 1.7 - 2.3 USAGE INTENSITY RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER DEVELOPMENT MEASURES Calculating Usage Intensities Once the number of people expected in a particular development-both over the entire site and within individual buildings-has been estimated, the usage intensity can be calculated. The criteria in Chapter 2 of this Compatibility Plan are measured in terms of the average intensity over the entire project site. • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) D-3 p~r~xl~= APPENDIX D METHODS FOR DETERMINING CONCENTRATIONS OF PEOPLE arnroaTav,N~.~Nc The average intensity is calculated by dividing the total number of people on the site by the site size. A 10-acre site expected to be occupied by as many as 1,000 people at a time, thus would have an average intensity of 100 people per acre. The site size equals the total size of the parcel or parcels to be developed. Having calculated the usage intensities of a proposed development, a comparison can be made with the criteria set forth in the Compatibility Plan to determine whether the proposal is consistent or inconsistent with the policies. Comparison with Floor Area Ratio As noted earlier, usage intensity or people per acre is not a common metric in land use planning. Floor area ratio or FAA-the gross square footage of the buildings on a site divided by the site size-is a more common measure in land use planning. Some counties and cities adopt explicit FAR limits in their zoning ordinance or other policies. `I1-iose that do not set FAR limits often have other requirements such as, a maximum number of floors a building can have, minimum setback distances from the property line, and minimum number of parking spaces. These requirements effectively limit the floor area ratio as well. To facilitate local jurisdiction implementation, the Safety Compatibility Criteria table in Chapter 2 has been structured around FAR measures to determine usage intensity limits for many types of nonresidential land use development. To utilize FAR in this manner, a critical additional piece of information is necessary to overcome the major shortcoming of FAR as a safety compatibility measure. The problem with FAR is that it does not directly correlate with risks to people because different types of buildings with the same FAR can have vastly different numbers of people inside-a low-intensity • warehouse versus ahigh-intensity restaurant, for example. For FAR to be applied as a factor in setting development limitations, assumptions must be made as to how much space each person (employees and others) in the building will occupy. The Safety Compatibility Criteria table therefore indicates the assumed occupancy load factor for various land uses. Mathematically, the relationship between usage intensity and FAR is: FAR = (allowable usage intensity) x (occupancy load factor) 43, 560 Where usage intensity is measured in terms of people per acre and occupancy load factor as square feet per person. Selection of the usage intensity, occupancy level, and FAR numbers that appear in the Safety Compatibility Criteria table was done in an iterative manner that considered each of the components both separately and together. Usage intensities were initially set with respect to guidelines provided in the California Airport L~rnd Use Planning Handbook (see Appendix C of this Compatibility Plan). Occupancy levels were derived from the CBC, but were adjusted based upon additional research from both local and national sources in the manner discussed earlier in this appendix. The FAR limits were initially calculated from these other two numbers using the formula above. Comparison with Parking Space Requirements As discussed above, many jurisdictions have adopted parking space requirements that vary from one land use type to another. Factoring in an estimated vehicle occupancy rate for various land uses as described earlier, the occupancy load factor can be calculated. For example, a typical parking space requirement for office uses is 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet or 1 space per 250 square feet. If each • D-4 LA/Ontario lntemationat Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2017) QNTARI~ AmPOpT Flaun~MG METHODS FOR DETERMINING CONCENTRATIONS OF PEOPLE APPENDFX D vehicle is assumed to be occupied by 1.1 persons, the equivalent occupanry load factor would be 1 • person per 227 square feet. This number falls squarely within the range noted above that was found through separate research of norms used by the facility management industry, As an added note, the occupancy load factor of 215 square feet per person indicated in the Safety Compatibility Criteria table for office uses is slightly more conservative than the above calculation produces. This means that, for a given usage intensity standard, the FAR limit in the table is slightly more restrictive than would result from a higher occupancy load factor. • • LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011 J D-5 QNTARI APPENDIX D METHODS FOR DETERMINING CONCENTRATIONS OF PEOPLE a~PORro~prywrl~ • Minimum Use Square Feet per Occupant 1. Aircraft Hangars (no repair) 500 2. Auction Rooms 7 3. Assembly Areas, Concentrated Use (without fixed seats) 7 Auditoriums Churches and Chapels Dance Floors Lobby Accessory to Assembly Occupancy Lodge Rooms Reviewing Stands Stadiums Waiting Areas 3 4. Assembly Areas, Less Concentrated Use 15 Conference Rooms Dining Rooms Drinking Establishments Exhibit Rooms Gymnasiums Lounges Stages Gaming 11 5. Bowling Alley (assume no occupant load for bowling lanes) 4 6. Children's Homes and Homes for the Aged 80 7. Classrooms 20 8. Congregate Residences 200 9. Courtrooms 40 • 10. Dormitories 50 11. Dwellings 300 12. Exercising Rooms 50 13. Garage, Parking 200 14. Health-Care Facilities 80 Sleeping Rooms 120 Treatment Rooms 240 15. Hotels and Apartments 200 16. Kitchen -Commercial 200 17. Library Reading Room 50 Stack Areas 100 18. Locker Rooms 50 19. Malls Varies 20. Manufacturing Areas 200 21. Mechanical Equipment Room 300 22. Nurseries far Children (Daycare) 35 23. Offices 100 24. School Shops and Vocational Rooms 50 25. Skating Rinks 50 on the skating are a; 15 on the deck 26. Storage and Stock Rooms 300 27. Stores -Retail Sales Rooms Basements and Ground Floors 30 Upper Floors 60 28. Swimming Pools 50 for the pool area; 15 on the deck 29. Warehouses 500 30. All Others 100 Source: California Building Code (2001), Table 10-A • D~ LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Aprit 19, 2011) • • • NTARI • AIRPORT PLANNING APPENDIX E SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS The City of Ontario is responsible for compatibility planning around LA/Ontario International Airport and implementing the compatibility criteria set forth in the L.f]/Ontario International Airport Land U.ce Compatibility Plan. Chapter 1 describes how general plans and specific plans can be modified to achieve consistency with compatibility plans. However, implementation of airport land use compatibility plans go beyond genera] plan consistency, other types of documents are also needed to assist with implementing Compatibility Plan policies. Samples of such implementation documents are inc]uded in this appendix. General Plan Consistency Checklist A Compatibility Pla~r is separate and distinct from a jurisdiction's other land use policy documents- general plans, specific plans, and zoning ordinances-yet all of the documents are expected to be made consistent with each other through incorporation of the compatibility policies into the general plans and zoning ordinances. To meet the consistency test, a general plan/policy document must do two things: d• It must specifically address compatibility planning issues, either directly or through reference to a • zoning ordinance or other policy document; and ~ It must avoid direct conflicts with compatibility planning criteria. Table E1 provides counties and cities with modifications necessary to make their general plans and other local policies consistent with the compatibility plan. Airport Combining Zone Ordinance Chapter 1 of this Compatibility Plan describes one option for achieving consistency, the adoption of an airport overlay zone. An airport overlay zone is one way of collecting various airport-related development conditions into one local policy document. Adoption of an airport overlay zone is not required, but is suggested as an option. Table E2 describes some of the potential components of an airport overlay zone. Buyer Awareness Measures Buyer awareness is an umbrella category for several types of implementation documents all of which have the objective of ensuring that prospective buyers within an airport influence area, particularly residential property, are informed about the airport's impact on the property. 'I7ze L.A/Ontario International Airport I1rnd U.re Compatibility Plan policies include each of these measures. ~ Avigation Easement-Avigation easements transfer certain property rights from the owner of the underlying property to the owner of an airport or, in the case of military airports, to a local • government agency on behalf of the federal government (the U.S. Department of Defense is not LA/Ontario fnternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 79, 2011) E-1 o~~l APPENDIX E SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS "~avoar°`ar;>i"° authorized to accept avigation easements). Specific easement dedication requirements are set forth • in Chapter 2. Also, airports may require avigation easements in conjunction with programs for noise insulation of existing structures in the airport vicinity. A sample of a standard avigation easement is included in Table E3. ~ Recorded Overflight Notification- A recorded overflight notification informs property owners that the property is subject to aircraft overflight and generation of noise and other impacts. No restrictions on the heights of objects, requirements for marking or lighting of objects, or access to the property for these purposes are included. An overflight notification serves only as buyer acceptance of overflight conditions. Suggested wording of an overflight notification is included in Table E4. Unlike an avigation easement, overflight easement, or other type of easement, an overflight notification is not a conveyance of property rights. However, like an easement, an overflight notification is recorded on the property deed and therefore remains in effect with sale of the property to subsequent owners. Overflight notifications are generally appropriate in areas outside the 65 dB CNEL noise contour, outside Safety Zones, and within areas where the height of structures and other objects would not pose a significant potential of being airspace obstruction hazards. ~ Real Estate Disclosure-Local jurisdictions can also establish a policy indicating that information about an airport's influence area should be disclosed to prospective buyers for all properties within an airport-vicinity as part of a title transfer. The advantage of this type of program is that it applies to previously existing land uses as well as to new development. The requirement for disclosure of information about the proximity of an airport has been present in state law for some time, but legislation adopted in 2002 and effective in January 2004 explicitly ties the requirement to the airport influence areas established by airport land use commissions (see Appendix A for excerpts from • sections of the Business and Professions Code and Civil Code that define these requirements). V~'ith certain exceptions, these statutes require disclosure of a property's location within an airport influence area under any of the following three circumstances: (1) sale or lease of subdivided lands; (2) sale of common interest developments; and (3) sale of residential real property. In each case, the disclosure statement to be used is defined by state law as follows: NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. Project Comment Worksheet Submittal Information As described in Chapter 2, proposed major land use actions submitted through the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process must include sufficient information to enable a comprehensive review of the proposed action. Table ES provides a sample of the ty~c of information needed for project submittals. • E-2 LA/Ontario lnternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ^+~~Rr°wN^''"~ SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS APPENDIX E • This checklist is intended to assist counties and cities with modifications necessary to make their general plans and other local policies consistent with the compatibility plan. It is also designed to facilitate compatibility reviews of these local plans and policies. COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA General Plan Document The following items typically appear directly in a general plan document. Amendment of the general plan will be re- quired if there are any conflicts with the compatibility plan. ~ Land Use Map-No direct conflicts should exist be- tween proposed new land uses indicated on a general plan land use map and the land use compatibility crite- ria. • Residential densities (dwelling units per acre) should not exceed the set limits. Differences between gross and net densities and the potential for secondary dwellings on single parcels (see below) may need to be taken into account. • Proposed nonresidential development needs to be assessed with respect to applicable intensity limits (see below). . No new land uses of a type listed as specifically prohibited should be shown within affected areas. -~ Noise Element-General plan noise elements typically include criteria indicating the maximum noise exposure for which residential development is normally accepta- ble. This limit must be made consistent with the equiva- lent compatibility plan criteria. -> Hazard Element-Incorporate airspace protection poli- cies. These should be based upon Part 77 of the Fed- eral Aviation Regulations, but may include exceptions for objects within the high terrain zone. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) E-3 APPENDIX E SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS • An airport overlay zone might include some or all of the following components: ~ Airspace Protection-An airport overlay district should include airspace protection policies that estab- lish restrictions on the height of buildings, antennas, trees, and other objects as necessary to protect the airspace needed for operation of the airport. These restrictions should be based upon the current version of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, Subpart C. Additions or adjustment to take into account instru- ment approach (TERPS) surfaces should be made as necessary. Provisions prohibiting smoke, glare, bird attractions, and other hazards to flight should also be included. ~ FAA Notification Requirements-An airport overlay zone can be used to ensure that project developers are informed about the need for compliance with the notification requirements of FAR Part 77. Subpart B of the regulations requires that the proponent of any project which exceeds a specified set of height criteria submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Altera- tion (Form 7460-1) to the Federal Aviation Administra- tion prior to commencement of construction. The height criteria associated with this notification re- quirement are lower than those spelled out in Part 77, Subpart C, which define airspace obstructions. The purpose of the notification is to determine if the pro- posed construction would constitute a potential ha- zard or obstruction to flight. Notification is not re- quired for proposed structures that would be shielded by existing structures or by natural terrain of equal or greater height, where it is obvious that the proposal would not adversely affect air safety. ~ State Regulation of Obstructions-State law prohi- bits anyone from constructing or altering a structure or altering a structure or permitting an object of natural growth to exceed the heights established by FAR Part 77, Subpart C, unless the FAA has determined the object would or does not constitute a hazard to air na- vigation (Public Utilities Code, Section 21659). Addi- tionally, apermit from the Department of Transporta- tion is required for any structure taller than 500 feet above the ground unless the height is reviewed and approved by the Federal Communications Commis- sion or the FAA (Section 21656). ~ Designation of High Noise-Impact Areas- California state statutes require that multi-family resi- dential structures in high-noise exposure areas be constructed so as to limit the interior noise to a Com- munity Noise Equivalent Level of no more than 45 dB. An airport overlay district can be used to indicate the locations where special construction techniques may be necessary in order to ensure compliance with this requirement. This requirement also includes single- family dwellings. ~ Maximum Densities/Intensities-Airport noise and safety compatibility criteria are frequently expressed in terms of dwelling units per acre for residential uses and people per acre for other land uses. These stan- dards can either be directly included in an airport overlay zone or used to modify the underlying land use designations. For residential land uses, the cor- relation between the compatibility criteria and land use designations is direct. For other land uses, the method of calculating the intensity limitations needs to be defined. Alternatively, a matrix can be established indicating whether each specific type of land use is compatible with each compatibility zone. To be use- ful, the land use categories need to be more detailed than typically provided by general plan or zoning or- dinance land use designations. ~ Real Estate Disclosure Policies-The geographic extent and specific language of recommended real estate disclosure statements can be described in an airport overlay zone. Source: California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002) • E-4 LA/Ontario lntemafiona! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 20J 1) SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS APPENDIX E ~I ~J AVIGATION EASEMENT This indenture made this day of , 20_, between hereinafter referred to as Grantor, and the City of Los Angeles, Los _-ingeles World airports (L.~W.~), a political subdivision in the State of California, that owns and operates L.a/Ontario International Airport in the City of Ontario, State of Cali- fornia, hereinafter inferred to as Grantee. The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual and assignable easement over the following described parcel of land in which the Grantor holds a fee simple estate. The property which is subject to this ease- ment is depicted as on "Exhibit A" attached and is more particularly described as follows: [Insert legal description of zeal property] The easement applies to the Airspace above an imaginary plane over the real property. The plane is described as fol- lows: The imaginary plane above the hereinbefore described real property, as such plane is defined by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and consists of a plane [describe approach. transition, or horizontal surface]; the elevation of said plane being based upon the LA/Ontario International Airport official runway end elevation of 944 feet above Mean Sea Level (al\ISL), as determined by the La/Ontario International airport Layout Plan, the approximate di- mensions of which said plane are described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by ref- • erence. The aforesaid easement and right-of--way includes, but is not limited to: (1) For the use and benefit of the public, the easement and continuing right to fly, or cause or permit the flight by any and all persons, or any aircraft, of any and all kinds now or hereafter known, in, through, across, or about any portion of the airspace hereinabove described; and (2) The easement and right to cause or create, or permit or allow to be caused and created within all space above the existing surface of the hereinabove described real property and any and all .rlitspace laterally adjacent to said real property, such noise, vibration, currents and other effects of air illumination and fuel consumption as may be inherent in, or may arise or occur from or during the operation of aircraft of any and all kinds, now or he- reafter known or used, for navigation of or flight in air; and (3) a continuing right to clear and keep clear from the .-lirspace any portions of buildings, structures or improve- ments of any kinds, and of trees or other objects, including the right to remove or demolish those portions of such buildings, structures, improvements, trees, or other things which extend into or above said airspace, and the right to cut to the ground level and remove, any trees which extend into or above the airspace; and (4) The right to mark and light, or cause or require to be marked and lighted, as obstructions to air navigation, any and all buildings, structures or other improvements, and trees or other objects, which extend into or above the Airspace; and (5) The right of ingress to, passage within, and egress from the hereinabove described real property, for the pur- poses described in subparagraphs (3) and (4) above at reasonable times and after reasonable notice. • LA/Onfario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) E-5 APPENDIX E SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS For and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, the Grantor hereby covenants with the Los Angeles World airports (Lr1Wa), for the direct benefit of the real property constituting the La/Ontario International .-lirport hereinafter described, that neither the Grantor, nor its successors in interest or assigns will construct, install, erect, place or grow, in or upon the hereinabove described real property, nor will they permit or allow any building structure, improvement, tree, or other object to extend into or above the Airspace so as to consti- tute an obstruction to air navigation or to obstruct or interfere with the use of the easement and rights-of--way herein granted. The easements and rights-of--way herein granted shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the direct benefit of that real property which constitutes the L.~-1/Ontario International airport, in the City of Ontario, State of California; and shall further be deemed in gross, being conveyed to the Grantee for the benefit of the Grantee and any and all members of the general public who may use said easement or right-of--way, in landing at, taking off from or operating such aircraft in or about the I.a/Ontario International airport, or in otherwise flying through said Airspace. Grantor, together with its successors in interest and assigns, hereby waives its right to legal action against Gran- tee, its successors or assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts, as described in paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement, associated with aircraft operations in the air or on the ground at the air- port, including future increases in the volume or changes in location of said operations. Furthermore, Grantee, its successors, and assigns shall have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages through physical modification of airport facilities or establishment or modification of aircraft operational procedures or restrictions. Howev- er, this waiver shall not apply if the airport role or character of its usage (as identified in an adopted airport master plan, for example) changes in a fundamental manner which could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time of the granting of this easement and which results in a substantial increase in the in the impacts as- sociated with aircraft operations. also, this grant of easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor, its suc- cessors or assigns of any rights which may from time to time have against any air carrier or private operator for negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft. These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns of the Grantor, and, for the purpose of this instrument, the real property firstly hereina- bove described is the servient tenement and said Los Angeles Vt'orld airports (L~1Wa) is the dominant tene- ment. DATED: ST.-1TE OF COL'NT1' OF On ,before me, the undersigned, a '.Notary Public in and for said County and State personally appeared ,and known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public Source: Califomra Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002) Table E3, continued • • • E-6 LA/Ontario lntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS APPENDIX E OVERFLIGHT NOTIFICATION This Overflight Notification concerns the real property situated in the City of ,State of California, described as [~1PN No.: ]. This Overflight Notification provides notification of the condition of the above described property in recognition of, and in compliance with, CALIFORNI:1 BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS COD[: Section 11010 and CALIFORNLA CR'- IL CODL'. Sections 1102.6, l 103.4 and 1353, effective January 1, 2004, and related state and local regulations and consistent with policies of the .-llternative Process for the City of Ontario and other participating local jurisdic- tions for overflight notification provided in the LA/Ontario International ?lirport Land Use Compatibility Plan. NOTICE OFAIRI'ORT IN VIC7NI7Y.• This property it located in the vicinity of an airport and within the airport influence area. The properly may be rubject to come of the annoyancer or inconveniencer arraciated with proximity to an airport and aircraft operationr (for example: noire, vibration, overflightr or adore). Individual renritivitier to shore annoyancer can vary firm Perron to Perron. You rhould conrider what airport annoyancer, if any, affec! the 1'mperty beforeyou complete your purchare and whether they are acceptable to you. • The Federal Aviation 1~dministration (Frlr1) has regulatory authority over the operation of aircraft in flight and on the runway and taxiway surfaces at L:-1/Ontario International .~ixport. The F.~.~ is, therefore, exclusively re- sponsible for airspace and air traffic management, including ensuring the safe and efficient use of navigable air- space, developing air uaffic rules, assigning the use of airspace and controlling air traffic. Please contact the F~ for more detailed information regarding overflight and airspace protection issues associated with the op- eration of military aircraft. airport maintains information regarding hours of operation and other relevant information regarding airport operations. Please contact your local airport operator for more detailed information regarding airport specific operational issues including hours of operation. This Overflight Notification shall run with the Property and shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title or interest in the Property. Effective Date: . 20_ • LA/Ontario lnternationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) E-7 APPENDIX E SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS • ~ Property location data (assessor's parcel number, street address, subdivision lot number). ~ An accurately scaled map depicting the project site location in relationship to the LA/Ontario International Airport boundary and runways. -) A description of the proposed use(s), current general plan and zoning designations, and the type of land use action being sought from the local agency (e.g., zoning variance, special use permit, building permit). ~ If applicable, a detailed site plan and supporting data showing: site boundaries and size; existing uses that will remain; location of existing and proposed structures, open spaces, and water bodies; ground ele- vations (above mean sea level) and elevations of tops of structures and trees. Additionally: • For residential uses, an indication of the potential or proposed number of dwelling units per acre (excluding any secondary units). • For nonresidential uses, the total floor area for each type of proposed use, the number of auto park- ing spaces, and, if known, the number of people potentially occupying the total site or portions the- reof at any one time. ~} Identification of any features, during or following construction that would increase the attraction of birds or cause other wildlife hazards to aircraft operations on the airport or in its environs. Such features include, but are not limited to the following: • Open water areas. • Sediment ponds, retention basins. • Detention basins that hold water for more than 48 hours. • Artificial wetlands. ~ Identification of any characteristics that could create electrical interference, confusing or bright lights, glare, smoke, or other electrical or visual hazards to aircraft flight. ~ Any environmental document (initial study, draft environmental impact report, etc.) that may have been • prepared for the project. -> Any staff reports regarding the project that may have been presented to local agency decision makers. ~ Other relevant information that is determined to be necessary by the affected agency to enable a com- prehensive review of the proposed action. • E-$ LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) r~ J • • LA~Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan APPENDIX NT,ARI AIRPORT PLANNING APPENDIX F LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Exhibit F1 Alternative Process Resolution No. 95-34 RESOLUTION NO. 9s-sa A RESOLUTION OF TIitE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, E,STABLISHII~G ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES FOR LAND USE PLANNING WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE ONTARIO fNTF:RNATiONAT, AIRPORT TTY T,1FU OF REINSTATING THE WEST VALLEY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION WHEREAS, Public Urilities Code Section 21670 et, seq. provides for the establishment of an Airport Land Use Cornnvssion (ALUC) in curry county in which there is a public uae airport served by a scheduled airline; and WHEREAS. prior to passage of Senate Bill No, 443 (effective June 30, 1993), Public Utilities Code Section 21670 (b) required each county to establish an ALUC in such citaunstanoes; and WHEREAS, Senate BiU No. 443 amended Public Utilities Code Section 21670 tb) by elirninatirrB the mandate for ALUC's in order to re:ieve counties a»d other public agencies supporting ALUC's of the duty to incur unnecessary expenses in cettaiYt aspects of airport land use planning; and WHEREAS, the Ontario City Council adopted Reaoluttlon 93-120 in November of 1993 withdrawing from the Wcst Valley ALUC; and WHEREAS, the West Valley ALUC was disbanded in response to Senate Bill No. 443 after all affected public agencies, including the City of Ontario, withdrew from the Joint Powers Agreea~nt, which had established individual ALUC's for the East, West, and Moutttain/Desert planning areas of tbe County of San 8ernatdino; and WHEREAS, the State of California no longer reimburses the Couaty of San Bernardino for administration of the ALUC program; and WII~REAS. Assembly Bill No. ZB31 (effective January 1, 1995), amended Public Utilities Co3e Section 21670 (b) by reinstating the negtaireme>n that local agencies, such as the (+ounty of San Bernardino, establrsh an ALUC; and WHN:RLrAS, Assembly Bill No 2831 also provided the option of establishing an alternative procedure to the establishment of an ALUC rvbich allovvs lot~l jurisdictions to make land usr daisiuns fur arras witlriu a public u~ airpurt sphere of iullueru;e as dCSigrtatGd by the Comprehensive Airport Iand Tisc Plan; and WHEREAS, establishment of the alternative procedure set forth in Public Utilities Code 5ection?,1670.1 rather than reinstating the Wsat Valley ALUC will elirniffita redundant reviews and streamline processes; and • • WOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 99, 2091) F-1 APPENDIX F LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS • Exhibit F1, Continued WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is in compliance with all applicable airport land use plarrniing regulations and rrquircrrrcnts, with the exception of the recently enacted changes to the I'ublit` Utilities Code requiring reinstatement of tin ALUC or establishment of an alternative procedure for snaking land use planning decisions within the sphere of influwce of the Ontario International Airport; and WHEREAS. verification of this compliance is set forth in the Certificate of Consistency issued by the West Valley ALUC prior to its dissolution; and WHEREAS, the West Valley ALUC adopted the Airport Environs Elusrent of the Ontario General Plan as the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Onurio IntecnadotLal Airport; and WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is obligated under the new provisions of the Public Utilities Code to establish alternative procedures for the review and processing of amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the sphere of influence of ttre Ontario International Airport or defer local land use anthoriry to an ALUC. NOW, TIiEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the alternative procedures set forth in Subdivision (c) of Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1 for review and processing of amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the sp~herc of influence of the Ontario Intermtional Airport, and for voluntary mediation of • disputes. It is further resolved that: 1. Proper ]and use planning will be accomplished for areas within the sphere of influence of the Ontario International Airport ptusuant to Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of Pan 1 of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code in accordance with Subdivision (c) of section 21670.1; and 2. Proper land use ptlanning will be accomplished for areas withinthc sphere of influence of the Ontat7o [ntetnational Airport by using as guidelines the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by Division of Aeronautics of the State Depatttnenl of Transportation and arty other applicable federal aviation regulations; and 3 . Proper land use planning will be accomplished for areas within the sphere of influence of the Ontario International Airport through adhcrtnce to the Airport Environs Elcsnent of the Ontario General Plan; and 4. Any wnertdments of the Airport Environs Blernent of the Ontario t;orteral Plan, including amendment of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan, will be processed in accordance with the State Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws and any other applicable taws, ordinances, andfor resolutions regulating airport land use Planning; and 5. The City's planning efforts for areas within the sphere of influence of the Ontario inicrnational Airport, including amendment of the Cotnprchensive Airport Land Use Plan, will involve notification of the general public, landowners, interested groups, and other public agencies; and • F-2 LA/Ontario Intemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS APPENDIX F Exhibit F1, Continued r~ ~~ 6. The Airport Mediation Board would sere as the mediator of disputes arising from the amer~ment of the adopted Comprehensive airport Land Use Plan: atnd 7. I\o mediation will lx required bceausc no other City has standing to pursue mediation; and 8. The entire area of t:lre 65 CN&L contour for the Ontario International Airport lies within the City of Ornario; and 9. -flrc City's Getxral Plan and Spocific Plans arc consistent with tlhc adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan; and 10. The Planning llepartmcnt shall be responsible for p'eparing and processing amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan w'.zere necessary; and 11. The City Council will be responsible for approving these amendments; and 17.. The adoPtinn of the foregoinf: alternuive procedures arc exempt from the provisions of the Califortua Envirotmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sa:.tivn ZI000 et. scy. I hereby ctrtify that the above-resolution was duly passai and appmvcd by the City Council of the City of Ontario at a regular meeting tl~arcof held on tha 2nd day of May, 1995. .• ~ ~~~~'~~r Vim. G~aPQR,~ ;.f0 , r~ ~~.,: .~ 11r : Dt=~~t3Eit ~ it :~ 1~ 1 _~ /`~ - City CI of the City of Ontario • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) F-3 APPENDIX F LA!ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS • Exhibit F2 Alternative Process Language Approval Letter from California Division of Aeronautics CTATF nF ('AI.IF(1R NIA-RI ISINFCS TR ANCPt)RTATIl1N ANA Hn1IRING Af:FNf V EDMUND G BROWN 7R.. (iol'Cmof DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S.#40 II20 N STREET P. O. BOX 942874 F/er~•ourpmler! SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 Be ener~•e~eiotH PHONI; (916) 654-0959 FAX {916)653-9531 TTY 71 I March 18, 201 1 Mr. Jerry L. Blum Planning Director Ontario Planning Department 303 ]=:ast B Street Untario, CA 91764 Dear Mr. Blum: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division), I•eceived a letter from your office dated Febnlary I5, 2011, regarding the amendment of the alternative process for LA/Ontario International Airport. Your letter mentions the background with respect to the approval of the San Bernardino County Alternative process by the Division in 1995. • Since that time, the impacts from Ontario Intemational Airport have grown to affect neighboring jurisdictions. The amcnded alternative process outlined in Chapter 2, Sections 2-4 of the February 2011 Public Draft LA/Ontal•io International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) have been reviewed and are consistent with the processes outlined in Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1. The Division will give our final approval of the amended alternative process once we can determine the affected jurisdictions will within a reasonable amount of time prepare, adopt, and implement the policies and procedures outlined in the ALUCP. 't'hank you and if'you should have any questions, please contact me at (916) 654-7075 or by email at ron.bolyard@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, RON BOLYARD, Aviation Planner Office of Aviation Planning Exhibit F - 3 Alternative Process Final Approval Letter from California Division of Aeronautics (Pending) • F~ LA/Ontario tntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19. 2011) • LA~Ontario Internafional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan APPENDIX • • NTARI • AIRPORT PLANNING APPENDIX G GLOSSARY OF TERMS Above Ground Level (AGL): An elevation datum given in feet above ground level. Accident Potential Zones (APZs): A set of safety-related zones defined by AICU7 studies for areas beyond the ends of military airport runways. Typically, three types of zones are established: a clear zone closest to the runway end, then APZ I and APZ IL Zee potential for aircraft accidents and the corresponding need for land use restrictions is greatest with the clear zone and diminishes with in- creased distance from the runway. Ait Carriers: The commercial system of air transportation, consisting of the certificated air carriers, air taxis (including commuters), supplemental air carriers, commercial operators of large aircraft, and air travel clubs. Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ): Aland use compatible plan prepared by the L.S. Department of Defense for military airfields. AICUZ plans serve as recommendations to local gov- ernments bodies having jurisdiction over land uses surrounding these facilities. Aircraft Accident: An occurrence incident to flight in which, as a result of the operation of an aircraft, • a person (occupant or nonoccupant) receives fatal or serious injury or an aircraft receives substantial damage. -~ Except as provided below, rubrtantial damage means damage or structural failure that adversely- af- fects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and that would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. ~ Engine failure, damage limited to an engine, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small puncture holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered substantial damage. Aircraft Incident: A mishap associated with the operation of an aircraft in which neither fatal or se- rious injuries nor substantial damage to the aircraft occur. Aircraft Mishap: The collective term for an aircraft accident or an incident. Aircraft Operation: The airborne movement of aircraft at an airport or about an en route fix or at other point where counts can be made. There are two types of operations: local and itinerant. An oper- ation is counted for each landing and each departure, such that atouch-and-go flight is counted as two operations. (FAA Stats) Airport: An area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and taking off of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities if any. (FAR 1) Airport Elevation: The highest point of an airport's useable runways, measured in feet above mean sea level. (AIIvi) • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) G-1 p~r~xl~ APPENDIX G GLOSSARY OF TERMS ~~pivuNr.wG Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC): A commission authorized under the provisions of Califor- • nia Public Utilities Code, Section 21670 et seq. and established (in any county within which apublic-use airport is located) for the purpose of promoting compatibility between airports and the land uses sur- rounding them. Airport Layout Plan (ALP): A scale drawing of existing and proposed airport facilities, their location on an airport, and the pertinent clearance and dimensional information required to demonstrate con- formance with applicable standards. Airport Master Plan (AMP): Along-range plan for development of an airport, including descriptions of the data and analyses on which the plan is based. Airport Reference Code (ARC): A coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the opera- tion and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to operate at an airport. (Airport Design AC) Airports, Classes of: For the purposes of issuing a Site Approval Permit, The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics classifies airports into the following categories: (CCR) -} Agricultural Airport or Heliport: An airport restricted to use only be agricultural aerial applicator air- craft (FAR Part 137 operators). ~ Emergency Medina! Serrrices (EMS) banding Site: A site used for the landing and taking off of EMS heli- copters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near an medical fa- cility and (1) has been designated an E1~1S landing site by an officer authorized by a public safety agency, as defined in PUC Section 21662.1, using criteria that the public safety agency has determined is • reasonable and prudent for the safe operation of EMS helicopters and (2) is used, over any twelve month period, for no more than an average of six landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits, and (3) is not marked as a permitted heliport as described in Section 3554 of these regulations and (4) is used only for emergency medical purposes. ~ Heliport an Offshore Oi! Platform: A heliport located on a structure in the ocean, not connected to the shore by pier, bridge, wharf, dock or breakwater, used in the support of petroleum exploration or production. ~ Persona!-Use Airport An airport limited to the non-commercial use of an individual owner or family and occasional invited guests. ~ Public-Use Airport An airport that is open for aircraft operations to the general public and is listed in the current edition of the .airport/Facility Directory that is published by the National Ocean Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce. -> Seaplane Landing Site: An area of water used, or intended for use, for landing and takeoff of seap- lanes. ~ Special-Ust Airport or Helsport An airport not open to the general public, access to which is con- trolled b~~ the owner in support of commercial acti~-ities, public sen~ice operations, and/or personal usc. • (3-Z LA/Ontario lntemafional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) p~r~xl~ xx?6arvuvNir.c, GLOSSARY OF TERMS APPENDIX G • ~ Temporary Helicopter Landing Site: A site, other than an emergency medical service landing site at or near a medical facility, which is used for landing and taking off of helicopters and (1) is used or intended to be used for less than one year, except for recurrent annual events and (2) is not marked or lighted to be distinguishable as a heliport and (3) is not used exclusively for helicopter operations. Ambient Noise Level: The level of noise that is all encompassing within a given environment for which a single source cannot be determined. It is usually a composite of sounds from many and varied sources near to and faz from the receiver. Approach Protection Easement: A forth of easement that both conveys all of the rights of an a~~iga- tion easement and sets specified limitations on the type of land uses allowed to be developed on the property. Approach Speed: The recommended speed contained in aircraft manuals used b}- pilots when making an approach to landing. This speed will vary• for different segments of an approach as well as for air- craft weight and configuration. (AI1vI) Aviation-Related Use: Any facility or activity directly associated with the air transportation of per- sons or cargo or the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft at an airport or heliport. Such uses specifically include runways, taxiways, and their associated protected areas defined by the Federal Avia- tion Administration, together with aircraft aprons, hangars, fixed base operations, terminal buildings, etc. • Avigation Easement: A type of easement that typically conveys the following rights: ~ Aright-of--way for free and unobstructed passage of aircraft through the airspace over the property at any altitude above a surface specified in the easement (usually set in accordance with FAR Part 77 criteria). ~ A right to subject the property to noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, and fuel particle emissions asso- ciated with normal airport activity. ~ Aright to prohibit the erection or growth of any structure, tree, or other object that would enter the acquired airspace. ~ Aright-of--entry onto the property, with proper advance notice, for the purpose of removing, mazk- ing, or lighting any structure or other object that enters the acquired airspace. ~ A right to prohibit electrical interference, glare, misleading lights, visual impairments, and other ha- zards to aircraft flight from being created on the property. Based Aircraft: Aircraft stationed at an airport on a long-term basis. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Statutes adopted by the state legislature for the purpose of maintaining a quality environment for the people of the state now and in the future. The Act establishes a process for state and local agency review of projects, as defined in the implementing guidelines, that may adversely affect the environment. Ceiling: Height above the earth's surface to the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomena. • (AII~~ LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apn! 19, 2017) G-3 0~~~ APPENDIX G GLOSSARY OF TERMS ~m°~°*PU""i"~ Circling Approach/Circle-to-Land Maneuver: A maneuver initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft • with a runway for landing when astraight-in landing from an instrument approach is not possible or not desirable. (AII~ Clear Zone: The military airport equivalent of runway protection zones at civilian airports. Combining District: A zoning district that establishes development standards in areas of special con- cern over and above the standards applicable to basic underlying zoning districts. Commercial Activities: Airport-related activities that may offer a facility, service or commodity for sale, hire or profit. Examples of commodities for sale are: food, lodging, entertainment, real estate, petroleum products, parts and equipment. Examples of services are: flight training, charter flights, maintenance, aircraft storage, and tiedown. (CCR) Commercial Operator: A person who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property, other than as an air carrier. (FAR 1) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The noise metric adopted by the State of California for evaluating airport noise. It represents the average daytime noise level during a 24-hour day, ad- justed to an equivalent level to account for the lower tolerance of people to noise during evening and nighttime periods relative to the daytime period. (State Airport Noise Standards) Compatibility Plan: As used herein, a plan, usually adopted by an Airport Land Use Commission that sets forth policies for promoting compatibility between airports and the land uses that surround them. Often referred to as a Comprehensive I~rnd Use Plan (CLUP~. Controlled Airspace: Any of several r<•pes of airspace. within which some or all aircraft may be subject • to air traffic control. (FAR 1) Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL): The noise metric adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for measurement of environmental noise. It represents the average daytime noise level during a 24-hour day, measured in decibels and adjusted to account for the lower tolerance of people to noise during nighttime periods. The mathematical symbol is Ld,,. Decibel (dB): A unit measuring the magnitude of a sound, equal to the logarithm of the ratio of the intensity of the sound to the intensity of an arbitrarily chosen standard sound, specifically a sound just barely audible to an unimpaired human ear. For environmental noise from aircraft and other transpor- tation sources, an A-weighted sound level (abbreviated dBA) is normally used. The A-weighting scale ad- justs the values of different sound frequencies to approximate the auditory sensitivity of the human ear. Deed Notice: A formal statement added to the legal description of a deed to a property and on any subdivision map. As used in airport land use planning, a deed notice would state that the property is subject to aircraft overflights. Deed notices are used as a form of buyer notification as a means of en- suring that those who are particularly sensitive to aircraft overflights can avoid moving to the affected areas. Designated Body: A local government entity, such as a regional planning agency or a county planning commission, chosen by the county board of supervisors and the selection committee of city mayors to act in the capacity of an airport land use commission. Displaced Threshold: A landing threshold that is located at a point on the tunwat- other than the designated beginning of the rumva~~ (see 7hmshol~. (_1Iyf) • G~ LA/Ontario /ntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) p~r~xl~ nmv0eic~nvNwc GLOSSARY OF TERMS APPENDIX G Easement: Aless-than-fee-title transfer of real property rights from the property owner to the holder of the easement. Equivalent Sound Level (L~q): The level of constant sound that, in the given situation and time pe- riod, has the same average sound energy as does atime-varying sound. FAR Part 77: "I'he part of the Federal Aviation Regulations that deals with objects affecting navigable airspace. FAR Part 77 Surfaces: Imaginary airspace surfaces established with relation to each runway of an air- port. "Mere are five types of surfaces: (1) primary; (2) approach; (3) transitional; (4) horizontal; and (5) conical. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): The L'.S. government agency that is responsible for ensur- ing the safe and efficient use of the nation's airports and airspace. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR): Regulations formally issued by the FAA to regulate air com- merce. Findings: Legally relevant subconclusions that expose a government agency's mode of analysis of facts, regulations, and policies, and that bridge the analytical gap between raw data and ultimate deci- sion. Fixed Base Operator (FBO): A business that operates at an airport and provides aircraft services to the general public including, but not limited to, sale of fuel and oil; aircraft sales, rental, maintenance, and repair; parking and tiedown or storage of aircraft; flight training; air taxi/charter operations; and • specialty services, such as instrument and avionics maintenance, painting, overhaul, aerial application, aerial photography, aerial hoists, or pipeline patrol. General Aviation: That portion of civil aviation that encompasses all facets of aviation except air car- riers. (FAA Stats) Glide Slope: An electronic signal radiated by a component of an ILS to provide vertical guidance for aircraft during approach and landing. Global Positioning System (GPS): A navigational system that utilizes a network of satellites to de- termine apositional fix almost anywhere on or above the earth. Developed and operated by the L'.S. Department of Defense, GPS has been made available to the civilian sector for surface, marine, and aerial navigational use. For aviation purposes, the current form of GPS guidance pro~~ides en route aerial navigation and selected types of nonprecision instrument approaches. Eventual application of GPS as the principal system of navigational guidance throughout the world is anticipated. Helipad: A small, designated area, usually with a prepared surface, on a heliport, airport, land- ing/takeoff area, apron/ramp, or movement area used for takeoff, landing, or parking of helicopters. (AIIvi) Heliport: A facility used for operating, basing, housing, and maintaining helicopters. (I-CAI) Infill: Development that takes place on vacant property largely surrounded by existing development, especially development that is similar in character- Instrument Approach Procedure: A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of • an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing or LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 20f ?) G-5 APPENDIX G GLOSSARY OF TERMS O~ ~ T_ u iN~ to a point from which a landing may be made visually. It is prescribed and approved for a specific air- • port by competent authority (refer to Nonprecision Approach Procedure and Precision Approach Procedure). (AIM) Instrument Flight Rules (IFR): Rules governing the procedures for conducting instrument flight. Generally, IFR applies when meteorological conditions with a ceiling below 1,000 feet and visibility less than 3 miles prevail. (AIM) Instrument Landing System (ILS): A precision instrument approach system that normally consists of the following electronic components and visual aids: (1) Localizer; (2) Glide Slope; (3) Outer Mark- er; (4) Middle Marker; (5) Approach Lights. (AIM) Instrument Operation: An aircraft operation in accordance with an IFR flight plan or an operation where IFR separation between aircraft is provided by a terminal control facility. (FAA ATA) Instrument Runway: A runway equipped with electronic and visual navigation aids for which a preci- sion or nonprecision approach procedure having straight-in landing minimums has been approved. (AIM) Inverse Condemnation: An action brought by a property owner seeking just compensation for land taken for a public use against a government or private entity having the power of eminent domain. It is a remedy peculiar to the property owner and is exercisable by that party where it appears that the taker of the property does not intend to bring eminent domain proceedings. Land Use Density: A measure of the concentration of land use development in an area. Mostly the term is used with respect to residential development and refers to the number of dwelling units pcr acre. Unless otherwise noted, policies in this compatibility plan refer to grass rather than net acreage. • Land Use Intensity: A measure of the concentration of nonresidential land use development in are area. For the purposes of airport land use planning, the term indicates the number of people per acre attracted by the land use. Unless otherwise noted, policies in this compatibility plan refer to gross rather than net acreage. Large Airplane: An airplane of more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight. (Air- port Design AC) Loealizer (LOC): The component of an ILS that provides course guidance to the runway. (AIM) Mean Sea Level (MSL): An elevation datum given in feet from mean sea level. Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA): The lowest altitude, expressed in feet above mean sea level, to which descent is authorized on final approach or during circle-to-land maneuvering in execution of a standard instrument approach procedure where no electronic glide slope is provided. (FAR 1) Missed Approach: A maneuver conducted b}' a pilot when an instrument approach cannot be com- pleted to a landing. (AIM) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB): The U.S. govemment agency responsible for in- vestigating transportation accidents and incidents. Navigational Aid (Navaid): Any visual or electronic device airborne or on the surface that provides point-to-point guidance information or position data to aircraft in flight. (AIM) • G-6 LA/Ontario lntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) • Noise Contours: Continuous lines of equal noise level usually drawn around a noise source, such as an airport or highway. The lines are generally drawn in 5-decibel increments so that they resemble ele- vation contours in topographic maps. Noise Level Reduction (NLR): A measure used to describe the reduction in sound level from envi- ronmental noise sources occurring between the outside and the inside of a structure. Nonconforming Use: An existing land use that does not conform to subsequently adopted or amended zoning or other land use development standards. Nonpreeision Approach Procedure: A standard instrument approach procedure in which no elec- tronic glide slope is provided. (F''AR 1) Nonprecision Instrument Runway: A runway with an approved or planned straight-in instrument approach procedure that has no existing or planned precision instrument approach procedure. (Airport Design AC) Obstruction: Any object of natural growth, terrain, or permanent or temporary construction or altera- tion, including equipment or materials used therein, the height of which exceeds the standards estab- lished in Subpart C of Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. Overflight: Any distinctly visible and/or audible passage of an aircraft in flight, not necessarily directly overhead. Overflight Easement: An easement that describes the right to overfly the property above a specified surface and includes the right to subject the property to noise, vibrations, fumes, and emissions. An • overflight easement is used primarily as a form of buyer notification. Overflight Zone: The area(s) where aircraft maneuver to enter or leave the traffic pattern, typically defined by the FAR Part 77 horizontal surface. Overlay Zone: See Combining District. Planning Atea Boundary: An area surrounding an airport designated by an ALUC for the purpose of airport land use compatibility planning conducted in accordance with provisions of the State Aeronau- tics Act. Precision Approach Procedure: A standard instrument approach procedure where an electronic glide slope is provided. (FAR 1) Precision Instrument Runway: A runway with an existing or planned precision instrument approach procedure. (Airport Design AC) Referral Area: The area around an airport defined by the planning area boundary adopted by an air- port land use commission within which certain land use proposals are to be referred to the commission for review. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ): An area (formerly called a clear done) off the end of a runway used to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. (Airport Design AC) Safety Zone: For the purpose of airport land use planning, an area near an airport in which land use restrictions are established to protect the safety of the public from potential aircraft accidents. • Single-Event Noise: As used in herein, the noise from an individual aircraft operation or overflight. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April J9, 2011) G-7 a~rr~xl~ APPENDIX G GLOSSARY OF TERMS ~otraalrur+ra~c Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL): A measure, in decibels, of the noise exposure level • of a single er-ent, such as an aircraft flyby, measured over the time interval between the initial and final times for which the noise level of the event exceeds a threshold noise level and normalized to a refer- ence duration of one second. SENEL is a noise metric established for use in California by the state Airport Noise Standards and is essentially identical to Sound Exposure Leve! (SEL). Site Approval Permit: A written approval issued by the California Department of Transportation au- thorizing construction of an airport in accordance with approved plans, specifications, and conditions. Both public-use and special-use airports require a site approval permit. (CCR) Small Airplane: An airplane of 12,500 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight. (Airport Design AC) Sound Exposure Level (SEL): Atime-integrated metric (i.e., continuously summed over a time pe- riod) that quantifies the total energy in the A-weighted sound level measured during a transient noise event. The time period for this measurement is generally taken to be that between the moments when the A-weighted sound level is 10 dB below the maximum. Straight-In Instrument Approach: An instrument approach wherein a final approach is begun with- out first having executed a procedure turn; it is not necessarily completed with astraight-in landing or made to straight-in landing weather minimums. (AIIVi) Taking: Government appropriation of private land for which compensation must be paid as required by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is not essential that there be physical seizure or appropriation for a taking to occur, only that the government action directly interferes with or substan- tially disturbs the owner's right to use and enjoyment of the property. • Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS): Procedures for instrument approach and departure of aircraft to and from civil and military airports. There are four types of terminal instrument procedures: precision approach, nonprecision approach, circling, and departure. Threshold: The beginning of that portion of the runway usable for landing (also see Displaced Thre- sholr!). (AIIvi) Touch-and-Go: An operation by an aircraft that lands and departs on a runway without stopping or exiting the runwa}=. (AIM) Traffic Pattetn: The traffic flow that is prescribed for aircraft landing at, taxiing on, or taking off from an airport. The components of a typical traffic pattern are upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind leg, base leg, and final approach. (AI1~ Visual Approach: An approach where the pilot must use visual reference to the runway for landing under VFR conditions. Visual Flight Rules (VFR): Rules that govern the procedures for conducting flight under visual con- ditions. VFR applies when meteorological conditions are equal to or greater than the specified mini- mum-generally, a 1,000-foot ceiling and 3-mile visibility. Visual Runway: A runwa}' intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach proce- dures, with no straight-in instrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated on an FAA-approved airport layout plan. (Airport Design AC) • C,-$ LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Ap»I 19, 201 i) o~~l~ n~r?o~ra~nnN~NC GLOSSARY OF TERMS APPENDIX G • Zoning: A police power measure, enacted primarily by units of local government, in which the com- munity is divided into districts or zones within which perrrutted and special uses are established, as are regulations governing lot size, building bulk, placement, and other development standards. Require- ments vary from district to district, but they must be uniform within districts. A zoning ordinance con- sists of two parts: the text and a map. Glossary Sources FAR 1: Federal Aviation Regulations Part 1, Defuutions and Abbreviations AIM: Aeronautical Information Manual Airport Design AC: Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Design Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 CCR: California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 3525 et seq., Division of Aeronautics FAA ATA: Federal Aviation Administration, Air Tra~cActivity FAA Stats: Federal Aviation Administration, Statistical Handbook afAviation HAI: Helicopter Association International NTSB: National Transportation and Safety Board • • LA/Onfario Jnternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2071) G-9 ~~rl'~Ie-~ APPENDIX G GLOSSARY OF TERMS n~+ooarourvhiue This page was left intentionally blank. • G-10 LA/Ontario lntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) • • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan APPENDIX NTARI AIRPORT PLANNING APPENDIX H ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW City of Ontario !~'[Al~~ Planning Department ~~ 'ti ~~~~ California Environmental Quality Act 303 East"B"Street ~~~" Ontario, California ~", ~ ~°"-r; Environmental Checklist Forms Phone: 1909) 395-2036 V-. ~„,. _6 O Fax: 1909)395-2420 Project Name: LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP or Compatibility Plan") Project Sponsor: City of Ontario -Planning Department, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California, 91764 Contact Person: Lorena Mejia, Associate Planner, (909) 395-2276 Project Location: LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario. The City of Ontario is located approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles from Orange County as illustrated on Figure H1. ONT is classified as a primary commercial service airport, owned by the City of los Angeles and operated by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA). The geographic scope of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is the Airport Influence Area (AIA), the area in which current or future airport-related noise, safety, airspace protection and/or overflight factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA includes • portions of the Cities of Ontario, Fontana, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, Pomona, Claremont and unincorporated portions of San Bernardino, Riverside and Los Angeles Counties as illustrated in Figure H2. Project Description: The function of the ALUCP is to promote compatibility between ONT and surrounding land uses as provided in the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code, section 21670 et seq.). The proposed ALUCP provides specific limitations and conditions for developing future residential, commercial and other noise and risk sensitive uses surrounding ONT. The proposed ALUCP consists of several components including: airport and land use information, compatibility policies and criteria, compatibility zone maps and procedural policies. The proposed ALUCP for ONT would supplement the Airport Environs section of The Ontario Plan (Ontario's General Plan), which currently serves as ONT's airport land use plan, by providing land use compatibility policies and criteria for ONT and surrounding areas. The preparation of the proposed ALUCP was guided by the California Department of Transportations' California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002). It is important to note that the ALUCP only governs future land uses within the AIA; it does not regulate existing uses. Further, the ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor has any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). LAWA began the master planning process for ONT, but suspended that effort in 2008. Before its planning process was suspended, LAWA developed a tentative proposal for reconfiguration of the runway system that would • LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) H-1 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW O~~"~RiPU~+ni • • accommodate potential future passenger and air cargo volume in 2030. The State Aeronautics Act requires that the ALUCP "be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years." (Pub. Utilities Code, § 21675(a).) Therefore, while the ALUCP includes an airport layout plan that shifts ONT's runways to the east and south for airport land use planning purposes, the City has no approval authority over that layout, nor does inclusion of that layout in the ALUCP facilitate expansion of ONT's operations. Any such expansion would have to be approved by LAWA as part of an Airport Master Plan. General Plan Designation: General Plan Designations vary within ONT's AIA. Zoning: Zoning varies within ONT's AIA. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan requires approval from the California Division of Aeronautics and participation agreements from the affected jurisdictions within the County of San Bernardino. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use /Planning Population /Housing Transportation /Traffic Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities /Service Systems Air Quality Geology /Soils Hydrology /Water Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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. H-2 LA/Ontario lntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibilify Plan (Adopted Apri! 99, 2091) o~~l~ ~mroavvuaN~~c ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless • mitigated" impact 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 on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it 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, because all potentially significant effects 4a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: a'""`"-` Date: January 26, 2011 Name (print or type): Lorena Meii Title: Associate Planner LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-3 • • APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ~~~I~ ~'R'+ORT ~UNn',Y~ This page was left intentionally blank. • • H-4 LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) x 0 z W a a a W w J Q H Z w Z 0 z w a U a z 0 Z O oo c ~ 'C ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi `o ~ <` ~ ~ m ~ ~~ ~ v ~ d ~ o ~ ~ mo_,~aoooo •©11 ~~ ~ I 9.: s ~ S ~ ~ V C ,$ 1 c '. ~ f _~ ~ C 00 i LL O i+ !0 ~ v o ~ J v- o ° a ~R Q 0 ~ W C m R C O c o a ~~ ~~ ~ , a r r ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ t 8 z 3 L .. ~ ~, ~ c •~ G _~ Q "~_1. ~ L ' ~ E ~~ ~_ J C C7 c O ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ j a ~ - ,,'~a:-~-ice =, - t i ~ _. i~ • C: • • @~_ ~~ 0 I• S K Z W a • a a ,~ E ~ ~ ~ y, ~ e ~ ~s 8 g O J ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~~~i ~ D~~~~ ~ ~ ~,+ O ~~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ trTVe• !' I ~ C uNivvr 1 d z _ `~ o = Z +~ ~ L ~ ~ UL.Mt 1Vd y fY]NYN w ~ U ~ j _ 7 tliCl'JI ~' ~ m 31V0 Ec:ianx'\ _IsJ tllONY3N! .• :2 ~ •-v Ir.l ~ C ^J +WUi `~:iu~t ~ . a i 1t4~ ~ y w S~ u~i ~ ~ i ~ ~>t `) NEE ~`p C.~ ~; M1 n - ~~ ` ..~ ; . w ii r vv(S 3'.I a r.ccvnai~ . ~~ ~ ~ :~ `:~14YM;13 ~i •`~ w 1 I IM1!aYI aiaa AY ~ 01 r s al xa {_ •+r 4N Ol 'cl,Nl•~TEL r•a .F aN YaNrTEn ~ ~ y x a :•~ qtr»i.l ii x ~ ~ < ~nibl ~ ~ S ON 16ANL3YM1' `y W g kT NYry17311 ~ Y ua~N r W cl:~v,. < a' NYI I3NMV^~ -' s - atesv ~~ ..tx Y= 1 I+st t~` ' lS: -_ ~ rax~ nr C ~ C 19tlN\' ~'~ n ~ 41ni= ~.. v ~ - ~ _ ~, ~ ~ s.. W nes as Q~ a en+a ~ e vrrnxn ~ ~ 92 J1`/i! r < +\? ~aNnr~a xra'y snm VI 7l1S VW m z 3MIn~ O = ~l LL xsla ' {TVA Y f II°, ~IO'J' ,.,\~ ,. ..<.ti !.'i 1TY ~. 3:7V1NN ea = o `~ 3 ~m ~ ~ ~Z ~ ~ m ~a ~ ~ a Q ~ U .i O O ~a ~M ~ tiV+ ~y ,.~ m r; '_ ,I ~ ~ r L• Tr s~ '~4 ~/yla'n ,~ M EµT E y~~y t ~~'Yi'L ~~s i' 7 6 ; L a y xea~>' ~~~, ~ ~ ~ a )~~a ~ 31i'1PW1. ` !1f 1Y ` AYYJ 1 NWtl3n ~ WMATNa 'H 1Y!Yf ~ N :: ~ ~ x3T03d Z z~ s rr~~.~ ~yyg=~ J x Qa ~ ''1,~ y 7 S ~ H'IY~ ~'. 3 a ppl~~ NIVYS ~ ~ ,UX :•Y 2 J g S GA ~~•110211 3 ~ `1 •~ rrcaao'. Y e~ a 3 r~I~N~~rn gg uelns 1 3 Vcv-r~ ` , fS 1tl 1 aM VII S I~ 1 ~ ~ _ .. N93 u ~ to ~ N3nVM aavnrs L f a±rvan. ~5 +v~pa 1 J 'aNn' a ` `/' O •` > >;NNVerr v3aa': vin wvV: z _ < ~ U Y ~ t1M'x3N:.• y :.~1 .. ~, •~ ;~ ~ ~ O?a!'!.r j l `C•rl~~ W `, ~•~ 3 ti n~ •n31n NUH _ ~ r tls z ja a' 1'1~ a y LLI ` 3Nw • M=a, o;:r Nad, W r+a.'+ ~: On:OINV NV± -~ n i .T. ylr, c :ha.~ '~'~ Sv 3Ntd i ~ <K GN'JN'1 E t Y ~ ~ , . 511V1~ Z Kn?e V tn `P c ~•l.ItmCu1 1VH'IJ;! s Y , n.. 4~V liJ'•' ~. ~l+zcSy ~ rr~ ~ o c Nl. c ~ v ye III 9 `.. i i ,t 1 Z u 1.7 ~ p o i i. U ~ j NIH9 ~• n1 'vr -t ViWA •>° 6 ~ U I, ~ ~ i Vd. it• O 2 ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS i Potentially Signi)cant ~ Potentially Significant Unless I Mitigation Less Than Significant No Would the proposed project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a x state scenic highway? (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its x surroundings? (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime X views in the area? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (d): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans, Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly affect a scenic vista, damage scenic resources, degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings, or create a new source of light or glare, and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to aesthetics. Also, the proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impact. MITIGATION None Required. • • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 79, 2011) H-7 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW p~r~ !vPnP' v,J~Nh'Y„ • 2. AGRICULTURAL Se FOREST RESOURCES (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Cand Evaluation and Site Assessment Mode! (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Boord.J ' ~ Potentially Potentially Significant Unless ~ less Than Would the pro osed project: Slgnlffcant ~ Mitlgatlon Impact Incorporated ~ Slgnlflcant No lmpoct Impact (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? _ (c} Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public X Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? (d} Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of X forest land to non-forest use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in X conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (e): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not: (a) directly or indirectly convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively, "Farmland") to a non-agricultural use; or (b) conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; or (c) conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8); (d) result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, since there is no forest land within the Airport Influence Area (AIA); (e) involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland to anon-agricultural • H-8 LA/Ontano /ntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) D~.~~ ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H use. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the AIA above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. In addition, the General Plon Land Use Designation Consistency Analysis (Appendix I) evaluated potential general plan inconsistencies with the proposed ALUCP and did not identify any agricultural or forest general plan land use designations within the AIA. Therefore, there would be no impact. MITIGATION None Required. • • LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-9 ~1RpORt aw+niti~ APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW O~~l~ • 3. AIR Quaurr (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) -- ~ - - ~ Potentially ) - -- - 1 i Significant i ~ Potentially Unless I Less Than ~i Significant j Mitigation Significant No Would the proposed project: ------- -- _ ~ lmpad Incorporated /mpad - ---- - ---- lmpad (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the x applicable air quality plan? (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation? (c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or x state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? I (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant x concentrations? (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ' x number of people? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (e): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, • construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). • Although the City of Ontario, the City of Fontana and the County of San Bernardino will have to adjust their General Plan policies to account for the additional development restrictions contained in the ALUCP, those adjustments will not authorize development beyond what was assumed in the development of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Therefore, the ALUCP would not directly or indirectly conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards; expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; and, as such, would not impact the environment or result in any impacts to air quality. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of H-10 LA/Ontario Intemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Pian (Adopted April ?g, 20??) Q~r~l~ ~tRPORT ouNnwG ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. ~J • • LA/Ontario lntemationai Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-1 1 o~~~~ APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW axvoat-wdr+~w • • • 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -~-_ ---- ~-- Potentially !~ Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant impact Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant /ncorpomted I Impact No Impact (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status X species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the X California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife X corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree X preservation policy or ordinance? (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (f): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the ALUCP would not directly or indirectly impact biological resources or their habitat, or conflict with applicable policies protecting biological resources or an adopted or approved habitat conservation plan, and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to biological resources. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately H-12 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) p~r~i A71F~P.T G~_A.I:IiIYG ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there • would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. J • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Agri! 19, 2017) H-13 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW O~~l~ ~A~POA7 PLANNING • 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES _-- -- Potentially Significant I i Potentially l/nless ~ Less Thon ', Significant Mitigation '~ Signifrcant I No Would the proposed project: Impod Incorporated l Impact I Impact (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in X § 15064.5? (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource i X pursuant to § 15064.5? i (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ~ paleontological resource or site or unique x geologic feature? (d) Disturb any human remains, including those X interred outside of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (aj - (d): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or an archaeological resource; directly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to cultural resources. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • H-14 LA/Ontario lntematiorra/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) o~~~~ rIFP~DR? Pt~NNWG ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially I Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Would the proposed project: Significant lmpod Mitigation Significant Incorporated lmpaiY i No Impact (a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or ' X death involving: I (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction? (iv) Landslides? X (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site X landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating X substantial risks to life or property? (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal X systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (e): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic- related ground failure, liquefaction, or landslides; result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, potentially resulting in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; be located on expansive soil; or have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks; and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to geology and soils. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects C • • LA/Ontario /nternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-15 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ~NTARI~ efvv~Rl vUNN'Yc • were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. C ' 1 ~J H-16 LA/Ontario lntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) p~r~ue-~ ~aP~RY P~MIM,tiG ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing x X DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) & (b): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP will not cause any increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • • • Potentlally Signl/Icant Potentially Unless Less Than Significont Miilgatlon Signlfirnnt Impact ~- lncorporoted i___Impod-- LA/Ontario lntemadona! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-17 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW O~pT"~^'+h 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS • f~ - Potentialty--- ~ - T-~_.. Would the proposed project Potentially Significant Unless Significant Mitigation /mpad i Incorporated ~ Less Than Significant /mpad No Impact (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the I environment through the routine transport, use or X disposal of hazardous materials? (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset X and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste X within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people X residing or working in the project area? (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan? (h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildfires, including where X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (d) & (f) - (h): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Also, the proposed ALUCP does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; the emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste; or the location of a building, structure, or public facility on a hazardous materials site compiled by the State of California pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed ALUCP would not affect the incidence of hazardous material safety hazards in the area; H-18 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) 0~"~PppT'auwv,v-C ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H result in hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; affect any sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites; create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; or affect emergenty response plans or the incidence of wildland fires in the area. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (ALA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. Threshold (e): Pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act, the proposed ALUCP establishes criteria and Safety Zones by which safety hazards relating to aircraft activity would be evaluated. The criteria are intended to reduce the risk of exposure to the hazards of an off-airport aircraft accident by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people within the Safety Zones. The Safety Zones are completely contained within the City of Ontario and land uses were designated in the Ontario Plan to be consistent with airport operations. The proposed ALUCP further reduces risks of aircraft accident occurrence by setting policies that, consistent with existing federal regulations, limit the height of structures, trees, and other objects that might penetrate the airport's airspace as defined by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, TERPS and FAA criteria. The extent of the areas where regulations apply are illustrated in Appendix I. The proposed ALUCP would also decrease airport-related safety hazards by limiting incompatible development within the Safety Zones. The proposed ALUCP would result in a beneficial impact by • reducing the number of people exposed to airport-related safety hazards, including aircraft accidents, consistent with the objectives of the State Aeronautics Act. Due to the reasons stated above, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials, but could limit development in areas of concern. Therefore, any potential impact would be less than significant. MITIGATION None Required. • LA/Ontario /ntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-19 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW O~sRTFUrrhiN~ • 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - - ~ ~ ~- Potentially PotentiallySignificanL _ ~ -Less Than - ~ Sign!/icont Unless Mitigation i Signlficant No Would the proposed project: Impact _ _ Incorporated ~ Impod /mpad la) Violate anv water ^uality standards or waste • • discharge requirements? ~ (b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the produRion X rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in X a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or X substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide X substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X (g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard X Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redireM X flood flows? (i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, X including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (j) Expose people or structures to inundation by X seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - Q): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not violate any water quality standards; affect H-20 LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) QNTARI9~-~ RrtrvDR7 PuvN:vG ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H groundwater supplies; substantially alter drainage patterns; or expose people or structures to a significant risk involving flooding, seiche, tsunami or mudflow; and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to hydrology and water quality. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. I ~J • • LA/Ontario lntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) H-21 Q~r~~ APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW n~aoc~?w+w+c 10. LAND USE PLANNING -- _ --~ -~ Potentially j 5fgnlfrcont ~ Potentially L-n/ess Less Than Signlfrrnnf Mitigotlon Slgnlficant Would the sect pro __ Impact tnco_rporated Jm tt Ho Impact (a) Physically divide an established community? ~ I X (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local X coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation X plan or natural community conservation plan?_ - DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) & (c): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. ONT has operated as an airport since the 1920s, and the City has long planned for appropriate • land uses surrounding ONT. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts to land use and planning. Also, the proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. Threshold (b): The proposed ALUCP may require that affected agencies alter their general plans and zoning to reflect the noise and safety restrictions set forth in its policies. The proposed ALUCP is a mitigating document that establishes land use measures designed to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards around the ONT. Appendix evaluates potential inconsistencies between the proposed ALUCP and the general plan land use designations of affected agencies and did not identify any general plan land use inconsistencies. Moreover, state law (Gov. Code §65302.3) requires that applicable general plans be revised if necessary to be consistent with an adopted ALUCP. It is important to note that the ALUCP is intended, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21670 et seq., to protect public health, safety, and welfare, through the adoption of land use measures that • H-22 LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) O~"~'~~ ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIx H Amv~F'o~atinr+G minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards; and is guided by the California . Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. As required by state law, the proposed ALUCP for ONT sets policies and criteria consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and within the parameters identified in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Therefore, any potential impacts would be less than significant. Nll ITIGATION None Required. • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 201 i) H-23 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ~~T" P~'`N"'"~ • 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Y r Potentially I Would the proposed pro'ect: Potentially Signlfrcani fmpad ~ S/gnlflcont Unless ' Less Than Mitigation ~ S/gnl/icont fic»r noted _ Impoct _ No !m ct (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ~ mineral resource that would be of value to the j x region and the residents of the state? (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site x delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Further, no mineral resources are located within the noise and safety zones potentially affected by the ALUCP. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not cause the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resource recovery site. As such, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts to mineral resources. • The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • H-24 LA/Ontario lntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 79, 2011) 0~ PLANNIY~ ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H 12. N015E Potentially PotentlallySignfficont LessThon ' Signlfrcont Unless Mitigation 'significant No Would the proposed project: ~ _ impod _ incorporoted_ __ _ _ Impact I impact (a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ~, levels in excess of standards established in the x local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or x groundborne noise levels? (c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels x existing without the project? (d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity x above levels existing without the project? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport x or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people x residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? DISCU5510N OF EFFECTS Thresholds (b) - (d) & (f): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or entail any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act, the proposed ALUCP establishes the criteria by which the public's exposure to airport-related noise would be evaluated and reduced by limiting the development of noise sensitive land uses within the 65 + d6 CNEL. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not result in the exposure of people to increased noise or vibration levels, and, as such, would not impact their respective environment or result in any impacts related to noise. Thresholds (a) & (e): The proposed ALUCP is a mitigating document that addresses land use measures to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards around the ONT. Appendix I evaluated potential inconsistencies between the proposed ALUCP and the general plan land use designations of affected agencies and did not identify any general plan land use inconsistencies. Moreover, state law (Gov. Code §65302.3) requires that applicable general plans be revised as necessary to be consistent with an adopted ALUCP. /, ~J IJ1 J • L4/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 201 ?) H-25 • • • APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW QNTARII~°` ua0pgl ou~ue.~; It is important to note that the ALUCP is intended, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21670 et seq., to protect public health, safety, and welfare, through the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards; and is guided by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. As required by state law, the proposed ALUCP for ONT sets policies and criteria consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and within the parameters identified in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Therefore, any potential impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION None Required. H-26 LA/Ontario /ntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) p~r~~ rtr~a* T uua~ ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H Z3. POPULATION AND HOUSING 7w me prvposcv prv~ecc: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement Potentially Significant Potentially ' Significant Unless ~ Less Than Mitigation Slgnlflcant Incorporated Impact X X X DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (c): The proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly induce population growth; rather, it would limit the location and distribution of residential and non-residential land uses within the Noise and Safety Zones to minimize potential noise impacts and safety concerns. The Noise Impact Zones limits new residential development within 65 db CNEL and prohibits new residential land uses within the 70 d6 CNEL noise contour. To evaluate the potential population and housing displacement the General Plan Land Use Designation Consistency Analysis (Appendix I) identified and evaluated potential land use inconsistencies within the Noise Impact Zones. The Noise Analysis identified one jurisdiction, the City of Ontario, to have a Low Density Residential general plan land use designation within the 65 d6 CNEL. However, because the areas identified are already developed, the restriction on additional new development would not result in displacement of potential housing units since the proposed ALUCP does not apply to existing development and only addresses future development. The Safety Zones identified within the proposed ALUCP are contained within the City of Ontario and Safety Analysis portion of Appendix I identified Low Density Residential general plan land use designations within the safety zones. However, because the areas identified are already developed, the restriction on additional new development within that zone would not result in displacement of potential housing units, since the proposed ALUCP does not apply to existing development and only addresses future development. Therefore, there is no impact since the proposed ALUCP would not result in any direct impacts to population and housing; create the displacement of existing residential dwelling units, commercial, industrial or public use structures thereby necessitating the construction of replacement housing, facilities, or infrastructure in other areas. \~ `J • LA/Ontario lntema6ona! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) H-27 1FP;1fTPUN~~IVG APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ~~~~~ • 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Signi/Tcant ~ Potentially ~ Unless ~ Less Thon Slgnlficont Mitigartion Slgnificont Would the proposed project: Impact Incorporated _ _ Impact No_lmpad (a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts _ associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental ~ facilities, the construction of which could cause X significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (i) Fire protection? X (ii) Police protection? X (iii) Schools? X (iv) Parks? X (v) Other public facilities? X DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, . or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not create a need for any new or physically altered governmental facilities. As such, the proposed ALUCP would not result in any direct or indirect impacts related to public services. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • H-28 LA/Ontario Intemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ~~~~~ ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H ZS. RECREATION DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) & (b): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities and does not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment, and, as such, would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to recreation. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-29 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW V~RT°~^~~* • 16. TRANSPORTATION~TRAFFIC • • Potentially ~ Potentially I Slgn/ficant Unless i Less Than Would the pro osp ed project: S/gnlfltant Imparct i Mitigation lntorpomted~ ~ ~ Signljirnnt No lm __ Impact (a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant X components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other X standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (e) Result in inadequate emergency access? x (f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? x (g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bitycle, or pedestrian X facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (g): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not: (a) conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit; (b) conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; (c) result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; (d) increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm H-30 LA/Ontario /ntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) a~~~ ~~RPORT PUH!~~vG ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H equipment); (e) result in inadequate emergency access; (f) result in inadequate parking capacity or; (g) conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. As such, the proposed ALUCP would not result in any direct or indirect impacts related to transportation or traffic. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • • J LA/Ontario Intemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Ptan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-31 m9~R1 olAN\IY~ APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ~~~~~ • 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS • • Potentially Potentiatty 5fgnlficant Unless I j Less Thon Would the proposed project: Slgntflcant Mfifgatlon Impact Incorporated 5lgnfficanf No Impact Impact (a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of x existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the X project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et. Seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221). (e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste x disposal needs? (g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and x regulations related to solid waste? D15CU5510N OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (g): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not result in the construction of new wastewater or stormwater facilities, and would not require additional water supplies, or wastewater or landfill capacity, and, as such, would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to utilities and service systems. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. H-32 LA/Ontario international Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) 0>~,~ ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H 1H. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially ~ Potentially SlgnlJfcant Unless Less Than i Would the proposed pro ect: SignlJlcant tmpact I Mltigatlon Incorporated ~ SlgnJficant Impact ~ No Impact (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade __ _ ~ the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to X eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the X disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project X are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) {d) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on X human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP does not 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; have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; or have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the AIA above those projected for these areas in the local • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) H-33 0~~~ APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1mvo~rauwr+,vG • agencies respective general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in the certified general plan environmental documentation. Nothing in the proposed ALUCP would result in indirect impacts such as the construction of housing, development of other types of land uses, or the expansion of any infrastructure, that would require an analysis of potentially significant impacts to wildlife, their habitats, important examples of California history, or human beings. In addition, the proposed ALUCP would not result in the displacement of existing residential dwelling units, commercial, industrial, or public use structures thereby necessitating the construction of replacement housing, facilities, or infrastructure in other areas, which may result in potentially significant impacts to wildlife, their habitats, important examples of California history, or human beings. Therefore, there would be no impacts. Thresholds (b) - (d): The proposed ALUCP regulates future incompatible land uses specific to noise, airspace protection, safety and overflight impacts around ONT. Moreover, because the proposed ALUCP is regulatory in nature and will not result in any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environmental impacts. Indeed, the proposed ALUCP serves as a mitigation plan designed to avoid certain noise and safety impacts that might otherwise be cumulatively significant. Therefore, any potential impact would be less than significant. • MITIGATION None Required. • H-34 LA/Ontario /ntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) O"`•`a"~ ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H ~mvpRt vu~mivG REFERENCE MATERIALS The following reference materials are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Initial Study pursuant to State CEClA Guidelines section 15150: 1. State of California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, (Last updated January 2002) 2. Proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for LA/Ontario International Airport 3. California State Aeronautics Act, Pub. Util. Code, §§ 21001 et seq. 4. Ontario General Plan Final EIR/Master Environmental Assessment 5. City of Ontario General Plan (The Ontario Plan) adopted January 2010 6. General Plan of the following cities: Fontana, Montclair, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga and Chino. 7. The General Plan of the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino. All documents listed above are on file, and are available for public review, with the City of Ontario Planning Department, 200 N. Cherry Avenue, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036. • • • LA/Ontario lnternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April f 9, 2011) H-35 • • • LA~Ontario International Airport Lond Use Compatibility Plan APPENDIX NTARI~ APPENDIX AfRPORT PLANNING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION • CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The General Plan Land Use Designation Consistency Analysis (GP Consistency Analysis) evaluates the potential for conflict with existing general plan land use designations that may result from implementing the proposed compatibility policies and criteria of the LA/ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Compatibility Plan) within the Airport Influence Area (AIA). All four compatibility factors (overflight, airspace protection, noise, safety) were evaluated as part of the GP Consistency Analysis. A series of maps were created as part of the analysis evaluating potential general plan land use inconsistencies with the proposed Compatibility Plan. Overflight Analysis Summary: None of ONT's overflight policies regulate the use or development of land but they do include provisions for real estate disclosure and/or overflight notification, consistent with state law. Airspace Protection Analysis Summary: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) FAR Part 77 airspace protection regulations were designed to ensure that structures and other uses do not cause hazards to aircraft in flight within the vicinity an airport. Hazards to flight include physical obstructions to the navigable airspace, wildlife hazards, particularly bird strikes, and land use characteristics that create visual or electronic interference with aircraft navigation or communication. The policies that protect airspace protection surfaces implement existing federal and state law. • Therefore, the Compatibility Plan addresses the Federal Aviation Administration's Part 77 notification requirements, as well as the obstruction criteria identified in Part 77 and the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures. These policies don't displace future development and/or land uses. Figure 18 illustrates the extent of airspace protection surfaces for ONT. Noise Analysis Summary: The noise policies restrict the development of future noise-sensitive land uses within areas exposed to 65+ d6 CNEL. Under the proposed Compatibility Plan, most noise-sensitive land uses, including low density residential land uses (less than 8 du/ac), would not be compatible within the 65+ CNEL noise contours and, therefore, could have the potential to be displaced in areas surrounding ONT that are exposed to 65 + dB CNEL. Noise Analysis Figures I 1 - 17 represent those areas where general plan land use designations could be considered incompatible and future land uses could be potentially prohibited and displaced to areas outside of the impact area. Potential displacement was evaluated for residential and mixed-use general plan land use designations within the City of Ontario. Parcels that are contained within or traversed by the 65+ d6 CNEL were evaluated for potential displacement. Within the City of Ontario, the analysis identified four areas labeled (A - D) where the 65+ db CNEL had a potential for displacement (Figure 12). Area A contains the Guasti and Multi-Modal Mixed Use land Use Designations that allow multi- family residential uses with a density range of 25-65 du/ac and 20-80 du/ac respectively. The 65 d6 CNEL contour traverses portions of the Guasti and Multi-Modal Mixed Use areas as • L4/Ontario /ntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) I -~ APPENDIX I GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY REVIEW O" """~ ~mP~cl >.a,anwG • illustrated in Figure 13. However, these Mixed Use areas can be developed by keeping the residential components out of the 65+ dB CNEL or may develop within by meeting the following requirements: (1) the residential development is more than 8 dwelling units per acre (PolicyNl); (2) 45 d6 interior noise levels are attained (Policy N4) and; (3) an avigation easement is dedicated to the Airport owner {Policy SP1). There is no displacement of potential housing units within Area A since development may still occur by implementing the Policies within the Compatibility Plan. Area B contains sensitive land use designations (e.g., Low and Medium Density Residential) within the 65 d6 CNEL contour that have already been developed. Since these land uses exist, the Compatibility Plan will not cause displacement in Area B as illustrated in Figure 14. Area C contains portions of the East Holt Mixed Use area that allows multi-family residential land uses with a density range of 14 - 40 du/ac (Figure 15). East Holt Mixed Use area can also be developed by keeping the residential components out of the 65+ d6 CNEL or developing within by meeting the following requirements: (1) the residential development is more than 8 dwelling units per acre (PolicyNl); (2) 45 dB interior noise levels are attained (Policy N4) and; (3) an avigation easement is dedicated to the Airport owner (Policy SP1). There is no displacement of potential housing units within Area C since development may still occur by implementing the Policies within the Compatibility Plan. • Area D contains blocks of low density residential uses (2- 5 du/ac) that have already been developed. Since these areas have been developed the Compatibility Plan will not cause displacement in Area D (Figure 16). This area does contain vacant parcels scattered throughout that are considered infill and would be allowed to develop with a residential use as long as a 45 d6 interior noise level is attained (Policy N4) and an avigation easement is dedicated to the Airport owner (Policy SPl). Therefore there is no housing displacement within Area D. The 65 d6 CNEL noise contours also affect portions of the City of Fontana and unincorporated parts of San Bernardino County. The areas affecting Fontana and San Bernardino County contain Industrial general plan use designations which are consistent with the Compatibility Plan. Also, it is important to note that the majority of these affected areas are developed and the Compatibility Plan does not apply to existing land uses (Figure 17). Safety Analysis Summary: Five safety zones around ONT would affect both the intensity of development {i.e., number of people allowed per acre of land) and total permissible floor area of any future building developed. The five safety zones are based on criteria established by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as described in the California Airport Land Use Handbook (January 2002), and intended to reduce risk to persons and property on the ground and in the air. The safety portion of this analysis is illustrated in Figures 19 - 111. The objective of the Safety Analysis is to identify the Compatibility Plan's potential to displace future residential development within the reconfigured Safety Zones. The policies and criteria are intended to • reduce risk by limiting land uses and concentrations of people within the immediate vicinity of ONT. The I-2 LA/Ontario lntemationai Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 20? 1) ~~~9J~T~e~G GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY REVIEW APPENDIX I Safety Zones identified within the proposed Compatibility Plan reconfigures and updates existing Safety • Zones to be consistent with the 2002 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The reconfigured Safety Zones are completely contained within the City of Ontario. The Safety Analysis identified Low Density Residential general plan land use designations within the Safety Zones; however, those areas have already been developed and, as existing uses, are not subject to the Compatibility Plan. Since the Compatibility Plan does not apply to existing land uses and only applies to future development, the reconfiguration of the Safety Zones will not result in the displacement of existing or future housing units. Consistent with state law the Compatibility Plan also restricts land uses such as schools within the safety zones. The GP Consistency Analysis identified the location of existing schools and found that there were no public schools currently located within the proposed safety zones. GIS Data Sources The GP Consistency Analysis was a Geographic Information System (GIS) based study, utilizing GIS data sets of general plan land use designations and Compatibility Plan policies and criteria to establish thresholds for the analysis. The GIS data utilized for the analysis was acquired from the cities of Ontario, Montclair, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, counties of San Bernardino and Riverside, and Mead & Hunt, Inc. • • LA/Ontario lntemationai Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! f 9, 2011) I-3 • APPENDIX I GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY REVIEW QNTARI~ ~RF0R7 ?LAMMING This page was left intentionally blank. • • I~ LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) X D Z W a a a w w } U z w r Z O v Z a J a Q_' W 2 w c7 ,~ U ,r ~ ~ o f p w w w ~ gUr N Z Z Z ~ ~ d O C C ~ :f~3 eCp O ~7 c LL 'uS a in ~ w RW' ~ ~ O C (/7 E~ A 1~ I - - ff~~ ~ J i I I _ _~_'~ _.._'~._~,J~~ _ ~l. ~ . J rov~o ] w !!fY'W ~_ ~; ,~ i t+?9'rly ~ ~ ~ MYfYk] ~. ~ ~7 ~ ,~ t d . ~ ] 'Tr ' V' Y ._ _ _.. ~ ~1 °, f~1~l1' MTl ... J~ L4M = X A Y:MYINY apiM..Yt x SAN YN fll u ~. M N ~~ Y7 w p ~ E iT :.. .. V 0 nauxr - aNa9w ~~mr ~ C ' z z ,„t .~ p6 •a'. o.. ~ BNm~~I~~ , NUta ~ .+tn, Y $ Y ~ ;.;r. ~ >~~ ~ 3novlm . ' ~; Y: :~.. rwH?! N3TVP r ~ S ~ ' ~ . ~~ ~ S03i1 N~q:19 M4~M S ~ e c:ea.+ t M \ y ~ SYN t•v Y i ` jlAnN 1>a ` . tr.Jl~ 1lrY V r9jj{YM 4 3 ~! Hlrt rv+J.,.f rrNrle l.• .. Y(lY N1St M'~ ~, yt~~ 8171"^ 00#0 ~` a.11 = Yt a ~ .... ~ W ~ G : ,,~ax ~_ ~ _ R aNt . n' d. ~ . __ ,. ru - .. i - s R~>: ~ N.,, C}NV~YY NY! ••. • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lflif i ~' ui_ . a~~ s ''y`~ ~~ C C 1L 3{TIIMN~ I J . r! 5 ~ ~ C r r! ~ ~ C ~ C Q c ~ U L 3 N O p ~Z ~ ~ ~ ~ v < a ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ v v ~ m ~ m rj t ~ C 3 ~ ~ Z ~ L O a ~ m .. c y c ro v r- ~ v ~ ., _ ~, a~ L ~ ~ u ~ . :.: 1t • ~ co O O p. Nr..aM f0 n" °° a .9,~,.Yr,~ i c L O c rn N C T ~ ~ ~: IR9 ~.. ^'4 M ' ~ ~ ~ (p !8 - O~M1 ~' tiF ~ , !Q (C y io c t ~ ~ N O 3 C e ~ t~rn0 ~ T LL at vet,... - ..: u . p ~ a `. _ ~ ~ »- O w ~ u +J ~ OJ C Q ~ 4 p~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ Y V r • w Q. U ~ N L Y Y O ~- /~y9 if• h ~ N ~ ~ ~, O C Q b4 O c ~ N r. 1-+ O U -_ f0 Y ~ ~ Y (~• ~ C N i c ru..: ~ v C i t •:a~• ~ _ '~ O ~ E~cQf ~. ~ ~ C ~ ' N ~ u l C ~ ~ • ~ ~ = O ++ C O O O H Q X ~ C N 'C ... .... ~ p Y :.. . C L N V C ~ ~..,. O N ._. O _ ' ~ ~ C 3 ,,.ti v Y N N f6 ++ _ ,. !t! ~ ~ .,,.,< 3 ~ ~ c " - -° 3 c ~ Vl]...:. d ~ '~ 1,~Y. , ~ ~ ~ _ O1 ~ u N 'p ~ -et . ~i~ .Q O1 ~ ~ N ~ C ~ ~ ~ ,,..r. _ ~ 3~~v ~.~ ~ ~: U 1 m~,~~ ... __.. ..,.. LL~ a 3 tl') ~: • ~? O • Y U Z w r tp Z 0 U Z a J Q w Z W x 0 z w a a a ~ a ~ Q Q m g' a ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I W W W N 2 Z Z a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ^ ~ 2a~~ ~~i a~~ w m.rBq~ p ~ C ,-: ~ ~~ ~ .~~~ ~ $gE~ Q m ~-~ a appp=~ C d~g4~S e_~aE _R~i10 a' acv m~ ear ~ ~' p ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ W~ a~ a ~~ t~~ c~E~ o~i~'~ uo~i~v opi6~L' Ut7£g d~~ `~~°$ ~~~~~ ~~ °~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ J; S v ~~ gac O d 15 o`°ms* ~~~~ ~ p> 1i r.k>M,r. ©1I _. L1nFK~ N. r.4JY • a ~ , 3~K n ~ oo ' b.:unysry ~ 1 ~... yY~l.. s ~ P N d Mrdq iE.. \ V1Mfk PINK {? ; R~1~ ••Yw1 - ~ A a• • O N ecres.ll ~ 4 ~. ~~.{~ ,.. u . R4 ~~ms s3 WYY~ A.~ . „~ ~ i . ~ runes '.+ r ~ 1. / /i C N ' ti , C . /f ~ ~ a A E a o ~ -~i q m ~4 S_ a~~ E \ \~ / 1 O.HGLGl ~ ~ ~ ,,moww F H,~4~ ~ C ~ ~ '. ~~ iAl Z M{lN ~'f ~~~yy d . kil+i.''FfS'~o n l ~ L 3i. 0 +Rr3i° 4 4 }I C a ~ r r„cnn3~~~ r Q ~ ~ "'""'" :.M:GI iW;:e ~ a _ ~ ~ c ~ I Q nrax . • . v w~ ~ pWFI'.t .t• ~ 1 ; M ~ ` ss;w:~w ~ • 0'r N.,a~~r ! ~ $ ~ p4 4 . . j, }} IRA•~i irvv b ~ i h ~ ~ ~ aN.a,wl Irykir.. •cia.'II'Jw~ fn W N1 xx x ~ 6 ~ c5 Mkr 4~n 1."': YYkll•3M OOpN tlp ~ ~ ~ v.., ~ ~r~.~ 'i , ' ., , C ' ~ ,F .., 4 { ~ ~ y/_ C Nwv.. Q JGyi l F 1 iC 1~ _ .- 1 _~i ~ ~ ~ ~• .. $ F $ _ „,, •'1 ,• ,., . Q ,, 1 ~ ~ 1 • ~ ~ 11® ~ ~ ~ w 3 ' .. ,.2, . ~ .... y~ r ~ Ji ~ `' I ' f~J''' ^. - C d 3o OM ~ S I51 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ - ;! r• ~y • +H: .s _ ~ C CC y a ~ _ a Mh3 ~ Lr ~ ~ 1A~N ~ 1 ,: ~ u w t ,V ..~ ~ ~ v~1~.~ J.., • p Q .` Q m [7 11 MW u ~J~kl ( ^+ ~-„' L ~. ,ILL Q i ~• ~• i ~ `~.-_,., V C `~ .. _ ~ ~„ O fA i •p C O~ w Q O T ~' c v~ as C O v a E 0 Z C C a m C 'N C 61 > O ~ m ~ ~ ~ u `° on ro VI 'y{ W v ~ 'O O L H ~ ~ ~ a ~+ c v v ~° v c ~ Q `y m ~ ~O c a > ~ ~ ~ a v E ~+ c ~ O ~ C C ~+ O C C Q ~ ~ 00 00 d V 'O C O y ~ o ~ v ' ~ .. C !O N O C o !v O D. ~ }' c ~ m v v v v E a v ~ o N ~ N ~ 0 ~ ' ~ w ,. ~ v c C ~ v ~ .~ T ~ ~ C f0 OJ ~ ~ C ~-+ ~ f0 Ip ~ ~~ T v 'D N u ~ ,~ y ~ L ~ ~ - ~ _~ C at-. C~ v- o v ~~ o c N ~ L CdC ~ C C f6 ~O V ,~ a v ~ ~ ~ c C N f0 ~ ~ ~ a o ~ ~ fa C an C N ~ O~j N G1 r+ ~p oQ 00 C N v Y ~ ~ L ~ " 3 o ~ c ,° ~' ~ ~ 17 O. ~ OD d c p v v ,~ u o ~-+ +~ C .~ H w ~ ~ L ~ C ~ ~ ~ p '^ w ~••1 ~ N rv ~ v ? .r > m v y r ~ m ~ ~ o ii °v L.. 3 X O Z w a a Q Y U 2 W z O U Z Q J a J Q 4' W Z W '~~ r ~ C l0 O~ wa o ~ C Ur W Q ~tTD ~ ~ O ~V Q V a E m to Z C A C d C v X C '~ O GO v c N '~ v ~ -~ o ~ L ~O io ~ y c ~ is ~ ~f o ,,, O. a~i O ~ ~ Q C N d ~ ~ v 'a ~ v _x a O O ~ C C of o ~~ `y c N L ~ L ~ ~ j O ~ ~ L ~ •- Y ~ ~ N Y ~' N v ~ 0 ~ U u ~+ y CJ ~ L Y O ? _C N ~ L U ry Y ~ '~ 3 d_'' L .~ > t+ GJ ~ w O w r-+ c '3 m ~ -O d 6J ~ ~ v d v a r _O 00 .' O C ~ a-~ V C N ~ Q~ U .~ cOc' :~ ~ C C y ~ ~ y~ (p Y C 7 ~ ~ V E o. u -O D ~ v _L '.. L ~ ~ ~ c a '° p '° 3 t ~ O .r c - c d j. L O. c .3 O c ~ 3 v a~i o ~ ~ L '- ~ "' u u d d .E v d a ,~ ~ ~ v - v Q a, L ~ r ~ Cl Y u. ~ 3 I • • • ~_ ~F O ~J X O 2 W d • a 4 O N .` •~ C To Q C w Q O ~ C V~ m ~ ~ C O ~U Q ~vp a E d 0 Z G A C a ~v d c d C9 a m v c v m io .~ v v w 0 c 0 u v s 0 L t N W N VI O v v ~ c c ~ •- a c ~, 3 ~- o L ~ ~ ~~+ 6J ~ c °' o ~ N O a-+ U v v ~ L ~- a+ O O c 7 CD in Y 111 C ~ ~ N N ~ L ~,, ''' h 3 0 t N ~ Y ~ t0 ~ C ~ ~ ~ v ~ L ~ V (Q L N N L ~ N 3 o ~ m ~ ~ m C V ._ ~ C m 3 o ~+ in O m m ~ C GJ .~ L ~ Q ~ a ~ _ v G1 7 7 ~ OD C LL ~ U 2 w ~- z 0 v z a J a ~~ ~~_ z ~~ 0 •_~ C W Q Q C V « ~ b V ~~ ~ C O :~ U Q ~" V Q E Z C C a 1`0 m C ,m V v ~ N ._ ~ ~ v 'p C- N C Vf L v F c .N N U ~V f0 G1 GJ Q Q a~ c ~ ~ '° 3 X in w ~ o ~ c •- o ~ +~ o d ~ N ~ L ++ ~ C ~, 0 0 L Q ~ O N N ~ ~ Q1 `v ~ v ~ c o n. N V 'O CQ- ~ f0 C d _ ~ T d 41 H _~ L O Q~ .D c L •- m ~ fO ~ ~ o. N > ~ ~c ar v L O L ''' _ .+ ~p C L ~ ~ L U 3 3 0 o L Y L N 0 Y a.~ ~' L ~ N co ~ v C ~ Q ~ a~ ~ :u v ~ O N ~ ~ L ~ 3~`-°~ O c np - a c ~ a -- T 'N ~ v v ~ L +' T y C a C f~0 E O '+~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 U ~ ro ~ O ~/ __ _ Q ~ ~ V1 ~ T O ~ a, '9 E ~ ~ ~ m LL N 7 • • • ~ • • 3 w W } U Z w _ti N Z O U Z Q J a a W Z w c~ _X O Z W a a O b .` .a c W C w Q O ~ ~' c V O ~ ~ C ~ O ~V Q v Q c C a m C H ~ O 7 ~ v ~ Y c ~ 3 iv ~ O vi - C ~ C1 o,E~ o -o .o v ~ '' o v ; c ~ ~ v v ~ v o - -~ v c ~ v v -o c Y _~ v a c ~, ~° w +' C O _ ~ ~ ~ a c a =~ d E :n o ~, u ~ s C 7 L o Y o L o u ., .. v L N tJ L+ N ~ ~ U ~ ~ C Y O O C "O ~ y vi ~ f0 U N y,, ~ C d ~ ~ .~ ~ E a N 0 N H ~ C 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ C fO y. ~ _ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •+ ~ ~ ~_ ~ N fG ~ N y v C O N t u ~. y 0 3 ~ r ~ > > Y 0 3 ~O E,QL ~ ~ Q1 OJ N u fO ~ .. N ra 1° m a L OJ L ~ ~ w ~C ~, ~ O c v r 00 C a-~ O 3 o a, z «, N N ~ D O u 2 ~ ra ~ w a Q c v ~o 0 0 A 41 ~ OCiO 0~1 070 y ~ LL ~ 7 O X 0 Z W a a Q w w } U Z w r z 0 U Z Q a w z w U ~~ O E o J C W W W g ~ N U U U a. 9 ~ ~ E ~ ° m J U = oaa HAII OIO~Lf , 11110 3AIl oooMOaa ~I~ne ~ i~1M1110~ C O a~i+vlvrrn LL 3NIIISVP t J I Q 0 }o ~I~ h m 7 z IL ~~ 0 E ~~ ~~ Uc ~ c TO O ~ .c U c O ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ $ ~, a r x w ~ w ~ VJ K a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ _ ~TyT ~ N ~ ~` LL " W N ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ a ~ ~ w ~ a d a o~ ~ n~,~_~ o ~ ~ ., U E ~ ~ `~ g ~ P ~ c U c ... ~ U t~ c7 ~ rn CJ U - O '11~ ~. t m m J t a a d C C 0 aL ~+ T C ~ 3 C oa U ~ C C .m, ~ ~ ~ C ro o mV C ~ O Z C 10 C C 0 m C J C a as c I. IL ~~ C a+ G/ Vf O ~ ~ N v ~ ~ ~ ~ N d C co ~ co O - eo N N to c > ~ . (p ~ Y 01 L L 3 m „ ~ c Y ~ c `~ d o ~' O C N ~ `^ ~ u C d u d ~ ~o to a .~ u v .~ ~; a m w 'o E L N C .~ a ~ ~ ~, a• O C aL.+ 'C d C C a'C_.. aL.~ ~ ~ 3 c ~ . m 3 c y ,~ > ~'-' 3 ~ c ~ m m -.w.°_ow ,. LL y ~ L ... O (p N N 7 G7 ~ 00 ,6 3 m '~-° c Y ~ ~ ~o d ~., a p ~ C L N C 'p v O >'6 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ lp L 00 C Y T C c v ~ t ~ Q L N Y O ~ ~ V fL C .'!~ ~ Q H ~ a.'1 U ]" w v y (9 a+ ~ ~ O f4 4/ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~-~~~~ v ' a c c 3 odo" ~ d .~ ~ d d o d _~ V F Y V- ~ ,~ O d C ~~ v~ 3 ~ O ., ~ c ~ c v ~ O '~ ~ L ~ ~ U .. ~, r ~ a d a ~ ~_ R ~ ~ ~ Y ~ Q - C C ~ ' tp ._ ~ Q- C ~,~~~ v a i~ 3 m c • r ;7 • O • • W w r U Z W (n N Z U Z a J a J Q d' W Z W U' x 0 2 W a a a v ~ N ~ ~ C ~ ~ O. a ,~ E o a N -~ ~ v C ~• ii p ~ `O ~ c :7 ~ e ~e m y s+- e y ~ `• - s2 u a+ C Q >' (O i ~ ~ ooa ~ ~n~ ~~~~®~ ~~~®~~~~_~c~~ a~ ~~ o L _ ~ ~y liH.'1 •UL3B 4al tlN\ Nit 31GVr ~~Y!'N x ~I 2 (fOt j f0 V U ~ l ~ w ~ ° E 3~ ~ ~a a ~ y S ~hfv. a f.,, .:~: 9 ~ ? {L n ID " N y O~ n.y. % ,NI S M:Ni ~ ~. ~ U ~ 0 ` as _ e O 3d s~>ar:.J ~ y '1 3Tnf. ~ n..ne ~ Q, c ~ ~ ~l F _ .v ~ V gf, i 3riMilYlq ~„ N 1 V3 d ~ O MD V• r 37r1NN .[ _~ € ?_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1lN011 = Yrv ' v, i - K) = nt'Qn,!• 7 C •3Q304Y0 "' 1 O - ~ ~ •O IO v.'t,V Y. ~ ~ rW5 ~ ~ 3-' N _ N ~ 1}11/!117 Yf3 ~ dOSSA,. ~ .rY •. J ~• C -~ '. i~ n1n 1N70M NI-F.sm1.1~. - ~ ~ .E Q ~i ~ LL \nG110R1 NV19011 ~ `' ~~~ ~~, c ~ Q3 EN .fyn^ a~+ ~ L L Hl•~ p ~ an Vf (d ~ ++ SS y .~ U J x~A N wl~..T. HII ~ O f9 ~ } fC lXiHrh ~ ~. 1 ; Y.lry '.::1 ~ v O Q new-ch - ~ V 9 vvfa~lar41 E.L L +, 1 Nsnw 00 ~ C H E,,,u viceE I,JOE Nwoe _ O 3 v1 O I^ !~ n r ,^I y L c .~~ bd.~, '1NI IHLS ~ ~ +09n ' ~ ~,~a, $ a O .r ~ m ~~~ ~ avlwww it ~ c .± _ O ~ J _ _ ggqlll m ~ l~.;xl,. ,. •~~ ~ I vwNOKm+ 7U/ cAlOw~i I3 nwq ~GJ ~ ~ a+ c ~ L nn .. ~ IDM1rN71139M~oON;7rIrJn ~ .~ ~D ,pQ YAXO_ Vvi'-~ 11 VIM?I' 01lIrlMJ ~ ~ U G3 ~~-+ L tE~ {~ i ~ ~ ~ 'a U -~ C1 ~; VV ~ ~ ~' a .y vW'rvavN.~ rlMi ~' ~ ~ O . +1'Nr4iN4\ r17N 31rn ~ OHYA3NN 41 Vf ~ ac ~~ c,1 r. W1rlrfrG~ 777 ~ ~ ~ f`O N4i1M10(+I ~ a7YYB ro Mi11W ~ Q 3 ~ ~ Ql r,>`hi~~, ,j1 '~ ~ •, •' ~ N311ryM 3)11'1 W yi HMIYM~ + ~ GL'M ~ , + ~ ..4 ~ y ~~. - 1 ~ 07HW ~ ~ U]tl\f N ~ Y C is -~ 1.:,•~~.. - ,~ W 3 _ _ O $ cvx a:,. ~:xlvrfv .~ r. } 9 R t^Ow!' ~ a ~+ O ~ is ~5 nN~HN a~ vt ~ ~ ~. - . 's - ~ M41rN, q3q wNOnrn'~ '~ ~ ~ c 'y ~~.~ Q QID NIYJ L N a-+ ~ 'f. ` uxn NOB N(1Vr main. vin: C U Y ~ ~ Nl! 3~ r f Wl\M 3,IOw C OQ ~ Y a!!]ITM _ O ~ ~Il 911H1117 ¢ ~ ~-• VI aNtr J Nn. '~ `~ ' _, aI, _ ~ , WvNyr'N 3 ~ vlfa yr q ~ '~ y -c C7C STI 7N11~,: _V 4 ~ ,,. ~ ~ N Mb i ~ ~ ~ ~ C 9 M n31b~ C ~ r ~ 13W rt ~ 'M - NHl t c ~ 11 vn3f ~ a-+ a !O ~ l axe N ct K 3 aMirlo ' ~ ~ "' ~ _ 3 C a m 3' M'M^ ~ ~~ ~ ,.,..~~ i ,~ u. ~ '_ alld. x ~ ~ 31Nrt J w O ~ - i ~ rMIWt G1 s~,M,.... 3'1„ S871N ~ I~MW~t91M:AJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ; H#: ~ ~ .. -~ Y W 3JrlrH'.1 ~ "uHf Nr ~ MrONl1FlN` n VI ~ O Ql NIYif N~!e S O:. }1M ~bDlalVlw t 3 ! `~ ~ ~ N ~ NVSNfr]l ~ ~ r3rviv J nl ~~ ~ ~ ~4'd ~ ~ m 'D c ~ a b 1 Y $ -;W ~ v~1W111- 1nlON1 T ~ 4, b L7 X M C O N r v x+sw I = ~ a ' { - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ svl.r s N,:1 4 .,~, a3e1n o 7 ~ ~ y r ~~ ~ ~. Nrn lx V «J n W ~~ lur: wi~r3N3a ~ < W O .~ O 1' < W G A~ fY h1`•L~i' ~ ri L IIS l 1~1 ~ ~1 _ - L i ¢,4 ~ s a rlw>> C f m ~ nl u'-~~ ~ ~_~~ ~: ° ~ pOON.Q3H W U ~+ OD u F @O O ~, f:b ., i y 4J Sa.~,, ! if fs vlcu ~u. 7 YO 00 O ~ ~ L LL Q L #.. N m 3 ~ .~ a ~ a~ 3 ~ ~ d °' a ~ Q L_ ~ Y .3 0 ~ ~ c ~ O L Q H ~ ~ ~ ~ L f6 T ~.+ C a+ ~ = O ? ~ w !0 'D ,~ a ~, ~' E .r v o ~ Y u y r- °' a ~ Y L ~.+ 'C C ro r O " 3 c tp V- ~ C °J ~ E s •- o ~' ~ v o ~ v .` N ~ .a ~ ~' N N C ~ p O V. ~„~ Y O u C Y_ N ~..~ ~ •Q) Y C h C aL.+ T ~ 3 ,v ~ ~o v ~ c c a m ON u a C _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ O ~ C N ~~+ ~ d L C L' v ~ .~ t0 ~ ~ ~ O 7 ~ N aT+ _C O X V ~ v v ~ ;o L ~ ~ +~' -Q vYi N C ~ N p t C 3 .c 3 0 N N N ~ N ~ O 3 O Q ~ O +• N ~ ;~ ~ OO a.+ O ~ C Q~ ~o v E ,~ a v ~ ~ o ~ u ~ ~ 'p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f0 !O fa .+ 'aJ C C C 41 GJ 6J OJ j ~ ~ ~ ~ G1 61 N LL L L L M • I • O • w W R' r U Z W N z 0 U z a a a Q' W Z W (~ x 0 z w a a W ~ p yN ~ ~~,c Q d ~ ~ ~ N C _ ~ w « L q ~a~ 0 oqv C V v' v ~ ~ _m ~ ~ N ~ ~ O c ~ 3 ~ C y N _ Ol 0_1 'y Y N ~ Y 3 o a o ~ v a ~ L O V1 y ~ u C t+ N t0 a v a C N .~ •- ~ QJ Y ~ ~ . +L.+ Q C w ~ Ol O ~ ~_ N 3 N v ~' 3 T L N ~ ~ 3 o ~ c ~ a 0o y o •VI N aJ "O L v v ~ v N 7 T N '~ l0 ~ c v ~ v > c ~ o ~o v v a m v N N L ~ N O y C .O L ~vi ~ ''' 7 C c m 3 0 O m~ t c ~ N N N ~~a u ._ o ~ uCi N N E ~ '~ .N T C ~ f0 ~ C C O ro ~ T N 6J ~ ~ ~ ~ fO 7 tp N !.1 GJ C .~ L '- ~ w ~' O O ~ ~ ,p c > fO . ,~ o c c ~ 3 c o c o ~ O a N N ~VI ~ C L ~~„ ~ a-i ~ fO ~-+ N ~ C O O ,~ .d f0 ~ Y ~ oco O y o .N s E . v o v a ~ ~ ~ z . ~ c on a 00 !~ "v ,~ ii a c v v I aJ H _N X aL.+ ~ C W «©1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tr ~i ,I ~ a~~i 0 .G .~ U a d - N ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; nr Y7Y' LL ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ _ _ a ~ W ~~ S ~ E ~ w Y '~ E ~ W UJ W ~ N7'r~1'1rJ YO iwixaNw ~ OY rY Y ~ t C ~ ~ f/ Z Y71011 rplflw ~ ~' O d ~ vl ~ W ~ n nr omil o p ~p ~ O C ~ o N ~ ~ ~ ~~ Ul Z O u ~ Z li ~ t ~ Ar aun ~~~}}y t ~ Q~ QC~t L 00 OJ O ~ YY Ynri Y_..o a $ Y41 ~p j„ yVj •C w j E b~ ~ N N z ~ O x c •X a~ Q nrsnwrNa 0 ~ YOY W N p~ ~ ~ r ~ a ; nr iNOwrrNO °7: nr lliN X bD c o p y c Q r. f nriM1MN ~ y C C ~ O •~ 4_+ ~ ~ ~ t iil~ C N IV N C N W p. Z 0 ~ w nr wiY $ n 10a ~ y ~ ~ p Aro nr E E E ~ 1a YOY ~ ~+ ~ 7n a r° S d O O _ c O T n\' rYrM ,~ AMId RiN M AOYM M ~~ ~ W W W ~ C ~ Y n r ~ ~ ,~ V U V '~ ~~ rR e ° ~ ~ u ~ p C rp u C nY Y a ~ ~ D. N +~ O r YY1 V of O r t a C L V u •~ m O ~ ..+ t • W N H C C o 'o •°J ~' u nr ~ ~~ ~ ~ U C V ~ In ~ O N 00 e n N N Y f6 ~ Nl711YW ~ ~ t S '~ nr7AaYe gg g ; -~ o ~ fO ~ `~ ~' p ~ ~ ~ AYr ~MO~ • 1 1 1 N ~ ~ IC y v a. Mfl~lbll ~ M 7710 ~~ a ~ f0 C ^C ~ O ~ C C nr YATr k AY ~ QJ L YYA1 t nr MI t ~ ~ C C AY A7 MN 7! n1l YOl1 I t` ~ ~ X ~ N C~ t ~ nr1 ~ J J ~ N~ W 717Yr0 p nrin~ S t c£ 3 ~' ~ E ~ U TO is u k Av urowrYw ~ a ~j c° d ~ vi 7 G k nrAiruwaw ^ nr qa ,y,2t. ° ~ ~ W k ~ y ¢ V ~ ~ ~ ~ D1 3 w~ t ~, c In /M iq ~ s t t h L_ R ON t ~ N7Y7lY ~ ^nti s t - ~ ~ 3 G... t^ < r ~ .~ n t ~ ~~ Yw ~ t ~ ~ t S ~ ~ v y ~ t ~ ~t t G ~ ~ nrnrmn ~ ~ N~ ~y m t ns 7l7w K nrlnw aa. ~ .O 'H 1n .'~' [ nr YYU ~' • ~ ~ C 'd O nr VI7 C C t ~lanr ~ ~ ii ~ 'KS ~ # t k ~ ~ ~ d U cCO N 7~N u ~ t L ~ t i ~ ~ nr aYr'IYro ~ 9 ~ '~ q y •~ 'p C 1011n1i~IM 7AVM t nr Y7BY ~~ ~ ~ C LL l1~ Z ~ r~.+ C aL.+ ~Yanvlio ~ ~awcurYM wooawaar m ~ C ~ '~ ~N1~~~ MATOM r Mr11r1Yr1 ~ _ ~ J.+ t G ~ ^ J I I v p c N ~• r nr777YUa Iw ~ ~ L ~ m :r u iu 3 ~ ~_ • • • • ~_ r~~= ~i 0 X_ D 2 W • a a a c ~' ~ ~ ~ L OD p ~ U ~ c ~ c ~ u ~ C ~ p ~ ~ ~ N c '° Q V m U c~ c v o~ ~' p i a ~o ~~ m 4 pta W p'~p °° ~ ro ° ~ - c-S o J CC a 2 c ~ Z ~S ~i ~ a~ fQ c ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~, o` ~ a ~z ~o ~~J~ooaa bDOD • / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~vlva w ~;H1rv ~ W ;. L § a.>•:vn ~ ¢ 4 ~ rr Y . ,1 j K rinn•. ~ ~,~„ S 31`A r3n lid' g }(Wy KIIl~ F- i M ~. ~ 3 k<11d ~ (q~ 1141 .yy~y/// l/11` n Li :• ~ a.e 3 ~ S M3338 ~HJidll •5 ~ ~ ri ~ Z ` C n ..3- t z ~ r . ~ { ~ CXYW 3 .• ~ ~ ~ ..-r.:vvria s 'b r 1 ~. rV i - ~ ~ ~ ~ A A r~,ru+rl :vin:~..r. ~ ~ ir~'v]N i j ~ 4 =Tl/. f I,w 3 f~yri$1Ll ~ Fr C ' •' I1Ny • 1i', ' ~~ Y~ ^ ~ V ~ z I~.r ~ 4. .. '~ s V ' J a Y~.~f•Y "~11.. =I C ~ ~ V1rN ` ~ q p~T•IIUr`:` Y S ~ . ISAH131n w L -~ ,~ , f .nnnt3H , ,, unz ' OlM. ~ ~S ~ tl).•rr: ~ __ .. _._. . . ~ u H11 z ~~ ~•~ ~ ~sl ~fS! ~ -.iwr ti' Hour ? ~ e _ L ~ a >a!M Rg11M1 3 J ~! AiT`v tl~/3 ~~ mfrd 31r.N1 F N ~_ O ~ " ~ ~ V O N ~ ~ ~ a+ LL Z L m ~ O 0 : ~ ~ ~ 3^~ m ~~ ~ j o ~ a'a~y Iv *x` ''~ ~ ' y ~'~, 1 9 • ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ AW(r , ~ l ~ ~r 31'%TIAI 1 (( I V ~ ~1 MOMH3A ~ HNIOIVVU I N A330]n _ ~ H]IAB M~_i ~ C >r H10H1~ INMI YN7M" Ml h5 ~, g ~ vRrv, S `. `' WI.r .T< rJ Q ~ C • ," r = Yt'Hr i XA43fi5 wMJIAY G t 1tltlYrr \ ~3w1v1•~r1ln~raH~1n- ~ ~ ¢ ~~~ .: ya. T•• .3 ~ ~. r3r3re 5 .rrv n3v iv" 9:r1re HH•., H4•.H•4ir rr, 1.., y s v Hni+ y ~. • i ,; H!H 4 0 ,•: ora.~ ~JO I '~ ~1e.h1 C Hlt~ F ~HU :rn.nn very ~. ~~r .v .~W I-a..A ~ Y ~ } _ 4 1 $ _ n ? (JK[~^ fD r I • LA~Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan APPENDIX • • NTARI~ • AIRPORT PLANNING APPENDIX ,I HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY Introduction Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) FAR Part 77 airspace protection regulations were designed to ensure that structures and other uses do not cause hazards to aircraft in flight within the vicinity an airport. Hazards to flight include physical obstructions to the navigable airspace, wildlife hazards, particularly bird strikes, and land use characteristics that create visual or electronic interference with aircraft navigation or communication. Typically, proposed structures that penetrate FAR Part 77, Subpart B are considered an airspace obstruction and require an aeronautical review by the FAA. However, FAR Part 77, Subpart B, Section 77.15 of the regulations also stipulate that "FAA review is not required for new structures that would penetrate the airport's airspace surfaces if the proposed structure would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial character of equal or greater height or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height, and would be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement where it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the structure so shielded will not adversely affect safety in air navigation." High Terrain Zone Study Area Setting "I'he underlying topography of an airport's airspace imaginary• surfaces can play a significant factor in determining the allowable height of a structure. Allowable heights north of ONT are reduced due to the rising terrain sloping upwards towards the San Gabriel Mountains and, in some areas, the natural terrain pierces the imaginary surfaces. The rising terrain area north of ONT, referred to as the High Terrain Zone within this study, is confined to portions of Upland, Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga. The High Terrain Zone study area is highly developed with a combination of residential, industrial and commercial land uses with a limited number of vacant parcels scattered throughout that could accommodate infill development. Methodology • This study utilized GIS methods and field surveys to identify existing obstructions within the High Terrain Zone stud}' area. GIS 3D Analyst modeling techniques were utilized to calculate the allowable heights by taking the underlying ground elevation and comparing it to the elevation of the controlling portions of the FAR Part 77, TERPS, and OEI surfaces. The GIS 3D Analyst produced a 2-dimensional color-banded map with each color band representing a range of the distance, measured in vertical feet, between the ground and overlying surface. The map illustrates the allowable height range of a structure. The color coded bands are typically divided at 10 or 20 foot intervals as shown in Figure J-1. The areas north of ONT resulted in a series of concentric like elliptical shapes, with the inner-most elliptical shapes having allowable heights of less than 30 LA/Ontario lntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ,J -~ APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY ~~-~gpppT~gHwN~ feet. The outer-most elliptical shapes have allowable heights of up to 120 feet. The 70 foot color- coded concentric elliptical shape was digitized into a shapefile and is identified as the High Terrain Zone and the project study area. A windshield reconnaissance survey was conducted establishing that trees and Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles are the tallest objects in the vicinity. SCE was contacted for GIS pole height and location data but they did not have that data available. However, SCE did indicate that pole heights vary and SCE poles north of the airport varied in size, with some poles reaching heights greater than 80 feet. Since SCE pole data was not available, the City of Ontario conducted a sample survey of existing SCE pole heights within the High Terrain Zone study area. There were a total of 28 poles examined by City of Ontario surveyors. The City surveyors recorded an elevation height at the top and base of each pole to determine each SCE pole height. Figure J1 identifies the locations of the SCE poles surveyed and displays the allowable heights within the High Terrain Zone study area. The sample survey of SCE poles are cataloged on pages J~ - J17, showing a detail of the pole location and pole data. Figure J2 displays the entire study area and shows the location of each pole with the associated pole height labeled above its location. Figure J2 also demonstrates how existing SCE poles have heights of up to 70 feet within areas of allowable heights of less than 30 feet. An important note to make regarding the High Terrain Zone study area is that the outermost concentric elliptical shape allows for heights of up to 70 feet and the inner most elliptical shape allows heights that are significantly reduced and, in some areas, less than 0 feet. The diagram below illustrates the rising terrain, the Part 77 imaginary airspace protection surfaces, and existing obstructions imaginary line. ~ _ 2 LA/Ontario lntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) • • • This survey also focused on locating concentrations of trees that pierce the imaginary surfaces. Figures J3 and J4 show the tree locations within the public right-of--way in conjunction with the associated height range. Figures J3 and J4 reflect street tree information for the City of Ontario. The City of Rancho Cucamonga did not have GIS data available for street trees within the public • • • o~~~~ AtRPORr P~ANNRJG HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J right-of--way but did provide their "Street Tree Designations per Street" document. This study relied on city street tree documents, SCE pole data and reconnaissance information to document existing airspace obstructions within the High Terrain Zone study area. The existing conditions and obstructions documented within the study area concentrated around major streets focusing on street trees, SCE Poles and any other obstructions can be found on pages J18 - J32. Street Tree information for the City of Rancho Cucamonga can be found on pages J33 - J36. FindingslRecommendations The City of Ontario conducted this study to document existing obstructions and help establish a threshold for new construction within the High Terrain Zone study area. Based on evidence pro~~ided in this study, it is recommended that a threshold of 70 feet be established within the High Terrain Zone study area for new construction due to the height of existing obstructions, which is consistent with FAR Part 77, Subpart B, Section 77.15. Therefore, a proposed structure of up to 70 feet in height (subject to local agency zoning limits) within the High Terrain Zone Study Area should be exempt from FAA aeronautical reviews. LA/Ontario lntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) J - 3 QNTARIE~ APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN 20NE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY NRCOR'PlSNN~MG • This page rvac 1~ intentionally blank. ~ _ 4 LA/Ontario lntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) • • i• i• • x 0 W °s 0 ~ '^ .d SO~en'+ ~1 ~ T ~ z r ' ~ v ntl 3Dr ; m nr vca w«n,~~ ~ .. cP € enrv~ nr ~+oa^_ + rwn~.aM 0 ® - ~ - e is ~O ~' ~ ~~' DoE ~ ~ 53 ~ I~ R ~ R IR 8 g 8 R ~~ ~~~QQ~ ~y ~ ~y I S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Vi W ~ W Z ~ L 2 Z L 2 = 2 ~,. ~~ lC N ~ d C m Q UUO ~ O N J d ~ O ~a 0 fV y,~ C U '~ N ~ ~ H t _Q1 Z V ~~;: . ~ ~ r . ; ~ y ~~ ~ ' C .. .- ~ ~ O N i ~ v,~ •T~Ja• P 2 gi ` n9rM ~ian•n~N 3i1'., r~~nQrv~n~, ~' s p N ~ to ~ ~ ~L r tt '~6 1 , ~ ..r~,.ar~ ' n O r ~ r y OJ ~ a t ~ ~•S ~ ~ _ ~ ~ Iri M•B ;, d 2 O O C O r. m m ~ E ~^ ,~ i,.rN Ir c yR r~ ~ n Saw tK M .caavrnn ~` ~~ i' rr :~ µM ~ rMN i » ' O 9 m d ~o ~ m rn ®~ ~ 1 V-~ ~ . Tr ~ ~ r r ~ ~ 5 e~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ C a h ~, ~~ ^^I f0 C'f t V,.~ s ~ ~ ~ ~w5ar s ~ .~~a y ~ ~ b ~ v u~ ~ m. r~ rrn ~'Y36' ~ ~~ a '-#-a ~c ~ M, nn .ae' C a n X1(1 k • lti'.~i S , . ~n ~P:~ ~ y, _ ~ . ~t __ __ « T ~ .. ~ - 6 : - 1 .r .n it ~~ ~ `7 ry r? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <~~~ 7 ~, , ~ k~ r, , w~~ ~ n {~k F 3•,t~ ~'t , • o t ~ n ~ ~ J N k 1 c •ae~e tr ~ J T C ~ ~ V t i o. •' v tE`. ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o b a' ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ C n~~ nv fi~tll~~' ~' a~ nV 311arb7 cv nnaa O U ~ ~ I 1 • ~ ~ I i ~ W .,.,..~,,. ~-nvou~a,ve nr anb d J .~ N I 0 ~J • g c ieE _"' 01e<~ ~~ ro~oa ~ m m ~ ~ u3 0 o m ro m ~ 3 `o ti o N 7S ~ s~ E i~ E u~ 5 0 ~ .~' S n • • U J K N m U K Q • ~~ 0 0 z o~ ~~~~~ o z u ms's= a~~~ ~~ i~~8s ~ ~.E'$s ~c~S ~~ r~ • • • ~~"'--~~ HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J AIRPORT PLANNING Pole ID 1 Pole # 748823E Pole Height 53.10 ft Pole MSL 1085.85 Top 1032.75 Base Notes: Pole ID 2 Pole # 748842 Pole 44.63 ft Height Pole 1148.46 Top MSL 1103.83 Base Notes: Pole ID 3 Pole # 4387034E Pole Height 70.07 ft Pole MSL 1210.42 Top 1140.35 Base Notes: LA/Ontario lntemationaJ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Aprit 19, 2011) J -9 QNTARIB~ APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY ~IRpQRTPLANNING Pole ID 4 Pole # 870510E Pole ~ Height 68.93 ft Pole MSL 1155.20 Top 1086.27 Base Notes: Pole ID 5 Pole # 1683056E Pole 61.23 ft Height Pole 1086.77 Top MSL 1025.54 Base Notes: Pole ID 6 Pole # H4214V Pote Height 34.19 ft Pole MSL ~_ ' II ~ 1069.04 Top 1034.85 Base Notes: J - 10 LA/Ontario lntemationa/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) • • • • • • O,~"rapp~~N~ HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Pole ID 7 Pole # 1986184E Pole Height 63.38 ft Pole MSL 1194.70 Top 1131.32 Base Notes: Pole ID 8 Pole # 4310171 E Pote Height 48.44 ft Pole MSL 1206.83 Top 1158.39 Base Notes: Pole ID 9 Pole # 1138368E Pole Height 43.13 ft Pole MSL 1202.98 Top 1159.85 Base Notes.• LA/Onfario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Aprit 19, 201 J) J -11 o~~~~ APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY ~~RppRTvt~nNwG Pole ID 10 Pole # 1527073E Pole Height 56.26 ft Pole MSL 1145.28 Top 1089.02 Base Notes.' Pole ID 11 Pole # 1240442E Pole Height 47.83 ft Pole MSL 1119.37 Top 1071.54 Base Notes.' Pole ID 12 Pole # 987288E Pole Height 37.44 ft Pole MSL 1085.16 Top 1047.72 Base Notes: J - 12 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 201 i) • • • -l J1 u • • QNTARII~ A11MOR7PLAMNING HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Pole ID 13 Pole # 4568409E Pole Height 38.84 ft Pole MSL 1062.76 Top 1023.92 Base Notes Pole ID 14 Pole # H30853Y Pole Height 38.71 ft Pole MSL 1094.89 Top 1056.18 Base Notes: Pole ID 15 Pole # 309726E Pole Height 69.42 ft Pole MSL 1165.93 Top 1096.51 Base Notes: LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) J -13 ONTARIB-~ APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY AIRPOATPLANNING Pole ID 16 Pole # H 16749Y Pole Height 37.87 ft Pole MSL 1164.81 Top ~ 1126.94 Base Notes: Pole ID 17 Pole # 4270031 E Pole Height 67.50 ft Pole 1157.08 Top MSL 1089.58 Base Notes: Pole ID 18 Pole # 4439574E Pole Height 71.78 ft Pole MSL 1108.87 Top 1037.09 Base Notes: J - 14 LA/Ontario Intemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Ptan (Adopted April 19, 2011) C' • • • • • ~NTARI~ AIRPORTOLANNiNG HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Pole ID 19 Pole # 4568409E Pole Height 64.68 ft Pole MSL 1122.78 Top 1058.10 Base Notes: Pole ID 20 Pole # 452282E Pole 46.00 ft Height Pole 1124.13 Top MSL 1078.13 Base Notes: Pole ID 21 Pole # 4168379E Pole Height 60.38 ft Pole 1084.82 Top MSL 1024.44 Base Notes: LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) J -15 a~~i~ APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN 20NE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY AMPOR7PLANNiNG Notes: Pole ID 23 Pole # 4428319E Pole Height 60.86 ft ~ Pole MSL 1091.88 Top 1031.02 Base Notes: Pole ID 24 Pole # 4024696E Pole Height 49.18 ft Pole MSL 1078.32 Top 1029.14 Base Notes: ~I J • LA/Ontario lnternafiona/ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) J-16 • HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Pole ID 25 Pole # 1377501 E Pole Height 58.64 ft Pole MSL 1147.25 Top 1088.61 Base Notes: Pole ID 26 Pole # 4246899E Pole Height 47.49 ft Pole MSL 1114.70 Top 1067.21 Base Notes: Pole ID 27 28 Pole # 4632148E 4087861E Pole 60.83 ft Height 56.75 ft Pole 1089.55 Top MSL 1028.72 Base 1092.20 Top 1035.45 Base • LA/Ontario lntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ~ _17 APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY O~~pppTa~~NwNG < ~~ ~ 7-TH-57 _ 8 R ~_~ ~ WB NEB=FWY E-CT ` BYCAMb % r _ -~~ ~ -4 ARi1~ , D018iT ~ R16NWNp8~ < .• ~ OD R 5T ti OEOOA R-5T ~ ~ %$ • - OE A W E% 7 BFH-ST-t~ ~ ~ , 5 g N w •DENEY- DR EY-DR- LirDE < ~ I N yy~NORNE-ST HAW'FHORNE•3 ~HAWFHORNE -S7 ~ ~ b ` /• 4 ~ a r 3 8 NIE-BRAE CT y 1 a BONNE-BRA E-GT < ~ ~ u Jj 4 y W ~ ~ J-a O U SiH- ~ Q y J YALE-ST~ ,2 ~/rq~-S7 TAL-E-ST 7= YALE-ST O < m ~ HARVARD-PL- ~ % /~ /. PRNCE HA ~ON- RVARD•PL c7 y i /: • 4 ~TN-5T / ~ ~ < ROSEWOODS ROSEWO -CT ~ i %, t ~ 1 EI ~ < ~PL~A;~1-SERENA-ST--i C r PLAZl1-~~~~ - i ORCHARDGN a E5T / t 11 j GRANADA-CT GRANAD A•GT v H-5T ~ ~ k <-PEST w Z ~ U / < O W < E4MORADO-CT ! H EL•MORA O•GT Q € ~ B GS W ~ I ~ ~ FS~ w -F-ST ~ -~~ ------<-' ~ ~-'-', 1-F'$T F- ~ m ~-_-• ~ V ~ 7 U ~L fU 5 .r-._._ ~ r-_ - W J ~ • ------- ------- W ---------------- ------ E' O a _ __ ~ Feet i----' 0 500 1.000 2,000 ~ _ ~ g LA/Ontario /ntemaSonal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) 1/ 11 J • C 1~ u p~r~~~ pRPpRTPLANNING HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Notes: i LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ,J _~ g APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY ~~"--~~ AfItPORT PLANNING Notes: ~ _ 20 LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Ptan (Adopted April 19, 2011) • • • • • • O~tltppRT- p~gNNiNG HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Notes.• LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) ~ -2 ~ QNT,ARIB-! APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY AIRPOR'PIANNiNG Notes: ~ _ 22 LA/Ontario lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility PJan (Adopted Aprit 19, 2011) • • • • • /1 J O~~pppT- p~~N~,~ HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) J -23 APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY ~~~~~ A1RP'JFT BANNING Notes: / 1 • _ LA/Ontario IntemationaJ Ai ort Land Use Compatibili Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) • J 24 rP tY • • p~r~l~- 111RP0RTPLANNING HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Notes: • LA/Ontario International Airporf Land Use Compatibility Ptan (Adopted April 19, 2011) J -25 APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY O~_~p~~Niy~, Notes: ~ _ 26 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) 1/ l1 u • • • • o~~l~ AIRPQRTPLANN~NG HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Notes.' • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) J -27 Q~r~ic~- APPENDII(J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY R~Rp6RtruNNiNG ~ _ 2g LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) • • • • • o~~l~ 1Vp90R7PLANNING HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Notes: LA/Ontario Intemationa! Airporf Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) ~ -29 • • J - 30 LA/Ontario lntemationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Aprii 19, 2011) • QNTARI~ APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY A1ttPOp'PLANMNG :~ • ,~ u p~r~l~- A1IMORTPLANNING HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Notes: LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) J -31 p~r~i~ APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY AtRPORrvIANMNG Notes: ~ _ 32 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Aprit 19, 2011) • • • p~r~l~= AfRPOfiTPi.ANNiNG HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Rancho Cucamonga Street Tree Information Common London Plane Tree Name: Botanical Platanus acerifolia Name: ' ,Mature ~40ft-80ft Height Range: Spread: 30 ft - 40 ft The map below identifies the streets where the London Plane Tree can be found within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Tree information was obtained from the Sunset Western Garden Book. 4 ,,r.? ~. ~~ ~~ LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) J -33 APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY ORrappQ=~Nry~ Rancho Cucamonga Street Tree Information Common Botanical Magnolia Grandiflora `Majestic Name: ~ Beauty' Spread: 20 ft The map below identifies the streets where the Magnolia Grandiflora can be found within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Tree information was obtained from the Sunset Western Garden Book. ~- `.tip J - 34 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19, 2011) • • p~r~i~ • IIrttPORTPLAKNING HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Rancho Cucamonga Street Tree Information Botanical Brachychiton populneus Name: 30ft-50ft Spread: ~ 30 ft The map below identifies the streets where the Bottle Tree can be found within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Tree information was obtained from the Sunset Western Garden Book. .~ ..fir ` - ~~-~`, "' ~' a •'t r ` 1 n ~. • l,1 u LA/Ontario lnternationa! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) J -35 ~NTARI~ APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY AIRPOR?vLANNiNG Rancho Cucamonga Street Tree Information Pine Botanical Pinus canariensis Name: Mature 150 ft - 80 ft Spread: ~ 20 ft - 35 ft The map below identifies the streets where the Canary Island Pine can be found within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Tree information was obtained from the Sunset Western Garden Book. ,/ u • • J - 36 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted Apri! 19, 2011) w 0 z Q J O Q H Z O a J z Q m Q O U ,= N U ~ ~ ~ O U o J U c~ Q ~ ~ U ~ i U' W .~~. t C O N .~ Q ~ t6 ~ ~` N ~ O U ~ c o ~ U (0 ~ Q ~ ~ O U ~ ~ ~ O C W C O ~ O ~' N C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ f4 ~ ~ ~ N ~ ° o i a a~ ~ U 2 ~ ~ N ~ A A A A A ca U ~_ O ~ C ~ .~ O O O U Ln N J .a O U .~ ca ~ O ~ O C O U O O ~ O ~ 'O ~ f0 O m ~ N Q .O ~ n O O ~ ~ ~ N C N m ~ ~ ~ ~_ M M U N N C O d (0 ~ ~ N Q .O ~ c0 ~ ~ Y fQ N d +; (a ~ LLO. O N C O 7 U co O ~ ~ Q ~ ~ c°~ U ~ o a A A A A i rwrroaa ~~ ~~ a a L a a~ v a~ NYYaPN ' uv~rii = U R ! i .aawwuo ~ + .. .-.. a ~ I Z Q ~ i i ..--~-- s .` u...ew .. ~ i i_- ' ~ i~ -.- u~ Y C ~ ~ ., aw+n c i ~ f ~ a ~ Y Q ~ ~ ~ t o i 4 w1~nYllOw wi i i L ~ ( ! M~~raindaa i t ~. i. _~ ...._ . ,w~p ~ _ ~ g i : ~ ; ~ , ~ ~=~ i yYMlplPf ~ ~ ~~/~ M~ ~+ awMO1M Y11aw+o+a uaww + a+v uwro~ A ~ ~ ',Ra C O Y J j d s d ..,.. 3 ~r • 0 ~ ~ Z: ~ ~~ s =. U~ ~ w..n+~ ~ s wo,... H J ~ J ~e _ 2 ~ S U m a 1 c E ~ p ., W J ~ i ~; Y a uw si L 2 ar tigY W dy .. w~vw u wrw !f .s~uo~u ~aw ns.wua ux , ~ ww.mws ~ s. ~..~ : ~.o o . ~ ~ aawaau• Zi a.,. O° ,,.w a aarnwoa j ur aoiea w rau+ai>~ w~anwu 0 0 a ^L Q ^~ O A~~ W ~~ '~ v I c O (B ~-+ y-+ Q 7 C (0 ~ N ~ O ~ ^L f1 L a o U ~ O ~ O Z Q ~+ U N ~ ~ ~ _ ~ Q Q 1 ~ _^ LL U ~ O ~ J ~- Z Q 'c~ O N N Y L ~--~ I1 ~ U U Q U ~ ~ ~ .~ a--~ O ~ ~ 3 N N ~--~ .Q U O ~ U ~ •~ a `~ ~ N ~ O ~ L '~ Q '^~CC v J G A A c O .~ ~U N 0 ~..~ C N N U ^L L.L '~ O m ~~ -: N O m C O (~ -~ L L U U U 0 J A A A A U U (~ I..L U J Q .. O ._ V O a V a Q A t ~ c ~ ~ ~ O U O ~ N C ~ O ~ ~ U N ~ L o ~ o ~ +' ~ N ~- L ~ U c N O ~ 0 >' ~ . U Q -~' ~ a~ ~. o Q ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ -~ •v' n ~ y-' a~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ . ° ~ ~ a ~ U . ~ ~ ~ • N O ~_. ~ ~' C ~ U ~ U X O ~' U ~ = ' N ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ m ~ . ~ ~ ~ U ~ O ~ O N ~ +~ ~ ~ vi ~ E ~ ~ ~ - U ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ 2 2 00 ~ Q A A A A A L .~ L L ~ C C (~ (0 ~ ~ ~~ L O U ~ ~ U ~ o O ~ U ~ > O N U ~ ~- ~' O N fl. O ~ ~ .~ O ~ O O O . ~~ ~ ~ O 0 ~ ~ C a+ (B Q V (6 ~ O ~ _ _ (6 O ,~ p Y ~ Z ~ `~ E t ~ ~ j ~' O U ~ _ ~ ~ ~ N J ~ c~ .~ ~ Q >A 0 A y--~ U O C O (B C E A N C .~ L LL r 2 (0 N C O (~ .~ Q A ca L U C N C ~i O Q L_ Q .~ N Q O /~L I..L L O _~ (0 (B N A ~ Q- t6 O ~~ .U L~ ~~ O E ^~ /. i. J i+rs~~r - ----- ~ ! E J ~ t r-'-- o ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ a ~~ ~.rNio y F ~` ~ ~ ~ - W l~' ~ ii ~ ~ ~ u~ I ~ o ~ :~ ~ ~ ,~.,~. ~ v ~ ~ ; a i fr onwWr u•o P.e ~~ "^~ a o ° ~..,~ .. ~ fry ....~ ` ,wwo.~. _ ~.~.. .M~ ~ f ~ I M n~ ~ { C = + M L l~ 1 i i QQ r ~ ^ F ~ i J 44 . ~ ~ ~ E 1 `'l E ...~. t i y ~ i i ..o... d U ~ E `> i i i ~ ~. w.r~• .e aar ....e. m ~ ~ o -~ f~~ > ° a~i 9 i ~~ ~ ~ ~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`---- .. .... ~ c ~ o ~~~ i 4~ c U e 4 ~ N e~ ~ ~ ~ g a L ~ d w 4 a ~ s = 8 ~ b ~~~ 1 E 4 ~~~ ~~~~~, p c m ~ ? ~_ M ~ ~ Z LL 'uS NII >d Y ~ a h z c c a ~ ~ ~~ ~ c Q z o a ~ ~ ~ '1 o ~ao~ U J H Z O a J O =~ `~ V) ~~ ~ ~= ~~ ,~ ~ ,~ . ~~ ~~ , ~? Q c 0 .~ 0 0 ~--~ c 0 U 0 W ~--I C L _~ O 0 .~ L c N L .; ^L LL .~ 0 i Q (6 Z O .~ c ~ ~ ~' z c0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ..Q ~ ~o •~ Q~ ~ L (~ r~--~ V / Q L 4- .; ^L LL U J Q c~ c 0 a c ~a~i y-+ A A A A N U a~i 0 a~ ~_ ~--~ c .~ c 0 ++ ~--~ .~ ^~ W ~--~ L Q c 0 0 0 U y--~ y.r 'o i d C .~ .; i O N ~ ±-~ ~_ O •~ L aQ ~ ~ _ >, ~ U C ~ ~ w ~ 0 c~ ~--~ Q ^~ LL J Q ~_ U N .~ O L y~i ~ ~U .O ,O as m U N J ~Q NO I..L .N .~ C .~ c c~ LL U J Q t .3 U C .~ O L .O O Q Q N0 N c U U L M~ W 31 c~ G ~--~ .a Q N C N C Q 0 a~ U ~ > can O N Q N ¢~ ~--+ ~--~ (~ ~ c d ~ U ~ ~ U ~ ~ Q ~ J Q ~' ±' ~ ~ ~ ~ _ U) ~ Z O Q Z O ~ ~ L ~ O O U a~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ }~ U ~ L L a~ fn ~ Q Q ~ o ~ ~ O ~ o ~ ~ ~ m H ~ . (A }' J Q M r ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ O ~ U • ~ ' ~ O U `~ a ~' o Z a ~ a ° ~ 'c U ~ > > > C ~ Q o 0 0 (6 + ~ o Q a a ~ _ U a a a a ~ N M ~ STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Date: June 6, 2012 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager From: Nettie Nielsen, Community Services Director By: Melissa Morales, Senior Administrative Secretary RANCHO ~UCAMONGA Subject: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES SUB-COMMITTEE REGARDING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY 8 ARTS FOUNDATION'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDATION: To approve a recommendation of the City Council Community Services Sub-Committee to re-appoint Linda Bryan to serve an additional four-year term on the Rancho Cucamonga Community & Arts Foundation's Board of Directors. BACKGROUND: Linda Bryan, who currently serves as Vice Chair of the Community & Arts Foundation has expressed her interest in being re-appointed to the Board of Directors. Linda has been an active Board Member since 2008 and has served in various capacities including Secretary/Treasurer and Chair of the Foundation's successful fundraising Spring Event Subcommittee. She has worked diligently on behalf of the Foundation to fulfill its mission which includes support of the arts in the community. The City Council Community Services Sub-Committee met on May 16; 2012; to review the re-appointment request and concurred in support of the appointment: Councilman Spagnolo and Mayor Michael will present their full recommendation at the June 6, 2012, City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~~~~ Nettie Nielsen Community Services Director P222 I:ICOMMSERVICouncilBBoardslCityCouncillStafiReports120111CommFoundAppt6.15.11. doc P223 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Date: June 6, 2012 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager From: Nettie Nielsen, Community Services Director By: Melissa Morales, Senior Administrative Secretary RANCHO CUCAMONGA Subject: CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the City Council Community Services Subcommittee's recommendation to re-appoint Patricia Morris and Kelly Matheny to serve additional four-year terms on the Park and Recreation Commission. BACKGROUND: The terms of office for Park and Recreation Commission Vice Chair Kelly Matheny and Commissioner Patricia Morris are due to expire at the end of June. Each has indicated their interest in continuing to serve on the Commission. The City Council Community Services Subcommittee met on May 16, 2012, to discuss the re-appointments and will present their full recommendation at the June 6, 2012, City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Nettie Nielsen Community Services Director