Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-09-26 - Agenda Packet Supplemental - PC-HPCEtiwanda and Highland Subdivision Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20140 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2017-00823 Planning Commission September 26, 2018 .A kk-vv� E I - �- Z Project Overview • Project Description: A request to subdivide a vacant 9.11 acre parcel located at 6527 Etiwanda Avenue into 14 residential lots • Applicant: Parkview Financial • Zoning Designation: Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan • General Plan Designation: Very Low Residential '$f$,�• +•� i5l- i °, a d._-. k i*,{'�� -v7-• 'Ilk i, It 4A AA t16 `, ....T •, S •Lys r }ta 4w� - '1•�iI - •c I . I �\ r A�.. �: �{ i � I. •:> It Lam.. _ 'k � . T NAq 210FREMAY ^`µ nxiW warm ae x. v�¢var orno urre iaxc't `"li eme mgyx.` oaoo©gym ma000�o oaoom�oo m�e000�o mao�o�m maim®ono maoom�� �ma.�o®mom mao�m�o imm�oom�m �mram�®moo e*.�000vo o�vaave s�aaeee MN: 022%-051-23 CUCA CMA VALLEY WATER Mi RWJ /AC4NT :ALiR4W l FENTA HEc"OF1 ACT MAP # 201 NONW, COUNtt OF $AN BMW OF AUFOANIA TENTATIVE 014 TENT 014TRACT ` el'B vumru.a wr, +n.r�3"kE'r. :maw urasramn oLL Mp �F� xra RIO n5( 04-19-2010 TRACT A MAP p2 0 1xrF lx lllOMll FTIWAND.A OEVELOPEMENT a^ IN THE CRY OF RANCHO CUCAV NCA a�x tRQ ems m sruv abm tw VY�d r Ea EXW am wb m �w a� am o� O� of 210 FREEWAY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP # 20140 IN THE CRY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN EERNARDINO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ` VACANT CALTRENS pm C _,_y I A'4e� 0227-051-29 CUCAVONGA VALLE" WATER DISTRICT I XTEXX ETIOXAL .ad��tmvsnm" HIM .,Q 04-19-2018 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #20140TRACT MAP #20140 ETIWANDA DEVELOPEMENT IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIMWONCA VALLE' WATEH UF7R1,7 IMIAII INTNEC OFW VAUNT :OJT S 210FFIEEWAY ui �mi�eemmmus �F �i Y�wi aam i�mf6 curs s..cmk +.waacwv m Y0�944AUY =Mmm lm =®mmtPA® o=mm©RA® emmmm"m esmm©W-®. emmmo"m IMMMM"m ommmm"m eommo"m Mmmmm"m IMM=M"m IMM=M"m mzmmm"m IMMMM"o IMMMEMe sommomm IMMMEMe I=vaeem o 1�"Oo for®®®®�©�*h1 OF e'er L.— resxe..w 21 TEMATIVE TRACT MAP #20140 ERWANOA DEVELOPEMENT IN THE CRY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA Analysis • Proposed density of 1.53 dwelling units/acre. • Subdivision complies with all applicable development standards for properties within the Etiwanda Specific Plan's Very Low (VL) Residential District: Development Standard Required Proposed Complies? Lot Size (min) 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. Average Lot Size 25,000 sq. ft. 25,436 sq. ft. Lot frontage 40 ft. 100 ft. Lot Width (at front yard setback) 90 ft. 93.71 ft. Lot Depth 200 ft. 200 ft. • Proposed subdivision will be of similar character and density as the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. Future Development • No development is currently proposed with subdivision. • Conceptual pad for future residences comply with all applicable setbacks within the Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan. Tree Removal Permit • Site currently contains 13 Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees (Heritage Trees). • Only one is considered to be in good condition - the other 12 are either dead or in poor health and would therefore need to be removed. • Project is conditioned to replace removed trees on a one-to- one basis, in addition to planting two trees in the front yard of each residential lot. • Prior to building permit issuance, the Planning Department will assess the viability of transplanting the one healthy Blue Gum Eucalyptus tree to an area that does not conflict with the development. Trails • Although project is not within the equestrian overlay, each lot is at least 20,000 square feet, and therefore could accommodate animal -keeping. • In order to accommodate this, the project was designed to include community and feeder trail improvements. • Proposed community trail on this project will bridge the gap between existing community trail sections to the east and west of the project site. • Proposed feeder trail loops around the rear of all lots, providing direct access. • Project is conditioned to provide trail entrance gates and step-throughs per City standard. Point of Historic Interest • Project site was designated as a point of Historic Interest, as it was the location of the now demolished Ross House. Project is conditioned to require the applicant plaque commemorating the Ross House: MC, r It` rax WRY i n r � s I{ _TF. Historic Location of the Ross House; it- d".v, R. W.0 nl Erir.utJn:.11rsr.wr/ n and�imrslmorixxea, m'.Jas] .ruu o! iaus.m3 rro rir I S,4,j lr I r>l3. Clur&.r Roo nu r/.YtrJP_vaJ<vn et rhrEnmuuGFMulull�TMrs .ion. rar: nMlrwnniruYloJni:rm]F*us/prunuY:.y; Jn•.imes lmfurm'unul rlx! rc P120's Hu Ewrih'eM(irlmms.urvlrunin, G�.,nl MimnhxJm deEriumnLr CunmeuureunnT�r 1 �30i 77r Rrs. N n.nJruu./'.firJm l9`If�mn. r. ...ndvr«cuazdntirr advd ruie�mr andr6u vtr nu.-,�synarrdas v hisrorr. povu ofina�xsrm l� t 'Existing memorial at a similar property in Rancho Cucamonga to install a Committees • Technical Review Committee: Reviewed on May 1, 2018. Recommended approval to the PC. • Design Review Committee: Reviewed on May 1, 2018. No major or secondary issues discussed. Recommended approval to the PC. • Trails Advisory Committee: Reviewed on May 9, 2018. No major or secondary issues discussed. Recommended approval to the PC. Public Correspondence • Neighborhood Meeting occurred on April 9, 2018. The three attendees were generally curious about the project, and did not identify any concerns or issues with the application. • Staff did not receive any correspondence from the public. Environmental • A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project, and was circulated for public comment on August 15, 2018. • Mitigation measures are incorporated to the project in order to reduce any potentially significant impacts to: • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hydrology and Water Quality • Noise • Public Services • Tribal and Cultural Resources • Correspondence received from South Coast Air Quality Management District • COA added to require a Health Risk Assessment addressing air quality upon development of house product. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: • Adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts; and • Approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20140 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2017-00823 SC Rancho Development Corp Design Review DRC2018-00104 Planning Commission September 26, 2018 The Resort Clubhouse Project Description • Applicant: SC Rancho Development Corp. • Entitlement: Design Review (DRC2017-00104) • Project Description: Site plan and architectural review of a 10,243 square foot recreational building, two ancillary support buildings totaling 1,541 square feet, and an outdoor recreation area. • Project Size: 1.93 Acres of Land • General Plan Designation: Mixed Use • Specific Plan: Empire Lakes Specific Plan (Planning Area 1) • Zoning: Mixed Use (MU) District nk.l NP w Empire Lakes Specific Plan d i j s Empire Lakes '—` - 7r = - _ Golf nurse "�— — - 4 a •i , 4th;Street + treet _ MCI irTi� BNSFIMetroI.nk IRaiineNt-- _ ket Park McCroIM�k w = R-x Cuta"ro o b stotm t, � .:.-a. i .. u � �\ :wv.• �I wise. F'. • • ' 'if YMNK \ Acacia Street - " ° ' 1� 7tht reet`. _ - Tj�' North yS REC 2Urbon PltIIa lsth r'Jtreet South : . = ,> '{ L y - a>o \ K EYcaelye L_yeM E MVIO VY AMU) t4 1, ^ IIII�iY�i p,K U�'!m H&�ECMMJ(LNl `� 6 t�11 S Cage lvvg lQl T "' V:bpc Rcq�NRI--+•-�• M1�..�1`�)f -; • — MI ,i "' '� �SRKROEOr,IRE!`) ' � $ L'�` 1 , 1 ••Att -~.'.s +.oewm �1MU JverVy 4thStreet - S Tr t eet ` t�{t �.�6'o-1N�_1 }�fiYLe6t`_ -i. , _ _ J�.►. - _.� . nx � ..ri�.vl..ar .� . _ f __ .'g_u. . a Project Overview • 10,243 s.f. recreation building • 809 s.f. restroom building • 732 s.f. pool equipment building • Outdoor recreation area with landscaped areas, decorative walkways, an outdoor cooking area, a junior Olympic -sized pool & seating areas • 40 parking spaces for personal vehicles • Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 14% BBQ Area & Project Entry Monument t NORTH Sb� Q r-� a Ot LU LU z, w Ir i P — yILEB Y w INlow, -;� BUILDIN ,y l nu y I�� _G➢' BO 04 fOd V➢ � V� y I Ac�1RlC �� NIlfTIXIMVNFIL -. — ' �uxoPw _ k enm.a - 1 "The Ion" Underpass Trail & "Redi-Rock" Wall 40-stall Parking Lot Project Design • Contemporary design with visually -interesting fagades viewable from all vantage points; • Design incorporates use of manufactured stone and porcelain siding, complementing the stucco exterior; • Use metal canopies and trims, glass and decorative windows to add architectural interest to the building; • Roof is a modern flat design, with parapets and mounted stucco screen panels for rooftop screening. all CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECREATIONAL CENTER - SOUTH ELEVATION 4 '_ ;� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA =i rM �O MNMi _ __i➢i_AAVFIa • `i4 naxi✓.r _ _ __. _J._—._ � �lioa 1•Alw ai °> ro< RESTROOM BUILDING - EAST ELEVATION 5 RESTROOM BUILDING -WEST ELEVATION 2 ,tyu 1 2 7 � I Z I r 5 RESTROOM BUILDING • NORTH ELEVATION 4 RESTROOM BUILDING - SOUTH ELEVATION Fl 41 I 7i�r Q L __ Y POOL EQUIPMENT BUILDING- NORTHEAST ELEVATION 5 POOL EQUIPMENT BUILDING- SOUTHWEST ELEVATION 2 �i 4 - I POOL EQUIPMENT BUILDING- NORTHWEST ELEVATION 4 POOL EQUIPMENT BUILDING- SOUTHEAST FLEVATIONI 1 . �4 .' Em PF -W 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Project Design (cont.) • Outdoor recreation areas have a variety of amenities and a diversity of materials that enhance overall site design; • The outdoor landscaped areas includes a variety of groundcover, shrubs and trees species, creating a distinct plant palette; • Parking lot oriented at the rear of the site and screened from view along 6t" Street frontage; • Project conforms to all related criteria of the General Plan, Empire Lakes Specific Plan, and the Development Code. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �:. AFC' or 000 ri w '� { i i• f ! r T �1.3• I� - - e v Y' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Environmental Assessment Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016 in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-000403 and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. Staff has evaluated the environmental memo submitted by Psomas, dated July 19, 2018, and concludes that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project, have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous EIR. Conclusion Staff recommends the Planning following actions: • Approve Design adoption of the Conditions. Commission take the Review DRC2018-00104 through the attached Resolution of Approval with St. Mary's Montessori Minor Design Review DRC2018-00092 Conditional Use Permit DRC2018-00095 Planning Commission September 26, 2018 4: �,-nn C- `} _i�S Project Description • Applicant: St. Mary's Montessori • Entitlements: Conditional Use Permit (DRC2018-00095) Minor Design Review (DRC2018-00092) • Project Description: Proposed 9,974 square foot building and new outdoor playground areas for an existing day care facility. Application includes expansion of the day care use and addition of a private elementary school on -site. • Project Size: 1.85 Acres of Land • General Plan Designation: Parks • Specific Plan: Victoria Community Plan Zoning: Low -Medium (LM) Residential District r AW —Al L SL- i_ £ _ Ems' s.•. -_ - ka s iL A f .w,n r __ a Project Site Project Overview • Proposed 9,974 s.f. building to complement existing 6,600 s.f. building onsite; • Five playground areas with play structures, soft turf play areas, wood decks, and decorative pathways with drought resistant landscape; • Facility will have 12 classrooms, with up to 303 students and 31 staff members. Students range from infancy to 5t" grade; • Expand parking lot to 71 spaces to accommodate additional students and staff. a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON Playground OM NORTH v :=J 71-Stall Parking Lot i / K r r®• /'"-.,� �`.. � I \ '� CEO e ' ✓. / Existing Proposed Building Building \� � 1 - _ - \ ------ Playground Project Design (Building) • Architecturally similar to existing building on -site and consists of visually -interesting fagades viewable from all vantage points; • Design incorporates use of wood cladding panels and wainscoting, complementing the stucco exterior; • Use of standing seam metal roofs, decorative windows and doors, and aluminum screed to add architectural interest to the building; • Roof combines concrete tiles and open roof wood frames. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA_ WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION sc +re v Project Design (Site) • Outdoor recreation and playground areas have a variety of amenities and a diversity of ground materials that enhance overall site design; • The outdoor landscaped areas includes a variety of groundcover, shrubs and trees species, creating a distinct plant palette; • Parking lot oriented at the front of the site, screened from existing residential homes & North Victoria Windrows Loop with on -site trees; • Project conforms to all related criteria of the General Plan, Victoria Community Plan, and the Development Code. NORTH .ee 1— e.., aide Trees Deciduous Shade Canopy \` 6�...b0�.m. brnYr.u.pn bqw "�I.r�Fr.M1. Jn �.a.unN .uv bwtlda..N>F.lo- WM W..n a.ew�Wwnauwr wbnb.nO.n..VwYMan �( 6 ti Bq. > 'c T vw vbm �s r c�am.w yes LC �.._ ...... - - O O,D Ilk Deciduous Flowering Accent Trees O WINDROWS PARK w. T roamw PWI. Tot Town MEC 201 T. Town MEC401 rvoew W+v wrlce See [[e] ray ne V.^'eC nrxm •a tun 15v^.x^ Tan.. ref ® Vi 0) O N J 2 Hamlet SEC 736 Hamlet SEC 736 nx ; full 1nlr. rnrw e vl Ilavn^81 P„.cllw �+Yprvg6p. •.+grrwernn lw n. a In.Mile IF peens men lbrirn9lo uk IaII MqM, rnp ly [MW.n of I>vaa'egxY YmTV5uPnm. nm.aunenl town lw rtnalalrry Tb. r.r 4r.Pa.1+1—, M.,,fiod ae.- ou cur,mm"on al, .,— .unvinp vnero[ a.elenf 1M1 nn vane. llu.n awlwn �; 1 naos bzmo49.— oo:,, Ngn'n,o nn MlrWo" —tln por, vN-.1 n, W.Y Pc. 1xn TPV fw1.[. .•(en more vm.ml.oars ar.e 9rN4r �wr �nw', wn r.wNeaf uw mvxNl pwrm wem,[I en uw narta. oeN. 6 P.r ..np.wtl Ix.oast%M,4tt,MWn In IMmM" VfMly of celp].n14Ek. tlaYr[ SgcXlc.IwnO Nellf ar ea[N!t t111PE1M.rM I.5T4 Ml.fi fYneaNf Inc.u•a. C Tn. 'll 6p ynaNllly Ew b.m.11el ynm LW p4rnrM. V e Maw r..w4 vaetlrq aM I. b.q b M In.41ME on comp.cLG.lcm. , 1TIvcMinnfN vrll Nry le mte16gc11K p4YW'Hr^G e0ulevsnl 411 MpMe. Tlrn pMrrcl nKHf tll appl.[axk 15TM.nnMN. Poured and Painted Rubber Playground Flooring ,i exmN K n mk•e.M ermwe Www. Nn ad.m., no :ae�ovnrea�vP.'awn m�K.W.v w...rnKw no�a.�w.a rkekw.nwewvn.nPr Boulders and Decomposed Granite Trelr Recycled Composite Woad Decking Tot Tud (Synthetic TuM Public Notification and Correspondence • Staff notified all property owners in accordance with the Code requirements. Staff received correspondence in support and opposition to the project. • Residents supporting the project cited: • The value of a day care/elementary school in the neighborhood • The quality of the existing facility • Residents opposing the project cited: • Potential decline in their property value • Loss of view caused by the new building • Increased noise associated with additional students • Increased traffic to the site Property Value & View Protection • No information was provided to staff, nor is staff aware of any information, which demonstrates declining property values following the construction and/or expansion of a school; • In terms of view protection, the proposed building matches the existing building and has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee; • The project site and the proposed building does not obstruct any scenic vistas, scenic resources, or view corridors (as identified in Figure LU-6 of the General Plan). : �� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA a Traffic Overview • Facility to operate between 6:30 am to 6:30 pm. School Start Time End Time St. Mary's Montessori Day Care 6:30 am - 9:00 am 12:30 pm - 6:30 pm Elementary School 6:30 am - 9:00 am 3:30 - 6:30 pm Windrows Elementary School 8:15 am 1:15 pm (Mondays) 2:45 pm (Other Days) • Range of drop-off/pickup times for parents • Start & end times staggered with Windrows Elementary • Traffic study concluded that no significant impacts are expected at nearby intersections. Traffic Overview (cont.) 0 Required operation of a drop-off/pickup lane to prevent vehicle queuing in the public right-of- way 11 VEHICLE STACKING PLAN WITH 2 DROP OFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A-� 0 NORTH ri Noise (During Construction) 1 r, ? -r q '" Figure 6 r - Construction Noise Levels (Leq) With a 6-FT Temporary Noise Barrier L% TM n.1nc. wiunarea cyeoemaa n.v } (/_ an evcava(a unaa Wa;MIN:M. al w:tinn uevtthM,, In nonnem em�iemnax� naive asvmesmam. �./•. oea.gs sn mat enure namgc VaAlroane: ':.• _ y. aa�v,. as Signs and symbols 1 47.4 empo ary ConA on Noi a Bam p NKere< p p fonseucnan Equipment N.Levels 1 6- q 1 : 100 1n' n 7s w +oo +so zoreo i It ■ Noise (After Construction) fir•- Tom, Wk POO I � 3 - t ,�;; CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Environmental Determination This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Sections: • 15301 — Existing Facilities and; • 15303 — New Construction Structures. or Conversion of Small Conclusion Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions: • Approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2018-00095 and Minor Design Review DRC2018-00092 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions. Applicant: Charles Joseph Associates for Urban Offerings Proposal: A mixed use project on a 5.21 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and 26t" Street (APN: 0209-131-01) 1 �cyv) E (, - -Gl l Subject Applications: 1. General Plan Amendment DRC2017-00658, 2. Zoning Map Amendment DRC2017-00657, 3. Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00656, 4. Design Review DRC2017-00654, 5. Uniform Sign Program DRC2017-00872 & 6. Minor Exception DRC2017-00659 Aerial Photo of Project Site � . • ,r 6 - P } t N'e4,raM K� Wl Background • A Pre -Application Review (DRC2016-00428) workshop was held on July 13, 2016, to discuss the project with the Planning Commission. • Staff explained the City's vision of Haven Avenue Overlay District and that the purpose of the district is to establish a high -end office corridor with special commercial and service related retail to serve office users. • Staff also mentioned that, according to the Development Code, the "Haven Avenue Overlay Zoning District is intended to result in a progressive, sophisticated, and urban style of development." Foo hill Blvd© / //ow \t WTIm - st e/�2m ■ƒivcce 2 /f ']e�s¥� fivd ° /k.�>\ ? . . : .. \ �\ ^� \ $�t \: \�.............. x>�hst... (L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA More Background • The project site is located... • 1) within walking distance (approximately 1/4 mile) from multiple active Omnitrans bus stops, which serves Route 81 (north and southbound) along Haven Avenue, and Route 85 (east and westbound) along Arrow Route, • 2) along the future Omnitrans West Valley Connector Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route, which is anticipated to provide services operating as early as mid- 2019, • 3) about 1.5 miles driving/walking distance to the west of the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station at Milliken Avenue, and • 4) within 0.6 miles of the Civic Center/City Hall (approximately a 14 minute walk distance) and approximately 1 mile from major shopping and restaurants (approximately a 22 minute walking distance). • The Planning Commission generally gave positive feedback with regard to the design and concept of the mixed use project. FoothW shill p; , T. ILO © y ' CP.H[Cf Dr EIS, I11 i Arrow We ' • ems} 4 � 3 26th St 1 i 7,*SCy Blvd• a Metrohnk Rail 7th St r Lm 7 liTv E j 730 _ .1 �, ♦ r 6t11 S EI .�, 7radymark f ,wy 8 ��r se axe r 4khst�I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA and 1 hs: Civic Center/ 41 a City Hall = .. fll /fL i 4 MAWEdiwnCt Office x 1".wm.r..., ® �1 1-a.s ft. Nh648�r m go py 91vd— i�=a,'+{'",�1•. Metrolink Station r .-.�.qY-m^lK�.I(iI.A A y / t• _ MEEROLINK Ranch, - t� Wcamonga Potential s• � Lightrail Station CITY OF RANCHO c Foothill Blvd' B } E �C,Center r. Arrow Rte'- II::f th 26 St Jersey°BtVd, ' Metrolink • 1 6 } m 4tl',Sr' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.; General Plan Amendment DRC2017-00658 • The applicant proposes to amend the General Plan land use designation for the site from Industrial Park to Mixed Use. • The amendment coincides with the removal of the existing onsite industrial use which will eliminate the negative impacts created by the on -site business, including noise, odor, large truck traffic, and the site's overall aesthetics. • Furthermore, the amendment will allow the project to be developed consistent with the City 's Mixed -Use standards, which include reduced setbacks, parking reductions, and density. Existing General Plan Land Use Plan lorccv Rwri - .•oe No.anax. •.+.re a o. N Dann d e..'ia wpnlN6 N0ARx1 R"c t10 ngnMO-Va., utwucW CV: k%1016.1 File lO.0 . niV1 i Rtlo.R>*<w camtlu w:s-onF.w � cm�.wp cw••ww; ion on FMB � Gwrpl CmmvyY N25 0 D FART WpUN �w ua. iRn-�oc.Re � •w�vW i mm•a; van is as-o ea c.n� -10 ceWw wwW nu n.omnR; � rm.y ueu.•a ;oao-o so FAn; � fn.•a wWeRe,Wnum � : aev..� J• cawwmm� � oFr snau m-o.ww; FW CM•WVINYCgOY Pmlw ca[Wy — fn;uR[yvui N an 10 Fa R) _ SVvtla ;010 0 M FaRi 0 w.ae uwu.w r �R.�c.w eawrwA..am.ew ' 9fW 0/aOw Lttl fl�wnw �e .bsarF G.rtnb9Y Ce..raw; mel Bw a p.�nO.ly. n w.tl F.arG M� eOwe4ewe :) e+V<aYlma ✓aaM1wID WifI.IZn o.wur• sn.w. aevw O eatlx+rr soex a"F, Prvms.wWa eea O a.o Ro. suwr o �R,afe; nw..„.N $Mtle W aANnea — RmEf W— - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAJ Proposed General Plan Land Use Plan um Vseongnawns f\ 'mlo.rolaamoo le. un]oaxl •. w V.a.m r] a Eo wXl i neaareouawxi i w.uxr Rv�w o.a oa✓xi REccnu CMrW(W (4�Fi ul.IOFM� i A.wmnem r— w n-OAF., i CanWwp��wa-ossF+AI _ G wal Cpmmxna110:5 �OXFaA) YYa u» —YrtlW IONIQ FMI YMWbY i swwW Ra w�o.am FlRl i rxwnisawlW rwmom:.5R1 � Iwnwswswl low-omFMI wew�SVX• - —.� IabFRaCYYN1.]O euxl amCPYN COW Spew a,., fby CdwoiWYC�W' a[Wy i :.vcAYW A ]C 10 iWl i EPmIe 1014-�$O F,SPi ['� YW tM.Srta XOY40m T9{wW^Y '_bnCSY •NNYYw SXW Pn OmwieW {xrw�wi t`bYe1Pl sys'I/s Y OFWwBw SOw.:ww Qr� x-s fo IYOM�Cw�Yr YYwbn GeY�r S.fAiOn wY.cc�.�, iWrOYIYtn•IEw��wr 4 �mMM Cbia_u0e�ep/Gsw1 u�u�yw5ki pYwawan YWpsSp dnlN Y0 wwRN� O EYmw�vSUm ^��w�EOwWunAUYL.Iva O Avv ryn 5pnl o � e.Y uxn CSYBmurY as`ry —STx<ol MM1rm[e RWGa NXAaVs s RaImT The project is in compliance with following General Plan Policies: • LU-1.2, which encourages the designation of appropriate land uses to serve local needs and be able to respond to regional market needs, as appropriate. • LU-2.1 that encourages planning for vibrant, pedestrian friendly mixed use and high density residential areas at strategic infill locations along transit routes. • LU-2.4, which promotes complementary infill development, rehabilitation, and re -use that contributes positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas. • LU3.4 that promotes development that is sustainable in its use of land and limits impacts to natural resources, energy and air and water quality. • PS-12.3, which encourages development of transit -oriented and infill development and encourage a mix of uses that foster walking and alternative transportation. Zoning Map Amendment DRC2017-00657 • The applicant also proposes to amend the Zoning Map to re -zone the subject property from Industrial Park (IP) District to Mixed Use (MU) District. • This amendment is necessary for the zoning of the site to maintain consistency with the General Plan. • Also, as with the General Plan Amendment, the amendment to the zoning designation for the site is necessary to allow for the proposed multi -family residential use, which is currently not an allowed use within the City's industrial district area. • It should be noted that the Zoning Map Amendment will not impact the Haven Avenue Overlay District. Existing Zoning Map J I �I (_J • • Zoning Map • I• ustri• Park• Haven (IP) District/ Av Oenue • • • • IP Haven Avenue = verlay Low Medium (LM) Overlay District District Residential District Industrial Park (IP) District General Industrial t i St (GI) �❑> District < Residential Open Space HI �� O •.nu6a vai ` m�wmma o an+am.m o •. • •I • r Blvd 101"'°O1" Specific Plan Low (L) Minimum Residential Industri I Park Haven Industrial Impact commeaavo�ce ®— A"a, District (IP) Di rict/ Avenue Park (IP) _ Heavy �°' ""-" - y ®.a-mbu omm��nn Planned Communities District �,,,.�,,,,-,- m y Industrial 1 0 =..�.,.. Haven Avenue Overlay (f•1IHI) —^�°`°®`""""`""""`"' < a>• s.d•vco.-.wx r m` werla� is[ i t District District =1 �--y��a�— �� ,f Mixed Use Overlay District aID Wmwti Gafa LJ�' • c--- w u... nwoa .w Y...wwe.00i IndustrialGeneral .s anu nclustrialr Dilt Park (IP)4District IP F9 LCllll Proposed Zoning Map • Haven Avenue IP = Overlay District < . Industrial Park (IP) General District Industrial (GI) District v Industrial Haven (IP) If 4Park • • District ePvAvenueHeav Overlay IP ow, Industrial (MIHI) :istric0 v District dpr Ll 11% A Residentiat Open Space Specific Plan Commercial/Office 011111 Planned Communities M,.ed Use Overlay District rw.w.,m Industrial :_. ia,m�en,.ev..ry na..uunwu t• i, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA � _R Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00656 • The applicant also proposes to amend the Development Code in order to allow for residential uses within the Haven Avenue Overlay District, when part of a mixed -use project. • The site is currently located within the Industrial Park (IP) District and Haven Avenue Overlay District. • The Haven Avenue Overlay District does not currently allow for residential uses. • The specific change to the Development Code would occur to Table 17.38.040-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements for Haven Avenue Overlay Zoning District) and would specifically allow for multi -family residential uses within the Haven Avenue Overly District when constructed as part of a mixed -use project. TABLE 17.38.040-1 ALLOWED LAND USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT Land Use/Zoning District HA Residential Uses Dwelling. Multi -Family t'> P Recreation, Resource Preservation, Open Space, Education, and Public Assembly Uses Assembly Use C Community Center/Civic Use P Indoor Fitness and Sports Facility —Large C Indoor Fitness and Sports Facility —Small C Park and Public Plaza C Public Safety Facility C School, Academic (Private) C School, Academic (Public) C School, College/ University (Private) C School, College/ University (Public) C Schools, Specialized Education and Training/Studio C Utility, , Transportation, Public Facility, and Communication Uses Broadcasting and Recording Studios P Pazk and Ride Facility Parlrino Farilirir �,..� Broadcasting and Recording" Table Notes: (,) Multi -fancily residential uses are perranted when part of a mixed -use project. Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas and/or liquid pipeline development require approval of Park and Ride Facility a Conditional Use Permit. (1) Service stations and car washm and detailing establishments are prohibited within one-half (v:) mile of the Foothill Boulevard/Haven Avenue and the 4th Street/Haven Avenue intersections. No service station or car g and detailing establishment shall be closer than one-half ('/) mile of another service station or car washing and detailing establishment as measured from the nearest property line. tot Service stations shall be designed to reflect the architectural standards and guidelines within the Haven Avenue Overlay District. No corporate `prototype" architecture design will be permitted. Service stations are only permitted when designed as part of and designed consistent with. profession office complexes. Full service attended car washing and detailing establishments are permitted to operate a quick lube oil changes facility. Quick lube facilities that are part of an attended car wash shall be fidly screened from the Haven Avenue right-of-way. Design Review DRC2017-00654 The applicant proposes to: • Demolish the existing onsite industrial building, • Construct one 5-story building (Building A), one (Building B), associated improvements including landscaping, and amenities. 4-story building a parking lot, The development, when completed, will contain: • 207 multi -family units (for rent), including 14 live/work units, and • 14,300 square feet of commercial area for office/retail uses. Aerial Photo of Existing s;:i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1 26TN STREET •� rn- s NO m:.sl elLw ]vb 6 Y mi Ap Design Review DRC2017-00654 • Density • 39.8 dwelling units per acre • Maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre • Height • Building A: 60 feet • Building B: 50 feet • Maximum height allowed is 75 feet • Setback • Building A: 33.1 feet from Haven Avenue (Major/Special Boulevard) • Building A: 14.8 feet from 26th Street (Local) • Building A: 5 feet from south property line • Building B: 17 feet from 26th Street (Local) • Building B: 104.4 feet from Marine Avenue (Local) • Buildings along Major Boulevards are permitted to be setback to property line • Buildings along Local Streets are permitted to be setback to property line Design Review DRC2017-00654 • Bedroom Count • 32 Studio Units • 14 Live/Work Units (One Bedroom) • 63 One Bedroom Units • 98 Two Bedroom Units • Commercial Space • 14 Live/Work Units (500 square feet per unit — 7,000 square feet total) • 7,300 square foot corner retail • Parking Provided • 380 on -site parking spaces • Residential - 286 gated spaces and 14 ungated spaces • Non -Residential — 80 spaces • 30 on -street parking spaces • 16 along 26th Street • 14 along Marine Avenue Design Review DRC2017-00654 • Landscape Coverage • 22,561 square feet of landscape provided (10%) • A minimum of 10% landscape coverage required. • Residential Amenities • Outdoor pool and spa, • Barbeque area, • Fireplace with group seating, • Fitness room, • Club room, • 1,450 square foot roof top deck, • Bicycle storage room, and • 2,230 square feet of co -working office for residential use only, located on the third floor above the office and retail area. VDNOWVDnD OHDNda JO ADD Yll:. IrY; ih Ioppl=7-1 -NJ 11J..1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L A■■ ,, ' 'Fr' rei• 17 Li ?a III III :'. I� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA w � mills wir era:,:. RgAI� <_ _ IF IFI� Lk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ¢ _8 'I1. .. w i Y CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Uniform Sign Program DRC2017-00659 • The applicant proposes to establish a Uniform Sign Program (USP) to create specific sign criteria for the proposed mixed use development. • The USP will set requirements for maximum height, width and area for each of the residential and commercial signs and will set the location of each sign along the building's exterior elevations. • Some of the sign types include project identification signs, directional and code -related signs (ie. ADA parking, fire lane and stop signs) and amenity, retail and office tenant ID signs. • The design, placement and colors of the project signage compliment the design of the architecture on -site and are consistent with the City's signage standards. m�a `:VMHO! 1 V MU 44, TKr EETTom- �t1E WIY� I 4V a r Minor Exception DRC2017-00872 • Based on Section 17.64 of the Development Code, a total of 480 parking spaces are required as follows: Number of Units/ S uare Footage Parking Ratio Required Parking Spaces Studio 32 1.3/unit 42 Live/Work 1 Bedroom 14 1.5/unit 21 1 Bedroom 63 1.5/unit 95 2 Bedroom 98 2/unit 196 Guests 207 1/3 units 69 Office/Retail 14,300 1/250 57 Total Required 480 Total Off -Street Provided 380 Total On -Street Provided 30 Minor Exception DRC2017-00872 • However, the applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Exception to allow for a 19% reduction of the amount of required parking spaces (100 spaces). • Development Code Section 17.64.060.D. (Reduction in Parking Requirements) states, "mixed use projects may be proposed with reduced parking, but must be justified by a parking study that is subject to a peer review by an independent traffic/parking consultant." • A Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Linscott Law and Greenspan Engineers (last updated on January 11, 2018) was submitted for the project. Minor Exception DRC2017-00872 • According to a Parking Demand Analysis the 380 off-street parking spaces provided by the project will be sufficient for the number of units and commercial square footage. • The Analysis states actual parking demand ratios are significantly less than the parking ratios that the City requires. • Table 2 and 3 in the Analysis indicate the project will be mostly impacted at 7:00 pm on weekdays, but will still maintain a surplus of 5 parking spaces. • Therefore the project should not create negative impacts to the on -site tenants and businesses or adjacent residents or businesses. • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates conducted a peer review and concurred with results of the Parking Demand Analysis. Neighborhood Meeting • The applicant held a neighborhood meeting at the Best Western Plus Heritage Inn at 8179 Spruce Avenue on March 5, 2018. • All property owners within 660 feet of the subject property were notified. • Attendees included the applicant, architect, project planner and a total of eight (8) nearby property owners/residents. • No objections were presented or stated at the meeting. • One homeowner that was present at the meeting indicated support for the removal of the existing industrial use that currently occupies the project site and construction of the proposed project. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Meetings • The project was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee on July 3, 2018. No issues were raised. The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission. • The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Oaxaca, Macias, and Granger) on July 3, 2018. • Staff presented the project and discussed the secondary items: • Uniform Sign Program • Connectivity • Property owner attended meeting and commented on the design: • Design should match more with neighborhood to west • Buildings should be set back further from right of way • Buildings should be shorter in height • The Committee complimented the architectural design of the project and recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission for their review. Project Site III mil —rl:� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Environmental Assessment • An Initial Study (IS) was prepared for the project by LSA Associates, Inc. dated August 14, 2018, • The IS was peer reviewed by MIG, Inc, a consultant contracted by the City to review this document. • Based on the findings, City staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures related to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazardous and Waste Materials, Noise, Transportation and Traffic and Tribal Cultural Resources, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. • Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program were prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. Correspondence • Advertised as a public hearing with a large 1 /8th page legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, • The property was posted, • And notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. • To date, staff has been contacted by four separate individuals, either to discuss the design of the project, or request copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration that was circulated for this project. • Staff met a neighboring property owner onsite to discuss concerns regarding the project relating to: • Traffic created by the project • The height of the proposed building • The setback of the proposed building from property line Correspondence • Following the preparation of the staff report, a petition opposing the project was submitted that includes a total of 84 signatures from nearby residents. • The petition requests the Planning Commission deny the project and instruct the applicant to: • Create a design that compliments the existing architecture and landscape and matches the building height and setbacks along Haven • Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a parking reduction • Hold another neighborhood meeting with the neighboring residents to discuss and accommodate their requests/concerns regarding this development • Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven/Jersey intersection from the 10 acre property located directly south of the project site Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1) Recommend the City Council approve General Plan Amendment DRC2017-00658, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2017- 00657, and Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00656 through adoption of the attached Resolutions with conditions and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for the project; and 2) Approve Design Review DRC2017-00654, Minor Exception DRC2017-872, and Uniform Sign Program DRC2017-659 through adoption of the attached Resolutions with conditions. Pre -Application Review DRC2018-00434 Planning Commission Workshop September 26, 2018 C C W ;'r ks �JP 1 (-M C i � y - i A qq '�qq IN ,a 4 r M CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN fleaitlanl Parking Gua.Wlagor Parking Total Parking Surplus Parking Arm: -SA Ayes ggwra • 1241 Plant: 2 NS SF. 3 8M 256arr • (ES) %m ft Secl 5F. 3 Bx. 25 gaa Den, ON. LA Opt Se110 • (31) PM 3: 2Yd7 SF. 3SM. 3Sao , Oer.. ppt Will PaMng fleguimtl P—id.d Ratio unit) Parking Parking $ IM It. t (Par3 3t 43 187 "2 153pacas I °°-OO _ a ,g ° P _o-o- QO r � "_ [ , j n� cc 00 0o m o-. ',. � � o 0 Y r� a C Y 8 00 0- h '� GRAND PASEO ° o GATHERING SPACE PLAN I CC Pq L I PLAN 1 ART SKI] PLAN 2 .Pi acc PLAN 1 WNSt El PLAN 2 �Swp AI3 a1 •y+f �Y f ITT -I �v -r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA m .- , , m CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Discussion Outline • Architecture • Discuss staff recommendations for improvements to architecture • Contemporary • Art Deco • Main Street • Building materials • Building Plotting and Layout • Setbacks along Resort Parkway • Setbacks along Loop Road • Third Place Spaces • Discuss staff recommendations to create unique third place spaces • Grand Paseo • Gathering Space South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: V incent.Acuna(&-C i tvofRC.us Vincent Acuna, Assistant Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 September 26, 2018 Mifiaated Nesative Declaration (RIND) for the Proposed Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20140 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2017-00823 Project The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above -mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the lead agency and should be incorporated into the final CEQA document. SCAOMD Staffs Summary of Project Description The lead agency proposes to construct 14 single-family residences on 9.49 acres. The project is located at 6527 Etiwanda Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Upon review of the MND, SCAQMD staff found that proposed project is within 500 feet of State Route 210 (SR-2 10). SCAOMD Staffs Summary of Air Quality Analysis In the air quality analysis, the lead agency determined that the proposed project would have less than significant impacts to air quality. However, the lead agency did not prepare a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that discloses the potential air quality impacts associated with placing sensitive receptors (i.e. residents) inclose proximity to a major highway. Please see SCAQMD staffs detailed comment below. SCAOMD Staffs Comments The proposed project will place sensitive receptors within 500 feet of SR-210, a major highway with over 100,000 average daily trips.' Future residents at the proposed project may be exposed to toxic air containments (TACs), such as diesel particulate matter (DPM), from vehicles and heavy duty, diesel - fueled trucks traveling on the freeway. To facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure, SCAQMD staff recommends that the lead agency consider the impacts of air pollutants, such as DPM, on people who will live at the proposed project by performing an HRA analysis.' Results of the HRA should be disclosed in the final CEQA document.' Additional guidance for sitting sensitive receptors near high -volume freeways and other sources of air pollution can be found in the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.' There are also many strategies that can be applied to help reduce residential exposure to TACs from nearby highways, such as installing and maintaining enhanced filtration systems, sounding walls, and vegetative barriers. Caltrans Traffic Volumes 2016. Accessed at: hits://data.ca.gov/dataset/caltratis-traffic-volumes ' South Coast Air Quality Management District. "Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis." Accessed at: htto://www.aaand.eoy4tomdre¢ulations/ceaa/air- gual ity-analysis-handbook/mobile-soume-toxics-analysis. ' SCAQMD has developed the CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer risk When SCAQMD acts as a lead agency, SCAQMD staff conducts a HRA, compares the maximum cancer risk to the threshold of 10 in one million, determines the level of significance for health risk impacts, and identifies mitigation measures if the risk is found to be significant. 4 California Air Resources Board. "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Accessed at: hit:/hvww.arb.ca.eov/chrhandbookodf Vincent Acuna September 26, 2018 The lead agency should carefully evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of these strategies before implementation. For example, enhanced filtration systems have varying efficiency ratings and associated cost burdens.' Additionally, they require enforceability in the form of installation, explanation of purpose and use, and annual maintenance. Closine Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the proposed project, the lead agency shall consider the final CEQA document for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide the SCAQMD with written responses to the comment contained herein prior to the adoption of the final CEQA document. When responding to issues raised in the comments, response should provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful or useful to decision makers and the public who are interested in the proposed project. SCAQMD staff is available to work with the lead agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Alina Mullins, Assistant Air Quality Specialist, at amullins@aqmd.gov or (909) 396-2402, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Daniel Garcia Program Supervisor Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources DG/AM SBC190911-09 Control Number 5 This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13 or better. Accessed at: bttn://www.aamd.stov/docs/def,iultsource/ceaa/handbook/aamdoilotstudvriinalreoort.odE Also see also 2012 Peer Review Journal article by SCAQMD: htto://d7.ioaiccom/sites/default/files/odF/Polidori-et-al-2012.ad£ Conditions of Approval RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Development Department Project#: SUBTT00021 DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 Project Name: EDR - Harris Garden Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. All future structures facing Etiwanda Avenue shall be set back from the ultimate right-of-way line for an average of 30 feet, minimum of 25 feet, per Sec. 5.25.302(b) (Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District Setback) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Variable setbacks are strongly encouraged. 2. A plaque commemorating the Ross House historic point of interest shall be installed at the northeast corner of the project site, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit within the tract. The plaque design and verbiage shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director, or his/her designee. 3. Neighborhood entry landscaping per Sec. 5.25.303(c) and as depicted on Figure 5-12 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan shall be installed on the northwest corner of the project site at the intersection of Highland Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit within the tract. 4. Landscaping shall be installed on the triangular shaped parcel located on the north side of Highland Avenue prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit within the tract. Landscaping for the said area shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. 5. When a proposal for development of houses within the subject tract are submitted to the City for review, the applicant proposing the development shall prepare and submit with the application a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared according the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The HRA shall analyze the potential health impacts on future residents due to air pollutants and, if necessary, include mitigation measures to address the impacts. If the subdivision is developed by individual/separate developers, then this HRA will be required for each individual lot. Standard Conditions of Approval 6. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 7. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. www.CityofRC.us Pdnted: 9/26/2079 Project#: SUBTT00021 DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 Project Name: EDR - Harris Garden Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 8. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption and Mitigated Negative Declaration fee in the amount of $2,330.75. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing. 9. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval. 10. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 11. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood gates. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC. 12. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 13. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 14. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Services Department and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Department a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 15. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 16. Provide a 24-foot by 24-foot or 12-foot by 48-foot corral area in the rear yard adjacent to the Local Feeder Trail. Grade access from corral to trail with a maximum slope of 5:1 and a minimum width of 10 feet. 17. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Tentative Tract Map and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, the Development Code regulations and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. www.CityotRC.us Printed: 9/26/2018 Page 2 e(15 Project#: SUBTT00021.DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 Project Name: EDR'-Harris Garden Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 18.On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. The 5-foot wall/fence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. The parkway landscaping including trees, shrubs, ground covers and irrigation shall be maintained by the property owner. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance requirement, in a standard format as determined by the Planning Director, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 19. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 20. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance shall be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs in accordance with Engineering Services Department Standard Drawing 1006-B and 1007-B. 21. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5 percent at the downstream end of a trail for a distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching the street. Drainage devices may required by the Building and Safety Official. 22. Where corner side, interior side or rear yard property lines are adjacent to local equestrian trails, construct minimum 6-foot high decorative masonry walls. Decorative masonry shall mean split -face double sided block, 'slump stone' or an alternative material that is acceptable to the Design Review Committee. 23. For single-family residential development within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District, at least one model home shall be provided with a constructed 24-foot by 24-foot corral with appropriate fencing. 24, Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy. 25. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 26. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 27. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owners at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project perimeter. www.Cityofl2aus Printed: 9/26/2018 Page 3 of 15 Project#: SUBTTOOD21 DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 + Project Name: EDR - Harris Garden Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 28. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 29. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. 30. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 31. Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map 32. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. 33. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 34. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or Etiwanda Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 35. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 36. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 37. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1,or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. The existing overhead utilities on the project side of Etiwanda Avenue shall be undergrounded from the end of line pole on the north side of Etiwanda Avenue to the first pole off site south of the south project boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. www.CiryofRC,us Printed: 9/26/2018 Page 4 of 15 Project#: SUBTT00021 DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 Project Name: EDR - Harris Garden Location: Project Type: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 2. Provide LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and power to serve the street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements. 3. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps. Provide access ramps at the curb returns of the proposed street. Also update the ADA access ramp at Highland and Etiwanda to meet current ADA standards. This may add additional traffic signal equipment. Also relocate values located within the existing ramp. 4. Provide a neighborhood entry per the Etiwanda Specific Plan at the intersection of Highland and Etiwanda. 5. Complete the improvements along the project frontage on the north side of Highland Avenue, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The full extent of improvements is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer but shall include pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lights. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the City adopted cost for public improvements from future development as it occurs on the parcel directly to the north. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. Standard Conditions of Approval 6. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. 7. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 8. All existing easements lying within future rights -of -way shall be quit -claimed or delineated on the final map. 9. Rights -of -way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross -lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 10. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 11. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 9/26/2016 Page 5 of 15 Project#: SUBTT00021 DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 Project Name: EDR - Harris Garden Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Enclineerinq Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 12, ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign -Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self -hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Susan Shaker, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall 1 Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 13. Prior to approval of the final map, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District among the newly created parcels. 14. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to Building Permit issuance if no map is involved. 15. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. The project shall be annexed into CFD 85-1, LMD 9, SLID 1, and SLID 8. 16. Construct the following perimeter street improvements per City Standards and the Etiwanda Specific Plan including, but not limited to: Cobble Curb (Etiwanda) & Gutter Curb & Gutter (Highland) A.C. Pvmt Sidewalk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Comm Trail Median Island Bike Trail Notes: (a) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. w .CityofRC.us Printed: 9/26/2018 Page 6 of 15 * 'Project#: SUBTT00021 DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 Project Name: EDR - Harris Garden Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 17. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 18. Improvement Plans and Construction shall confirm to the Etiwanda Specific Plan: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals connectivity and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch pvc with pull rope or as specified. e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 9/26/2018 page 7 0(15 Project #: SUBTT00021 DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 Project Name: EDR - Harris Garden Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 19.Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet 1." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Street trees shall conform to the Etiwanda Specific Plan per Figure 5-26 and Figure 5-17A. Tree types are subject to change, based on the recommendation by the Public Works Department. Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 20.Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. 21, All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 22. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 23. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 24. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 25. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 26. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 9/26/2018 Page 8 of 15 'Project#: SUBTT00021 DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 Project Name: EDR - Harris Garden Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 27. Dedication shall be made of the street centerline): 44 total feet on Etiwanda Avenue 42 total feet on Highland Avenue following rights -of -way on the perimeter streets (measured from 28. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards. All new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers per the CBC and Current RCFPD Ordinance, Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 2. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 3. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 6. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign (s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 7. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. w .CityofRC.us Printed: 9/26/2018 Page 9 of 15 Project#: SUBTT00021 DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 S Project Name: EDR - Harris Garden Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 10. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official. 11. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 12. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre -grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over -excavation; ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 14. Prior to approval of the project -specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the Building Official, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. Printed: 9/26/2018 www.CityoiRC.us Page 10 of 15 Project #: SUBTT00021 DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 Project Name: EDR - Harris Garden Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit. Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO. YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 15. Prior to issuance of a grading, permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the following information in the equestrian trails: — Provide PVC fencing per city standards, provide a 4" thick decomposed granite (DG) surface, provide a drainage V ditch parallel to the trail, provide a bridge over the V ditch where necessary for access to corals, and gates to corrals. The equestrian bridges shall be capable of carrying vehicle loads where necessary. Where the longitudinal slope (s) is S< 5% the cross fall shall be 2%, if S>5% the cross fall may be 4% maximum. Where water bars required, the spacing for the water bars is: 50' maximum for longitudinal slopes of 4% to 6%, 40' maximum for longitudinal slopes of 6.1% to 9%, 30' maximum for longitudinal slopes of 9.1% to 12%, 20' maximum for longitudinal slopes greater than 12%. In the equestrian trails water bars shall also be placed at the top and bottom of the trail where the gradient of the trail changes, i.e. a steep downhill slope which will cause,additional erosion to the trail. 16. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on -site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on -site .storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structuralstorm water treatment devices. 17. The site shall be rough graded to eliminate all cross -lot drainage, (except in approved facilities adjacent to private trails). All slopes and retaining walls necessary to accomplish this shall be installed prior to final map approval. 18. Flow lines steeper than 6 percent could be erosive. The applicant shall provide hard lined gutters and swales where concentrated flows exceed 3fps, and anywhere that flow lines exceed 10 percent. This shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of a grading permit. % Prior to issuance of a grading permit and in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution 92-17, if a lot may not directly drain off -site directly to the street or other acceptable drainage device (such as a drainage ditch adjacent to an equestrian trail), then: a) drainage may flow from only one lot onto only one other lot; b) a drainage easement shall be provided over the lot accepting the drainage; c) the drainage shall be contained within either a concrete/rock lined swale/channel or a reinforced concrete pipe; and d) the drainage shall be designed with excess capacity to account for the probable, lack of necessary maintenance, therefore, it shall be designed to convey two (2) times the runoff from a 100-year storm event with the minimum diameter of the pipe being 12-inches. 20. Private sewer, water, and storm drain .improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. 21. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 22. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 9/26/2016 page 11 of 15 Project #: SUBTT00021 DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 Project Name: EDR - Harris Garden Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 23. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all storm water quality structural/treatment devices and best management practices (BMP) as provided for in the project's Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC&R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management Plan. Said CC&R's and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan. 24. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder's Office. 25. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document. 26. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Building and Safety Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit avid/or approval of the project -specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project -specific Water Quality Management Plan. 27. The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person/company on a biennial basis for the Class V Injection Wells/underground infiltration chambers, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best management practices (BMP"s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 28. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 29. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. 30. A final project -specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 31. Prior to the start of landscaping operations, the landscape architect and the landscape contractor shall provide a sample of the weed fabric barrier to the Project Planner,, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The weed barrier shall be permeable. www.CityofRC.us Pfinted:'9l26/2016 Page 12 of 15 Project #: SUBTT00021 DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 Project Name: EDR —Harris Garden Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 32. The final project -specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed maintenance agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm water treatment devices (BMP's). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device maintenance agreements executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to submit a letter to be included within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site and Drainage Plan which states that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant shall enter into a contract for the maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the proprietary storm water treatment device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the residential lot, the developer shall include maintenance agreement(s) as part of the sale of the residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the property shall be included within the WQMP document. 33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of concern as addressed in the in the final project -specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the "Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP" section of the final project -specific water quality management plan. 34. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project -Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of "Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet" located in Appendix D "Section VII — Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and' Factor of Safety Recommendations, ..... of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer's recommendations for Appendix D, Table VI1.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors". 35. Prior to approval of the final project -specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project -specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted "San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans". 36. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As -Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. 37. As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, adequate source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration shall be evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan document. www.CityofRC.us Printed: W26/2018 'Page 13 of 15. Project#: SUBTT00021 DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 Project Name: EDR - Harris Garden Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 38. GROUND WATER PROTECTION: Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads: Section XI.D(WaterQuality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection): Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater: a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives. b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration. c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as '100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sgft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes'). d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77), areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities. e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78) repair or maintenance activities{79), such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work. f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination. g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 1,00 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. www.CityO RC.us Printed: 9/28/2018 Page 14 of 15 Project#: SUBTT00021 DRC2017-00823, DRC2017-00824 Project Name: EDR - Harris Garden Location: Project Type: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Tentative Tract Map Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 39. The City of Rancho Cucamonga does not allow on -site storm water quality treatment BMP devices within the individual single-family lots which will be required to be inspected and maintained by each individual homeowner. As a condition of approval for this single-family residential project (including tentative tract maps and parcel maps, and final tract maps and parcel maps of 2 parcels or more) a common storm water treatment system will be required which 'shall be maintained by a homeowners' association prior to the approval of a water quality management plan and issuance of a grading permit. www.CltyofRC.us Printed: 8/26/2016 Page 15 of 15 CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING At its regular meeting held on September 26, 2018, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission continued the following item(s) to an unspecified meeting date. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2017-00658 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR URBAN OFFERINGS - A proposal to amend the General Plan land use designation from Industrial Park to Mixed Use in conjunction with a proposed mixed - use development comprised of two buildings consisting of 207 multi -family units, including 14 live/work units and 14,300 square feet of commercial/office area on a 5.21 acre site located within the Industrial Park (IP) District and Haven Avenue Overlay (HAOD) District at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and 26th Street at 10451 26th Street —APN: 0209-131-01. Related files: Pre - Application Review DRC2016-00428, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2017-00657, Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00656, Design Review DRC2017-00654, Minor Exception DRC2017- 00872, and Uniform Sign Program DRC2017-00659. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was prepared for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT CODEAMENDMENT DRC2017-00656 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR URBAN OFFERINGS - A proposal to amend the Development Code to allow for residential uses within the Haven Avenue Overlay (HAOD) District when part of a mixed -use project. This amendment is being proposed in conjunction with a mixed - use development comprised of two buildings consisting of 207 multi -family units, including 14 live/work units and 14,300 square feet of commercial/office area on a 5.21 acre site located within the Industrial Park (IP) District and Haven Avenue Overlay (HAOD) District at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and 26th Street at 10451 26th Street — APN: 0209-131-01. Related files: Pre - Application Review DRC2016-00428, General Plan Amendment DRC2017-00658, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2017-00657, Design Review DRC2017-00654, Minor Exception DRC2017-00872, and Uniform Sign Program DRC2017-00659. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was prepared for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2017-00657 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR URBAN OFFERINGS - A proposal to amend the Zoning Map to change the zoning designation from Industrial Park (IP) Districtto Mixed Use (MU) District in conjunction with a proposed mixed -use development comprised of two buildings consisting of 207 multi -family units, including 14live/work units and 14,300 squarefeet of commercial/office area on a 5.21 acre site located within the Industrial Park (IP) District and Haven Avenue Overlay (HAOD) District at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and 26th Street at 10451 26th Street—APN: 0209- 131-01. Related files: Pre -Application Review DRC2016-00428, General Plan Amendment DRC2017-00658, Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00656, Design Review DRC2017- 00654, Minor Exception DRC2017-00872, and Uniform Sign Program DRC2017-00659. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was prepared for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00654 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR URBAN OFFERINGS - A proposal to construct a mixed -use development comprised of two buildings consisting of 207 multi -family units, including 14 live/work units and 14,300 square feet of commercial/office area on a 5.21 acre site located within the Industrial Park (IP) District and Haven Avenue Overlay (HAOD) District at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and 26th Street at 10451 26th Street — APN: 0209-131-01. Related files: Pre - Application Review DRC2016-00428, General Plan Amendment DRC2017-00658, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2017-00657, Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00656, Minor Exception DRC2017-00872 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2017-00659. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was prepared for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2017-00659 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR URBAN OFFERINGS - A proposal to establish a uniform sign program to set sign guidelines and standards for a proposed mixed -use development comprised of two buildings consisting of 207 multi -family units, including 14 live/work units and 14,300 square feet of commercial/office area on a 5.21 acre site located within the Industrial Park (IP) District and Haven Avenue Overlay (HAOD) District at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and 26th Street at 10451 26th Street — APN: 0209-131-01. Related files: Pre -Application Review DRC2016-00428, General Plan Amendment DRC2017-00658, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2017- 00657, Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00656, Design Review DRC2017-00654 and Minor Exception DRC2017-00872. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was prepared for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2017-00872 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR URBAN OFFERINGS - A proposal to reduce the amount of required off-street parking by approximately twenty-one (21%) percent for a mixed -use development comprised of two buildings consisting of 207 multi -family units, including 14 live/work units and 14,300 square feet of commercial/office area on a 5.21 acre site located within the Industrial Park (IP) District and Haven Avenue Overlay (HAOD) District at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and 26th Street at 10451 26th Street — APN: 0209-131-01. Related files: Pre -Application Review DRC2016-00428, General Plan Amendment DRC2017-00658, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2017- 00657, Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00656, Design Review DRC2017-00654 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2017-00659. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was prepared for consideration. The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Said continuance was passed by the following vote: Ayes: GUGLIELMO, MACIAS, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY Noes: NONE Absent: NONE Abstain: NONE Date: September 27, 2018 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Susan Shaker, declare as follows I am the Acting Executive Assistant II of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; that at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on September 26, 2018, said public hearing was opened and continued to the time and place specified in the NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE shown above; and that on September 27, 2018, at the hour of 4:00 p.m., a copy of said notice was posted in a conspicuous place near the door in which said meeting was held. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. EXeo0ted on3eptember 27, 2018, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Shaker Acting Executive Assistant 11 h(0Y'd cq Anthony Brucato 6991 Tipu Place Rancho Cucamonga CA 91739 Tel-909-239-1738 9/24/2018 Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga I write to let you know my support for the St Mary's expansion project. I have been a resident of Tipu Place for 20 years. I have seen a school open and close down at the location of St. Mary's Montessori school. Every time a school shutdown this building turned in to a rundown property. After St. Mary's came to occupy the building in 2012, it has been well maintained. I hear nothing but good things about this school. I would like to support this project, so we will have neighbors who care about our neighborhood. Please approve this project without any more delays. Best Regards. �kr �" a`'`�' U C4 �a =I I Tran, Dat From: seth verseput <sethverseput@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10:19 AM To: Tran, Dat Subject: St Mary's Montessori School City Council Meeting Dear Mr. Dat Tran, I am unable to attend the City Council Meeting this Wednesday September 26th at 7:00pm. My children's school provided me your email address so I could express some of my feelings that I will be unable to do so on Wednesday. I support the expansion of the St Mary's Montessori School for a few reasons. The school has been a pillar of volunteer work in the community of Rancho Cucamonga. From every holiday they collect food, gifts, and clothes to donate to those less fortunate. They plan local "field trips" where they stress the importance of environment and they have the older classrooms walk around the community and pick up trash. It really is a year round fundraiser and volunteer work to do things to benefit the city of Rancho Cucamonga. Regarding the actual building site for expansion. I heard that a few homeowners complained about their view. I couldn't help but notice that every single house that borders the expansion site is single family homes with a huge 8 foot block wall. You can only see a top of a window on one home. I'm not certain what view they are referencing being blocked unless they sit on the top of their roofs. The site now is also a current eye sore. The entire area around the site is beautiful grass, parks, walking trails, the current St Mary's Montessori School and for years now the expansion site has just been a dirt field full of weeds. The expansion of the current school I would feel would actually improve the look of the community. Finally regarding revenue for the city of Rancho Cucamonga. I can't speak to how money is received for students in public school as I have no idea, I would only assume money is received for every student in the public school system. Having no idea how the system works I would just like to state that I have noticed how full the public schools are in Rancho Cucamonga. My child and many children that have gone on to Kindergarten and 1st grade have not been able to go to the same public school despite being in the same general vicinity because the current school is full so families are forced to go to an alternative school on Etiwanda Ave as opposed to the closest one to their home. It is also my personal belief that a lot of parents who are paying 1,000.00 a month for their children to go to school from 6 months to 6 years of age will put their children in another private elementary school in the surrounding cities. I don't believe there would be a huge loss of revenue for allowing a small amount of children to be able to go to elementary school at St Mary's Montessori School. This school really is a blessing for the community. The owners and managers running the school have been there since inception and they really do a lot for the city of Rancho Cucamonga thru donations and volunteer work that isn't required. They actually really do care about the area that they are conducting business at. Thank You very much for your time and allowing me to share my feelings. Seth Verseput President Spectrum Instruments, Inc 570 E. Arrow Hwy, Suite D San Dimas, CA 91773 Tran, Dat From: Tran, Dat Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10:07 AM To: 'Ron Castaneda' Subject: RE: Follow-up note Hi Ron, I gave you a call but got your voicemail. I left a lengthy voicemail to answer some of your concerns below. Feel free to give me another call. In regard to #1 below, we implemented a number strategies to reduce the possibility of traffic. The details are in the staff report, which can be read here starting on page 278: httas://www.cityofrc.us/Civicax/filebank/blobdload.asi)x?BlobID=33768 In regards to #2 - the property line dispute with your neighbor, you can contact our City's Engineering dept and they'll be able to help you with that to the best of their abilities. Their number is 909-477-2740. - Dat From: Ron Castaneda <rastaneda@netzero.net> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 5:43 PM To: Tran, Dat <Dat.Tran@cityofrc.us> Subject: Follow-up note Hi Dat, I was following up to my vm to planning dept. but my question is two -fold: 1. Regarding the conditional use permit #DRC20168-00092 St. Mary's Montessori, I'm ok with their expansion if have concerns about traffic in and out of the complex during certain hours been addressed since I live across the street from the school? 2. Also, I need to know my property line to my neighbor's. We seem to have a disagreement where the diving line is between our properties and request the service of a city surveyor to come out with that information in writing if you can advise me on options? Please feel free to contact me by phone or email. Thanks, Ron Castaneda 6901 Tipu Place Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 rcastaneda(c .netzero. net Cell: 909-262-9618 Drink This Before Bed, Watch Your Body Fat Melt Like Crazy Celebrity Local http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero. net/TGL3242/6ba984dl4fa424dl4cbastO2duc Sponsored Links Q Tran, Dat From: Jennifer Valderrama <jvalderrama36@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 9:16 PM To: Tran, Dat Cc: kyle_midd@yahoo.com Subject: St. Mary's Montessori School Expansion Project Dear Mr. Tran, We are writing in regards to the St. Mary's Montessori School expansion project. We currently have 2 daughters enrolled at the North Fontana campus - a 5 year old in Kindergarten and a 4 year old in Pre-K. Our oldest daughter has been at St. Mary's since the first day the Fontana campus opened it's doors in 2015 whilst our youngest started in the infant class. We were also part of the Parents Association so you could say we have seen more of the "behind the scenes" than a regular parent and yet we still keep our girls in the school. So evidently, you can see we have a lot of trust in the school, owners, directors and teachers of the school. This project is important to us as our oldest will be starting Grade 1 next year and it would be great to have the option of keeping her at St. Mary's for her elementary years. We believe that expanding St. Mary's Montessori School will be an excellent addition to the available private schools within the community. Their curriculum focuses not only on academics but also on practical life and social -emotional skills. It would be such a shame to deny other families the opportunity to enroll their children here. Our children have thrived at St. Marys and others should be able to as well. Unfortunately we will not be able to make it to the meeting this week but we hope this email will serve the same purpose. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kyle and Jennifer Middleton Tran, Dat From: Humphrey Ahaiwe <ahaiwe99@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 4:55 AM To: Tran, Dat Cc: Linda Ogunewe Subject: Re: Response to your comments regarding St. Mary's Montessori Good morning Mr. Dat, Thank you for the transparent and timely response. People like you truly restore integrity to public service. I plan on attending the meeting on September 26th at 7pm. Once again, thank you. - Humphrey & Linda Ahaiwe Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Tran, Dat <Dat.Tran@cityofrc.us> wrote: Hello, Thank you for expressing your opinion regarding the proposed St. Mary Montessori's expansion. Your comments are duly noted and will be part of the official records. A number of you have asked why the project is required to go through Planning Commission. The answer is that when we publicly noticed the project, we received letters in opposition to the project from neighbors in proximity to the site. To be as transparent as possible, we referred the project to the Planning Commission for review. That way, additional public input can be obtained prior to any decisions is made. This is a public meeting that is occurring at City Hall on September 261^, 2018 at 7:00pm. The Planning Commission will make the final determination on the project. Since it is a public meeting, you are welcome to attend. All letters and emails (for and against) the project have been submitted for review by the Planning Commission. So even if you can't make it, your opinions will still be considered by the Planning Commission prior to making any decisions. 0 Dat Dat Tra n Assistant Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 909-477-2750 x4326 dat.tran@citvofrc.us Tran, Dat From: Shepard, John<JShepard@stanfordhealthcare.org> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 12:36 PM To: Tran, Dat Subject: In Support Of St. Mary's Montessori Expansion Project Good Afternoon Mr. Dat Tran, Writing you this afternoon to voice my thanks to the Rancho Cucamonga City representatives who have been involved in reviewing St. Mary's expansion request. As a member of the community, I want to voice my support for the expansion of the St Mary's facilities. I greatly appreciate your assistance in helping to further develop the facilities at St Mary's to better serve our community and our children. As a recent migrant to the Rancho Cucamonga area, my experience with the school and the surrounding community has been so positive for my family. St Mary's has provided an option for high quality childcare in the area, which is difficult to find, and has helped us connect with others in the community. Finally starting to feel like we are "home". Thank you for your time in reviewing the proposal for the expansion and please mark me as a supported of St Mary's and the positive impact it has in the community. Best Wishes, John Shepard MBA MHA Business Systems Tech Lead Critical Care Quality & Strategic Initiatives Stanford Health Care C: 909.452.4608 Ishepard@stanfordhealthcare.ore ' 11 Tran, Dat From: Tanya Beach <tanya.beachl3@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 10:48 PM To: Tran, Dat Subject: St Mary Montessori school Hi there, I wanted to reach out as a neighbor as well as a parent. My family lives within walking distance from the school. This has been a blessing to have such a convenient place to Bring my child as well as to have the privilege of having her attend St Mary's Montessori since she was 16 months old. They have been wonderful in working with us through all the ups and downs. It saddens me to hear that one of my neighbors is being so stubborn as well as some what harassing to the schools employees, that by the way do not have any bearing on what it happening. This person is a prime example of why we need our children to have proper education. Ignorance is a sad state. When I heard that this so called view of the park was more important, I was enraged. Not only is preserving a dirt lot more important to this selfish person, but this person has also told the staff that if they want a school they can build it underground. So this person whom ever they are would be ok with putting our children underground to be educated. I drove by to check out the view, there is already a fence that blocks this view. To me the argument stems from a person that just wants their way, and is willing to disrespect anyone that wants to challenge that. We all have a right to our own opinions as long as we treat others with the same respect. Yelling at a woman is not the way to do that nor is it a way to get your way. I'm ashamed to know that this person is my neighbor. I don't want my child growing up thinking that is the way to get what she wants. This school would be an asset to the neighborhood. Our children are the future generation that will be taking care of us. I for one want them to have the best chance of a great education to be able to do the best jobs they can possibly do. The Montessori way helps our children be open minded and free with their thoughts. This may be what will lead them to have more exposure to so many things and to possibly have their own personal serendipity moment. That is priceless and certainly out ways a dirt lot. Thank you for your time and please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Tanya beach Proud parent of a St Mary's Montessori child Sent from my iPhone 4exYJ Tran, Dat From: Dane Sawyer <dsawyer@laverne.edu> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 6:07 PM To: Tran, Dat Subject: Letter in Support of St. Mary's Montessori Expansion Project Attachments: Letter From Saydi Sawyer.pdf Dear Mr. Dat Tran, My name is Dr. Dane Sawyer, and my wife's name is Sarah Sawyer, and we are writing you today in support of the expansion project for the St. Mary's Elementary in Rancho Cucamonga. My wife and I are currently residents in Fontana, but we also lived in Rancho Cucamonga for seven years before moving to Fontana just two years ago. Education for our family has always been a priority, as I am a college professor at the University of La Verne, and my wife is an employee for Lewis Management Corp. that provides much of the multi -family housing and commercial development in Rancho Cucamonga. When searching for the best and closest academic opportunities for our daughter, Saydi, we found the Montessori schools in Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana ideal for our daughter's educational and developmental needs. She has attended Montessori since she was three months old, and we have found the local Montessori community exemplary in terms of providing quality care and education for children in an environment that allows children to thrive. As Lewis Managing Corp. has continued to expand and develop housing and apartment buildings in the community, families have a need for additional educational resources in the local community and residents of Rancho Cucamonga; the St. Mary's Elementary will nicely fit those needs, we believe, and will provide options for parents concerned about their children's education in a state that continues to score amongst the lowest in terms of national testing. We recognize there are a number of well-known and respected schools in Rancho Cucamonga, but the Montessori approach is unique — focusing on the idea that children learn naturally through activity, and that their characters develop through freedom — with an ultimate aim of developing a child's self-discipline, autonomy, and mastery. This approach is also one that local families request and crave, and to have a local elementary school taught from the Montessori philosophy would be desirable. As more multi -family houses are developing in Rancho Cucamonga, and local economical incentives continue to move outwards in and beyond Rancho Cucamonga, more and more families will be pleased to know that in moving in the local communities that their educational needs will be met with satisfaction, quality, and care. The Montessori reputation will provide a much -needed gap for families concerned about providing the best possible education for their children in a burgeoning city such as Rancho Cucamonga. Our daughter is two and a half now, and to know that we have the option to have her continue this education at a local Montessori school is highly valued incentive for us to remain in the proximity of Rancho Cucamonga. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at dsawyer@laveme.edu or 951.334.1916. In addition, our daughter Saydi wanted to provide a letter to you as well (attached to this email). She asked what I was doing when I was writing this letter, and I explained that I was writing a letter to you to support the Montessori school. Saydi said she wanted to write a letter to and tell you what she likes about her school. We hope you enjoy it; she worked hard on putting it together for you. Dane Sawyer Senior Adjunct Professor of Philosophy and Religion Philosophy and Religion Department College of Arts and Sciences University of La Verne 1950 Third Street I La Verne, CA 91750 dsawverCalaverne.edu laverne.edu Tran, Dat From: Joshua Regalado <joshjlwl@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 10:40 AM To: Tran, Dat Subject: St. Mary's Montessori Expansion Project Mr. Dat Tran, I would like to thank you and all other Rancho Cucamonga City representatives who have been involved in reviewing St. Mary's expansion request thus far. I understand there has been exerted effort from both the city and St. Mary's leadership to cooperate towards a mutually advantageous outcome, ultimately serving the children of our beloved community. The Parent Association has been very engaged in the idea of expansion, as the proposed growth provides such potential to welcome a larger breadth of children who live within the city. This is truly an investment into the future of our neighbors and little ones. It appears we are on the precipice of approval for our proposal, and we are grateful for the opportunity this process has given everyone to identify issues, challenges, and opportunities. Would you be able to provide an update on the approval process? Are there any actions we need to take to move the process forward? We at St. Mary's Montessori are committed to finding solutions which are agreeable and enhancing to all stakeholders. We are also confident this approach aligns with the values of Rancho Cucamonga's operational intent, as outlined in the city councils' mission statement. Again, I sincerely thank you and all those involved for the support thus far. Josh & Lynn Regalado St. Mary's Montessori PA Presidents Proud Rancho Cucamonga Residents Cell: 626-201-3538 Joshilwl@vahoo.com • • �Cer,�-vd C� Tran, Dat From: Xiaoyu Hu <ben.n.maggie@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 1:37 AM To: Tran, Dat Cc: emily.t@stmarysmontessorischool.com Subject: Support for St. Mary's Montessori School Dear Mr. Tran, My name is Xiaoyu Hu, and my oldest child, Alexander, age 4, is attending St. Mary's Montessori School at their Rancho Cucamonga campus. My family currently resides in Rancho Summit community, and I am writing to express my support for the planned new building expansions of St. Mary's Rancho campus. Every time when I go pick up my son, I see happy children. We have attended other preschools both in and out of Inland Empire region, and none can match the experience we have had at St Mary's. Their school environment allow,our children to thrive, and it is a great relief for us as parents - we can be rest assured that our children are enjoying learning. I believe it would be a loss for us if our children would no longer be able to continue their education in such an environment, especially one that they have/will become familiar within their early formative years. Therefore, your kind consideration in the approval of the new buildings is very important to us. A new private school in an essentially upward expanding community would definitely attract plenty more younger, career ascending families. This would in turn contribute untold possibilities to the city as a whole. You being the city planner, Mr. Tran, would only recognize this matter with far greater significance than the rest of us. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Xiaoyu Hu Tran, Dat From: Michelle Bat <bat_michelle@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 4:36 PM To: Tran, Dat Subject: St. Mary's Montessori School Mr. Tran, When my husband and I first considered pre-school options for our boys we agonized over the choice. We visited schools, talked to as many other local parents as we could, and attended numerous meet & greets. When the time finally came to make,a decision, we opted for St. Mary's Montessori, and we are so very glad that we did! St. Mary's Montessori has done an excellent job of helping to prepare our boys for life beyond St. Mary's Montessori, they have performed right from the beginning as true allies in helping our children to grow and blossom. We love the way the school encourages free inquiry and exploring problems and solutions. We love the way the school has been just as flexible in working with us as a family as the teachers have been in working with our boys. After having our boys at St. Mary's for two years so far we have truly enjoyed and respected each of the teachers our kids have worked with. We have trusted this school to not only teach our children both in academics and in life skills, but also in how to love learning. Our experience has exceeded our expectations. We've been so impressed by the academic growth we've seen in our boys over the past two years that we would love nothing more for this expansion to take place so that we may be able to send our boys to an elementary school where they will continue to blossom in a supportive, nurturing, and challenging environment that rewards independence, kindness to others, and hard work. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Michelle and Steve larquin Sent from my iPhone Tran, Dat From: David Meade <dtmeade@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 12:13 PM To: Tran, Dat Subject: St. Mary's Project Support Hello Mr. Tran, I am writing to share my support for the expansion of St. Mary's Montessori School in the Victoria Park community. When my wife and I had our first child we diligently interviewed and toured multiple child care centers in Rancho Cucamonga and quickly determined that St. Mary's was the place we wanted our children to go. To be clear the reason we settled in this area is because the school system has received great reviews and education is important to us. I would implore the City to consider the needs of the community and the children that reside in and around the city. This school is helping to raise intelligent, responsible and caring citizens and the owners are asking permission to expand so they can continue that mission. While this is a private school it helps relieve some of the stress on the public school system and with the proposed expansion will be able to help educate kids to an older age. My belief is that the single most important thing we can do as citizens and parents is to try and make this world a better place for those who come after us and this school is the best I've seen at preparing the next generation. I hope the city will consider these children when deciding on this project. Thank You, David Meade Sent from my iPhone • • Kw Tran, Dat From: Tran, Dat Sent: Thursday, September20, 2018 8:33 AM To: 'Michael Turner' Subject: RE: St. Mary's Hi Michael, That is not true at all. You are more than welcome to speak with the owners and/or parents of St. Mary's Montessori at any time. The City is here to answer any questions about the project specifically or application process. Just so you know, I will be sending out an email later today to update everyone I received an email from. We received letters in opposition to the project from neighbors in proximity to the site, so we have to take the project to the Planning Commission for final review. This is a public meeting that is occurring at City Hall on September 26t", 2018 at 7:00pm. The Planning Commission will make the final determination on the project. Since it is a public meeting, you are welcome to attend. All letters and emails (for and against) the project have been submitted for review by the Planning Commission. So even if you can't make it, your opinions will be considered by the Planning Commission prior to making any decisions. Dat From: Michael Turner <mstjr@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 8:55 PM To: Tran, Dat <Dat.Tran@cityofrc.us> Subject: St. Mary's Good Evening, I am a parent volunteer at. St. Mary's Montessori school. I left a voicemail at your office number as of yesterday. I was speaking to neighbors this past weekend, and they are under the impression they were told specifically by the city to not speak with the owners or parents of St. Mary's Montessori regarding the upcoming development. Is there any truth to this matter? Please advise. Respectfully, M. Turner, EdD Tran, Dat From: Albert T <atecson84@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 10:33 AM To: Tran, Dat Subject: St. Mary's Montessori - Rancho Cucamonga Campus Expansion Good Morning Mr Tran, I am a parent of a student attending St Mary's Montessori and am in support of their expansion of the Rancho Cucamonga campus. My son has yet to turn two years old but we have seen a lot of growth in him this past year. From being interested in potty training to already knowing his Alphabet and counting to 20.. My wife and I cannot wait to see his growth once he moves up to the two year old class room. We were excited to learn that the school planned on expanding into Elementary, even though there is a public school closer to our home. Our plan is to keep him enrolled in St Mary's for as long as we can. Please help us in our goal to provide our son with a great opportunity to learn and grow. Thank You, Albert Tecson 11 l Tran, Dat From: TheMattyGTV <matthewgerovac@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 6:41 AM To: Tran, Dat Subject: St. Mary's Montessori Dear Dr. Tran, My son attends St. Mary's Montessori and I couldn't be happier about the proposed expansion of the school. As an educator myself, I value my son's education immensely and 1 couldn't be happier with this school. Everyone on the staff does a wonderful job with my son and I support the expansion whole-heartedly. Thank you for your time. Blessings & Thanks, Matt Gerovac Sent from my Whone Tran, Dat From: Violet Chen <vchen@srnatire.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 4:32 PM To: Tran, Dat Subject: New Building at St. Mary's Montessori School Rancho Cucamonga Mr. Tran, I am sending you this email as an effort to support St. Mary's Montessori School's expansion project at their Rancho Cucamonga location. Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend the hearing today myself but wanted to make sure I send you an email on this subject. My kid goes to St. Mary's since she was 1 and she just turned 4 this month. She has received excellent care and education since day 1. This year is the 9th year that my family calls Rancho Cucamonga home. We feel like we have witnessed the exciting growth of the city. We are happy with what the city has to offer and can't wait to share it with the new comers including the younger demographics who are looking to raise their families here in Rancho. We believe it's important that as a city we offer great early education opportunities for the growing community. We are happy to see St. Mary's taking the initiative and would like to lend our support to them when possible. Please kindly let us know if there is anything else I could help with. Thanks, Violet Chen I Director, Supply Chain Sumitomo Rubber North America 8656 Haven Ave, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Tel: 909-694-3042 or 909-466-1116*3042 Cel l:949-742-2159 http://www.faIkentire.com/ • • �Drtrvd Tran, Dat From: Rick Whetsel <rawhetsel@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 1:12 PM To: Josy Tong; Tran, Dat Subject: Re: RE: Response to your comments regarding St. Mary's Montessori Thank you! On Monday, September 24, 2018, 7:49:57 AM PDT, Tran, Dat <Dat.Tran@cityofrc.us> wrote: Rick, If you look at Page 380 in the PDF (Exhibit L), this where all the letters in opposition are. Exhibit K in the pages before that are where all the letters in favor of it are. If there are any future letters or emails, they will be given to the Planning Commissioners directly, as opposed to be put up here. https://www. citvofrc. us/civicax/fileban k/blobd load. aspx? Blobl D=33766 G Dat From: Rick Whetsel <rawhetsel@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 8:22 PM To: Tran, Dat <Dat.Tran@cityofrc.us>; Josy Tong <josy_dl@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Response to your comments regarding St. Mary's Montessori Mr. Tran, So are these opposing comments available for the public to view??? I want to view the opposing comments. Thank you, Rick Whetsel On Thursday, September 20, 2018, 4:57:01 PM PDT, Tran, Dat <Dat.Tran(d)citvofrc.us> wrote: Hello, Thank you for expressing your opinion regarding the proposed St. Mary Montessori's expansion. Your comments are duly noted and will be part of the official records. A number of you have asked why the project is required to go through Planning Commission. The answer is that when we publicly noticed the project, we received letters in opposition to the project from neighbors in proximity to the site. To be as transparent as possible, we referred the project to the Planning Commission for review. That way, additional public input can be obtained prior to any decisions is made. This is a public meeting that is occurring at City Hall on September 26t^, 2018 at 7:OOpm. The Planning Commission will make the final determination on the project. Since it is a public meeting, you are welcome to attend. All letters and emails (for and against) the project have been submitted for review by the Planning Commission. So even if you can't make it, your opinions will still be considered by the Planning Commission prior to making any decisions. Dat Dat Tran Assistant Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 909-477-2750 x4326 dat.tra n(a.citvofrc. us �QW4 M Tran, Dat From: Tran, Dat Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 3:27 PM To: 'Gutierrez, Maria D' Subject: RE: SAINT MARY'S MONTESSORI QUESTIONS Hello Maria, 1. The parking lot is being expanded to 71 parking spaces to accommodate parking. There are a number of measures used to address traffic including: staggering time with the neighboring Windrows Elementary, flexible drop-off/pickup times, a new drop-off/pickup curb that facilitates circulation onsite. 2. While we recognize that there will be some noise associated with addition students, a noise report conducted by a 3rd-party consultant showed that noise levels will be below the noise level permitted for a residential zone. 3. The existing fences will be kept as existing. There are no plans to change it to a block wall. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. - Dat From: Gutierrez, Maria D <MDGutierrez@semprautilities.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 2:14 PM To: Tran, Dat <Dat.Tran@cityofrc.us> Subject: SAINT MARY'S MONTESSORI QUESTIONS I was hoping you would be able to answer some questions about the addition that is being proposed in Victoria Windrows. I live at 6822 Plum Way, right behind your Montessori. 1. How will they be addressing the extra traffic on our block and parking situations? 2. How will the noise level be addressed when the kids are in school? We have a new born in the home and are very concerned, we also have dogs that would be barking when the kids are around? 3. Would they be providing a brick wall to keep the children safe from our dogs? Thank you for your time. Maria Gutierrez MDGutierrez@semprautilities.com (818) 701-3306 Office (909) 312-1395 Cell Tran, Dat From: allison liu <allisonliu330@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 1:37 PM To: Tran, Dat Subject: Re: Response to your comments regarding St. Mary's Montessori Dear Mr. Dat Tran, Appreciate to the response regarding as my email, and thank you so much for explaining the surrent situation. I understand there will be a public meeting held tonight, but I fell so sorry that I can not make because being a board member of Rancho District Lions Club, I have to attend our monthly meeting tonight. However, It is good to know that my previous email would be considered then, and i would like to show my support again herewith. I believe the meeting can well review all the opinions, and make a good decision to the whole community. Many thanks and best regards, Allison Liu Tran, Dat<Dat.Tran@citvofrc.us> T20181f9j�20EI19P RB T2F-4:5629: Hello, Thank you for expressing your opinion regarding the proposed St. Mary Montessori's expansion. Your comments are duly noted and will be part of the official records. A number of you,have asked why the project is required to go through Planning Commission. The answer is that when we publicly noticed the project, we received letters in opposition to the project from neighbors in proximity to the site. To be as transparent as possible, we referred the project to the Planning Commission for review. That way, additional public input can be obtained prior to any decisions is made. This is a public meeting that is occurring at City Hall on September 26'^, 2018 at 7:00pm, The Planning Commission will make the final determination on the, project. Since it is a public meeting, you are welcome to attend. All letters and emails (for and against) the project have been submitted for review by the Planning Commission. So even if you can't make it, your opinions will still be considered by the Planning Commission prior to making any decisions. Dat Dat Tran Assistant Planner Tran, Dat From: adriennejean-marie <adriennejeanmarie@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September26, 2018 2:37 PM To: Tran, Dat Cc: Justine.g@stmarysmontessorischool.com; nelj@stmarysmontessorischool.com Subject: St. Mary's Montessori project Hello City Planner Dat Tran, I writing this letter because I'm in support of St. Mary's Montessori building a school. I'm a resident of Rancho Cucamonga and the oldest out of my three kids attends Day Creek Intermediate School. My husband is a hospital administrator for Loma Linda Hospital and I am a local business owner. We greatly promote education in our house. We both understand the difference a good education makes in the outcome of a child's life. We've been fortunate enough to live in different states and we've experienced different education styles. So far we have found that the education here in the Rancho/Etiwanda area has been amazing, St Mary's is no exception to that. St Mary's offers a balance for our children. They promote a clean lifestyle, independence, respect for others and they offer great education. The school helps to create individuals who are prepared to succeed in their future endeavors. I hope the project will be approved. It will make a great positive impact on our community. Thank you, Adrienne Jean-Marie 850-363-0067 I "W Tran, Dat From: nursedez@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 2:25 PM To: Tran, Dat Subject: Re: St. Mary's Expansion Dear Mr. Tran, Thank you for the update, it's greatly appreciated. That's unfortunate about the playground as it will definitely be a noise concern, but I'm glad he agreed to the staff parking area as I think it will also streamline the drop off process. We will be at the meeting tonight. Sincerely, Desiree Brown > On Sep 26, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Tran, Dat <Dat.Tran@cityofrc.us> wrote: > Hi Desiree, > Sorry about that. I had the name of another resident on my mind and wrote that instead. > Just to answer your questions. The applicant has agreed to having the parking spaces along the north property line as being staff only. That way, you won't have cars constantly pulling in and out. > In terms of traffic, the traffic review was conducted by a 3rd-party consulting firm. The findings were reviewed by our own city engineers. > The applicant has declined to move the location of the playground area at the front of the school. > As a reminder, you can always come and voice your opinion at the meeting about the remaining items. The meeting is tonight at 7:00pm here in City Hall. > - Dat > ----- Original Message----- * From: nursedez@aol.com <nursedez@aol.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10:20 AM > To: Tran, Dat <Dat.Tran@cityofrc.us> > Subject: St. Mary's Expansion > Dear Mr. Tran, > My name is Desiree Brown, I believe you have me mistaken as Tina. My husband Just sent me your email and I appreciate your efforts. The playground in the front does still concern me as it's much closer and there is no barrierto the noise but of greater concern is the traffic and safety concerns I had mentioned earlier. As it stands either staff or parents park along the street leading to the park and it makes visualizing oncoming cars difficult when pulling out of the park and when turning the corner around the daycare. The influx of traffic with an additional 202 students should require some traffic review. Also was the sound and traffic studies done by the applicant or an independent 3rd party? I hope we can come to some sort of compromise on the location of the playground as well as the provisions for the increased traffic. I was also wondering if the parking spaces along the property walls could be designated staff parking to avoid the constant noise of cars pulling in, getting out, pulling out etc. it would also stream line the drop off as cars wouldn't be trying to pull out against incoming cars from the driveway. r� > Thank you again for your time and consideration with our concerns. > Sincerely, > Desiree Brown R�� c Steve Topor PO Box 8998 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 September 26, 2018 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Haven & 26 Street Project. General Plan Amendment DRC2017-00658, Parking concern Dear Planning Commission Members: After meeting with the project planner and reading the staff report, we have some concerns relating to the reduced parking requirements that you are considering granting this project. In looking around this city and at most any city, how often do you see a project that is over -parked? Seldom. It is always the developers desire to reduce the parking requirements to gain more available footage for the footprint while reducing the costs related to parking. The staff report states that the project will maintain five (5) surplus parking spaces during the most impacted times. Wow!, what a surplus. Is it truly in the tenants and City's long term benefit to cut this margin so close? In reality, many Studio and one -bedroom apartments will have two occupants; 2 bedroom apartments will have three or four occupants, most of these people with their own vehicle that needs to be parked (somewhere). In addition, during busy times, if sufficient parking is not available, retail customers will be dissuaded from stopping at this site and will go elsewhere where parking is easier and more plentiful. We agree with the city's current requirements as called for by Section 17.64 of the Development Code and encourage the Planning Commission to stand firm, require the parking the standards call for, and do not approve the requested variance relating to reduced parking. Do not allow this complex to be constructed so it has a negative impact on the surrounding businesses, as it is not those surrounding business's responsibility to provide parking for this proposed project. Sincerely, Ste oporr Emily A. Topor. Ph.D, LPCC tod D 0 j PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 261h Street. We request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 0 St and Arrow Rt. Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS /� QNr� 2 U 5 IAl ' 102 l7 - 3 4 ELL/ 5 (A 1n "45" 'S 6 E JtJ n, 7 i\ r Cj Z 5 � . s � J 9 10 1 l'Yl YEAl�l o PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26th Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4th St and Arrow Rt. - Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. - Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. - Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS C? sf . 4 5 7,f [f /. 6 17 1- Apt 103LI�7 7 r �1i30 anc o 3 Nk - K 9 a sI 2" S1, 10 101 .�,...>.,-..x�3-r- �n^`r +.-r^ ..-..sp..,e.+e.�.....m�».*.^.. ^�fy-yr-r----"--•s.-lz^� PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26`^ Street. We request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4v St and Arrow Rt. - Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. - Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. P�. ? oF- 9 PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted,to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 261h Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4th St and Arrow Rt. - Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. - Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. - Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS/ nn \ 1 1 `4 S 2 3 �,D loS%6 2-4441,, 5\,ec+ e� adG 1fS 4 1 i-1 av, Gov lo3reyZ , ed S� Q/PTO _ c�/c � c�cn S 1 �d`are 0 551p/ '2i> _1A 57L- 7 OZc . u c C Erna S CS /730 ' b39y 7 CP 6f I'd 6 Kc Lt-ze c-A 911 - $ fit" /AN7,2, �dC*WlJR,tI6A 9/730 9 % 10 6/,q �C r`� v G .y6,v P /. Y OF q PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26th Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 41^ St and Arrow Rt. - Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. - Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. - Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. ff-MAullwoul Q /I / • I ILI .�-��` pr m &Z J i f (-. S oi- I PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26`h Street. We request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 411 St and Arrow Rt. - Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. - Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. - Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNAT ADDRESS 2. C. Cat q173 0 3 4 5 6 U'c / Gd 0 7Z' 71 I J 10 ) C 1/ low ZC� r/� s Cn4 rnH v S03t I PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26`h Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4th St and Arrow Rt. - Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. - Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. - Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1 � LucR 4,� 2 ���/'�''\c�vn I9'1' 2('0fiN 3 4 CL�1LI/1� L f(" YI /703 avec) cactiotld M a cter 9 IOJc 5 , icU y c33 / ST /v3 f� 2 l yr 7 W 33 ZY h S 8 n�I�IL� art ��u rcc� �— C . /v 3 3 3 2�th Ss ��'lb CUCGcweOl�1 C( 9 10 �i�/aa�L y�l�ro✓Co /� s� /o3�.s ZyT� S� /L .ho U q-ivl.bu rtiq- 71-3b 7,36 7 736 717.3E f /736 �:_ 9(73e i 7 0� 9 PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26t1 Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4th St and Arrow Rt. - Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. - Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. - Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1- K % 2 6 3 I Josue l� J� N,4 :Ito 1O��� ' 4 5 'x 1 6 A�1�nc1 r� Gc�i-ii ►����f i�wm � I �!, 7 LoyrU�� C�aruu 1a3��11��mba�a�e GvCamo� � �ti�3 g / Lo3Esa HAY LoT q v c c 9 0�7�1 N�r11 FBI% a✓G 10 v� v_—) V G. s or 9 PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the city of Rancho the requests of a Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26d' Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4`" St and Arrow Rt. not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in Create a design that would the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS �� 31 cevl�- z ,twC' 3 �IL�IA Rk1ko �rwl� 30 4 5 G 6 a�� /o3Go 2y'ti � a . F�fcr ✓ /i os g�f nic �vc a C'c F� 10 P 6. q of 9 Charles Joseph Associates PUBLIC/PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES February 15, 2018 Re: March 5th, 2018 Community Meeting regarding Design Review DRC2017-00654, GPA 2017-00656, Zone Change DRC2017-00657, GPA 2017-00658 for a Mixed use Office/Commercial/Luxury 207 Unit Multi -family Residential Community on 5.2 acres at 26th and Haven Avenue - APN: 0209-131-01-0000 and APN 0209-131-02-0000. Dear Property Owner; This letter -is to invite you io a Community Meeting concerning the above referenced high quality project, which will also include 7,000 square foot Commercial Space and 7,300 square foot Retail/Office located at 26th and Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga. This meeting will give us the opportunity to share with you our plans for this quality project that we believe will be a positive addition to your neighborhood and our Community, and the opportunity to discuss the specifics of this project and to answer any questions that you may have with regard to this project. We appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule on Monday, March 5th, 2018 at 6:00 P.M. to join us at the Best Western Heritage Inn. Which is located at 18179 Spruce Avenue, right behind the Mimi's Restaurant and just south of Foothill Blvd. Rancho Cucamonga. The meeting will be held in the Heritage,Room, and the project team will be available to answer any questions that you may have at this meeting. Light refreshments will be served. We are looking forward to meeting with you. Should you have any questions or need any additional information in advance of this meeting, please feel free to give me a call at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, 1 Charles J. Buquet Charles Joseph Associates Enclosures cc: Dominick Perez, City Planning Office 909e481*1822 Fax 909e320e2296 Archibald Business Park e 9581 Business Center Drive, Suite D e Rancho Cucamonga, CA o 91730 A CALWORNIA CORPORATION Ctl Eil ��A C3 m CA am m inum ugum a a m k161° 0- H VaIcA W,x tW;t4 3'n PLIx M 50,21. IW ca fl w.r aenau ju 0 M tj ED M.A�Wn,.%� _0 0 413 13 ZN0 Ell! be I,,. 12r- F.k, II lu jj oI EO [2wee W-77. u z 4 a ��' �Kl LSYM_ q ��Utn. TKET _�MJWIL _jl�j _tmk_ ttj IN i 1®R&M Nw m mamul�m cm�ilw %1I jp 1A.M.0 Ii ]6FS WIT, li?SIAL3 W pw­j MLOCAT19M (J)LU u CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN -02 �uovCory 0 � a 0 Air A&a G<een Jobs 6 Clean Communises P.O. Box 79222 September 25, 2018 Corona, CA 92877 VIA E-MAIL Dominick Perez, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dominick.Perez@a.cilyofre.us Re: Haven at 26th Mixed Use project AND (SCH Number.- 2018081068) Dear Mr. Perez: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Haven at 26th Mixed Use project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. Also, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877. 1.0 Summary As we understand it, the project proposes the to demolish an existing 22,640 square foot industrial building and construct a mixed -use development comprised of 207 apartments with a mix of 32 studios, 63 one -bedroom, 98 two -bedroom, and 14 live -work units; approximately 7,300 square feet of comer retail and/or office space uses; and 7,000 square feet of work space incorporated into the live -work units. The project will include general amenities such as a fitness center and pool for residents. The project also provides 2,230 square feet of separate co - working space on the third floor above the corner retail and/or office space for use by all on -site residents. Building heights will range from 60 feet (Building A) to 50 feet (Building B) above grade. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.36.020 Development Standards for Mixed -Use Zoning Districts includes a height provision which requires all buildings within one hundred (100) feet of LM, L, or VL Districts shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25'). The project site is adjacent to a L (Low Density Residential) District. The MND does not provide discussion on compliance with this provision. The project site has a Zoning Designation of IP (Industrial Park) and is located in the Haven Avenue Office Overlay Zoning District. The property has a General Plan Land Use designation of Industrial Park. Discretionary actions related to the development of the proposed project include: 1) a General Plan Amendment to change the property land use designation from Industrial Park to Mixed Use; 2) a Zone Change to change the zoning from Industrial Park to Mixed Use; 3) a Development Code Amendment to allow Mixed Use (i.e., residential, retail, and office) development within the Haven Avenue Office Overlay Zoning District; and 4) a Minor Exception for a 100 space reduction in code required parking per Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers Parking Study. 3.3 Air Quality ThresholdA The project proposes to amend the existing General Plan land use designation from Industrial Park to Mixed Use. The MND utilizes methodology from Chapter 12 of the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook to determine consistency for project development proposals that differ from the land use designation assumed within SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects. The MND concludes that the proposed project is not a significant project, but does not provide any statement regarding amended General Plan elements. The project proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use element to change the property's land use designation from Industrial Park to Mixed Use. The project is not consistent with the 2016 AQMP and a finding of significance must be made. The MND is misleading and avoids discussing the General Plan consistency requirement because the project requires a General Plan Amendment to be implemented. An EIR must be prepared which provides meaningful analysis of the proposed project's inconsistency with the 2016 AQMP to disclose the potentially significant Air Quality Impacts to the public and decision makers. Thresholds B and C The MND's CaIEEMod output files indicate that several of the values input into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the EIR and are not consistent with guidance set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The 7,000 square feet of commercial area associated with the live -work units is not accounted for in the CaIEEEMod output files. As a result, emissions associated with the project are underestimated. The MND references Appendix J which finds that the live -work units will increase project trip generation by 75 trips to a total of 1,561, an increase of approximately five (5) percent. The MND concludes that the 5 percent increase in average daily trips is "negligible" and "reasonable to conclude that operational emissions of the proposed project would remain below SCAQMD thresholds" but does not provide evidence to support this claim or a CEQA exemption for "negligible", unquantified increases in Air Quality/GHG impacts. An EIR must be prepared in order to adequately assesses the potential Air Quality and GHG impacts the project may have on regional and local air quality and global climate change. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.66.050 permits construction activity between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday. All such activities are prohibited on Sundays. The EIR does not provide a "worst -case scenario" analysis of construction equipment emitting pollutants for the legal 13 hours per weekday plus 13 hours on Saturday. It is legal for construction to occur for much longer hours and an additional day (6 days per week including Saturday) than modeled in the Air Quality Analysis. The Air Quality modeling must be revised to account for these 'legally possible longer construction days and increased number of construction days. Threshold C The MND only discusses the cumulative impacts of the proposed project and provides no analysis regarding the Development Code Amendment proposed by the project to permit residential uses within the Haven Avenue Office Overlay. The MND does not analyze the cumulative Air Quality impacts of permitting residential units and mixed -use development within the entire Haven Avenue Office Overlay area, which extends the length of Haven Avenue from Foothill Boulevard south to San Bernardino Avenue. There is no information given regarding the number of units that could be built within the overlay area, increased square footage of new development resulting from the change, or environmental impacts resulting from this proposed change. An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately and accurately analyze the potentially significant impacts of the project's proposed Development Code Amendment. 3.10 Land Use and Planning The MND states that the project will generate 494 new residents and 45 new employees but does not provide a source for this calculation. The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Housing Element estimates 2.98 persons per dwelling unit', resulting in 617 new residents. The MND chooses to utilize an unspecified data source that includes a lower number of persons per unit (2.39) in order to present a lower impact resulting from the project instead of utilizing the Housing Element's reliable demographic analysis. Further, the MND is erroneous in stating that City's General Plan "does not anticipate when complete buildout would occur" as the Land Use Element of the General Plan includes Table LU-15: Build Out Summary''-: Table LU-15: Build-&t SU111111MA ell._ general Plan Build Out: 2030 Change Percent Total Rota only) .. L hs Dwelling Units 55.608 91 65,699 62.196 1,057 63,253 7,554 13.6% Population 179,200 300 179.500 200.400 3,400 203,800 24,300 13.5% Non - Residential 80.030,000 0 80,030,000 99,797,000 0 99,797,000 19,767,000 24.7% Square Feet Employment 77.350 0 77,350 103,040 0 103,040 25.690 33.2% Notes: 1. 2009 Baseline data is based on Existing Land Use Geographical Information Systems land use data 1. 501. Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence. The MND is also misleading as an informational document by stating "The designation within the General Plan of a site for a certain use does not necessarily mean that the site would be I City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Housing Element hMs://www.ciWfrc.us/civicax/filebankiblobdload,aMx?BloblD=32902 '- City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Housing Element hit ps://www.cityofrc.us/civicax/5lebank/blobdload.asnx9Blob1D=12518 developed with that use during the planning period, as most development depends on property owner initiative." Any property at any given time during the planning period has the potential to propose development, and the MND must assume a "worst -case scenario" in which properties are developed in accordance with the City's General Plan Build Out estimates. The MND continues by stating that "Although the project site's existing land use and zoning designation is Industrial Park, an increase in residential uses beyond that which was planned for by the City at General Plan buildout would contribute to the balance of the City's current and future jobs -to -housing ratio consistent with both the SCAG forecasts and the growth forecasts for the City, as detailed in Table 3.10.B. The project would accommodate overall planned growth in the City and the SCAG region, and it would contribute to the City's RHNA requirement." The MND does not provide any supporting evidence for this claim, such as a list of all approved projects including residential units since the General Plan or SCAG forecasts were adopted. Even though the project proposes fewer units than the 7,554 new units assumed at General Plan Build Out, this does not indicate that the proposed project and all other approved projects are within this limit. An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately and accurately analyze the project's potentially significant impacts. Further, the Development Code Amendment proposed by the project would permit residential uses within the Haven Avenue Office Overlay. The MND does not analyze the growth - inducing impacts of permitting residential development within the entire Haven Avenue Office Overlay area, which extends the length of Haven Avenue from Foothill Boulevard south to San Bernardino Avenue. There is no information given regarding the number of units that could be built within the overlay area or environmental impacts resulting from this proposed change. An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately and accurately analyze the project's potentially significant impacts. 3.16 Transportation/Traffe The MND does not state the number of bedrooms in each live -work unit. Therefore, the appropriate parking ratio for the "live" portion of the live -work unit is not known The Parking Analysis (Appendix K) states that the Parking Management Plan will reserve one parking space for each live -work unit. However, the residents of the live -work units were not included in the Parking Analysis' calculation of 380 required parking spaces for the project; only the "work" retail spaces of the units were included. Thus, the 14 spaces reserved for live -work residents will remove 14 spaces required for the other residences. Additionally, the Parking Analysis utilizes a ratio of 1.78 spaces per unit which results in 369 spaces required for 207 units. However, the project provides only 300 spaces for residents/guests and 80 public spaces. The Parking Analysis is misleading by utilizing methodology which requires more parking supply than is provided at the site and still determined to be adequate. An EIR must be prepared which explains this discrepancy and provides meaningful analysis regarding the discrepancies in the Parking Analysis. The MND only analyzes the project's potentially significant traffic impacts on local intersections and does not provide any analysis regarding Caltrans facilities - freeway mainline locations or freeway on/off-ramp locations in the project vicinity. The freeway mainline analysis must include the 210, 10, and 15 freeways which provide direct access to the project site. Impacts to the junction between the 10 and 15 freeways must be analyzed also. Project specific on/off- ramps analysis must be provided for 210 on/off-ramp at Haven Ave., 10 on/off-ramp at Haven Ave., 15 on/off-ramp at Foothill Blvd., 15 on/off-ramp at Fourth St., and 15 on/off-ramp at Ontario Mills Pkwy. The exclusion of Caltrans facilities from analysis in the MND is inadequate and presents a skewed traffic analysis to avoid reporting the full potentially significant traffic impacts. An EIR must be prepared to include this vital information for analysis in order to present an adequate Caltrans Facilities Analysis in a revised and recirculated EIR. Further, the Development Code Amendment proposed by the project would permit residential uses within the Haven Avenue Office Overlay. The MND does not analyze the potentially significant traffic impacts of permitting residential units and mixed -use development within the entire Haven Avenue Office Overlay area, which extends the length of Haven Avenue from Foothill Boulevard south to San Bernardino Avenue. There is no information given regarding the number of units that could be built within the overlay area, increased square footage of new development resulting from the change, or environmental impacts resulting from this proposed change. An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately and accurately analyze the project's potentially significant impacts. 3.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance Threshold B - Cumulative Impacts The MND states that since "individual development projects mitigate their incremental impacts on the environment to the extent feasible, and all of the proposed project's impacts would be mitigatable to levels less than significant, the proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact" However, given a lead agency's ability to approve a project notwithstanding significant environmental impacts, this statement is erroneous. The NM does not discuss or present any analysis regarding the potentially significant cumulative impact of the project's proposed Development Code Amendment to permit residential units and mixed -use by right within the entire Haven Avenue Office Overlay area. There is no information given regarding the number of units that could be built within the overlay area, increased square footage of new development resulting from the change, or environmental impacts resulting from this proposed change. The project's environmental analysis must include cumulative analysis which considers the probable future projects resulting from the Development Code Amendment. An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately and accurately analyze the project's potentially significant cumulative impacts. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA believes the MND is flawed and an EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and recirculated for public review. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877. Sincerely, Board of Directors Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance few, �� DLA Piper LLP (US) 550 South Hope Street Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90071-2618 www.dlapiper.com Ryan Leaderman ryan.leaderman@dlapiper.com T 213,694,3115 F 310,595.3441 September 26, 2018 VIA EMAIL City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 c/o Dominick Perez Dominick. oerez(a)cityofrc.us Re: 10411 26th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California/26th and Haven Response to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Letter Dated September 25, 2018/DRC2016-00428, DRC2017-00658, DRC2017-00657, DRC2017-00656, DRC2017-00654, and DRC2017-00659 Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners: This law firm represents Urban Offerings, Inc. (the "Applicant"), who is seeking to develop the mixed -use infill residential project (the "Project') located at 10451 26th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City"). Only at the mid -morning today did we receive a letter from the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance ("GSE") claiming purported defects in the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"). Aside from the fact that GSE has provided zero information in its last minute letter that would indicate why it would be an interested party with standing, GSE has provided no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of a significant impact that would be caused by the Project. As such, for the reasons provided below, this Planning Commission should dismiss the comments provided by GSE.1 1.0 Summary ...Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.36.020 Development Standards for Mixed -Use Zoning Districts includes a height provision which requires all buildings within one hundred (160) feet of LM, L, or VL Districts shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25). The project site is adjacent to a L (Low Density Residential) District. The MND does not provide discussion on compliance with this provision. Response: Building B is located approximately 94.8 feet from the proposed western property fence (IS/MND Figure 3). A 6.5 foot wide sidewalk is located between the fence and the Marine Avenue. Combined, the nearest building is located more than 132 feet from Marine Way which is.32 feet wide and the nearest residential district. I These responses to GSE comments were formulated in consultation with LSA, RK Engineering Group, Translutions, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Charles Joseph Associates, and the Applicant. WEST1283611264.1 hm S 1, rDLAPIPER City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission September26, 2018 Page Two 3.3 Air Quality Threshold A The project proposes to amend the existing General Plan land use designation from Industrial Park to Mixed Use. The MND utilizes methodology from Chapter 12 of the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook to determine consistency for project development proposals that differ from the land use designation assumed within SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects. The MND concludes that the proposed project is not a significant project, but does not provide any statement regarding amended General Plan elements. The project proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use element to change the property's land use designation from Industrial Park to Mixed Use. The project is not consistent with the 2016 AQMP and a finding of significance must be made. The MND is misleading and avoids discussing the General Plan consistency requirement because the project requires a General Plan Amendment to be implemented. An EIR must be prepared which provides meaningful analysis of the proposed project's inconsistency with the 2016 AQMP to disclose the potentially significant Air Quality Impacts to the public and decision makers Response: Page 6-4 and 7-1 of the Air Quality and GHG Study (IS/MND Appendix A) discusses the consistency with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP and the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Amendment. The Project is proposing a general plan amendment that would change the land use designation of the Project site from Industrial Warehouse to Multi-Family/Mixed-Used development. This change in land use is consistent with AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which includes a comprehensive program to achieve cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation encourages compactlmixed-use development that reduce the need for single purpose trips. Mixed -use and infill development has been shown to reduce VMT, air pollution from car exhaust, conserve water, and protect habitat, among other benefits. In accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the Project fulfills several key issues and policies described in the Sustainable Communities Action Plan to address Global Warming and manage Greenhouse Gas Emissions, including building residential units near the Mettolink Station, supporting transit/pedestrian access and incorporating green building practices and energy efficient design. Furthermore, the project is shown to comply with the required NOx emissions thresholds, which is a key component of the 2016 AQMP. Therefore, no additional analysis is required to demonstrate consistency with the 2016 AQMP or the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. W ESTR283611264.1 [D7LAPIPER City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission September 26, 2018 Page Three Thresholds B and C The MND's CaIEEMod output files indicate that several of the values input into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the EIR and are not consistent with guidance set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The 7,000 square feet of commercial area associated with the live -work units is not accounted for in the CalEEEMod output files. As a result, emissions associated with the project are underestimated. The MND references Appendix J which finds that the live -work units will increase project trip generation by 75 trips to a total of 1,561, an increase of approximately five (5) percent. The MND concludes that the 5 percent increase in average daily trips is "negligible" and "reasonable to conclude that operational emissions of the proposed project would remain below SCAQMD thresholds" but does not provide evidence to support this claim or a CEQA exemption for "negligible" unquantified increases in Air Quality/GHG impacts. An EIR must be prepared in order to adequately assesses the potential Air Quality and GHG impacts the project may have on regional and local air quality and global climate change. Response: As detailed in Table 3.36 of the IS/MND, emissions of all criteria pollutants are well below established SCAQMD significance thresholds. The 7,000 square feet of commercial area associated with the live -work units is accounted for under the residential land use category in CaIEEMod. The live/work space will function as a combined residential and commercial space under one roof. Analyzing the two uses separately would potentially double count emissions because emissions for the live -work units would already be captured under the residential land use category. Further, the methodology is consistent with the trip generation calculations in the Traffic Impact Study. In the MND's Air Quality Report, the regional emissions analysis is presented in Table 14 and the operational GHG analysis Is shown in Table 17. These tables demonstrate that mobile source emissions are below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for the Project. Furthermore, the air quality/GHG study does not take into account further trip reduction potential for the Project being a transit oriented development. As shown on page 3 of the Project's City Staff Report dated September 26, 2018, the Project is "... located 1) within walking distance (approximately 1/4 mile) from multiple active Omnitrans bus stops, which serves Route 81 (north and southbound) along Haven Avenue, and Route 85 (easts and westbound) along Arrow Route, 2) along the future Ominitrans West Valley Connector Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route, which is anticipated to provide services operating as early as mid-2019, 3) about 1.5 miles driving/walking distance to the west of the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station at Milliken Avenue and, 4) within 0.6 miles of the civic Center/City Hall (approximately a 14 minute walk distance)..." Under the new SB 375 guidelines, this type of development may be exempt from the planned VMT impact analysis requirements. The Project impact on regional and local air quality and global climate change is demonstrated to be less than significant. WESl1283611264.1 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission September 26, 2018 Page Four Based on the information provided in the IS/MND and Air Quality Study, emissions from project, include the 7.000 square feet of live work uses would not result in an exceedance of SCAQMD thresholds; therefore, preparation of an EIR to address this issue is not warranted. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.66,050 permits construction activity between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 8:OO P.M. Monday through Saturday. All such activities are prohibited on Sundays. The EIR does not provide a "worst -case scenario" analysis of construction equipment emitting pollutants for the legal 13 hours per weekday plus 13 hours on Saturday. It is legal for construction to occur for much longer hours and an additional day (6 days per week including Saturday) than modeled in the Air Quality Analysis. The Air Quality modeling must be revised to account for these legally possible longer construction days and increased number of construction days. Response: The commenter states the air quality section must address the 'worst -case' scenario which assumes construction during the entire period this activity is permitted under the City's Municipal Code. The construction phasing and scheduling does not assume overtime for construction workers (over 8-hours per day). This method is consistent with the CalEEMod default assumptions, equipment activity and exhaust emissions factors based on the California Air Resources Board OFFROAD2011 methodology and the total daily statewide usage of equipment (hours/day). In fact, the emissions analysis does assume a worst case condition that all off -road construction equipment would be operating simultaneous for the entire work day, This results in up to 104 operating equipment hours in a single day; which likely overestimates the equipment usage, as not all equipment would operate simultaneously throughout the day. No additional analysis is needed to conclude the impact is less than significant. It is speculative to substitute an arbitrary 'worst -case' and unrealistic 13-hour per day construction schedule that the commenter proposes; the air quality analysis and modeling are based on reasonable construction assumptions. Threshold C The MND only discusses the cumulative impacts of the proposed project and provides no analysis regarding the Development Code Amendment proposed by the project to permit residential uses within the Haven Avenue Office Overlay. The MND does not analyze the cumulative Air Quality impacts of permitting residential units and mixed -use development within the entire Haven Avenue Office Overlay area, which extends the length of Haven Avenue from Foothill Boulevard south to San Bernardino Avenue. There is no information given regarding the number of units that could be built within the overlay area, increased square footage of new development resulting from the change, or environmental impacts resulting from this proposed change. An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately and accurately analyze the potentially significant impacts of the project's proposed Development Code Amendment WEST283611264.1 PDLAPIPER City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission September 26, 2018 Page Five Response: While the proposed Development Code Amendment would potentially allow residential uses within the Haven Avenue Office Overlay, the residential uses would only be permitted where there is permitted mixed use development. Other than the Project, there are no other pending or proposed underlying zoning districts within the Haven Avenue Office Overlay that would permit mixed use development. As such, it is not reasonably foreseeable that residential development would occur in the overlay zone; any other potential residential development would be independent of the Project under consideration. See Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (Target Corp.) (August 23, 2018) _ Cal.App.2d — B283480 at p. 28. There would be no cumulative impacts as a result of the overlay zone change to analyze since it would be speculative to assume that the change to potentially allow housing in the overlay would have new proposed locations where the underlying residential would allow residential uses. CEQA Guidelines Section 15145 does not permit speculation of uncertain impacts. To the extent that there are any underlying zoning categories subject to the Haven Avenue Office Overlay, the entirety of the overlay from Foothill Boulevard on the north to its southerly terminus at 4th Street, and not San Bernardino Avenue as the commenter asserts, consists of Industrial Park zoning that does not permit residential uses, The only exception is one small segment of the overlay at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and 26th Street within the underlying Mixed Use zone; there is no information to indicate that are any pending proposed mixed -use projects in that location for any impacts of the proposed overlay zone change to be analyzed. As such, it is not reasonably foreseeable that there would be new residential development other than the Project within the overlay zone. "A consequence is not reasonably foreseeable simply because the project under consideration makes that consequence a possibility — even when the public agency is subjectively aware of that possibility (that is, even when it is a 'gleam in [the] planner's eye." Id. at 29. We are not aware of any pending or proposed underlying Industrial Park re -zoning projects to Mixed Use other than the Project. It is not reasonably foreseeable that there would be other future mixed use residential projects within the overlay for which this Project would need to analyze impacts. "And, more to the point here, a consequence is not reasonably foreseeable merely because the project creates an incentive for that consequence to come and pass (unless, as noted above, that incentive makes the consequence all but certain). (See Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal.App.Sth 266, 274-275, 294-295 [agency, when considering ordinance changing zoning rules regarding permissible hotel density, need not consider impact of future developments — even though new rules create incentive for future development — because 'it is unclear whether the ordinance will in fact induce future development.'])." (Emphasis not added.) Id. at 30-31 The Project meets regional and local emissions thresholds set by SCAQMD which are established to determine contributions toward exceeding the State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. Furthermore, the analysis demonstrates that the change in land use is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and would therefore not result in a cumulative impact increase in regional emissions. WESl1283611264.1 rDLAPIPER City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission September 26, 2018 Page Six 3.10 Land Use and Planning The MND states that the project will generate 494'new residents and 45 new employees but does not provide a source for this calculation. The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Housing Element estimates 2.98 persons per dwelling unit, resulting in 1617 new residents. The MND chooses to utilize an unspecified data source that includes a lower number of persons per unit (2.39) in order to present a lower impact resulting from the project instead of utilizing the Housing Element's reliable demographic analysis. Further, the MND is erroneous in stating that City's General Plan "does not anticipate when complete buildout would occur" as the Land Use Element of the General Plan includes Table LU-15: Build Out Summary. Response: The 2.98 persons per dwelling unit factor stated by the commenter appears to reference the Average Household Size (Table HE-12) from the City's 2010 Housing Element. As stated in the IS/MND (Section 3.13a), the proposed population and employment increases stated in the ISIMND are derived from the project -specific Fiscal Impact Analysis (December 2017) which was included as Appendix H of the ISIMND, As the Project would include many studios and one bedroom units, and does not include single family residences, it is only reasonable to expect that the population density would be lower than Average, Household Size in the City. The MND continues by stating that "Although the project site's existing land use and zoning designation is Industrial Park, an increase in residential uses beyond that which was planned for by the City at General Plan buildout would contribute to the balance of the City's current and future jobs -to -housing ratio consistent with both the SCAG forecasts and the growth forecasts for the City, as detailed in Table 3.10.B. The project would accommodate overall planned growth in the City and the SCAG region, and it would contribute to the City's RHNA requirement." The MND does not provide any supporting evidence for this claim, such as a list of all approved projects including residential units since the General Plan or SCAG forecasts were adopted. Even though the project proposes fewer units than the 7,554 new units assumed at General Plan Build Out, this does not indicate that the proposed project and all other approved projects are within this limit. An EiR must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately and accurately analyze the project's potentially significant impacts. Response: The City's 2010 General Plan based the City's target growth forecast on regional growth forecasts detailed in SCAG's Adopted 2008 RTP Growth Forecast. However, following the General Plan adoption, SCAG's Regional Council adopted the latest [2016-2040] Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTPlSCS) on April 7, 2016. Therefore, the analysis of the Project's impacts to the City's growth forecast is based on the latest data provided in SCAG's 2016-2040 WEST1283611264.1 [D7LAPIPER City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission September 26, 2018 Page Seven RTP/SCS. SCAG estimates that there could be approximately 204,300 people, 73,100 households, and 104,600 jobs in the City by 2040. As detailed in Section 3.13.A of the IS/MND, the City's 2012 jobs -to -housing ratio is well above the San Bernardino County job/housing ratio and slightly higher than the SCAG regional job/housing ratio; therefore, the City may be considered "jobs balanced" relative to the greater SCAG region. By 2040, however, the City's jobs -to -housing is expected to exceed both the County's and SCAG's jobs -to -housing ratios, meaning the City would be relatively "jobs rich" and "housing poor," and additional housing within the City would be required to balance the jobs -to -housing ratio at the local level (see IS/MND Table 3.13A). Section 3.13B of the IS/MND states the City will need to accommodate a total of 848 units in various income categories in order to meet the City's projected housing needs detailed in the most recent Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The potential population growth resulting from the Project is consistent with that forecast by SCAG for the City. Furthermore, the provision of 207 dwellings will contribute to meeting the City's RHNA requirement. Preparation of an EIR is not warranted. Further, the Development Code Amendment proposed by the project would permit residential uses within the Haven Avenue Office Overlay. The MND does not analyze the growth inducing impacts of permitting residential development within the entire Haven Avenue Office Overlay area, which extends the length of Haven Avenue from Foothill Boulevard south to San Bernardino Avenue. There is no information given regarding the number of units that could be built within the overlay area or environmental impacts resulting from this proposed change. An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately and accurately analyze the project's potentially significant impacts. Response: There would be no cumulative impacts as a result of the overlay zone change to analyze since it would be speculative to assume that the change to potentially allow housing in the overlay would have new proposed locations where the underlying residential would allow residential uses. CEQA Guidelines Section 15145 does not permit speculation of uncertain impacts. To the extent that there are any underlying zoning categories subject to the Haven Avenue Office Overlay, the entirety of the overlay from Foothill Boulevard on the north to its southerly terminus at 4th Street, and not San Bernardino Avenue as the commenter asserts, consists of Industrial Park zoning that does not permit residential uses. The only exception is one small segment of the overlay at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and 26th Street within the underlying Mixed Use zone; there is no information to indicate that are any pending proposed mixed -use projects in that location for any impacts to be analyzed. As such, it is not reasonably foreseeable thatrthere would be new residential development other than the Project within the overlay zone. Preparation of an EIR to address this response is not warranted. WEST\283611264.1 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission September 26, 2018 Page Eight 3.16 TransportationlTraffic The MND does not state the number of bedrooms in each live -work unit. Therefore, the appropriate parking ratio for the "live" portion of the live -work unit is not known. The Parking Analysis (Appendix K) states that the Parking Management Plan will reserve one parking space for each live -work unit. However, the residents of the live -work units were not included in the Parking Analysis' calculation of 360 required parking spaces for the project, only the "work" retail spaces of the units were included. Thus, the 14 spaces reserved for live -work residents will remove 14 spaces required for the other residences. Additionally, the Parking Analysis utilizes a ratio of 1.78 spaces per unit which results in 369 spaces required for 207 units. However, the project provides only 300 spaces for residents/guests and 80 public spaces. The Parking Analysis is misleading by utilizing methodology which requires more parking supply than is provided at the site and still determined to be adequate. An EIR must be prepared which explains this discrepancy and provides meaningful analysis regarding the discrepancies in the Parking Analysis, Response. The commenter incorrectly states that the residents of the live -work were not included in the parking analysis calculation of 380 required parking spaces (actual peak parking demand is 375 spaces), when in fact the 14 live -work resident spaces are included in the 300 reserved spaces (see Figure 2 of the LLG study) and the "work' retail spaces are included in the 80 public spaces (see Tables 2 and 3). Therefore, all of the live -work parking demand is included in the parking analysis. With regard to the 1.78 spaces per unit utilized for the Project, this ratio includes the City's guest parking space requirement, which therefore includes the 80 public spaces utilized in the shared parking analysis to accommodate the guest parking demand for a total of 380 parking spaces that is greater than the 369 spaces required at a ratio of 1.78. The MND only analyzes the project's potentially significant traffic impacts on local intersections and does not provide any analysis regarding Caltrans facilities - freeway mainline locations or freeway on/off-ramp locations in the project vicinity. The freeway mainline analysis must include the 210, 10, and 15 freeways which provide direct access to the project site. Impacts to the junction between the 10 and 15 freeways must be analyzed also. Project specific on/offramps analysis must be provided for 210 on/off-ramp at Haven Ave., 10 on/off-ramp at Haven Ave., 15 on/off-ramp at Foothill Blvd., 15 on/off-ramp at Fourth St., and 15 on/off-ramp at Ontario Mills Pkwy. The exclusion of Caltrans facilities from analysis in'the MND is inadequate and presents a skewed traffic analysis to avoid reporting the full potentially significant traffic impacts. An EIR must be prepared to include this vital information for analysis in order to present an adequate Caltrans Facilities Analysis in a revised and recirculated EIR. Response. Rather than provide evidence that a potential significantimpact would occur on freeway ramps or mainline freeway segments, the commenter only speculates this analysis is required. The scope of the traffic analysis was identified during direct consultations with City staff. The study area for the Project was based on the thresholds identified by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) WESl1283611264.1 PDLA PIPER City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission September 26, 2018 Page Nine Congestion Management Plan (CMP), and in consultation with staff. Appendix B (Guidelines forCMP Traffic ImpactAnalysis Reports in San Bernardino County) of the SBCTA CMP states, "the study area mustinclude all freeway links with 100 or more peak -hour project trips (two-way) and other CMP roadways with 50 or more peak -hour project trips (two-way). The study area does not end with a city or county boundary. The study area is defined by the magnitude of project trips alone." The Project is anticipated to generate less than 145 trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The Project study area includes intersections with 50' or more peak hour trips. Less than 40 peak hour trips are forecast to travel south of 6th Street on Haven Avenue toward the 1-10 freeway. Less than 25 peak hour trips are anticipated to travel north to the SR-210 freeway, and less than 30 trips are forecast to travel east to the 1-15. Therefore, the Project impacts to the interchanges and freeway mainline are anticipated to be less than significant. Further, the Development Code Amendment proposed by the project would permit residential uses within the Haven Avenue Office Overlay. The MND does not analyze the potentially significant traffic impacts of permitting residential units and mixed -use development within the entire Haven Avenue Office Overlay area, which extends the length of Haven Avenue from Foothill Boulevard south to San Bernardino Avenue. There is no information given regarding the number of units that could be built within the overlay area, increased square footage of new development resulting from the change, or environmental impacts resulting from this proposed change. An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately and accurately analyze the project's potentially significant impacts. Response. Cumulative traffic volume forecasts were based on the San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM). The SBTAM includes socio-economic data based on the General Plans as well as other available planning documents. The Haven Avenue Office Overlay Area is part of the Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan, and the General Plan is included in the SBTAM. Therefore, the cumulative impacts identified in the analysis includes the effect of the Haven Avenue Office Overlay Area. It should also be noted that provision of residential and live work uses in an office district also improves jobs -housing balance and reduces traffic impacts. See also Response to Comments 3.3(C) and 3.10. 3.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance Threshold B - Cumulative Impacts The MND states that since "individual development projects mitigate their incremental impacts on the environment to the extent feasible, and all of the proposed project's impacts would be mitigatable to levels less than significant, the proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact. "However, given a lead agency's ability to approve a project notwithstanding significant environmental impacts, this statement is erroneous. The MND does not discuss or present any analysis regarding the potentially significant cumulative impact of the project's proposed Development Code Amendment to permit residential units and mixed -use by right within the entire Haven Avenue Office Overlay area. There is no information WESl1283611264.1 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission September 26, 2018 Page Ten given regarding the number of units that could be built within the overlay area, increased square footage of new development resulting from the change, or environmental impacts resulting from this proposed change. The project's environmental analysis must include cumulative analysis which considers the probable future projects resulting from the Development Code Amendment. An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately and accurately analyze the project's potentially significant cumulative impacts. Response. While the proposed Development Code Amendment would potentially allow residential uses within the Haven Avenue Office Overlay, the residential uses would only be permitted where there is permitted mixed use development. Other than the Project, there are no other pending or proposed underlying zoning districts within the Haven Avenue Office Overlay that would permit mixed use development. As such, it is not reasonably foreseeable that residential development would occur in the overlay zone; any other potential residential development would be independent of the project under consideration. Preparation of an EIR to address this comment is not warranted. See also Response to Comments 3.3(C), 3.10, and 3.16. Substantial evidence supports the analysis within the ISIMND. There is no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project would create a significant impact. GSE has provided no such evidence to the contrary. On behalf of the Applicant, we look forward to bringing this mixed -use Project to the City of Rancho Cucamonga that promises to enliven and enrich the Haven Avenue corridor with appropriate infill development. Very ytruly ,yours, 416 Ryan M. Leaderman cc: Michael Smith Joe Lutz Dean Nucich Carl Winter Chuck Buquet WES-R283611264.1 PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872).. We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26" Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the number of floors of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4t' St and Arrow Rt. - Create a design that would not necessitate the request for any reduction in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units, and not require on -street parking to fulfill any parking requirements. - Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. - Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS l2'iclsrr d / DeZs/ % � = /5170 lr%Sj CV<: ,QVjCa 2, G/L� U r% az R— 3' _ 4. s � 6'� / L 8. � G� c " �03 25 �t 9i r64,' iO3S3^ ZS lZc 10 K G{ V / Gl✓ C/% l l3 �f 6 (i% ��( T tUo (0 l nms ' e l l PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26t' Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the number of floors of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4th St and Arrow Rt. - Create a design that would not necessitate the request for any reduction in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units, and not require on -street parking to fulfill any parking requirements. - Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. - Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS I /D34, / 71zi, eL 1 2 3 � tv�s-tx��r�t �z (iSTi�J RANG ('CM G#911 1643 Qiu �e 6p � 4 y2 K-c n -t 6 � 2� bA6V RO /2j_uw►6.<7i y R Ji COCA 9 (73a l 7(o3'S) 01AApr\w,-� ,P L�6�} 'k , c� Q 11 s o f T 11 Wt 6'? 3 co" C�I- f ) a 9 /�1�•5�2h Cl�a W �a�t�a C1Aea0t9k ,1 C 10 r 66 harti6t f [ 1 p 3 9/7-04 01 0 PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26`h Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the number of floors of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4ch St and Arrow Rt. - Create a design that would not necessitate the request for any reduction in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units, and not require on -street parking to fulfill any parking requirements. - Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. - Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDR��ESS 1 1� 11-, \\% �\�\ �t " zw\)OIN 1ttt01?kA�\ eq \C d N z Tlrce>1MctJcwv�a�m `f f�'1r-h% 2651 \"e['i9 1T I� (Ahl+ I K0_11\ 0 Cu 3fla%� I k(*L(9 4 $ I DfS p u merot, nchb CNCAM004 eta 6 10337 7 1 /� R• 9a; i IL n,� n, C- 130 9n- ��. 10 v v - v 108 7-z,o Tq-J6 Wq PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26th Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the number of floors of, and is within thel existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4th Stand Arrow Rt. - Create a design that would not necessitate the request for any reduction in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units, and not require on -street parking to fulfill any parking requirements. - Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. - Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Q.1C�-1 10 lo3a4t IC:kv, aC\kY- 1 � 2 ., . �;, � � a 5� of 1 �-U-��.PY' �n��hedS C VCq .p q `ii?}6 4 JI CI l('Ct4l S 7163-/H fle'(1ArJ DR. 1<r.,,, CAEEa 940Ju410 even eA 41736 6 1"3,14( SiL.c�t ( DR ZAj-a.a �,AJC. e.1,ovsroa eUeA e 1,7'? 7Q/�-- 16365 Srr�i l fti,. Pr. JZa•�C" Gtic CA, 9/73 1'1�1 G Srcr (tt'_ D K 8 9 10 v 6. L0 PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26`^ Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the number of floors of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between,VI St and Arrow Rt. - Create a design that would not necessitate the request for any reduction in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units, and not require on -street parking to fulfill any parking requirements. - Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. - Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATU E ADDRESS 1 ,U�� CkP 1a36u PIZ s��,'�(, {2Jz C�C�lriok {} r73� 2 Cau GIB,:- 3t1�vlL P111 IbLo Rim 0a . 4 5 - /03,10 w7 l?fo 7A� /Lc c77 /a.?o 7 �jonW/1 r03 Ifyward vim( d h 9 4�4 b l Y4i70-" K- f.3 10 J S�j, //Q �1 /i ��y�-- 7�6 T/ C/P/ocai l�l Z haraCa l0 PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 we the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 261h Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the number of floors of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4th St and Arrow Rt. - Create a design that would not necessitate the request for any reduction in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units, and not require on -street parking to fulfill any parking requirements. - Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. - Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS � - cU cts N�ollL �i WJ— 2 V_' 3 -7 5- Z(eS 'SJ` rD7 `/3 zS lo�'d R 5 • </�fzLD Af ACOCI (aQ c. Diu LbHO_M l a e l °r� /a2" �t ��. ���� load a4,7// s7" 7, IM f'� Itl Jo ��ib 4 �s $'Al A2.�.CR 176 � 9• Cp� �j�� /-s/ �rq-3v 10• �q/ !�3 SS Z �` -kl s i -L PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26eh Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the number of floors of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently.exist along Haven Ave between 4`h St and Arrow Rt. - Create a design that would not necessitate the request for any reduction in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units, and not require on -street parking to fulfill any parking requirements. - Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. - Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1 [z� ')? 5� 2• . 3' p C� O 4- rdev eM crks ac S �or-zo 2ity S1, 6 7 8 9 10 S PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26th Street. We request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 0 St and Arrow Rt. Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. -IC ILI FIX IIIrr I ape, No RAW-0 "wov..10 IPPIM03, A ME UNW-WIF.-IN' RU US IMIUMUMAS M&4 ©► �� mimlilt) PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 262h Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4th St and Arrow Rt. Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. 1 Irl P10,01 MAW,I m : NAM I MAI �n ®e, ZOF Q I P'� PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26ih Street. We request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4th St and Arrow Rt. Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1 'aZ_. 2o sT 3 /� 4 al f3s 2s�h s� JQc 5 v1 dk Ce f 6 +Ce,_v JZ_ �j ofriS Ave 7 C.en c/ A -VC, 8 9 10 d* HA-- �„ f�, 2 OF 9 0 �4- D� D� PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26`^ Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 41h St and Arrow Rt.' Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS '4 g 2 3 loS 9 j\�fCf 4 1 /Ib3'rfL,, zt/ !9/_ Q/�30 CV cayyloylC/7- J6 34t'e/ o21;" 5 CuCq o q Cc (730 6 16Irt 1�39y �yr� CP q l'710 /D35'�•�c*S - 7 I i2 C uc �os7z as ST - s (%6At /�L,a �e( �dcaiJfociGQ R/73a qNc CA, 9 �l1S1 _4— \ C i y P j. y of el pd z Oaf PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26'h Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and' instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4'h St and Arrow Rt. Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. P �-. S Or 1 pV0 _17- PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26" Street. We request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4`" St and Arrow Rt. Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. PRO nooi I Pill, Sm" wm4j' Ejam" i a MINES A , Ir MA Y'�- 503 01 PG, 6 0r- y PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26`" Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4' Vk St and Arrow Rt. Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 199/o, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS C) i �l � T kt nG�� p W 2 55 Z c� � `ti s h •. 3 ""�� CL � rx� 431,J � �1703 I'1 Rvtc Ca��e a a `J 3�L 4 /L s 0 (4333 2Y h S 7 c -rh s. (e-arl('h6 Cvcamor't Gr 9 � lz .to G it (�' 10 — �72-. 3 7 736 ( /%� Fes(/73C� g(73e 13d Pi. 7 or- 9 PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26111 Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4' St and Arrow Rt. Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. Mid' ., 10 ENS- 180so i�s1 ` /� ��s��i _ is NEW 00901 Mb low i Sa t FA PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR APN 0209-131-01 We the undersigned residents oppose the applications being submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Charles Joseph Associates, in regards to APN 0209-131-01, that are requesting approvals to the requests of a Design Review (DRC2017-00654), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2017-00658), a Zoning Map Amendment (DRC2017-00657), a Development Code Amendment (DRC2017-00656), and a Minor Exception for parking requirements (DRC2017-00872). We are all opposed to the developers plan for a mixed use development that would be comprised of 207 multi -family units within two buildings that are 5 stories and 4 stories tall on the APN parcel listed above at the corner of Haven Avenue and 26" Street. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the applicants requests, and instruct them to: - Create a design that compliments the existing architecture & landscaping of, does not exceed the height of, and is within the existing average set -back of the buildings that currently exist along Haven Ave between 4" St and Arrow Rt. Create a design that would not necessitate the request for a reduction of 19%, or any other percentage, in the amount of required parking in relation to the number of planned units. Hold another meeting with the residents of the communities that lie to the west of the proposed development site and accommodate their requests and concerns about this development. Create a design that does not reduce, constrain, and/or eliminate vehicular connectivity to the Haven Ave/Jersey Ave intersection from the 10+ acre parcel (APN 0209-131-02) that lies directly to the south of the proposed development site. E_;; m a i z_ ,3�) P 6. R or- 9 S PETITION SIGNATURES OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 660' OF APN 0209-131-01 Address Parcel# Owner Name Owner Address 1 10348 Humboldt Ave. 0209-123-24 Merded & Lupe Hernandez SAME 2 10364 Humboldt Ave. 0209-123-22 Antonio Gracia SAME 3 10374 Humboldt Ave. 0209-123-21 Raymond & Adella Vasquez SAME 4 10380 Humboldt Ave. 0209-123-20 Michael & Virginia Trebizo SAME 5 10384 Humboldt Ave. 0209-123-19 Jorge & Maria Garcia SAME 6 10394 Humboldt Ave. 0209-123-18 Jose & Mayta Castillo SAME 7 10332 24th St. 0209-122-23 Ricardo Mena-Ledesma & Sadie Castrejon SAME 8 10339 24th St. 0209-123-10 Joseph & Mary Sanchez 10357 24th St. 9 10357 24th St. 0209-123-12 Joseph & Mary Sanchez SAME 10 10370 24th St. 0209-122-18 Ya Hua & En Lan Chen SAME 11 10386 24th St. 0209-122-16 Linda Panchea SAME 12 10394 24th St. 0209-122-15 Flavio & Carolina Flores SAME 13 10349 25th St. 0209-122-08 Alex & Patricia Garcia SAME 14 10353 25th St. 0209-122-09 Scott Scarborough SAME 15 10356 25th St. 0209-121-23 Raul Vargas SAME 16 10364 25th St. 0209-121-22 Jose & Veronica Torres SAME 17 10369 25th St. 0209-122-11 Richard & Augustina Delsi 10270 25th St. 18 10379 25th St. 0209-122-12 Richard & Augustina Delsi 10270 25th St. 19 10393 25th St. 0209-122-25 Robert & Christine O_ livas SAME 20 10394 25th St. 0209-121-18 Isaac Burgos SAME 21 10347 26th St. 0209-121-12 Gildaberto Munoz SAME 22 10355 26th St. 0209-121-18 Otoniel De Leon & Ladi Munoz SAME 23 10365 26th St. 0209-121-14 Sergio & Griselle Villasenor SAME 241 10375 26th St. 0209-121-29 Edubijes & Esther Torrez SAME 25 10377 26th St. 0209-121-28 Ryan & Yasmin Maestro SAME 26 10390 26th St. 0209-121-31 David & Evelyn Arshawsky SAME 27 8731 Center Ave. 0209-121-04 Apostolic Assembly (Pastor Ben Guerra) SAME 28 8743 Center Ave. 0209-121-27 Apostolic Assembly (Pastor Ben Guerra) 8731 Center Ave 29 8833 Center Ave. 0209-122-08 Alex & Patricia Garcia (x2) SAME 30 10330 Sicilian Dr. 0209-556-39 Suyi Chen SAME 31 10349 Sicilian Dr. 0209-556-37 Cherisse Gilchrist SAME 32 10357 Sicilian Dr. 6209-556-43 Timothy & Shelley Rimpsey SAME 33 10358 Sicilian Dr. 0209-556-48 Coe Kats & lyana Chan SAME 34 10372 Sicilian Dr. 0209-556-50 Rosauro De Leon SAME 35 10387 Sicilian Dr. 0209-556-47 Rohit Sheta SAME 36 8674 Harvest Pl. 0209-553-51 Raul & Maria Moje SAME 37 10325 Bold Red Dr. 0209-556-21 Omar Nevarez & Candy Ramirez SAME 38 10331 Bold Red Dr. 0209-556-20 Marivic Lagang SAME 39 10337 Bold Red Dr. 0209-556-19 Charen Yu SAME 40 10343 Bold Red Dr. 0209-556-18 Bylmar Botero & Jennifer Sedlacko SAME 41 10351 Bold Red Dr. 0209-556-28 Joselito Castro & Jill Sczech SAME 42 10343 Plumeria Ct. 0209-556-541 Rose Odhiambo SAME 43 .10351 Plumeria Ct. 0209-556-531 Mario & Cecilia Daguro SAME 1441 10385-2 Plumeria Ct. 0209-556-081 Fernando & Marcella Austin SAME 1451 10395-1 Plumeria Ct. 0209-556-061 Carl Campos SAME Page 1 of 2 PETITION SIGNATURES OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 660' OF APN 0209-131-01 Address Parcel# Owner Name Owner Address 46 8651-1 Yellow Tail PI. 0209-556-03 Tracey McNamara SAME 47 8651-2 Yellow Tail PI. 0209-556-02 Ellain Liu SAME 48 8651-3 Yellow Tail PI. 0209-556-01 Keith Proctor SAME 49 8681-1 Yellow Tail PI. 0209-556-12 Jiovanni & Kristen Mier SAME 50 8681-2 Yellow Tail PI. 0209-556-11 Hashmatullah Alizai SAME 1511 8681-3 Yellow Tail PI. 10209-556-101 Jason & Steven Schamp SAME Page 2 of 2 manatt Viral Mehta Manatt, Phelps &Phillips, LLP manatt I phelps I phillips Direct Dial:(310) 312-4348 E-mail: vmehta@manatt.com September 26, 2018 VIA HAND DELIVERY Candyce Burnett Dominick Perez Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Notice of Public Hearing/Environmental Notice Planning Commission September 26, 2018, 7:00 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2017-00658, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2017-00656, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2017-00657, DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00654, UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2017-00659, AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2017-00872 (THE "APPROVALS") FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND 26Tn STREET, APN 209-131-01 (THE "PROJECT") Dear Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners: We write to express our concerns and state our objections with respect to the proposed Approvals contemplated by the Planning Commission at the above -referenced hearing regarding the proposed development of the property located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and 26th Street, APN 209-131-01 ("the Project Property"). We represent Hofer Properties, LLC ("Hofer"), the owner of the parcel immediately south of the Project Property, APN 209-131-02 ("the Hofer Property"). As detailed below, the Project (and the associated Approvals) run afoul of prior obligations owed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") to Hofer, which resulted from prior eminent domain litigation. Hofer further objects to the Approvals, among other reasons, because the developer of the Project does not own a sizable portion of the property that it seeks 11355 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90064-1614 Telephone: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 Albany I Chicago I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington, D.C. hms �( - GII manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners September 26, 2018 Page 2 to develop —the City does. This is a threshold problem with the Project which, to date, has not adequately been addressed by the City (or the developer). Moreover, the Project does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the Approvals would result in illegal zoning, which would cause significant damage to the Hofer Property. Accordingly, Hofer objects to the Project, as planned and proposed and, therefore, also objects to the adoption of the proposed Approvals. I. BACKGROUND HISTORY A. The Prior Eminent Domain Cases On November 29, 2005, the City filed an eminent domain action against DR Landmark, Inc. and others, entitled City of Rancho Cucamonga v. DR Landmark, et al. (San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. RCV091735) ("the DR Landmark Case"). (A copy of the Complaint In Eminent Domain from the DR Landmark Case is attached hereto as Exhibit A.) The City sought to take: (1) a rectangular fee parcel approximately 116 feet by 177 feet (20,719 SF or .476 acres) adjacent to Haven Avenue at the southeast corner of the DR Landmark property ("the DR Landmark Parcel" or "the Parcel," as shown on the aerial photo attached hereto as Exhibit B, which depicts the present location of the relevant parcels); and (2) a temporary construction easement north of the fee Parcel along the easterly property boundary (12,296 SF or .282 acres) to re-route Haven Avenue during construction of the Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project. The Complaint incorporated the City's resolution of necessity adopted on November 16, 2005, which provided that the property interests were to be acquired "for roadway purposes." The City deposited $286,700 as estimated compensation for these property interests and took possession of the property from DR Landmark on April 25, 2006 pursuant to an order for possession issued by the Court on January 10, 2006. On May 3, 2006, the City filed an eminent domain action against Hofer and others, entitled City of Rancho Cucamonga v. Hofer, et al. (San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. RCV094962) ("the Hofer Case") in connection with the same Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project. (A copy of the Complaint In Eminent Domain from the Hofer Case is attached hereto as Exhibit C.) The City sought to take: (1) .350 acres (15,225 SF) in fee to widen Haven Avenue as it descended below the grade -separated tracks along the easterly boundary of the Hofer Property; and (2) 1.534 acres (66,803 SF) as a temporary construction just west of the fee take, also to re-route Haven Avenue during construction of the grade separation project. The City deposited $228,685 as estimated compensation for these property interests and took possession of the property from Hofer on October 11, 2006 pursuant to an order for possession issued by the Court on May 25, 2006. manatt manatt 1 phelps 1 phillips Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners September 26, 2018 Page 3 B. Deposition of the City's Person Most Qualified, Maria Perez On March 22, 2007, Hofer took the deposition of City Associate Engineer Maria Perez, who was managing the Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project for the City. Ms. Perez was produced by the City to testify as the City's "person most qualified" to testify about the City's project. At the deposition, Ms. Perez produced a set of plans for the City's project (although they were not the final construction set). Sheet R-8 of the City's project plans showed that the fee Parcel being acquired by the City in the DR Landmark Case was for construction of "Drive A," a curved extension of Jersey Boulevard that would have provided signalized access to the Hofer Property from the intersection of Haven Avenue and Jersey Boulevard. Drive A was in a bubbled area of the plans labelled "Future Construction." (A copy of Sheet R-8 of the City's plans showing Drive A highlighted in blue is attached hereto as Exhibit D.) As to Drive A on the City's plans, Ms. Perez testified: Q What is drive A on sheet R-8? A Drive A reflects a cul-de-sac. Q What is the purpose of drive A? A Drive A was to provide signalized access to the Hofer parcel. Q Who will own drive A? A The city. Q Will the city maintain it? A Yes. Q What happens to the land between drive A and Haven Avenue? A This point it's just reflected as open area. Q Who will own it? A Right now the city. Q According to the plan sheet R-8 a wood barricade will be placed across drive A; is that right? A Yes. Q Why? A The city has prepared drawings and plans for the construction of the cul-de-sac, but it may not be the most beneficial to the two properties when they develop. And so we made the consideration to take the right-of-way and potential to construct the street but left that open for development to derive the best alternative for their purposes. Q Will a driveway be constructed as part of the project? A No, it will not. Q Where on the plans does it reflect that? manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners September 26, 2018 Page 4 A I think that's something to do with the future construction. I'm just surprised that the bubble went as far as it did. Q What part, if any, of drive A is being constructed as part of the project? A The returns at the intersection, handicapped access ramps, and the street up to the barricade. The signals will be modified. Q So after the project is constructed, will the left-hand turn lane from northbound Haven be allowed to make the left turn into drive A? A Not until development extends the street. Q So after the city's construction of the project is completed, there will be a wood barrier across drive A; correct? A Yes. Q And there will be no construction west of that wood barrier; correct? A Yes. (Exhibit E attached hereto, Perez Dep., 48:16-50:10; 51:17-23 [emphasis added].) Ms. Perez further testified about Drive A and proposed access to the Hofer Property on examination by the City's attorney: Q In reference to drawing No. R-8 sheet 10 out of 123, you see the driveway A; is that correct? A Yes. Q Okay. Do you have an understanding as to why the city did not complete that driveway? A As I indicated before, the drive A is one possible method of accessing Mr. Hofer's property. Being that both properties were not developed, the city decided it would be better for all the developers involved if they between themselves derived a more acceptable solution. It would preclude them from having to remove the drive, save them the cost, and provide the ability to build something more suitable to future development. Q And so is access given to the Hofer property in the after condition as a result of this project from Haven? A As a result of this project the Hofer property will have full signalized left turn access or potential therefore upon development where they did not have today. (Exh. E, Perez Dep., 93:8-94:8, objections omitted [emphasis added].) manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners September 26, 2018 Page 5 Finally, Ms. Perez testified on re -cross: Q You mentioned that there would be a left turn signalized access into the Hofer property, right? A Yes. Q After the project is constructed by the city, there will be no left turn from Haven A The potential is there. The left turn pocket will be constructed with the project. Barricade will be there. Upon a proposed development, the improvements could be completed. (Exh. E, Perez Dep., 96:16-97:1.) C. Settlement of the DR Landmark Case On July 31, 2007, the City and DR Landmark filed a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Final Order of Condemnation to settle the DR Landmark Case. (A copy of the Stipulation is attached here as Exhibit F.) The Stipulation provides that the City is acquiring the subject property "for public street purposes." (Exh. F, p. 1.) On August 9, 2007, and pursuant to the Stipulation between the City and DR Landmark, Judgment was entered in the DR Landmark Case. (A copy of the Judgment in the DR Landmark Case is attached hereto as Exhibit G.) The Judgment provides that the subject property is being acquired by the City "for public street purposes and for all uses necessary or convenient thereto." (Exh. G, p. 1.) On August 20, 2007, the Final Order of Condemnation was filed in the DR Landmark Case. It condemned the subject property interests (including the fee parcel and the temporary construction easement parcel) to the City. (A copy of the recorded Final Order of Condemnation in the DR Landmark Case is attached hereto as Exhibit H.) D. Settlement of the Hofer Case On October 15, 2007, the City and Hofer reached an oral settlement at the parties' mandatory settlement agreement. Thereafter, the parties negotiated the documentation of the settlement through counsel. The City provided the initial draft of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in Condemnation on November 1, 2007. On November 6, 2007, my office provided to the City redlined comments to its draft Stipulation for Entry of Judgment In Condemnation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I. As originally proposed by the City in Paragraph 5 of its initial draft, the City would not need to construct Drive A. However, Hofer did not accept this provision, and agreed only that the City would not need to construct Drive A "as part of the manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners September 26, 2018 Page 6 Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project" — precisely as Ms. Perez had testified at her deposition. Later in November of 2007, the City and Hofer executed the Stipulation. (A copy of the executed Stipulation is attached here as Exhibit J.) Judgment in Condemnation was entered by the Court in the Hofer Case on November 30, 2007. (A copy of the Judgment in the Hofer Case is attached hereto as Exhibit K.) On December 13, 2007, the Final Order of Condemnation was entered in the Hofer Case. (A copy of the Final Order of Condemnation in the Hofer Case is attached hereto as Exhibit L.) E. Post -Litigation Settlement Events The City proceeded to construct the Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project as Ms. Perez testified it would. It constructed the returns for Drive A, the handicapped access ramps, and the street up to the barricade. A wood barrier was placed across Drive A and there was no construction west of the wood barrier. On March 27, 2014, Power Medic Technologies, Inc. ("Power Medic") acquired the DR Landmark Property from DR Landmark. (The Grant Deed transferring title from DR Landmark to Power Medic is attached hereto as Exhibit M.) The Grant Deed excepted the Parcel—i.e., the portion of the DR Landmark Property that had previously been acquired by the City by eminent domain (see Exh. B, "DR Landmark (City) Parcel") —thereby confirming that the City continued to own the Parcel. Thereafter, Hofer learned of Power Medic's intention to develop the DR Landmark Property, including using as part of the Project the Parcel that had been acquired by the City in the DR Landmark Case, and which the City continued to own. If Power Medic were permitted to develop the Parcel owned by the City, then the Parcel could not be used to provide access to the Hofer Property via "Drive A." In November 2016, it was also discovered that there was a typographical error in the Final Order of Condemnation in the DR Landmark Case, which misstated the boundaries of the DR Landmark Parcel that the City had acquired. The result of the error was a 60-foot gap between the DR Landmark Parcel and the northern boundary of the Hofer Property (the DR Landmark Parcel was supposed to extend to the Hofer Parcel in order to allow for Drive A to reach the Hofer Property). The City acknowledged the mistake and, on February 14, 2017, it filed an Ex Parte Application to correct the Judgment and Final Order of Condemnation in the DR Landmark Case. (A copy of the City's Ex Parte Application is attached hereto as Exhibit N.) The next day, the Court entered the Amended Judgment in Condemnation and Amended Final Order of Condemnation, which corrected the typographical errors in the legal descriptions manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners September 26, 2018 Page 7 of the Parcel owned by the City and eliminated the 60-foot gap. (Copies of the Amended Judgment and recorded Amended Final Order of Condemnation in the DR Landmark Case are attached hereto as Exhibits O and P, respectively. An APN map depicting the Hofer Property boundaries and the now -Power Medic Property boundaries after the condemnation order in the DR Landmark Case was corrected is attached hereto as Exhibit .) On April 3, 2018, Hofer offered to buy the DR Landmark Parcel from the City. (A copy of Hofer's Offer to Purchase the DR Landmark Parcel is attached hereto as Exhibit R.) On May 14, 2018, the City responded to the offer to purchase and refused stating, among other things, that it was "proceeding with an offer to DR Landmark for repurchasing the DR Landmark property previously condemned by the City, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.245." (A copy of the City's Response to Hofer's Offer to Purchase is attached hereto as Exhibit S.) On August 21, 2018, Edward Burg of my office wrote to City Manager John Gillison disagreeing with the contentions in his May 14, 2018 letter. (A copy of Mr. Burb s letter to Mr. Gillison dated August 21, 2018 is attached hereto as Exhibit T.) II. THE PROTECT (AND ITS PROPOSED APPROVALS) WOULD RESULT IN' THE CITY'S BREACH Or ITS OBLIGATIONS TO ALLOW DRIVE A TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PARCEL As detailed above and in the relevant litigation documents relating to the Hofer Case (as well as the DR Landmark Case), the City made clear that the Hofer Property would have additional access via a fully signalized left turn (i.e., Drive A) upon the future development of the Parcel. (See e.g., Exh. D.) As currently planned, the Project utilizes and intends to develop the Parcel, but does not include Drive A. Any future development of the Parcel must include Drive A for access to the Hofer Property. Contrary to the Staff Report dated September 26, 2018, Hofer disagrees that "the City and property owner agreed that the City need not construct the drive aisle." That simply did not happen, as the record above reflects. Accordingly, Hofer objects to the Project and its Approvals on the grounds that their adoption would result in the City breaching its obligations to Hofer and causing significant damage to the Hofer Property. III. THE PROJECT IMPROPERLY SEEKS TO USE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT OWNED BY THE APPLICANT As part of the settlement of the DR Landmark Case, the City acquired the Parcel, which is depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto as "DR Landmark (City) Parcel." All of the historical documents stemming from the two relevant eminent domain actions —the DR Landmark Case and the Hofer Case —make clear that the City acquired the Parcel. Equally undisputed is that the manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners September 26, 2018 Page 8 Project that is the subject of this hearing contemplates developing on the Parcel. For example, renderings for the Project depict work/live units being developed on the Parcel. However, there is no evidence to date that the developer, Power -Medic, actually owns the Parcel. We previously asked for evidence that Power -Medic owns the Parcel and received no supporting evidence in response to our requests. Now, in its latest Staff Report, the City admits what it must: the City (not Power -Medic) owns the Parcel sought to be developed. Thus, as a threshold issue, the City cannot authorize a development of property that the developer -applicant does not even own. Hofer objects to the Planning Commission approving the Project or the related Approvals, which would improperly permit the development of property that the developer -applicant does not own and which is, in fact, City property. This is in violation of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code ("RCMC") Section 17.14.020, which requires that "every application shall include the signatures of the applicant and property owner, agent authorization as appropriate, and any fee prescribed by the city council resolution to cover the cost of investigating and processing." To Hofer's best knowledge and based on the public documents made available in connection with this hearing, the application(s) for this Project have never acknowledged that the City owns the DR Landmark Parcel. Indeed, the City has only now brought this issue to light.' Without that acknowledgement, the application(s) for the Project are inherently incomplete, and should have been deemed so pursuant to RCMC Section 17.14.030. The City quite simply cannot authorize the development of the Project on the basis of an incomplete application, and given the timeline of development here, it is likely an entirely new application will be required. See RCMC Section 17.14.030. Moreover, to permit the developer -applicant to use the City's Parcel for the Project would constitute an illegal gift of public funds. See Cal. Const., Art. XVI, § 6. "It is well settled that, in determining whether an appropriation of public funds or property is to be considered a gift, the primary question is whether the funds are to be used for a 'public' or a 'private' propose." County of Alameda v. Janssen, 16 Cal.2d 276, 281 (1940). If they are for a "public propose", they are not a gift. If they are for a "private purpose," they are illegal. Id. Here, the Parcel would be used for purely private residential and commercial development by a private developer. Thus, allowing Power Medic to develop the DR Landmark (City) Parcel would violate the California Constitution. The City attempts to improperly bypass this problem by making it a condition of approval that the developer must acquire the Parcel. But the City cannot (and should not) approve major development projects where the developer -applicant is not even the owner of the property sought ' Curiously, none of the prior Planning Commission Minutes or reports relating to the Project address, let alone discuss, the fact that the City —not the developer —own the Parcel sought to be developed. The Staff Report for this meeting raises this issue for the first time and gives it short shrift. manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners September 26, 2018 Page 9 to be developed. Indeed, as detailed above, the Municipal Code requires that all relevant parties —including the property owners— sign the initial applications for a development such as this one. The City's proposed condition of approval turns this process on its head. Moreover, the condition of approval does not set forth any parameters as to how and when the developer - applicant must acquire the Parcel. That is highly relevant information that is missing. (See also, Part IV, infra.) For this additional reason, the Project (and associated Approvals) should not be approved. IV. THE CITY HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 1245.245 IS APPLICABLE Presumably recognizing the problem described in Part III, above, the City has recently stated that it intends to "offer to DR Landmark for repurchasing the DR Landmark property previously condemned by the City [i.e., the Parcel], as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.245." (See, e.g., Exh. S.) We have asked for, but have not received, any evidence that the City has in fact pursued this course, and reserve our rights to contest any such actions if they have indeed been undertaken. Based on the condition of approval suggested in connection with the Approvals and included in the agenda packet, it appears that the City has not initiated an offer to repurchase the Parcel. In any event, the City has not demonstrated that it can properly proceed under Section 1245.245—the only purported solution it has offered to date for the fundamental problem that the developer -applicant does not own the property it seeks to develop. Section 1245.245(b) provides that: "Property acquired by a public entity by any means set forth in subdivision (e) [e.g., eminent domain] that is subject to a resolution of necessity pursuant to this article, and is not used for the public use stated in the resolution of necessity within 10 Years of the adoption of the resolution of necessity, shall be sold in accordance with the terms of subdivisions (f) and (g)." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the City can only offer the Parcel to DR Landmark for repurchase if the Parcel was not used "for roadway purposes" within 10 years after the adoption of the resolution of necessity. Here, the City adopted a resolution of necessity —Resolution No. 05-328—on November 16, 2005 to acquire the Parcel in connection with its Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project. (See e.g., Exh. A, JrJJ 4-6.) And the City, in fact, used the Parcel within 10 years of adopting the Resolution "for roadway purposes." For example, by January 2009, the City was continuing to utilize the Parcel for roadway purposes — for a re-routing of Haven Avenue while the Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project was being constructed. (A Google Earth satellite image of the relevant properties dated January 31, 2009 attached hereto as Exhibit U evidences the City's use of the Parcel less than 5 years after the Resolution was adopted.) The City is also believed to manatt manalt I phelps I phillips Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners September 26, 2018 Page 10 have constructed improvements within the Parcel, including a fire hydrant, street light, curb, gutter, sidewalk and possible underground utilities, some of which are continuing to the present day. Accordingly, the offer to repurchase provision of Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.245 does not apply. V. THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CEOA CEQA provides that generally the governmental agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(d), 21100(a), 2115l(a); Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego, 68 Cal.AppAth 556, 570-571 (1998). "Whenever there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR normally is required." Citizens for Responsible & Open Government V. City of Grand Terrace, 160 Cal.AppAth 1323, 1331 (2008) (emphasis added). "'The fair argument standard is a 'low threshold' test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. [Citations.] It is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency's determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review."' Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). For example, in Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace, 160 Cal.AppAth 1323 (2008), the court of appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment granting a writ of mandate setting aside the city's approval of a multi -story 120-unit senior housing project in a residential neighborhood with a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and directing that an EIR be prepared. In that case, citizens presented substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project would have significant adverse environmental impacts, even as modified to include mitigation measures, in the areas of population density, building height, aesthetics, and air conditioning noise. Similarly, here, the Project calls for the construction of two buildings consisting of 207 multi -family units, including 14 live/work units, as well as 14,300 square feet of commercial office area. The Project also seeks to reduce required off-street parking by approximately twenty-one (21%) percent. The Project will have numerous adverse environmental impacts that are not adequately addressed by the MND and require an EIR. First, the Project has woefully inadequate parking. In July 2018, the City contended that the Development Code requires that the Project have 528 parking spaces, 289 of which must be in the form of a garage or carport. The latest Staff Report states that 480 spaces are manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners September 26, 2018 Page 11 required. Our understanding is that the Project offers only 380 on -site parking spaces. Nothing in the MND accounts for this substantial parking shortfall, and nothing accounts for the sudden reduction in required spaces from 528 to 480. Neither the 7-page parking study prepared by Linscott Law Greenspan (the "Parking Study") or the MND explain the sudden drop of 48 required parking spaces, nor do these documents make a determination that those spaces would not be required under the Development Code or needed as a matter of practice. The Parking Study does not propose to solve the problems of inadequate parking on -site. Instead, parking needed for the Project is simply being pushed onto public streets. The burden of the additional street parking caused by the Project is also not taken into account in determining the traffic and circulation impacts also caused by the Project. Even with street parking, the Project does not have sufficient parking, which is why the developer seeks an exception to the City's parking requirements. In addition, the Parking Study prepared by the developer's own consultant does not evidence the lack of a parking impact. As an initial matter, the Parking Study admits —as it must —that the Project has a parking shortfall of 100 parking spaces if the City were to follow its own Code (which it should). To overcome the 100-space shortfall, the Parking Study relies on (1) a shared parking manual that is 13 years old and (2) another parking study that LLG did for a project at Foothill Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue. The Parking Study does not provide any recent shared parking statistics that would suggest that the City's Code requirements are inaccurate or outdated, nor does it seek to establish how the Foothill/Hermosa project is comparable or similar to this Project. And to the extent LLG is to rely on "comparable" apartment projects to justify parking for this Project, it should offer more than one such comparison to ensure its results properly reflect the needs of the area with respect to this particular Project. Notably, the Parking Study also states that "there will be a minimum of 28 on -street parking spaces along the Marine and 261h Street Project frontages that will likely be used by resident guests and the commercial uses." (LLG Parking Study at p. 2 [emphasis added].) Thus, parking will be pushed towards the single-family neighborhood and the maximum parking impact is unknown. For a Project that is being pitched and marketed as a work/live community that encourages people to congregate in open spaces (i.e., a meeting place), parking is a key component of a successful project of this type. People will not just live at the Project, they will be invited to meet and work together. Those people will need a place to park. By its own terms, the Parking Study indicates there may be as few as five (5) surplus spaces available during "Peak Hours." It is highly unlikely that a successful work/live environment can be created and sustained here if available parking is inadequate to the Project's needs. The solution of pushing parking onto the streets when there is a 100-space shortfall is not a good solution and will cause additional environmental impacts on the surrounding community. manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners September 26, 2018 Page 12 Furthermore, as proposed, the Project only purports to provide 1.78 spaces per dwelling unit, despite the fact that there are 98 two -bedroom units proposed. The Parking Study simply assumes that many, if not most of these two -bedroom units will be rented to individuals or couples that will only utilize one parking space, despite the fact that this is exceedingly unlikely in Rancho Cucamonga. The Parking Study also openly assumes that it "likely overestimates the potential parking needs of the project because the one bedroom rate of 1.50 parking spaces per unit implies that every other unit is occupied by a couple and/or has two cars ...." The Parking Study concludes this is "very unlikely," yet it does not account for the likelihood that most two - bedroom units will require two parking spaces, and that some, if not most, of the one -bedroom or studio units will be occupied by couples or individuals who have two cars and require multiple parking spaces. The study also says nothing of the likely decrease in the rental value of the Haven at 261h apartments based on parking shortfalls, despite the fact that parking is at a premium when individuals decide where to rent, and tenant retention is heavily impacted when an apartment complex lacks sufficient parking. The Parking Study also alleges that "in our experience the more appropriate guest space ratio is at most 1.00 space per 4 units and not 1.00 space per 3 units." This is not supported within the study by any data, but rather hinges on the "experience" of LLG, which experience purports to carry greater weight than the City's determination within the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. There is no evidence that LLG is better informed on this particular issue than City staff and officials. Yet the parking reduction the developer -applicant seeks hinges on the idea that fewer spaces will be required for this use than the Code currently requires —and for a Project that is to be a meeting place for the community. A parking reduction on one of the major traffic corridors in the City must be carefully considered and closely scrutinized. The Parking Study simply does not provide the assurances necessary to guarantee the Project's parking impacts will not cause serious environmental and traffic impacts. Second, the Project will result in significant traffic and circulation impacts with the addition of 207 multi -family units, coupled with the lack of sufficient parking. The Project is proposed on one of the City's major corridors, Haven Avenue. The addition of hundreds of units, in addition to commercial space, will inevitably create massive traffic and circulation impacts. It does not appear that any meaningful traffic analysis has been done in connection with the Project. Without such analysis, the City cannot be sure the Project will not have significant traffic impacts. For example, the Initial Study fails to adequately consider the traffic impacts on the intersection of Haven Avenue and 61h Street, which will operate at an unsatisfactory Level of Service ("LOS") under the project proposal until addition of a northbound right turn lane is completed. This cannot be considered an insignificant impact given the prominence of Haven manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners September 26, 2018 Page 13 Avenue as an arterial corridor during peak hours, and will result in significant traffic impacts during construction and past the Project's opening year to the extent traffic mitigation measures lag or do not fully account for the increased traffic caused by the Project. The Initial Study further indicates that the Haven Avenue/6`h Street intersection is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS for both a.m. and p.m. peak hours as early as 2019 without the addition of a westbound left turn lane. The Initial Study emphasizes "there is no guarantee that the necessary improvements to the intersection of Haven Avenue and 6`h Street will be installed and City -approved prior to the development of the proposed project." (See Initial Study at 109.) Looking forward to 2040, the Initial Study admits that the Project will create issues at Haven Avenue/6`h Street as well as Haven Avenue/Jersey Boulevard. The only mitigation measure proposed to address these intersections is restriping of the westbound approach to provide a shared left -turn lane and a left -turn lane with split phasing in the east -west direction. This is, quite simply, insufficient to meet the traffic needs of one of the City's major transportation corridors and woefully underestimates the impact of a major mixed -use project on one of the City's busiest streets. Third, the increased traffic and population density resulting from the Project will adversely impact air quality and noise. Again, the MND does not adequately account for this environmental impact, nor does it provide for any conditions or commitments from the developer -applicant so that there clearly will be no significant effect on the environment. For example, the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist (the "Checklist") for "Air Quality" states "None." The Checklist for "Greenhouse Gas Emissions" states "None." As to "Noise," the Checklist primarily focuses only on noise during construction of the Project —not after it is built, which is the lasting environmental impact. As to post -construction noise impacts, the Checklist in essence tells the developer -applicant to comply with the relevant City and State regulations. That goes without saying. What has not been sufficiently examined in detail is potential mitigation for these noise impacts, which must be required given the Project's proximity to a single-family residential neighborhood, and the developer -applicant's intention to create dwelling units within the Project, whose residents would also be impacted by increased noise impacts. This is important analysis, which must be done to ensure the Project does not result in significant environmental impacts. Fourth, just west of the Project Property across Marine Avenue is an existing single- family neighborhood. All of the aforementioned environmental impacts would directly and adversely impact the residents of that neighborhood. The Project in fact proposes to use parking on Marine Avenue for the Project, meaning increased traffic, congestion, and parking on this residential street. The effects on that neighborhood have not been adequately evaluated here. manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners September 26, 2018 Page 14 Fi du, on July 13, 2016, the Planning Department stated that certain special studies will be required at the time of formal submittal, including photometric analysis and a water quality management plan. Based on a review of the hearing documents, it does not appear these analyses have been performed. For example, Appendix F to the Initial Study states that "a site specific WQMP report will be developed. Based on the foregoing, the MND and the Initial Study on which it is based are woefully inadequate and do not address the myriad of environmental issues resulting from the Project. Accordingly, the Project (and associated Approvals) cannot be approved until a CEQA- compliant EIR is prepared. VI. THE APPROVALS VIOLATE THE UNIFORMITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING AND RESULT IN ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING Hofer further objects to the proposed Approvals for the Project on the grounds that they violate the uniformity requirement for zoning and would result in illegal spot zoning. "The zoning regulations for any city or county must be uniform within each class or kind of building or land use within each zone." Miller & Starr, 7 Cal. Real Est. § 21:9 (4th ed. 2018) (citing Gov. Code § 65852). "The uniformity requirement is like an enforcement clause in the zoning 'contract,' allowing parties to challenge burdens unfairly imposed or benefits unfairly conferred. Ad hoc exceptions to benefit one parcel in a zone without rezoning, a use permit or a variance break the 'contract' and violate the uniformity requirement." Id. (citing Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne, 157 Cal.App.4th 997, 1008 (2007)). Violations of the uniformity requirement for zoning regulations can result in spot zoning. "The essence of spot zoning is irrational discrimination"—e.g., "where a small parcel is restricted and given lesser rights than the surrounding property, as where a lot in the center of a business or commercial district is limited to uses for residential purposes." Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente, 201 Cal.AppAth 1256, 1268-69 (2011). Here, the City and the developer -applicant initially told the public that (1) a General Plan Amendment would change the General Plan land use designation for the Project Property and the Hofer Property from Industrial Park to Mixed Use and (2) a Zoning Map Amendment would only change the zoning designation of the Project Property from Industrial Park to Mixed Use, not the Hofer Property. As a result of these two prior proposed Approvals, the Hofer Property would be left with inconsistent designations —Mixed Use for the purposes of the General Plan, but Industrial Park for the purposes of zoning. Now, only days before this hearing, the City and the developer -applicant have appeared to change course and are only proposing to amend the General Plan and Zoning Map for the Project Property, which is proposed to go from Industrial Park to Mixed Use. Thus, while the Project Property and the Hofer Property are on the same city manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Ms. Burnett, Mr. Perez, and Planning Commissioners September 26, 2018 Page 15 block and part of the Haven Avenue Overlay District, one parcel of land will get the benefit of Mixed Use zoning, while the other does not. The net effect of either the prior or latest versions of the City/developer-applicant's proposed amendments is discriminatory (and damaging) zoning with respect to the Hofer Property which, importantly, is not seeking any development at this time. Significantly, Hofer should not be forced to make critical decisions about the use of its property based on the timeline of its neighbor or last minute changes in proposed amendments by the City/developer-applicant.2 For this additional reason, the proposed Approvals for the Project are improper. This letter does not constitute a complete recitation of the facts or a comprehensive statement of our clients' positions on any issues relating to this dispute. Nothing in this letter is intended to be, or should be construed as, a waiver, forfeiture, or relinquishment of any of our clients' rights, remedies, claims, or contentions, whether legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly reserved. We request that this letter, along with all of the attached exhibits, be made part of the record of proceedings for the Project and Approvals. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Ziralta Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Enclosures (Exhibits A through U) cc: Edward G. Burg, Esq. (by email) Kevin F. Gillespie, Esq. (by email) Paul M. Shimoff, Esq. (by email) ' For example, the Hofer Property has adjacent railroad tracks, whereas the Project Property does not. The record does not evidence that the City has adequately addressed the nuances of each property in conjunction with the Approvals and, instead. only the Project Properly is being considered to the detriment of the Hofer Properly. EXHIBIT A a 1 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation 2 REGINA N. BANNER, State Bar No. 137210 KIRSTENBOWMAN, State Bar No. 181627 7JA 19 cr, t d•. ADISOT 3 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th FIoor ,,j-; n :..i ��,� Los Angeles, California 90071-3101- 4 Telephone: (213) 626-8484 Pao.V 2 2005 5 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 L._ Attorneys for Plaintiff, 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA tsY I 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT 10 zo En 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a Case No. �� o municipal corporation, <. 12 COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN o Xi13 Plaintiff, 14 V. [APN 0209-131-01] o < 15 D.R. LANDMARK, INC., a California corporation; HCS CUTLER, a corporation; (Exempt from Piling Pecs Pursuant to Govt. Code u 16 COMMUNITY BANK;DOES'1.THROUGH §61031 < 100, inclusive; and ANY AND ALL =f 17 PERSONS UNKNOWN HAVING OR _yam 18 CLAIMING TO HAVE ANY TITLE OR INTEREST IN OR TO THE PROPERTY 19 SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED HEREIN, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 PLAINTIFF, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ALLEGES: 24 1. Plaintiff, City of Rancho Cucamonga ("Plaintiff'), is and, at all tunes mentioned 25 herein, has been a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the 26 laws of the State of California, and located entirely within the boundaries of the County of San 27 Bernardino, State of California. 28 11231-0135/860384 COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN }-2- 1 2. Defendants DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, and ANY AND ALL PERSONS 2 UNKNOWN HAVING OR CLAa21NG-TO HAVE ANY TITLE OR INTEREST IN OR TO 3 THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED HEREIN are sued and designated herein 4 by fictitious names and capacities for the reason that their true names and capacities are 5 unknown to Plaintiff at tlris time. Said defendants, and each of them, have or claim to have an 6 interest in the property described herein, the nature, character or extent of which interest is 7 unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint and to substitute the true 8 names and capacities of said defendants when those names and capacities are ascertained. 9 3. The public interest and necessity require the acquisition by Plaintiff of the 10 property interests sought to be condemned herein for a public use, namely for the construction of zo 0 11 the Haven Avenue Grade Separation, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto. Plaintiff is w g 12 entitled to condemn said property interests for such uses by virtue of the provisions of California w =. o 9 13 Constitution Article 1, Section 19; California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 14 40401, and 40404;.by California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent N 5 15 Domain Law), including but not limited to sections 1240.010 through 1240.050, 1240.110, o tE S 16 1240.120, 124.04I0, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650; and by other provisions of law. U o M < 17 4. The property interests sought to be acquired herein are sought for the construction w18 of a grade separation at Haven Avenue and related proposes and all uses necessary or convenient 19 thereto in connection with the Haven Grade Separation Project (the "project"). The public 20 interest and necessity require the project; the project is planned and located in a manner that will 21 be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and the property 22 interests described herein are necessary for the project. 23 5. The offer required by Government Code section 7267.2 has been made to the 24 owners of record. 25 6. Plaintiff, at its regular City Council meeting held November 16, 2005,. adopted 26 Resolution No. 05-328, a Resolution of Necessity (a certified copy of which is attached hereto 27 and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit "1"), by a unanimous vote of all of its voting 28 members. Resolution No. 05-328 finds and determines that the public interest and necessity -2- 11231-0135/860384 COMPLAINT' IN EMINENT DOMAIN ,� ­­_ --- - -- -I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 require the acquisition of the property interests described herein ("subject property interests") for the public use and proposes herein set forth, and authorizes and directs the attorneys for Plaintiff to institute these eminent domain proceedings for the acquisition of the property interests described herein. In adopting Resolution No. 05-328, the City Council also found that based on the evidence presented at the November 16, 2005 hearing, including the Staff Report and documents referenced therein, the acquisition of the subject property interests is in the best interest of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City Council further found that the acquisition of the subject property interests promotes the interest of the City and is necessary for the lowering of the existing grade of Haven Avenue where it intersects the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) railroad tracks, construction of a temporary detour.of Haven Avenue'during construction, and cul-de-sac at Humboldt Avenue and 8th Street where they intersect with Haven Avenue, and the installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks on both sides of Haven Avenue. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project to alleviate. traffic congestion and provide safety at the railroad crossing. 8. The subject property interests sought to be condemned herein.are a 20,719 square - foot land area in fee and a 12,296 square foot land area acquired as a temporary construction easement for a period not to exceed 24 months from the date of possession by plaintiff on the property commonly known as 10451 26th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01, The subject property interests are more particularly described as follows: Assessor's Parcel Number: Portions of Assessor's Parcel Number 0209- 131-01 in fee More Particularly Described as Follows: In Exhibit "A" to Resolution of Necessity (Exhibit "1" hereto). Portions of Assessor's Parcel Number 0209- In Exhibit "A-1" to Resolution of Necessity 131-01 as a temporary construction easement (Exhibit "1" hereto). -3- 11231-0135l860384 COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN _•yt I The area to be purchased in fee and as a temporary construction easement described 2 above are depicted in Exhibit `B" and "B-1" to the Resolution of Necessity. Exhibits "A," "A- 3 1," `B," and `B-1" to the Resolution of Necessity, which contain the legal description of the 4 subject property interests and diagrams depicting the subject property interests, are incorporated 5 herein by this reference. 6 9. The names of all owners and claimants to said subject property interests or any 7 part thereof, or interests therein, insofar as known to Plaintiff, and a statement of the claimed 8 interest of each, are hereinafter set forth for the convenience of the Court and parties and not as 9 allegations as to which Plaintiff intends to be bound. 10 Name Interest 11 D.R. LANDMARK. INC. FEE OWNER 12 HCS CUTLER, INC. LESSEE 13 COMMUNITY BANK TRUSTEE IN DEED OF TRUST 14 BENEFICIARY OF DEED OF TRUST 15 16 WIdFREFORE, Plaintiff prays: 17 1. That defendants, and each of them, be required to answer to set forth the nature 18 and extent of the interests claimed by each of them in the subject property interests sought to be 19 condemned in this action; 20 2. That such interests in said subject property interests be determined and 21 adjudicated in this action and that the just compensation be ascertained and assessed and the 22 amount of the award for said subject property interests be first determined between Plaintiff and 23 all defendants claiming an interest therein; 24 3. That upon payment to or for the benefit of the defendants entitled to just compensation or 25 damages, into court for their benefit, of the amount of just compensation so ascertained, the 26 /// 27 J /// 28 ! /// -4- 11231-0135/860384 COMPLAINTINEMINENTDOMAIN 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 z 11 o � 0 12 w „ z� o� a 14 } 15 o ¢ 16 x V a e 17 RIM yj. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Court make and enter a final order of condemnation conveying to Plaintiff the subject property interests set forth above for the public use; and 4. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. DATED:.vavar&--,e .29 � -5- RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER KTRSTEN R. BOWMAN By: 1 r? KIRS ENR.BOWMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 11231-0135/360384 COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN RESOLUTION NO.05-328 A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE CITYCOUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0209- 131-01NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE HAVEN GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The City of Rancho Cucamonga is a municipal corporation in the County of San Bemardino, State of California. SECTION 2: The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for a public use, namely for the Haven Grade Separation Project ('Proposed Project', and all uses necessary or convenient thereto.pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Rancho Cucamonga to acquire property by eminent domain by California- Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code'sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351„37353, 40401, 40404, and 54.031 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq., including, but not limited to sections 1240.010 through 1240.050, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240,650, and other provisions of law. SECTION 3: The real property interests sought to be taken are a partial acquisition of fee simple and a temporary construction easement for roadway purposes on the property identified as 10451 261h Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California, also identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01. The legal. descriptions of the Subject Property Interests are attached as Exhibits "A" and "A-1"to this Resolution and the Subject Property Interests are depicted on the diagrams attached as Exhibits "B" and "13-1" to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. The Subject Property Interests are required for the Haven Grade Separation Project. SECTION 4: The acquisition of the Subject Property Interests is required tocarry out and make effective the principal purpose of the Proposed Project. A general description of the Proposed Project is set forth in the Staff Report.dated November 16, 2005 and the evidence, reports, and documents cited in that Staff Report are all incorporated herein by this reference. The potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project were studied and analyzed in connection with the Initial Site Assessment ("ISA") and Initial Study for the Haven Grade Separation Project. Resolution No. 05-328 Page 2 of 10 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, in certifying the ISA for the Proposed Project, the City Council, as the lead agency, found thatwith the mitigation measures and all significant impacts identified in the ISA have been mitigated, avoided, or reduced to an acceptable level, except for one identified unavoidable impact described in the Statement of Facts of Findings. The unavoidable significant impact of the project as identified in the Statement of Facts of Findings'is outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the project identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. On September 8, 2004, the City conducted a public hearing to certify the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Project. The City executed a Mitigated Negative Declaration on September 8, 2004. Further, in. accordance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines section 15075, the City prepared a 'Notice of Determination, which was posted by the. County Clerk on September 14, 2004. The ISA together with its Exhibits, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Notice of Determination are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and are incorporated in this report by this reference. City Staff, in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity, has reviewed all of the environmental documentation prepared on the Proposed Project, including Certification of the Initial Site Assessment and the Notice of Determination and pursuant to the criteria of Section 16162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Codes. City Staff concluded that there have been no substantial changes in the Proposed Project or the circumstances surrounding the project, nor has the City obtained any new information of substantial importance that could have been known with reasonable diligence at the time that the negative declaration was adopted that would require further environmental review. Therefore, no further environmental documentation is necessary and there continues to be no substantial evidence that the Proposed Project or the proposed acquisitions of the Subject Property Interests will have any significant environmental impact. SECTION 5: The real property interests sought to be acquired are currently being used as vacant land on an industrial facility. The Proposed Project will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of any existing public use or as the public use may reasonably be expected to exist in the future as allowed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510. Resolution No. 05-328 Page 3 of 10 , SECTION 6: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds and determines that: A. The public interest and necessity require the Proposed Project; B. The Proposed Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; C. The property interests hereinabove described are necessary to carry out and make effective the principal purpose of the Proposed Project; D. The Proposed Project will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of any existing public use or as the public use may reasonably be expected to exist in the future as allowed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510; and E. The offer required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code has been made to the owners of record and/or due diligence has been exercised in order to comply with Section 7287.2. SECTION 7: The findings and declarations contained in this Resolutlon are based on the record before the City Council. on. November 16, 20.05 when it adopted this Resolution, including the Staff Report dated November 16, 2005, all documents referenced and incorporated in the Staff Report, the testimony atthe hearing, and the records and documents prepared In connection with the Proposed Project, all of which are incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. SECTION 8: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga authorizes and directs the CityAttorney's office and Staff to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competentjurisdiction to acquire byeminent domain the real property interests described in Exhibits "A" and "A-1" attached hereto. SECTION 9: This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. SECTION 1.0: The City Clerk shall certifyto the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book. of Resolutions of the City Council of this City. Please see the fallowing page for formal adoption, ceA/Real/on and slgnatems Resolution No. 05-328 Page 4 of 10 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16'h day of AYES: Alexander, Gutierrez, Michael, Spagnolo, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: 4ebr • • • Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho. Cucamonga, California, ate RegularMeetingof said City Council held. on the 16th day of November 2005. Executed this 171h day of November 2005, at Rancho Cucamonga, California: The foregoing iii i,n:;. ,.. li 2 co,, act copy of the original Pn file in this office. ATTEST: i'/dv h 2I 20 a S DEBRAJ.ADAMS city C �R ncho Cu on Cold Debra J. Ad m, CM , City Clerk Resolution No. 05-328 Page 5 of 10 P5 OMA5 1 MI IT °A' 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1 4 FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES 5 (APN 209-131-01) 6 THAT PORTION OF LOT l OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO 7 CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 8 FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE 9 PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; 19 II COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF 14AVEN AVENUE 12 (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND26'" STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE 13 SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE 14 SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID,CENTERLTNE Is NORTH 8903 P50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHTOF. 16 WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE T)tUE POINT OP 17 BEGINNING• THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTR16HTOP WAY LINE 16 SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCENORTH 89056'55" WEST" 19 98.79 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL: W ITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET 20 MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; 21 THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0*28' 10" EAST 22 177.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET 23 MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 24 HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; 25 THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 26 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; 27 71Il;NCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 28 0*28'10" WEST 193A4 FEET TO SAID TRim POINT OFBEGINNINr,, 29 30 CONTAINING 0:476 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 31 scplw b.31, V jVeC�hVaC,Iriipo-109 731-0I .092203 du Seplcmbv ll, Ip05 — Lsm:LC}.1 Shear 1 of Resolution No. 05-328 Page 6 of 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 SEE EXHIBIT 'B' ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE DIVISION AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION. MAP ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA_ PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF 1 KARI J. LA N, PIS 5679 LICENSE EXPIRES 09130105' m: ,Lmbp 22,200wj,VeynBVc�nlsl.pq-109.131-0i inpy2!053= 9api:LCM R,:005 L<m:LG! Sheet 2 of DATE Resolution No. 05-328 Page 7 of 10 EXHIBIT- "B'° POC 26TH STREET o I� HALSTEAO FAMILY PARTNERSHIP APII IX1. 2D9-131. OI PDF3710AJ OF LCYT J U N z rFi NOT WiP 2908 947'29'01'W a 231 8' BOOK Sit PAQ at; 1-4 N89'S6'55"W -- 98.79' - TPOB _ JERSEY BLVD OR 1D FCOT PU IC UTRJTY m 116' OR O GENERAL TELEPHONE COt1PANY.� OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED JANUART 17. 1951. IN BOOK 5250, PACE 420. ORIA m 1, ...- _- I D I..WU 589'56'79'E t.34' N HUMBOLT AVE I o _� OESCR.PTION] A PORTION OF LOT 2 OF TRACT tUP 2203. IN THE CI IT OF RANCHO CUCAUONLA. COUNIY Of SAN CEANAROINO. SHEET I OF I STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SCALE, NONE P 5 ® M A C ►i CRAFTED. L CHLG%E0I LtW/Ndf 1 RH w A�e,w, �ITT11pp !]dTI XiMBER 21JR5200400 Rq 7N•]]A (n�)N]-4tI SfuJ to 12 13 14 15. 16. 17 t8 19 za 21, zt 23 24 25 26 27 28 Z9 30 31 PS LIMAS Mn IT'A'-1 LEGAL 1)E5CRIP770N TLMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (APN 209-131-01) Resolution No. 05-328 Page 8 of 10 THAT PORTION OF LOT I OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDWO, STATE OF CALIFORN LA. FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED A8 FOLLOWS: COMMEI'ICING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE EN (CURRTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TI1 STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE' WESTERLY -ALONG Tki CENTERLINE.OF26" STREETNORTH 89058'29"'WEST 76 26 FMT; THENCE LEAVING' SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH O"01'31" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE, SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAM'2e STREET AND. THE TAM r 2=OP BEO NNINQ THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH, 34°56'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29039'04" WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89056'S5"EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE •NORTFI 4?'29'0 [" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE. WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NN* ORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY'VNE NORTH 0°28'I0" WEST 165.67 My TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.110 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF S9°30' I8" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26ni STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE KORTFI89°58'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TR 1g POINT 017 33EINNING, =ONTATNING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SEE EXHIBIT 'B' ATTACHED HERETO AND'MADE A PART HEREOF m:17�n7pp rvgvtQal�7epal�upo.1�9-171-01ace_rvyp97+p3'doe 21.JOV3 ' Lem:CCld s}teec 1 otz Resolution No. 05-328 Page 9 of 10 I 1 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 l0 t ]- IS 13 14 ' 1! 16 17 11 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 19 30 PS OMAS THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE DIVISION AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF TM SUBDIVISION MAp ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORDIIA PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF XARI J. L5MES LS 5679 DATE LICENSE09/3N05 lm:\2un2004lul22, 2005 , n0VepoleUpn•]07.131•oIx�„rcu992205jj, Sgam2003 �++:LCM Shcct 2 of 2 Nm $679 1:*C. 9/30/2 %-gym a I ' n Auk Resolution No. 05-328 Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT N89'58'29"W . • 76.26' _ 26TH STREET F 3000'31"E 1 239 9J3'2 i✓� 1 TP()B 534'S6'30'E ••� 40 74' HALSTEAD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP APN N0. 209-131- DI ��'� Por�-ridrt �� LflT -fRAGT 1MAP :2208 90OX S4 t AOF E16 i 589 56'S5"E to Foor Pu R; unu7v ' CASE CENEM TELEPHONE CCUPANY ' Cr.CAUPORNIA' RECOREO JANOARY m im. IN R00%. 023& PAGE a20. OR --------------------- f ION CI OF or i -R420 00' L-31 24' 3_ I O Q b E0 Z z �,,..1447'29'01 "E 23 18' JERSEY BL1VD SUEET 1 OF I SCALE, NONE ORAFTEO. S CRECIIEO, LWiIPJF J00 NLWCR 2LM1200409 i I i i i. i 3 I EXHIBIT B a 4e W � 7 2 6 T H S POWER MEDIC PROPERTY (FORMER DR LANDMARK PROPERTY) %LE R S E,Y A &kw DR LANDMARK (CITY)PARCEL LU z H O F E R z PROPERTY ui Dc > < eater lma6e;7Date Z119,12BIB 34'05'37.61"ri11-34'36.09"%Vele,1126ft ele.lt 3078 h EXHIBIT C zl:!nd 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER (137210) KIRSTEN BOWMAN (181627) MARICELA E. MARROQUIN (232321) 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 Telephone: (213) 626-8484 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FILLO'1lanchn C SAN 8�NAe?p p� pUN7y?titd m ucamorioa of. 3 c:.-6 By Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO —RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, V. PHILLIP F. HOFER AND DOROTHY B. HOFER, AS TRUSTEES OF THAT CERTAIN REVOCABLE DECLARATION OF TRUST, KNOWN AS THE PHILLIP AND DOROTHY HOFER REVOCABLE TRUST; PAUL B- HOFER, JR. AND LAURA JEAN HOFER, AS TRUSTEES OF THAT CERTAIN REVOCABLE DECLARATION OF TRUST, KNOWN AS THE PAUL AND LAURA JEAN HOFER REVOCABLE TRUST; HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC, a California limited liability company; PIONEER LLC, a Califonua limited liability company; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY; DOES I THROUGH 100, inclusive, and ANY AND ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN HAVING OR CLAIMING TO HAVE ANY TITLE OR INTEREST IN OR TO THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED HEREIN, Defendants. R COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN [APN 0209-131-021 [Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Govt. Code §6103] 11231-0135\860376v2.doc COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN ,Y =s? 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ALLEGES: 1. Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga ("Plaintiff') is, and at all times mentioned herein, has been a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, and located entirely within the boundaries of the County of San Bernardino, State of California. 2. Defendants DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, and ANY AND ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN HAVING OR CLAIMING TO HAVE ANY TITLE OR INTEREST IN OR TO THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED HEREIN are sued and designated herein by fictitious names and capacities for the reason that their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Said defendants, and each of them, have or claim to have an interest in the property described herein, the nature,'character or extent of which interest is unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint and to substitute the true names and capacities of said defendants when those names and capacities are ascertained- 3- The public interest and necessity require the acquisition by Plaintiff of the property interests sought to be condemned herein for a public use, namely for the construction of the Haven Avenue Grade Separation, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto- Plaintiff is entitled to condemn said property interests for such uses by. virtue of the provisions of California Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404, by California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1230.010, et seq- (Eminent Domain Law), including but not limited to sections 1240.010 through 1240-050, 1240.110, 1240.120, 124.0410, 1240.510, 1240-610, 1240-650, and by other provisions of law. 4. The property interests sought to be acquired herein are sought for the construction of a grade separation at Haven Avenue and related purposes and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project (the "project"). The public interest and necessity require the project; the project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and the property interests described herein are necessary for the project. 11231-01351860376v2.doc -2- COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN vro 2 0 0 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 .22 23 24 25 26 27 9.3 5. The offer required by Government Code section 7267.2 has been made to the owners of record. 6. Plaintiff, at its regular meeting held on April 5, 2006, adopted Resolution No. 06- 108, a Resolution of Necessity (a certified copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit "1"), by a unanimous vote of all of its voting members. Resolution No. 06-108 finds and determines that the public interest and necessity require the acquisition of the property interests described herein ("subject property interests") for the public use and purposes herein set forth, and authorizes and directs the attorneys for Plaintiff to institute these eminent domain proceedings for the acquisition of the property interests described herein. In adopting Resolution No. 06-108, the City Council also found that based on the evidence presented at the April 5, 2006 hearing, including the Staff Report and documents referenced therein, the acquisition of the subject property interests is in the best interest of the -City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City Council further found that the acquisition of the subject property interests promotes the interest of the City and are necessary for the lowering of the existing grade of Haven Avenue, where it intersects the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) railroad tracks, construction of a temporary detour of Haven Avenue during - the construction, and cul-de-sac at Humboldt Avenue and 8th Street, where they intersect with Haven Avenue, and the installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks on both sides of Haven Avenue. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project to alleviate traffic congestion and provide safety at the railroad crossing. 8. The subject property interests sought to be condemned herein are a 15,225 square foot land area in fee and a 66,803 square foot land area purchased as a temporary construction r easement for a period not to exceed twenty four months on the property commonly known as 8812 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 0209- 131-02. The subject property interests are more particularly described as follows: Assessor's Parcel Number: Portions of Assessor's Parcel Number 0209- 131-02 in fee More Particularly Described as Follows. In Exhibit "A" to Resolution of Necessity (Exhibit " 1 " hereto). 11231-0135\860376v2.doc -3- COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Portions of Assessor's Parcel Number 209-131-02 as a temporary construction easement In Exhibit "A-1" to Resolution of Necessity (Exhibit "1" hereto). The areas to be purchased in fee and as a temporary construction easement described above are depicted in Exhibits `B" and `B-l" to the Resolution of Necessity. Exhibits "A," "A- 1," `B," and "B-l" to the Resolution of Necessity, which contain the legal descriptions of the subject property interests and diagrams depicting the subject property interests, are incorporated herein by this reference. 9. The names of all owners and claimants to said subject property interests or any part thereof, or interests therein, insofar as known to Plaintiff, and a statement of the claimed interest of each, are hereinafter set forth for the convenience of the court and parties and not as allegations as to which Plaintiff intends to be bound. Name PHILLIP F. HOFER AND DOROTHY B. HOFER, PAUL B. HOFER, JR- AND LAURA JEAN HOFER HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC PIONEER, LLC SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY Interest TRUSTEES OF A CERTAIN REVOCABLE DECLARATION OF TRUST, KNOWN AS THE PHILLIP AND DOROTHY HOFER REVOCABLE TRUST IN AN UNDIVIDED 37.50% INTEREST IN FEE TRUSTEES OF A CERTAIN REVOCABLE DECLARATION OF TRUST, KNOWN AS THE PAUL AND LAURA JEAN HOFER REVOCABLE TRUST IN AN UNDIVIDED 37.50%"INTEREST IN FEE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST OWNER OF AN UNDIVIDED 25% INTEREST GRANTEE OF DEED RECORDED ON APRIL 2, 2002 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2002- 0162083 OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS AN EASEMENT RECORDED ON DECEMBER 20, 1934 IN BOOK 1027, PAGE 115 OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS I I 231-0135\860376v2.doc -4- COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays: 1. That defendants, and each of them, be required to answer to set forth the nature and extent of the interests claimed by each of them in the subject property interests sought to be condemned in this action; 2. That such interests in said subject property interests be determined and adjudicated in this action and that the just compensation be ascertained and assessed and the . amount of the award for said subject property interests be first determined between Plaintiff and all defendants claiming an interest therein; 3. That upon payment to or for the benefit of the defendants entitled to just, compensation or damages, into court for their benefit, of the amount of just compensation so ascertained, the court make and enter a final order of condemnation conveying to Plaintiff the subject property interests set forth above for the public use; and 4. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. DATED: May 1, 2006 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER KIRSTEN R. BOWMAN By:� C)e. KIRSTEN R. BOWMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 11111 Al I Ccko4M96.19 A-, -5- COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN EXHIBIT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 06-108 A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0209- 131-02 NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE HAVEN GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The City of Rancho Cucamonga is a municipal corporation in the County of San Bernardino, State of California. SECTION 2: The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for a public use, namely for the Haven Grade Separation Project ("Proposed Project"), and all uses necessary or convenient thereto pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Rancho Cucamonga to acquire property by eminent domain by California Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 37353. 40401, 40404, and 5403.1 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq., including, but not limited to sections 1240:010 through 1240.050, 1240.110, 1240.120. 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240:650, and other provisions of law. SECTION 3: The real. property interests sought to betaken are a'partial acquisition of fee'simple and a temporary construction easement for roadway purposes on the property identified as 8812 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California, also identified as Assessors Parcel Number 0209-131-02. The legal descriptions of the Subject Property Interests are -attached as Exhibits "A" and "A-1"to this Resolution and the Subject Property Interests are depicted on the diagrams attached as Exhibits "B" and "B-1" to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. The Subject Property Interests are -required for the Haven Grade Separation Project. SECTION 4: The acquisition of the Subject Property Interests are required to carry out and make effective the principal purpose of the Proposed Project. A general description.of the Proposed Project is set forth in the Staff Report dated April 5, 2006 and the evidence, reports, and documents cited in that Staff Report are all incorporated herein by this reference. The potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project were studied and analyzed in connection with the Initial Site Assessment ("ISA") and Initial Study for the Haven Grade Separation Project. Resolution No. 06-108 Page 2 of 12 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, in certifying the ISA for the Proposed Project, the City Council, as the lead agency, found that with the mitigation measures and all significant impacts identified in the ISA have been mitigated, avoided, or reduced to an acceptable level, except for one identified. unavoidable impact described in the Statement of Facts of Findings. The unavoidable significant impact of the project as identified in the Statement of Facts of Findings is outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the project identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. On September 8, 2004, thelCity conducted a public hearing to certify the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Project. The City executed a Mitigated Negative Declaration on September 8, 2004. Further, in accordance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines section 15075, the City prepared a Notice of Determination, which was posted by the County Clerk on. September 14, 2004. The ISA together with its Exhibits, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Notice of Determination are. on file in the Office of the City Clerk:of the City of. Rancho Cucamonga and are incorporated in this report by this reference - City -Staff, in connection with the -proposed Resolution of Necessity, has reviewed all of the environmental documentation prepared on the Proposed ..Project, •including Certification of the Initial Site Assessment and the Notice of:Determination and pursuant to the criteria.of Section 15162•of-the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and Section 21166 of thePublic Resources Codes. City Staff concluded that there have been no substantial changes in the Proposed Project or the circumstances surrounding the project, nor has the City obtained any new information of substantial importance that could have -been known with reasonable diligence at the time that the negative declaration was adopted that would require further environmental review: Therefore; no further environmental documentation is necessary and there continues to be no substantial evidence that the Proposed Project or the proposed acquisitions of the Subject Property Interests will have any significant environmental impact. SECTION 5: The real property interests sought to be acquired are currently being used as vacant. land with an industrial facility_ The Proposed Project will not unreasonably'' interfere with or impair the continuance of any existing public use or as the public use may reasonably be expected to exist in the future as allowed -pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510. SECTION 6. The City Council of the City, of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds and determines that: £y Resolution No. 06-108 Page 3 of 12 A. The public interest and necessity require the Proposed Project; B. The Proposed Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.- C. The property interests hereinabove described are necessary to carry out and make effective the principal purpose of the Proposed Project; D. The Proposed Project will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of any existing public use or as the public use may reasonably be expected to exist in the future as allowed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510; and E.. The offer required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code has been made to the owners of record and/or due diligence has been exercised in order to comply with Section 7267.2. SECTION 7: The City has complied with the notice requirements of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235. SECTION 8: The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based on the record before the City Council on April 5, 2006 when it adopted this Resolution, including the Staff..Report dated April 5, . 2006, all documents referenced and incorporated in the Staff Report, the testimony at the hearing, and the records .and documents prepared in connection with the Proposed Project, all of which are incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. SECTION 9: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga authorizes and directs the City Attorney's office and Staff to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire by eminent domain the real property . interests described in Exhibits "A" and "A-1" attached hereto. SECTION 10: This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. SECTION 11: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council of this City. .Please see the fagoMng page for formal adoptidn, certification and signalores Resolution No. 06-108 Page 4 of 12 :t. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5' day of April 2006. AYES: Alexander, Gutierrez, Michael, Spagnolo, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED. None ATTEST: bra J. Alf s CMC; City Clerk The foregoing'instnunent is a correct oopy of the origl on file in this otlfce. ATTEST: l( EBRAJ.ADAM9 II Ij a BZ / 1, DEBRA J; ADAMS,.CITY CLERK of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby' certify that the foregoing Resolution was.duly passed; approved'arid adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,.Galifornia, at a Regular. Meeting of said City Council held on.fhe 5'" day of April 2006.. — - E-xecuted-this-6"—day-of-April-2606 cat-Rancho-CucamongaTGaiifarnia. -" - ebra J. Alms CMC, City Clerk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PSOMAS EXHIBIT `A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUOLIC STREET PURPOSES (APN 209-131-02) Resolution No. 06-108 Page 5 of 12 THAT PORTION OF LOT l OF TRACT MAP 2203. IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FILED IN BOOK 34. PAGE 65. RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: - COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF:-IAVEN-AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26" STREET (GO FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0'28' 10" EAST 531.23 FEET;.THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 99031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAV EN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 0228' 10" EAST 579 13 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDTAVENUE (2S0 FEET WIDE) ASSHOV/N ON SAID TRACT. AP 2203; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89056'39" WEST 34.30 FEETTO ALINE DRAWN PAR\LLEL WITH AND DISTANT 34.30 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE `IORTH 0`28' 10" WEST 308.60 FEET; THS`10E NORTH 6045'53" EAST !7238 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 6.350 ACRES MORE OR LESS SEE EXHIBIT'B' ATTACHCD HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF ZzO IIIJ(IB:..n.piicCal W:O_ 1A.,m...... ]IY,I 1, d.,f M1hVA�'r 11 I <rn ll Al [... KCbI Sheet 1 OF2 Resolution No. 06-108 Page 6 of 12 PS OMAS I THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE'DIVISION AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF 6 7. 3 9 1 10. KAiti I LA EN, PLS 5679 11 ITICENSEE? 109/30/07 DATE . I2 13 14 3_ 4 t Hfiy �a IS a * No. 5679 �- 16 y� E.o. o9/]ai2aal 9� 17 - OF CAI�F� 18 19 20 21 J• . L 23 24 25 .. 26 ; 27 1 28 6 a9 31 I ncvs>an,nab.n.., i,,d. 4�1.•,v.-l0.1-UbU+ ... U ru;.Lc U. lrn'LC?I SIICCI 2 of 2 Resolution No. 06-108 Page 7 of 12 EXHIBIT "B" 2611H STIq POC 1 1 1 i HOFER PROPERTIES LLC I 11 '; 1 N M. Ip9-Ill- W 1 Z � W I W I y I Q 1 W z P�RT101�1 9;✓ t Ot J ¢ ;N - 1 Z -MALT MAP -9zf)B i} BOOK 341 la PAGE: 655 . 1 W rn lo: I Q- IQ 1 Q. 1 Q. 7 1 - I , i U IPII pW • adU1W (Y LOTi pI .!flat! lua Ilp>. w Ct rr pf quKld tuc/Wnpa, (DIMr'(T pG SaNE '. plFp, STa(C Of C41t.Ulu Ni n n N 0 N m O m z la u V I N U OO 0 ' A 11 o D mcq m O W 33' TOV r P (n p V ' z !0 N G I O. O 1 ~ U U 1 WIW i• NI W SHEET I OF 2 SCALE, wp [ P O .-frm• MA S cw[rrm. IYM.Pa( Inp m-rm ;n.1 w.alu a.p h° SCR IInSZ op.pe L,I Resolution No. 06-108 Page 8 of 12 EXHIBIT "B LL 1 N6'a 3 27272 36*8' I D HOFEA PROPERTIES LLC 1cq I 1 Z = t1 D W o / [C Ca La T'OR r101�J Or ; o W o m ^ aZE JT J � C) 1 131- rF AC r ) kP 2-903 i vWi W s]' O .- ,aln BOOK 3--4 34 30' ; PAGE 37 --------- J. j U U V 1 O b 1 m N O 2 O 1 W W fn lA 1 I� m 1_HUMBOLT AVE N89'56 -39-W — ' 3a.30- cl _SCRIII IOR. ( Y%i1CM W LCr 1 W (R1C1 Wm ]SAY 1« Twc C,T, M.., w cacY.wl..cu. SHEET 2 OF 2 CW&T, a0 SM aER«YRalwa. STITC ]f CAL,rWNI&. (� SCALE. w E aRY['Ca. LN MA S C«Cc,Cal laa,r]I m•l TL-Iv, Rlq" -"p.a b0 I«RS]0a.at MIF®LR 10 1 11 U 14 IS i6 l7 1e 19 20 21 22 23 14 2s 26 27 22 29 3o PSOMAS E3QIIBIT `A' —I LEGAL DESCRLP7TON TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT Resolution No. 06-108 Page 9 of 12 (APN'209-131-02) . THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAF 2203. IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. STATE OF CALIFOR.NLk FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65. RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (134 FEET WIDE) AND JERSEY BOULEVARD (80 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 4256 PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 38 PAGES 64 AND 65 OF PARCEL MAPS, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHERL`_ ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AV ENUE SOUTH 0-28.10" EAST 144-46 FEET;. THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89'56.39" WEST 33-00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY -LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: TH04CE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89'56'39" WEST 116-00 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND D1S3'ANT 116.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE: THENCE SOUTHERLY ALO'. IG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0'28' 10" EAST 341_67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89,19110- EAST 19.64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH O'41'05" EAST 69.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'26-21"-WEST 9-60 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 105.70 FE_=T MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE.. WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0?28' 10- EAST 180-69 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 89'56'59" WEST 45.00 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 150-70 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES =KOM THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE ALONG AST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0129,10" EAST 110-33 FEETTO THE ..t,.R•"aoe�..�v�wt.u<vt.�p„-:oc.i7t.o7-.a .c,nv2xa2ee 3�caDa21�a2 - t�tat - Shcet I ofi Resolution No. 06-108 Page 10 of 12 2 3 4 - s 6 7 8 . y 10 1 12 13 14 Is 16 17 18 19 20 - 21 22 n 24 2s 26 27 28 29 _ __30. 31 PSOMAS NORTH LINE OF HUM13OLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 89°56'39" EAST 116.40 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 34.30 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 0'22'10" EAST 308.60 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 6"45'53" EAST 272.38 FEET1. TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF_ WAY LINE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0'28'10— WEST 122.87 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 1534 ACRES MORE OR I_ SEE EXHIHIT'H' ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF 7H1$ LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE DIVISION AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAL' PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF KAKI 3. LAUN N. PLS 5679 LICENSE EXPIRES 09/30/QS Iv.Lug!061G11"^"cyy�V6VCPl��npw.]OV.IIIQ'-p mOq++ ��uvas9s .as anc lcm lGM ' Sheet 2 of2 S� 5 DATE 14a 5679 EXHIBIT "B "-i HALSTEAO FAMILY PARTNERSHIP P�C� •VN N9. 209-171- W I HOFER PROPERTIES LLC t PCWFION OF o LOT -1 0 'TRACT MAP 22w BOOK 34 PAGE 85 r I 50'f I r9SC 69 46' o[scnmr�o.. r O r[�onanmOsraucr �aN usErENr ran . vonn! Ear r Oi rnacr ruP nm_ IN rNF c1 fl rr 51-1c 6 nWpld NCWONCa: Cf LN 0(pN,gO1MO. ' r.rf ar rx uoaNu. Resolution No. 06-108 Page 11 of 12 JERSEY BLVD 5020,10,E 144- afi t>E 09 16 00' uz I/ 4 Q, O m O 4U x n. _o wm ma J£ Ifi.00' D z " ry D r 134' JS To]' W n in ET 2 OF 2 ' SHEET I OF 2 scuE. Noa P S O M A S µ�µ�yErc Miiao.of In•1 +v-rar (n.l y.+-Ny rcW SB9"$6-21-W 960 HOFER PROPERTIES LLC EXHIBIT 91B,-1 S EE SHEET I OE 2 VARIES 27Z3S7 E 27230' O N a - PORTION OF a o "IOTI TFIAOT MAP 2203 � ' 105.70" I3�• BOOK 34 PAGE e5 R6936'59�W I 45 00' 34.30' 2 DC r v H q D O _ q r O 4 y 130.70' ' n 509�6'39�• c 116 60- $ o HUMBOLT AVE �q•• • • rtoar'CE or tnnwrsr'I W Mac, [t>KwIr bIw TwE MgNC3. CWtf Wo a SHEET 2'OF 2 ' SINE Oi 4[ItMw�4 SU[E• w�E P�S o nMAS a� ,� dEnta [uv.ir . craws ui.� {,• N.1 qJm ma vFur1 rw.. +aa aWOEa SIASIWtOw Resolution No. 06-108 Page 12 of 12 EXHIBIT D 1 d 3 .eepiaeee:side nefifipppa ilia 6 6 6 fififi66fi666i�666 3 '1�°9�'S��!gdEfllip S9;t1 ' 9S:hilifiiCF�i:iNfi1l90 9NITN9.L6'N nD+Zg CIS 3 0 00 0 0 EXHIBIT E SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ,FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO man ..�6.. CITY'OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) VS. ) )RCV 094962 PHILLIP R. HOFER AND DOROTHY B. ) HOFER, as trustees of that ) Certain Revocable Declaration of ) Trust, et cetera, et al., ) Defendants. ) Deposition of MARIA PEREZ Thursday, March 22, 2007 Reported By: MARILYN A. KASS, CSR LICENSE NO. 2383 The Souza Group (925)846-8831 Page 1 I INDEX 1 MARIA EMILY PEREZ, 2 DEPOSITION OF MARIA EMILY PEREZ 2 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 3 MARCH 22, 2007 3 4 5 EXAMINATION BY: Page MR- BURG 4,95 4 EXAMINATION BY MR- BURG: 6 MS. BOWMAN 93 5 Q Could you state and spell your full 7 6 name for the record, please. 8 E X H I B I TS 7 A Maria Emily Perez, M-a-r-i-a, 9 10 Number Page 1 Notice of Deposition 8 8 Gm-i-I-y, 11 2 Various documents re 11 9 .Pee-z Q Ms. Perez, by whom are you presently advanced funding 10 employed? 12 - 11 A City of Rancho Cucamonga. 3 Set of plans, City of 25 12 Q And what is your title? 13 Rancho Cucamonga, Haven 13 A Associate engineer. Avenue Grade Separation 14 Q How long have you been employed by the 14 4 Excerpt from plans 44 15 Cityof Rancho Cucamonga? 15 16 A Eighteen years. 5 Complaint in Eminent Domain 64 17 Q Can you tell me what your titles were 16 18 from the time you fast became employed at the City 17 18 19 of Rancho Cucamonga to the present? 19 20 A Entered as a junior civil engineer and 20 21 was promoted to an assistant engineer and then 21 22 associate engineer. 22 23 Q For what period of time were you a 23 24 24 junior civil engineer? 25 25 A First seven or eight months. It was Page 2 1 Page 4 1 BB IT REMEMBERED THAT, pursuant to Notice 2 of Deposition, and on Thursday, March 22, 2007, 3 commencing at the hour of 10:30 am, thereof at 4 the law offices ofMANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP, 5 11355 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 6 90064, before me, Marilyn It Kass, a Certified 7 Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of 8 California, personally appeared 9 MARIA EMILY PEREZ, 10 called as witness by the Defendants, who, being by me 11 first duly sworn, was thereupon examined and 12 testified as hereinafter set forth- 13 --- 14 LAW OFFICES. OF RICIiARDS/WATSON/GERSHON, 355 15 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, 16 California 90071-3101, represented by KIRSTEN R 17 BOWMAN,AAL„ appeared as counsel on behalf of the 18 Plaintiff. 19 LAW OFFICES OF MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP, 20 11355 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 21 90064, represented by EDWARD G. BURG, ESQ., appeared 22 as counsel on behalf of the Defendants. 23 21 25 Page 3 1 from January to July of'90. 2 Q When did you become assistant? 3 A That July. 4 Q July 1990? 5 A Uh-huh. 6 Q You need to answer audibly. That's a 7 yes? 8 A Pardon me. Yes, sir. 9 Q And when did you became an associate 10 engineer? 1.1 A I believe it was September 2002, but 12 I'm not.— the years are kind of smashed together 13 there. 14 Q Can you briefly summarize for me your 15 duties and responsibilities as an associate engineer? 16 A I manage a variety of projects. I have 17 two large projects under my management Currently 18 one is the Haven,Grade Separation Project, and one is 19 the Foothill Boulevard Widening Phase III and a 20 variety of other pavement rehabilitations throughout 21 the city. 22 Q To whom do you report? 23 A Jerry Dyer, Sr. 24 MS. BOWMAN: Dyer is spelled D-y-e-r. 25 Q BY MIL BURG: To whom does Mr. Dyer Page 5 The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 2 (Pages 2 to 5) I report? 2 A Jerry Dyer reports to Joe O'Neil, the 3 city engineer. 4 Q Is Mr. ONeil an employee of the city? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q You said that you manage a variety of 7 projects including the Haven Grade Separation 8 Project? 9 A Yes. 10 Q What is the Haven Grade Separation 11 Project? 12 A It's a project where we intend to 13 separate the vehicular traffic from the rail traffic 14 but through the installation of a rail bridge and 15 dropping the grade of the street to go under the. rail 16 bridge between the streets of Jersey and Acacia. 17 Q What do you do in managing that 18 project? 19 A I oversee the preparation of the design 20 drawings. I've assisted the attorney to the extent 21 that she needs me as far as the right-of-way 22 acquisition. Also assisting in the review of the 23 legals and descriptions. 24 We did have a plan check engineer. So 25 my assistant and I, when we review the documents, are Page 6 1 reviewing the comments that he has made as far as 2 accuracy. Once in a while we catch things that they 3 have missed. 4 Q Who prepared the legals to the right of 5 way acquisition? 6 A Psomas Engineering. 7 Q And who prepared the design drawings 8 for the project? 9 A URS. 10 Q Are you familiar with the property that 11 is the subject of this action? 12 A Familiar in what respect? 13 Q Are you familiar with the Hofer 14 property at the northwest property of I-Iumbolt and 15 Haven Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga? 16 A Yes. 17 Q If I refer to that property as the 18 Hofer property, you will understand what rm talking 19 about throughout this deposition? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q I'm going to hand you what we will mark 22 as Exhibit 1 to the deposition, copy of the 23 deposition notice for this deposition. 24 H 25 H Page 7 1 (Defendants' Exhibit I was marked 2 _ for identification by the reporter 3 and is included herewith.) 4 Q BY MR BURG: Have you seen Exhibit 1 5 before? 6 MS. BOWMAN: This is the notice of deposition 7 right here. 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe that's what the 9 document I brought with me is. 10 Q BY MR. BURG: On page 2 of Exhibit I 11 the deposition notice, Exhibit 1, asks for the city 12 to produce for deposition its officers, directors, or 13 employees most qualified to testify about the project 14 for which the property is being taken. 15 Do you see that? 16 A You referenced the paragraph, which 17 one? 18 Q Beginning at the very top paragraph. 19 A Okay. 20 Q Do you see that reference? 21 A Uh_huh. 22 Q You need to answer yes or no for the 23 record. 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q Are you that person? Page 8 1 A Yes. 2 Q And the deposition notice also asks for 3 production of the person at the city most qualified 4 to testify about the writings requested in the list 5 of items to be produced. 6 Do you see that? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Are you that person? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Beginning on page 4 of Exhibit I there 11 are 10 categories of documents which are requested 12 for production at this deposition. 13 Have you brought with you any documents 14 to the deposition? 15 ' A We had gone over some of the things 16 last week and I left some of the things with the 17 attorney additional to what we had provided on the 18 discovery. 19 Q My question is: Have you brought any 20 documents with you to the deposition today? 21 A Not other than the plans. 22 Q Before we started you handed me a set 23 of plans. 24 This is a set of plans for the Haven 25 Avenue Grade Separation Project; is that right? Page 9 The Sou7z Group (925)846-8831 3 (Pages 6 to 9) I A Yes. 2 Q Is what you have handed me the most 3 recent set of plans for the project? 4 A Yes. 5 Q This is not a construction set; is that 6 right? 7 A Not. yet We are still working with the 8 Southern California Regional Rail. 9 Q Just want to put in front of you the 10 set of plans you brought with you to the deposition. 11 In the lower left of the first page there is a date 12 indicated of January 19, 2007. 13 Do you see that? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Is that just a printing date of they 16 plans? 17 A I couldn't tell you if they just 18 printed it that dayorthey had made corrections just 19 before that printing. 20 Q Is there any wayby looking at the set 21 of plans that you brought with you today that you can 22 tell revisions that were made to the set of plans 23 from the previously produced set? 24 A There is 117 pages. Would be hard for 25 me to tell you which ones have been revised, but my Page 10 1 best knowledge, there have been changes since the 2 last set that you have, yes. 3 . Q But the question is, though, by looking 4 at these plans, are the revisions noted on them as 5 they sometimes are on plans? 6 A No. We are not at that state. We 7 would not note revisions until we have approved 8 plans. 9 Q Have you brought with you any other 10 documents responsive to any categories I through 10 11 on pages 4 and 5 of Exhibit 1? 12 A I did not bring myself. 13 Q Any other documents that are being 114 produced? 15 MS. BOWMAN: We have some additional e-mails 16 from Sanbag regarding the financial. 17 Q BY MR BURG: You've handed me a set 18 of clipped documents. I'm going to mark those 19 documents collectively as Exhibit 2. 20 (Defendants' Exhibit 2 was marked 21 for identification by the reporter 22 and is included herewith.) 23 Q BY MR. BURG: Can you tell me what 24 Exhibit 2 is, Ms. Perez? 25 A Exhibit 2, well, the top page is an Page 11 4 (Pages 10 to 13) 1 e-mail from one of the employees of Sanbag. 2 Q What is Sanbag? 3 A San Bernardino Association of 4 Governments. It's an agency out in the San 5 Bernardino area. 6 Q Can you generally describe for me what 7 the documents in Exhibit 2 consist of? 8 A They are relative to advanced funding 9 or the city funding of the portion of the Haven 10 project and then request for reimbursement for 11 Measure I funds that went to vote last year and will 12 be disbursed beginning 2010 to 2040. 13 Q Are Measure I funds in part paying for 14 the Haven Grade Separation Project? 15 A They will, yes. 16 Q How much? 17 'A We have an agreement to be reimbursed 18 up to $13 million between the years 2010 and 2040. 19 Q What is the total cost of the project? 20 A At this point the estimate's for 2.1 construction, and the estimate has not been updated 22 in a couple of years or a year. Estimate is $15 23 million. 24 Q Other than the plans that you brought 25 with you and the documents we have marked as Exhibit Page 12 1 2, have you brought with you any other documents 2 responsive to any of categories I through 10 on pages 3 4 and 5 of Exhibit I? 4 A No. 5 Q Are you aware of the existence of any 6 documents that would be responsive to any of the 7 categories 1 through 10 of Exhibit 1 that have not 8 previously been produced in this litigation? 9 A No, I'm not 10 Q Do you know, what has been previously 11 produced in this litigation? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q How do you know,? 14 A I put it together for you. 15 Q Are there any documents which reflect 16 the current construction schedule for the project for 17 which the property is being taken requested in 18 category 5. 19 A No. 20 Q What is the current construction 21 schedule for the project? 22 A We expect to authorize for bid either 23 in September or October of 2007, and construction 24 should follow two months after that, either November 25 or December. Considering it's Christmas it may have Page 13 The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 1 to wait until January. 2 Q Best estimate, start of construction is 3 sometime between November 2007 and 2008? 4 A Yes. 5 Q How long will construction take until 6 completion? 7 A It's estimated to take 18 mouths. 8 Q Are there any right-of-way plans for 9 the project for which the property is being taken? 10 A There is not a specific right-of-way 11 plan. There is a legal and a plat. 12 Q What do you mean by a legal and a plat? 13 A The legal that was sent with the notice 14 of intent and the plat map that goes with that legal. 15 But there is no separate right-of-way map. 16 Q So there are a series of maps that were 17 sent with the various notices of resolutions of 18 necessity, is that it? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q For the various portions of the various 21 properties that are being taken; is that right? 22 A Yes. 23 Q But there is no single right-of-way 24 map? 25 A No. Page 14 1 Q Have you produced the legal maps for 2 the other properties other than the Hofer property? 3 For which any part is being taken? 4 A All of them were produced At the same 5 time. You mean to you? 6 Q Yes. 7 A In documents? Depending on how you 8 were requesting it. Ir you asked for all of them, I 9 did. I don't remember.' 10 MR. BURG: Those have not been produced. 11 Can we get those? 12 MS. BOWMAN: Sure. 13 MR BURG: I'd like to see the legal 14 descriptions and the plat maps that accompanied the 15 other resolutions of necessity. 16 THE WITNESS: Okay. 17 MS. BOWMAN: Did we produce the resolution of 18 necessity for each project? 19 THE WITNESS: I can't remember. I think in 20 one case they asked specifically relative to their 21 property. 22 MS. BOWMAN: I don't foresee that being an 23 issue. 24 And those would be the projects that 25 actually went to condemnation; correct? Page 15 1 MR- BURG: Well, that's a good point. I'm 2 trying to figure out the entire right-of-way that is 3 being taken for this project. 4 Q Some of them I imagine were required 5 without resolution of necessity; correct. 6 A I believe there were resolution on all 7 eight of them. 1 don't think we had gotten to the 8 point of settling yet. I think we presented for all 9 eight. 10 MR. BURG: If you produce copies of all the 11 resolutions of necessity putting them all together, I 12 will have the right-of-way maps for all the takes. 13 Q Are there any written cost estimate 14 studies that refer or relate to the project? 15 A We don't have a study. 16 Q Are there any written cost estimates? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Have they been produced? 19 A I can't remember. 20 Q Were there any contracts that refer or 21 relate to design or construction of the project? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Have they been produced? 24 A I don't remember. 25 Q I have reviewed the documents the city Page 16 1 produced, and we didr t get those. Asks for it in 2 category 9. 3 Will you produce them? 4 A Yeah — well... 5 MS. BOWMAN: I think that we did produce 6 them. 7 Q BY MR BURG: is there a contract with 8 URS? 9 A Yes. 10 MRBURG:Itwasn't produced. Okay. I 11 believe there were some contracts with regard to the 12 utility documents. 13 TIC WITNESS: Did you ask for something else? 14 MS. BOWMAN: Design or construction? 15 THE WITNESS: We don't have construction yet. 16 We have design contract 17 MS. BOWMAN: Okay. Then we can produce that. 18 Q BY MR. BURG: I want to discuss for a 19 moment the condition of Haven Avenue near the Hofer 20 property before this project is constructed. 21 First of all, has construction 22 commenced in any way? 23 A As far as the city contract, no. But 24 the utilities have begun. The Cucamonga Valley Water 25 District is almost completed with the relocation of Page 17 The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 5 (Pages 14 to 17) I their sewer line. And behind them we believe Horizon 2 is ready to start. And £malty Edison will follow. 3 Q Where is the sewer line being relocated 4 to? 5 A It's on the east side of the street 6 I'm not sure in which trade lane it is, but it's in 7 the street. It proceeds down the slope on the. east 8 side of the street and then realigns back down below 9 seventh. 10 Q Is any portion of the street closed at 11 this point? 12 A There are some lanes that am closed 13 currently, yes. 14 Q Before any lane closure of any utility 15 work started, Haven Avenue passed in front of the 16 Hofer property; correct? 17 A Yes, 18 Q Haven Avenue between Jersey on the 19 north and Humbolt on the south before project 20 construction commenced, Jersey intersected Haven on 21 its east side; right? 22 A ' Yes. 23 Q And Humbolt intersected on its west 24 side; right? 25 A Yes. Page 18 1 Q Before construction commences, how many 2 traveled lanes between Jersey and Humbolt was Haven 3 Avenue in both directions? 4 A Three southbound, three northbound. 5 Q Was there a median? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Was it landscaped? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Before construction commenced, was 10 Haven Avenue centered within the existing 11 right-of-way for the street? 12 MS. BOWMAN: Object. Vague as to center. 13 Do you understand the question? 14 THE WITNESS: I understand the question. 15 And from my knowledge of the street, I 16 believe it's slightly off center. 1 believe the 17 construction center line is not on the center of the 18 physical street. 19 Q BY MR BURG: What is a center line? 20 A Centerline? 21 Q Yes. What is a center line? 22 A A construction center line or an actual 23 centerline? 24 Q What is the difference? 25 A Okay. A construction center line may Page 19 6 (Pages 18 to 21) 1 be offset from what people would perceive as a visual 2 center of a street Center of the street, if the 3 right-of-way is 120 feet, that would be 60 feet from 4 the right-of-way line. 5 Q You say that the construction center 6 line is slightly off center. I'm not sure I got it 7 rip ht. 8 What is slightly off center from what? 9 A Tor some reason on some of the 10 documents there is an historical line marked 11 construction centerline, and it happens to be off 12 center, say, with the middle of the median. All of 13 our plans is designed around what is the apparent 14 center, being the center of the median, putting the 15 street half and half on either side. I'm not sure 16 historically why there is a different line on there. 17 Q Historic center lines of roadways 18 sometimes change as the road is widened over time; 19 right? 20 A Could be, uh-buh. 21 Q But before the project was built, the 22 existing, as you call it, visual center line of Haven 23 Avenue is in the middle of the median? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q Are there sidewalks on either side of Page 20 1 the sheet that is Haven between Humbolt and Jersey? 2 A No. 3 Q Are there sidewalks on one or the other 4 side of the street? 5 A No. 6 Q Are there any curbs and gutters on 7 either side of the street? 8 A I do not believe so, no. 9 Q Are there any bus stops on either side 10 of Haven between Jersey and Humbolt? 11 A There is no improved bus stops. I 12 couldn't tell you if there is a sign there or not 13 Q Are there any structures of any kind 14 located within the existing right-of-way between 15 Humbolt and Jersey? 16 A They have completely demolished 17 everything on the Hofer site, no. Only thing there 18 might be are Edison poles. 19 Q No bus shelters? 20 A No. No. I don't think so. 21 Q Do you know whatthe historic use of 22 the Hofer property was? 23 A It was a winery. 24 Q Do you know when it was last used as a 25 winery? Page 21 The Souza Group (925)846-8831 1 A No, I do not 2 Q How was the Hofer property accessed 3 before construction commenced? 4 MS. BOWMAN: Objection. Calls for 5 speculation. 6 Answer if you know. 7 THE WITNESS: There used to be an access 8 point off of Haven next to the Scale House. 9 Q BY MR. BURG: What do you mean by a 10 Scale House? 11 A There was a small historic building 12 that was referred to as the Scale House. 13 Q Was that access point from the property 14 to Haven roughly in the middle of its frontage? 15 A I don't remember. 16 MS. BOWMAN: Calling for speculation as far 17 as frontage. 18 Do you know what frontage means? 19 THE WITNESS: The part touching Haven? 20 Q BY MR BURG: Yes. Do you know where 21 that historic access point was? 22 A I couldn't say it was halfway. I know 23 it was south of Jersey. 24 Q Before construction of the Haven Avenue 25 Grade Separation Project commenced, the Hofer Page 22 1 property was at grade with Haven Avenue; correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Vehicles approaching the property from 4 the south and driving north on Haven could see the 5 property on their left? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Northbound vehicles approaching the 8 property from the south would cross the railroad 9 tracks at an at grade crossing; right? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Northbound vehicles at the railroad 12 tracks could see the Hofer property on their left; 13 true? 14 MS. BOWMAN: Pm going to object. Vague as 15 to see. 16 Answer if you understand the question. 17 Calling for a legal conclusion, but you can answer. 18 THE WITNESS: Say it again, please. 19 Q BY MR. BURG: Have you driven 20 northbound on Haven and crossed the at grade railroad 21 transaction? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And at that point if you look over to 24 your left, you can see the Hofer property; right? 25 A Yes. Page 23 1 Q Vehicles approaching the Hofer property 2 from the north and driving south on Haven Avenue can 3 see the Hofer property on their right; correct? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Before construction of the project 6 commenced, was there a signal at Jersey and haven? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And southbound vehicles stopped at that 9 signal could see the Hofer property off to the right? 10 A Yes. 11 Q There are no structures on the west 12 side of that that would interfere with the view of 13 the Hofer property for vehicles stopped at that 14 traffic light? 15 MS. BOWMAN: Objection. Calling for a legal 16 conclusion as to the interference of the view. 17 Answer if you understand. 18 And its calling for speculation. 19 Answer if you know. 20 THE WITNESS: There is nothing there but a 21 couple trees. 22 Q BY MR BURG: You yourself have driven 23 south on that and stopped at the Jersey signal; 24 right? 25 A Yes. Page 24 1 Q If you glance over to your right, you 2 can see the Hofer property; right? 3 A Ye& 4 Q Haven Avenue is presently at grade with 5 the Hofer property; true? 6 A Yes. 7 Q After the project, Haven Avenue will 6 pass under the railroad tracks; right? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q At its deepest point how far below the 11 present elevation of Haven will the lowered elevation 12 be? That's a bad question. 13 At its maximum what is the maximum 14 lowering of Haven Avenue? 15 A I'd have to look at the profile of the 3.6 planes. 17 Q rm going to hand you what we will mark 18 as Exhibit 3, which is a set of plans that you 19 brought with you today. 2.0 (Defendants' Exhibit 3 was marked 21 for identification by the reporter 22 and is included herewith.) 23 Q BY MR. BURG: Can you look at 24 Exhibit 3 and tell me what the maximum lowering of 25 .Haven Avenue would be? The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 Page 25 7 (Pages 22 to 25) I A Approximately 23 feet 2 Q What are you looking at? 3 A I'm looking at the lowest point and the 4 center line profile. 5 Q Can you identify the sheet or page 6 number? 7 A Sheet R-11. Sheet 13 of 123. 8 Q And then how did you determine the 23 9 feet approximately? 10 A Quickly referencing station 53/00, the 11 bottom low elevation of 1090,72. Moved over to the 12 profile with the top of curb should be on the west 13 side of the street where there is a reference to the 14 existing ground. Well, says over the center line. 15 So that would be immediately over the center line. 16 Move to the right of the page where it 17 has elevations and approximate between 1100 and 1105 18 and 1103 and take the difference between 1090 and 19 1103. I guess that's not quite. 20 Q Would the lowest point of Haven Avenue 21 be directly under the railroad bridge? 22 A Yes. Possibly not in the center. We'd 23 have to distinguish the lowest point of the curb. 24 There is a curb there. 25 Q Asa result of the project Haven Avenue Page 26 1 will dip down under to -be -constructed railroad 2 bridge; right? 3 A Yes. 4 Q If you can look at sheet or drawing R-7 5 at sheet 9 of 123 in Exhibit 3. 6 What does this sheet indicate? 7 MS. BOWMAN: Can I have a copy as well, Ed? 8 MR. BURG: I will give you the copy. 9 MS. BOWMAN: Thank you. 10 THE WITNESS: It's the layout of the 11 intersection of the street and railroad crossing. 12 Q BY MR. BURG: And the hash line 13 continues to the north on the next sheet, R-8; is 14 that right? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Now, on sheet R-7 then; is station 17 numbers that are indicated along the center line of 18 Haven Avenue. 19 Do you see that? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Beneath the railroad bridge is station 22 53 plus 00. 23 Do you see that? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And there are indicates station numbers Page 27 1 54 plus 00, et cetera 2 Do you see that? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q These are points that are 100 feet 5 apart on Haven Avenue; right? 6 A Yes, they are. 7 Q So the distance between station 54 plus 8 00 and 55 plus 00 would be 100 feet; right? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And references to station 54 plus 20, 11 for example, would be 20 feet north of station 54; is 12 that right? 13 A Yes. 14 Q On sheet R-7 there is a retaining wall 15 labeled retaining wall D that extends from it's 16 northerly most point is north of Humbolt Avenue. 17 Do you see that? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And there is another retaining wall B 20 to the east of that. 21 Do you see that? 22 A Yes. 23 You said retaining wall D, right, the 24 first one? 25 MS. BOWMAN: No. Retaining wall B. Page 28 1 MIL BURG: Wait. Lets go.back 2 Q You see retaining wall D? 3 A Yes. That one I see 4 Q And then? 5 A But retaining wall B is west of D. 6 Q Okay. You are correct. To the west of 7 retaining wall D is retaining wall B; right? 8 A Yes. 9 Q The Hofer property is on the west side 10 of Haven Avenue; true? 11 A Yes. 12 Q How high is retaining wall D? 13 A D? 14 Q Yes. 15 A Sheet S-230. It's labeled street 31, 16 but they don't have the total number of sheets on 17 there. 18 Q S-230 is retaining wall D; right? 19 A Uh-huh. 20 Q And what is the height of retaining 21 wall D? 22 A Height varies depending on the slope. 23 It's between eight feet at its highest point and six 24 feet, six to eight feet 25 Q }low high above finished grotutd surface Page 29 The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 B (Pages 26 to 29) 1 will retaining wall D be at its highest? 1 2 A D? Finish ground surface above that 2 3 wall, it's six or eight feet above the finished 3 4 grade. 4 5 Q Well, are you telling me that at its 5 6 highest -- okay, Let me be sure I understand that. 6 7 The maximum height above grade of 7 8 retaining wall D is six to eight feet? 8 9 A Uh-huh. 9 10 Q Yes? 10 11 A Yes. I'm sorry. 11 12 Q So the actual wall itself is higher, 12 13 some part of it is underground? 13 14 A Yeah. The footing is underground. The 14 15 finished grade comes along above, it's above the 15 16 footing. So the wall itself stands six to eight 16 17 feet 17 18 Q Above the finished surface? 18 19 A Right 19• 20 Q And what is the — 20 21 MS. BOWMAN: Just for clarification, above 21 22 the finished surface was at the new grade; is that 22 23 right? 23 24 THE WITNESS: Yeah, but we are somewhere in 24 25 the slope. So we are not necessarily at the curb. 25 Page 30 1 There is one wall somewhere in here that happens to I 1 2 stand six to eight feet high And you can see that 2 3 the variation actually occurs in the center of the 3 4 wall. 4 5 Q BY MIL BURG: You are looking at the 5 6 profile grade top of retaining wall on sheet S-230? 6 7 A Yes. 7 8 Q What does that depict? 8 9 A It depicts — okay. You can see it is 9 10 saying top of retaining wall, and then it shows the 10 11 top of the footing below it, and the footing jogs up 11 12 and down. 12 13 And then above that you can see there 13 14 is 48 feet of a six-foot high wall coming from the 14 15 south to the north. And then it transitions into an 15 16 eight -foot high wall, and then back into a six-foot 16 17 high wan as we start to catch the grade and the road 17 18 starts corning up from a depression. 18 19 Q From left to right on that profile 19 20 grade what direction is that? 20 21 A North. You see the stations just below 21 22 it? That will give you some reference. Those were 22 23 the same stations we were looking at previously. 23 24 Q Okay. 24 25 A Sol that wall is just right around 200 25 Page 31 feet long. Q There is a notation of FG at front of wall. Is that finished grade? A Yes. Q Looking back at sheet R-7, station 54 is within Humbolt Avenue. Do you see that? A Humbolt intersects near it, yes. Q And the southern border of the Hofer property is the northern side of Humbolt; correct? A I believe so. Q So that is approximately station, what is your best estimate? A If the fence line is the property line, I'd say it would be 54/30. Q 54 plus 30, approximately? A Maybe closer to 54/45. Q I'm just trying to get approximations here. Then the northern boundary of Hofer property would be on sheet R-8; is that right? A Yes. Q And that is approximately station? A I'd say, 61130. Page 32 Q Just so we have it clear for the reporter, when you say 61/30, it's 61 plus 30? A Yes, 61 plus 30. Q Now back to sheet S-230_ Then the station numbers that you drew my attention to below the profile grade are the Haven Avenue center line stations; right? A Yes. Q So that portion of the wall at its highest point above finished grade is approximately 54 plus 10? Am I reading that right? A It's tallest is in there, yes. Q Okay. And then the height of the top of the retaining wall to the finished grade at the front of the wall heading northerly descends; right? A Gets shorter, yeah. Q And the end of that wall, is that approximately station 55 plus 10? A Yes. Q How about retaining wall B, B as in boy? Where is the plan for that? A Should be a couple pages before. Q SheetS-228? A Yes. There it is. 228. Q This retaining wall Brans —how long Page 33 The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 9 (Pages 30 to 33) I is the retaining wall? 1 2 A Beginning at station 53/00 and runs to 2 3 or dies out at 56/50 plus or minus five. 3 4 Q Three hundred fifty feet? 4 5 A Yes. Slightly over 56150. 5 6 Q So we have a clearrecord, when we 6 7 refer to station numbers, can we say 56 plus 50? 7 8 Will show up better in the transcript. 8 9 A Yes. 56 plus 50. 9 10 Q And the profile at the top of retaining 10 11 wall B is located at the top of this sheet 5-228; 11 12 right? 12 13 A Yes. 13 14 Q The notation FG at back of wall is 14 15 finished grade at back of wall; true? 15 16 A Yes. 16 17 Q The notation FG at front wall is 17 18 finished grade at the front of the wall; right? 18 19 . A Yes. 19 20 Q What is the maximum height of retaining 20 21 wall B? 21 22 A Ten feet 22 23 Q And what is the maximum height above 23 24 finished grade at the front of the wall of retaining 24 25 wall B? 25 Page 34 1 A Ten feet. 2 Q Ultimately tapering down to zero? 3 A Well, no retaining but two feet 4 standing there. Looks like there is a little tag of 5 wall there. 6 Q Back to sheet R-7, there is a curb 7 shown at the intersection of Humbolt and Marine. 8 Do you see that? 9 A Yes. 10 Q As part of or as a result of the 11 project, will any portion of Humbolt Avenue be 12 vacated or abandoned? 13 A Not at this time, no. 14 Q On sheet R 8 shows a bus bay taper on 15 the west side of Haven Avenue. 16 Do you see that? 17 A Yes. 18 Q What is a bus bay taper? 19 A Is the transition of the curb line 20 either into or out of a bus bay. 21 Q What is a bus bay? 22 A A bus bay is an extra lane constructed 23 specifically for a bus to pull out and park while 24 passengers are unloaded or offloaded. 25 Q And how deep is the bus bay? Page 35 10 (Pages 34 to 37) A The bay itself is 10 feet. Q Behind that is an eight -foot sidewalk? A Yes. Q I mean west of when I say behind. Is that right? A Yes. Q The bus bay taper begins at station 59 plus 79, approximately; true? A Yes. Q On its south side; right? A Yes. Q And on its north side it begins at station 61 plus 99, approximately? A It transitions back into the curb, yes. Q So the total distance north to south of the bus bay taper is 220 feet? A Yes. 220 feet. Q Will there be any sort of structure placed within the bus bay? A No. Q Any sort of bus stop shelter? A Those typically occur on the private property when development occurs. Q As part of this project there is no bus shelter being constructed? Page 36 1 A The city does not construct or maintain 2 bus shoulders. 3 Q Is the curb line to be transitioned to 4 the west side of the bus bay? 5 MS. BOWMAN: Do you understand the question? 6 THE WITNESS: No. Say it again. 7 Q BY MR. BURG: There is a curb line 8 that is indicated on sheet R-8; is that right? 9 A Note 20 indicates a curb, yes. There 10 is a curb there that transitions for a bus bay, yes. 11 Q You see just south of station 58 plus 12 00 there is a 40-foot width indicated on Haven 13 Avenue? 14 A Yes. 15 Q That is 40 feet from the west side of 16 the median to what? .17 A To the west curb face. 18 Q So that double line is the curb face? 19 A Double line represents the curb, and 20 then two feet east of that would be the gutter. 21 Q So the westemmost line is the top of 22 curb? 23 A Yes. 24 Q The curb, then, as shown on sheet R-8 25 doesn't appear to dip where the bus bay is. The Souza Group (925)846-8831 Page 37 I Do you see that? 2 A A little gutter moves along and keeps 3 the flow away from the curb face through the bus bay. 4 Q Is the top of the curb in the bus bay 5 area considered the east side or west side of the bus 6 bay? 7 A It would be the west side. 8 Q Do you know where the nearest bus stop 9 is on the west side of Haven now? 10 A I do not know. 11 Q On sheet R-8 there is an indication top 12 of slope on the west side of Haven? 13 A Yes. 14 Q That is the indication of the top of 15 the slope that is being constructed as part of the 16 project; right? 17 A Yes. l8 Q And west of that ism indication R/W 19 which stands for right-of-way line; right? 20 A Yes, it does. 21 Q That is the right-of-way line including 22 the change that is as a result of this lawsuit; 23 right? 24 MS. BOWMAN: Vague and ambiguous as to 25 including the change? Page 38 1 Q BY MR. BURG: That is the after 2 project right-of-way, line? 3 A Yes. 4 MS. BOWMAN: Just for purposes of 5 clarification, that doesn't include the temporary 6 construction easement, does it? 7 THE WITNESS: No, does not. 8 Q BY MR. BURG: The temporary 9 construction easement is west of the right-of-way 10 line; right? 11 A The right-of-way line reflected here, 12 yes. 13 Q And that is indicated by notation TCE 14 between station - 15 A Oh, l see it, yes. 16 Q You see that? 17 A Yeah. 18 Q Now, that area where TCE notation is 19 clouded, do you see that? 20 A Yes. 21 Q What does that indicate? 22 A Says future construction. 23 Q Is there a reason why the area itself 24 is clouded? Does that indicate a revision on the 25 plan? Page 39 1 A Don't remember. Typically that would. 2 Q Do you know what future construction 3 means on sheet R-8 within the clouded area? 4 A No, I don't I'd have to go back and 5 ask. 6 Q We talked about the notation top of 7 slope on sheet R-8. 8 Is the bottom slope at the west side of 9 the sidewalk? 10 A There will be a little transition 11 around the sidewalk, but there will be a little bit 12 of slope between the sidewalk and the curb as well. 13 Q So the bottom of the slope may actually 14 proceed down to the curb line? 15 A Yes. 16 Q The sidewalk is somewhere then in the 17 middle of the slope? 18 A Yes. 19 Q The slope is within the right-of-way; 20 correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And the slope is at its highest point 23 on the southern border of the Hofer property? 24 MS. BOWMAN: Objection. Calling for 25 speculation, lacks foundation Page 40, 1 MR BURG: That was bad question. 2 Q Just talking about the slope on the 3 frontage of the Hofer property where it is bordered 4 by Haven Avenue, that slope is at its highest on the 5 southern boarder of the Hofer property; right? 6 MS. BOWMAN: Same problems. Calling for 7 speculation, lacks foundation 8 Answer if you can. 9 THE WITNESS: It's not the highest there. 10 Highest would actually be fronting or aside the 11 bridge which is south of Humbolt. 12 Q BY MR, BURG: That's why. I wanted to 13 limit it to the frontage on the Hofer property 14 itself. The Hofer property frontage on Haven will 15 have a slope down to the to be deep end Haven Avenue; 16 right? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And that slope will be highest at the 19 southern boarder of the Hofer property; right? 20 A As far as Mr. Hofer's property, it does 21 increase, and that is the highest piece of slope on 22 Mr. Hofer's property. 23 Q That's what l meant. Okay. 24 Then the slope will diminish until it 25 finally returns to existing grade as one heads north Page 41 The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 11 (Pages 38 to 41) I on Haven; is that right? 2 A Yes. 3 Q The line of the top of the slope as 4 indicated on sheet R-8 meets the sidewalk within the 5 bus bays; is that right? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Is that where the slope ends? 8 A That's where the most significant 9 portion ends. It could be fairly Bat south of there 10 still. 11 Q Well, there is still atop of slope 12 indicated in the plans until it dies in the sidewalk 13 in the bus bay, is that right? _ 14 A Yes. 15 Q Back toreference top of slope on 16 R-8 — let me do it this way. 17 The reference that I drew your 18 attention to earlier, the 40-foot width reference on 19 Haven Avenue between station 27 and 58, do you see 20 that? 21 A Yes. 22 Q if you proceed onto the Hofer 23 property, there is a partial fence line there. 24 Do you see that? 25 A Yes. Page 42 1 Q Andisthatwheretheentrytothe 2 Hofer property was before the project was built? 3 A I believe that's the main entrance, 4 yes. or was. 5 Q Is there a gate across that entrance, 6 or was there a gate across that entrance? 7 A There was. 8 Q That's where the gate was? 9 A I believe so. 10 Q After the project is built, the Hofer 11 property cannot access Haven at the same point 12 because it will be on a slope; right? 13 A We'd have to look at the profiles, 14 but— it's physically accessible. They'd have to 15 propose a driveway how they wanted to access it 16 through the slope, and it would probably be something 17 to be determined how steep, you know, the driveway 18 has a steepness that you'd want a maximum, minimum, 19 whatever, to best suitthe site, but they would have 2 0 to decide what location would be best for them. 21 Q The slope at the indicated gate for the 22 Hofer property is how high? 23 A The sections would give me a clearer 24 picture. They are not here. 25 Q rm going to hand you what we will mark Page 43 12 (Pages 42 to 45) 1 next in order as Exhibit 4, and this is an excerpt 2 from the plans that were produced to us with the 3 city's production of documents. 4 (Defendants' Exhibit 4 was marked 5 for identification by the reporter 6 and is included herewith.) 7 Q BY MR BURG: Are these the cross 8 sections? 9 A Yes. 10 Q By looking at Exhibit 4, can you tell 11 me how high the slope is at the previously existing 12 gate to the Hofer property9 13 A Station 58 being at or near the center 14 of the previously existing gate. There is a 12-toot 15 rise in grade from the curb — excuse me, it's closer 16 to 11. Looks like it's between 20 and 30 feet to the 17 west of the current or proposed property line of the 18 ultimate right-of-way. 19 Q What is the slope of the slope to be 20 constructed by the city? 21 A Through this area it's a three-to-oue 22 slope. Doesn't have a percent on it 23 Q Is it a three -to -one slope throughout 24 the dip under the tracks? 25 A It becomes more steep near the tracks. Page 44I 1 It becomes two -to -one. 2 Q Where is that transition point? 3 A Station 56 still appears to be 4 three-to-oum At 55 it looks steeper. There are 5 some steeper grades at 54. 6 Q Somewhere between 55 and 56? 7 A. Yeah. But the. steepest is right up 8 against the tracks. We try to keep the retaining 9 walls to help us maintain threc-to-one so that we can 10 have maintenance within our landscaped area. 11 ' Q What do you mean by maintenance within 12 the landscaped area? 13 A Maintenance personnel accessing it 14 Q A three-to-oneslope is three 15 horizontal to one vertical? 16 A Yes. 17 MS. BOWMAN: Can we have like a five-minute 18 break? 19 MR. BURG: Sure. 20 (Recess.) 21 MR. BURG: Back on the record. 22 Q Is Exhibit 4 the most recent cross 23 sections? 24 A I couldn't say. They may have done -- 25 my understanding was the engineer did some Page 45 The Sou7a Group (925)846-8831 I adjustments to the profile, which surprised us. 2 That's why I wanted to bring the latest set of plans, 3 and 1 was surprised to not find the cross sections at 4 the back But we had used them for SCRRA. There was 5 no need to reference the cross sections. 6 Q What is your understanding of what 7 changes were made to the projea? 8 A He adjusted the profile, and I can't 9 remember off the top of my head if it was higher or 10 lower. It's close, but he had to make some 11 adjustments. 12 Q What do you mean by adjusted the 13 profile? 14 A Change it 15 Q What does it mean? Changed what? 16 A He changed the vertical elevation of 17 the street, and I don't know whether he went up or 18 down and slight or not or if it was to miss a 19 utility. I can't remember why he did it But we 20 staff at the city were surprised, and we have been 21 trying to follow up on that That's why I knew these 22 plans were more recent 23 Q Is the change in profile throughout the 24 entire length ofthe project? 25 A I'd have to go back and look. Page 46 1 Q If you can look at drawing R-3 sheet 2 5123 in Exhibit 3. 3 What is this sheet of? 4 A Typical smtious. 5 Q What are typical sections? 6 A They show you what the cross section of 7 the street would look like typically throughout the 8 project 9 Q Sheet R 7 shows the SCRRA siding tack. 10 Do you see that?' 11 A Yes. 12 Q What do the letters stand for? 13 A Southern California Regional Rail 14 Authority. 15 Q What is the siding track? 16 A It's a second track that they have. 17 Q And to the north of that is the main 18 line track? 19 A Yes. 20 Q What is the difference between those 21 two? 22 A The main line track is where the 23 majority of the trains traverse the area. The side 24 track, I'm not sure what their use of that is. 25 Q What is a shoofly track? Page 47 1 A Is it here? I don't see on here, but a 2 shoofly track would be a track to go around the 3 construction. 4 Q There will be a landscaped median in 5 the center of Haven Avenue after the project is 6 constructed; correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And front of the Hofer property, that 9 will extend from beyond its southern boundary until 10 it tapers for the left turn lane at Jersey Boulevard; 11 is that right? 12 A The median? 13 Q Yes. 14 A Yeah. There will he median all the way 15 from the tracks all the way to Jersey. 16 Q What is drive A on sheet R-8? 17 A Drive A reflects a cul-de-sac. 18 Q What is the purpose of drive A? 19 A Drive A was to provide signalized' 20 access to the Hofer parcel. 21 Q Who will own drive A? 22 A The city. 23 Q Will the city maintain it? 24 A Yes. 25 Q What happens to the land between drive Page 48 1 A and Haven Avenue? 2 A This point it's:just reflected as open 3 area. 4 Q Who will own it? 5 A Right now the city. 6 Q According to the plan sheet R-8 a wood 7 barricade will be placed across drive A; is that 8 right? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Why? 11. A The city has prepared drawings and 12 plans for the construction of the cul-de-sac, but it 13 may not be the mostbeneficial to the two properties 14 when they develop. And so we made the consideration 15 to take the right-of-way and potential to construct 16 the street but left that open for development to 17 derive the best alternative for their purposes. is Q Willa driveway be constructed as part 19 of the project? 20 A No, it will not 21 Q Where on the plans does it reflect 22 that? 23 A I think that's something to do with the 24 future construction I'm just surprised that the 25 bubble went as far as it did. The Souza Group (925)846-8831 Page 49 13 (Pages 46 to 49) I Q What part, if any, of drive A is being 1 property on the east side of the street. 2 constructed as part of the project? 2. Do you see that? 3 A The returns at the intersection, 3 A Yes. 4 handicapped access ramps, and the street up to the 4 Q Do you have a name by which you refer 5 barricade. The signals will be modified. 5 to that property? 6 Q So after the project is constructed,' 6 A. The Rock Jersey property. 7 will the left-hand.. turn lane from northbound Haven be 7 Q Sorry? 8 allowed to make the left turn into drive A? 8. A Rock Jersey. 9 A Not until development extends the 9 Q Who owns that property ifyou know? 10 street 10 A Rockefeller. I'm not sure of the whole 11 Q So what will happen to the left-hand 11 name of the company. 12 turn lane? 12 Q The driveway shown on the east side of 13 A Currently it will be —well, depends 13 Haven Avenue will access the Rock Jersey property 14 what the traffic engineer requires. Typically they 14 directly from Haven Avenue; correct? 15 would mark it out, and it would stay as it is now. 15 A Yes. 16 It would be constructed, but no one would use it 16 Q That was a change to the project? 17 Q So after the project is constructed, 17 A Yes. 18 vehicles will not be able to access the Hofer 18 Q Who suggested that change? 19 property through drive A; right? 19 A In negotiations we came up with that 20 A No. 20 change. 21 Q My question wasp t clear. 21 Q Negotiations between whom and whom? 22 After the project is constructed, 22 A The city and Rock Jersey. 23 vehicles will not be able to access -- let me ask it 23 Q Did you participate in. those 24 this way. 24 negotiations? 25 After the project is constructed, will 25 A Yes. Page 50 Page 52 1 vehicles be able to access the Hofer property through 2 drive A? 3 MS. BOWMAN: Objection as calling for 4 speculation. 5 Is this just a paper barrier? 6 THE WITNESS: That's a barrier.' 7 MS. BOWMAN: Okay. So Igums if you 8 understand the question. 9 THE WITNESS: No. No. Okay. 10 Q BY MR. BURG: So vehicles, for 11. example, heading southbound on Jersey ,Boulevard would 12 not be able to cross Haven Avenue and enter the Hofer 13 property; true? 14 A Westbound on Jersey? 15 Q Yes. Westbound on Jersey. 16 A Yeah. They would have to turn left. 17 Q So after the city's construction of the 18 project is completed, there will be a wood barrier 19 across drive A; correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And there will be no construction west 22 of that wood barrier; correct? 23 A Yes. 24 Q On sheet R-8 on the cast side of the 25 street there is a driveway indicated to access the Page"51 14 (Pages 50 to 53) 1 Q Who else for the city? 2 A My assistant, Curt Billiugs. 3 Q Anybody else? 4 A One of our staff planners. 5 Q Who is that? 6 A I'm not confident of which person 7 participated. 8 Q Anybodyelse? 9 A No. Those were the most closely 10 involved. 11 Q Who did you negotiate with for the 12 Rockefeller? 13 A I believe it was their developer, and 14 his name was Rick Dalton. Also a gentleman from Rock 15 Jersey, and I can't remember his name off the top of 16 my head. 17 Q Why was the driveway entrance to the 18 Rock Jersey property placed where it was? 19 A It provided sufficient distance between 20 the signalized intersection and its proposed 21 location, and it allowed reasonableaccess to the 22 sites 23 Q What do you mean by reasonable access? 24 A The vertical differential was not so 25 extreme. The Souza Group (925)846-8831 Page 53 I Q What do you mean by the vertical 2 difference? 3 MS. BOWMAN: Differential. 4 MR. BURG: Diflerental. 5 THE WITNESS: They could put a driveway in 6 easily there. 7 Q BY MR, BURG: Opposite that location 8 on the Hofer side of the property it's opposite the 9 bus bay; is that right? 10 A Correct 11 Q The driveway to the Rock Jersey 12 property is to be 35 feet wide; is that right? 13 A Yes. 14 Q What is the minimum required distance 15 between the Jersey Boulevard intersection and the 16 driveway entrance to Rock Jersey? 17 A Typically we would request 250 feet 18 unless approved by the city traffic engineer and city 19 engineer. 20 Q What is the distance here? 21 A Roughly to the center about 250. 22 Q What is located on the Rock Jersey 23 property? 24 A It's currently vacant 25 Q Did it have direct access to Haven Page 54 1 Avenue before the project was constructed? 2 A It was similar in grade and look to the 3 Hofer parcel. 4 Q Was there any enhance that was used? 5 A No_ There was no defined entrance. 6 Q Was there a gate through which access 7 was provided to the Rock Jersey property as there was 8 in the Hofer property? 9 A No. There was no fence or gate. 10 Q Is some development proposed for the 11 Rock Jersey property? 12 A Yes. 13 Q What is it? 14 A They have three or four two-story 15 office buildings proposed. It's a parcel map. 16 Q The Rock Jersey property prior to 17 construction of the project also had access from 18 Jersey Boulevard; is that right? 19 A Yes. 20 Q After the project, will it have access 21 to Haven at any other location other than the shown 22 driveway at R-8? 23 A No. 24 Q The temporary construction easement on 25 the Hofer property is for a period of two years; is Page 55 1 that right? 2 A Yes. 3 Q It began when the city took possession 4 of the property? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And it will end two years from that 7 date, is that right? 8 A Yes. 9 Q The temporary construction easement is 10 needed for a detour road for Haven Avenue; is that 11 right? 12 A Yes. 13 Q How long will the detour road be in 14 use? 15 A For the entire length of the 16 construction. 17 Q Eighteen months minimum? 18 A Yes. 19 Q What is your best estimate of how long 20 it will be in use? 21 MS. BOWMAN: Objection. Asked and answered. 22 THE WITNESS: It will be 18 months from the 23 time we break ground. 2.4 Q BY MR. BURG: Okay. I asked you was 25 it 18 months minimum, and you said yes. Page 56 1 Is 18 months your best estimate? 2 A Well, yeah at this point it's the best 3 estimate, yes. 4 Q When will use of the detour road on the 5 Hofer property begin? 6 A Estimate start of construction is 7 November or December of this year 2007. 8 Q November'07 through January 08? 9 A Yeah. Somewhere in there, yeah. 10 Q If you can look at drawing R-11 on 11 Exhibit 3. 12 What is depicted on this sheet which is 13 sheet 13? 14 A Profile elevations. 15 Q What does that mean? 16 A A vertical elevation of the street at 17 any horizontal location. 18 Q There are five different profiles 19 indicated on this sheet; is that right? 20 A Yes. 21 Q What is the top profile? 22 A Top profile is the left top of curb. 23 Q Left top of curb would be the west side 24 of Haven? 25 A Yes. The Souza Group (925)846-8831 Page 57 15 (Pages 54 to 57) 1 Q The next profile is what? 2 A The left top of the median curb. So 3 the westerly median curb. 4 Q Then there is the center line of the 5 street; right? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Then the right top of the median curb 8 which would be its east side; right? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And then finally the right top of curb 11 which would be the east side of Aaven Avenue? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Are these the profiles that somehow 14 changed recently? 15 A Yes, I believe so. 16 Q Do you know what the changes were? 17 A I do not know. I. don't remember why 18 they were changed. The consultant changed them 19 himself. 20 Q The elevations that are listed here, 21 are these feet? 22 A They are vertical feetabove sea level, 23 yes. 24 Q The next sheet, which is drawing R-12, 25 depicts the same five profiles proceeding northerly? Page 58 1 A Yes. 2 Q For the center line profile to be 3 constructed on Haven Avenue it reaches the existing 4 ground at approximately station 61 plus 20; is that 5 right7 6 A It's perfectly flat through there, 7 yeah. 8 Q I'm sorry? 9 A It is perfectly flat, yeah. Matches 10 completely. 11 Q In other words, that's where — 12 A Zeros. 13 Q That's where the — 14 A Proposed line meets the existing 15 .ground, right. 16 Q So south of that point, south of 61.20 17 is where from the existing elevation Haven Avenue 18 starts to dip down; right? - 19 A Yes. 20 Q And it dips down and is its lowest at 21 approximately station 52 plus So? 22 A That would be a good estimation. 23 Q South of that, then, it begins to 24 ascend again? 25 A Yes. Page 59 1 Q The profile for the left median top of 2 curb at sheet R-12 has a gap in it. 3 Do you see that? 4 A Between station 62/15 and 63 plus 29? 5 Q Right. Is that where the left turn for 6 driveway A would be? 7 A That's the intersection, yes. 8 Q The Jersey Avenue intersection? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Drawing R-18 are removal notes; right? 11 A Yes, 12 Q What does that mean? 13 A Where street or structures will be 14 removed to make way for the project. 15 Q Does the depiction, then, on sheet R-18 16 depict existing pre project conditions? 17 A Yes. 18 Q That continues on drawing R-19, the 19 nextpage, sheet 21; right? 20 A Yes. 21 Q There is a fence shown on sheets R-18 22 and R-19 at the front of the Hofer property. 23 Do you see that? 24 A Front meaning street frontage? 25 Q Yes. Page 60 1 A Yes. 2 Q That's a fence that exists now 3 That's a bad question. We don't know 4 abouttoday. 5 That's a fence that existed before the 6 project? 7 A Yes. 8 MS. BOWMAN: Is it depicted as little "x"? 9 THE WITNESS: Yeah- 10 Q BY MR BURG: That is across the 11 entire Haven frontage of the Hofer property? 12 A Yes. 13 Q That chain -linked fence will be removed 14 as part of the project; correct? 15 A It is intended to be so. 16 Q Also a ebain-linked fence shown on the 17 Humbolt side of the Hofer property. 18 Do you see that? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And that chain -linked fence also will 21 be removed back to the — 22 A The shadowed area. 23 Q Back to the temporary construction 24 easement? 25 A Yes. Page 61 The Souza Group (925)846-8831 16 (Pages 58 to 61) I Q Looking at drawing R-19, the 2 right-of-way line after the project is depicted on 3 the Hofer property; correct? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And the right-of-way line actually 6 crosses the fence at some point and joins the 7 existing right-of-way line wltich is west of the 8 fence? 9 A Which one? 10 Q Let me ask it again. 11 The right-of-way line crosses the pre 12 project chain link fence; right? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And the right-of-way line is then 15 located east of the location of the chain -linked 16 fence? 17 A Yes. 18 Q The right-of-way line tapers back from 19 the existing right-of-way line; true? 20 MS. BOWMAN: Do you understand the question? 21 THE WITNESS: No. Too many lines. It's a 22 little confused there. 23 Q BY MR- BURG: Okay. The right-of-way 24 line crosses the chain -linked fence, we said that; 25 right? Page 62 1 A The ultimate right-of-way line crosses 2 the chain -linked fence, right 3 Q When you say the ultimate right-of-way 4 line, that's the right-of-way line after the taking 5 in this lawsuit; right? 6 A The permanent taking, yes. 7 Q And that right-of-way line is at an 8 angle from the existing pre project right-of-way 9 line; correct? 10 A Yes. 11 Q It begins to head southwesterly from 12 the existing right-of-way line; is that right? 13 MS. BOWMAN: That is still vague. 14 Do you understand what he means? 15 THE WITNESS: Okay. Roughly at station 60 16 and depending on stations, it does head 17 southwesterly. 18 Q BY MR. BURG: And from station 60 19 northerly to the northerly end of the Hofer property 20 the ultimate. right-of-way line will be the same as 21 the pre project right-of-way lime was; true? 22 A I believe so. It doesn't reflect it as 23 an existing right-of-way. 24 Q Hand you a copy of whatwe will mark as 25 Exhibit 5, which is a copy of the complaint in this Page 63 1 action. 2 (Defendants' Exhibit 5 was marked 3 for identification by the reporter 4 and is included herewith.) ' 5 Q BY MR. BURG: I want to direct you to 6 the resolution of necessity which is attached as 7 Exhibit I to the complaint, and, specifically, 8 Exhibit A is the legal description of the area taken 9 for the ultimate right-of-way line; right? 10 A Yes. 1.1 Q On sheet R-19 in the area north of 12 station 60 the existing width of the right-of-way 13 from the center of Haven Avenue is 67 feet; is that 14 right? 15 A We are referencing the street drawing? 16 Q Yes. 17 A Yes. 18 Q That. is the distance between the center 19 of Haven Avenue and the east side of the Hofer 20 property? 21 A Yes. 22 Q When the project is completed, will the 23 center line of Haven Avenue be in the same east -west 24 location as it is now? 25 A Yes. But what we spoke of earlier Page 64 1 construction center line, apparent center line, 2 that's what is depicted in the plat So this will be 3 in the same place. The center line of construction 4 of current day construction will be in the same 5 place. 6 Q So the center line of Haven Avenue 7 before the project is going to be the same as the 8 center line of Haven Avenue after the project? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Tum back to sheet R-3. The third 11 section down depicts Haven Avenue, and there is a 12 notation on the west side of Haven Avenue to section 13 line. 14 Do you see that? 15 A Yes. 16 Q What is a section line? 17 A Section line is a survey term of the 18 original sectioning of the county by the government 19 Q . If you look at the complaint Exhibit 5 20 and Exhibit page 7 of 12 of the resolution of 21 necessity that is a map that is Exhibit B. 22 Do you see that? 23 A Yes. 24 Q There is a line between section I and 25 12. The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 Page 6 17 (Pages 62 to 65) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Do you see that? A Yes, I do. Q Is that section line the section line that is depicted on the sheet or drawing R-3 as section line? A Yes, it is. Q So the pre project right -of. --way on the Hofer property was 33.feet from the section line; is that right? A Yes. That's according to the Psomas drawing. Q And the section line before the project was 34 feet from the Haven Avenue center line? A Yes. Q So before the project was constructed, the right-of-way on the east side of the Hofer property was 67 feet from the center line of Haven Avenue? A Yes. Q And at its widest the additional right-of-way take from the Hofer property is 34.3 feet wide; is that right? A The permanent take is, yes. Q At its widest? A Yes. Page 66 Q So at its widest after the project is constructed, the right-of-way will be 67 feet plus 34.3 feet or 101.3 feet at its widest? A Yes. Q After the project is constructed in front of the Hofer property, Haven Avenue will be 94 feet curb to curb? A Haven itself just the one side? Q Haven itself will be 40 feet on either side of a 14-feet median; right? A Right. Q Curb to curb Haven will be 94 feet? A That's correct MS. BOWMAN: As depicted on this. THE WITNESS: Section, yeah. MS. BOWMAN: How much longer because its past lunchtime? MR. BURG: Let me conclude this section, and then well talk about it. MS. BOWMAN: Approximately how long? MR. BURG: Five minutes. MS. BOWMAN: Okay. Q BY MR. BURG: The total right-of-way for Haven Avenue before the project was constructed way 134 feet as depicted on page 8 of 12 of the Page 67 1 complaint? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Do you know how wide was the ultimate 4 planned right-of-way for Haven Avenue in sub area 6? 5 A I don't know that sub area 6 references 6 it I'm not that familiar. 7 Q Do you know whether the ultimate 8 planned right-of-way for Haven. Avenue in front of the 9 Hofer property was more or less than 134 feet? 10 A No. 11 MS. BOWMAN: What are we talking about in 12 terms of ultimate right-of-way? Are we saying in the 13 after condition after the project is completed? 14 Q BY MR BURG: The right-of-way that is 15 called for in the sub area 6 plans of the city, do 16 you know if it was more or less than 134 feet? 17 A It calls for a major divided road which 18 typically has 120-foot right-of-way to right-of-way 19 with a median, three lanes, and parkways: 20 But in the case or the railroad 21 right-of-way and the depression required to build the 22 grade separation, it's understood there is going to 23 be a slope setback and that would be a variance to 24 the standard 120 feet So there was no definitive 25 number until the. design was produced Page 68 1 Q By that you mean that due to the dip of 2 Haven Avenue below the tracks, the right-of-way after 3 the project is constructed will be more than 120 4 feet? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And it was more than 120 feet before 7 the project; right? 8 A Yes. 9 Q It will be more than 130 feet after the 10 project? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Is the right-of-way taking symmetric on 13 both sides of Haven Avenue; that is, the take from 14 the Rock Jersey property similar to the take from the 15 Hofer property? 16 A No. 17 Q How does it differ? 18 A It's narrower on the Hofer property. 19 It's wider on the Rock Jersey property. 20 Q Do you know what it is at its widest? 21 A On the Rock Jersey? 22 Q Yes. 23 A I'd have to reference the — it might 2 4 be on here. 25 Looks like it's 68 feet more or less. Page 69 The Souza Group (925)846-8831 18 (Pages 66 to 69) I That must be at the street side. 1 Q Okay. off the record. 2 At 53/50 it's reflected at 133 feet 2 (At 12:30 p.m. a recess was taken 3 east of the center line on the Rock.lersey side. 3 until 1:15 p.m. of the same day.) 4 Q And you are looking at what? 4 5 A The cross sections Exhibit 4 sheet 8 of 5 6 123. You can see it changes at 53100 or actually at 6 7 the bridge. And 53/50 it increases significantly 7 8 roughly to the 133 feet from the center line. There 8 9 were no structures at the time the project began to 9 10 preserve. So we went ahead and laid the entire 10 11 street back within that and had a larger taking on 11 12 that side of the street. 12 13 Q We discussed earlier at the maximum 1.3 14 width on the Hofer property is 34.3 feet; right? 14 15 A After the taking, yes. 15 16 Q Do you know what the maximum width 16 17 of— 17 18 A Not off the top of my bead. 18 19 Q You anticipated where I was going. Let 19 20 me ask the question. 20 21 Do you know what the maximum width is 21 22 on the Rock Jersey property? 22 23 A I'm sorry. No. I'd have to reference 23 24 their document. 24 25 Q If the project had never been built, 25 Page 70 Page 72 1 would the owner of the Hofer property have been 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 required to dedicate any additional right -of --way for 2 1:15 P.M. 3 .Haven Avenue beyond the existing 134 right-of-way? 3 4 MS. BOWMAN: That is calling for speculation, 4 MARIA EMILY PEREZ, 5 and it may be beyond the scope of her knowledge. 5 the witness testifying at the time of recess, 6 But if you understand the question, you 6 having previously been sworn, was examined and 7 may answer. 7 testified further as follows: 8 THE WITNESS: I would only have been able to 8 9 know if I was in the process of the development of 9 EXAMINATION (Resumed) 10 the property. I don't know off the top of my head 10 BY MR. BURG: 11 whether they are fully dedicated or not. 11 Q , Ms. Perez, if you could look at plans 12 Q BY MR. BURG: What do you mean by 12 Exhibit 3 drawing U-3, which is sheet 28. 13 "fully dedicated"? 13 These are part of the utility plans for 14 A. Fully dedicated meaning that they had 14 the area which includes the southern part of the 15 sufficient right-of-way to provide for the three 15 frontage of the Hofer property; correct? 16 lanes southbound as well as their half of the median, 16 A Yes_ 17 their portion of the parkway and any right -turn lane 17 Q And it continues northerly on the next 18 that might be needed toaccess their site. I would 18 sheet, sheet 29. 19 have bad to have done that as one of our land 19 In the right-of-way within the front of 20 development engineers reviewing their site as they 20 the Hofer property there will be telephone line; 21 submit. 21 true? 22 Q So you don't know whether the owner of 22 A Yes. 23 the Hofer property or whether the Hofer property was 23 Q And gas I ine; right? 24 fully dedicated, as you pill it, or not? 24 A Yes. 25 A No, Idon't. 25 Q Electric from Southern California Page 71 Page 73 The Souza Group (925)846-8831. 19 (Pages 70 to 73) I Edison? 1 phase one of construction? 2 A Yes. 2 A Stage one, phase one reflects the 3 Q And water from Cucamonga Water 3 construction of the temporary pavement on the detour 4 District? 4 road. It reflects the area of the shoofly for the 5 A Yes. 5 temporary railroad tracks and then the street tying 6 Q The sewer is being placed in the middle 6 in on both north and south side of Haven. 7 of Haven Avenue; is that right? 7 Q During construction the Haven Avenue 8 A This may not reflect their ultimate 8 detour will run over the portion of the Hofer 9 alignment, but it is reflected on there. It does tie 9 property, is that right? 10 in and go into the slope on the east side. So this 10 A Yes. 11 does not have their last alignment. 11 Q So during stage one, phase one is the 12 Q Can you explain that? 12 detour route actually in use or is it just being 13 A CV WD in the last three, four months 13 constructed? 14 rapidly put out a set of plans and placed under 14 A It's being constructed. 15 construction their related sewer line, and the sewer 15 Q The next page, drawing SC-2, this is 16 line is being completed right now, the portion south 16 stage one, phase two; right? 17 of Jerseyis within the Rock — well, the taking of 17 A Yes. 18 Rock Jersey or what we have negotiated with the Rock 18 Q Can you tell me generally what is 19 Jersey. 19 happening at this stage and phase of construction? 20 So it intersects what is reflected as 20 A The intersection of Jersey and Haven 21 the sewer on the north side of the Jersey 21 has been pushed to the northwest slightly, and 22 intersection. There is a tic -in. And then it ties 22 traffic is on the temporary road as well as rail 23 in and moves to the east, proceeds down and then 23 traffic on the temporary rails. 24 trusses into the Jersey or onto the Rock Jersey 24 Q From the detour road over the Hofer 25 parcel. The purpose of that is so it can skoocb by 25 property there will be an entrance off that detour Page 74 Page 76 1 the bridge structure as it reaches the railroad 2 tracks. 3 Q So the sewer is actually being laid on 4 the east side of the street rather than in the middle 5 of the street? 6 A Yeah That is to prevent any 7 disruption in the service. 8 Q If you could turnto sheet 33 which is 9 drawing SC-1, this is the beginning of the 10 construction staging plans; is that right? 11 A Yes. 12 Q What do the construction staging plans 13 show in general? 14 A Show the phasing construction of all of 15 the improvements, what will be necessary. Some 16 pieces may be necessary at a temporary connection or 17 alignment before the ultimate construction occurs. 18 Q This includes rerouting of traffic 19 during construction? 20 A Yes, 21 Q The first page SC-1 indicates 22 construction staging for stage one, phase one. 23 Do you see that? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And what is happening in stage one, Page 75 i road into the Hofer property, is that right? 2 A It's appearing that they can access at 3 that point, yes. 4 Q And is that roughly in the same 5 location in a north or south direction as was the 6 previous access to the property? 7 A Yee. 8 Q Next page SC-3 is stage two, phase one. 9 It is in this stage that the underpass 10 is actually being constructed; is that right? 11 A Yes. The grading is occurring. The 12 major portion of the excavation. 13 Q Next drawing SC-4 is stage two, phase 14 two. 15 What is going on in this stage and 16 phase of construction? 17 A Looks like they are making the final 18 connections for the rails to switch back and they are 19 meeting the grading on the north side of the bridge 20 there. That's the excavation on that piece. 21 Q The next sheet SC-5 is stage three. 22 What happens during stage three of 23 construction? 24 A They are removing the temporary road, 25 replacement intersection or relocating intersection Page 77 The Sousa Group (925)846-8831 20 (Pages 74 to 77) 1 of Jersey and Haven back to its original location as 2 well as tying the road back in. 3 Q How long is stage one, phase one 4 expected to last? 5 A We don't have the construction schedule 6 laid out. 7 Q So you can't break down any of the 8 stages or phases other than the -- 9 A No. 10 Q — approximate 18-month estimate you 11 gave me earlier? 12 A Right No. We haven't sat and 13 discussed that yet 14 Q If you could look at drawing TH-3, 15 which is sheet 40 in Exhibit 3. 16 That is the traffic handling plan for 17 stage one, phase two and stage two; right? 18 A Yes. 19 Q This shows. the traffic using the detour 20 road that is to be constructed across the Hofer 21 property; right? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And the Hofer property will have a 24 right in right out access? 25 A Yes. Page 78 1 Q If you can look at drawing SS-3 which 2 is sheet 50. 3 What is reflected on this sheet? 4 A The signing and striping for Haven 5 Avenue within those stations as well as the Eighth 6 Street and the knuckle, the temporary ultimately 7 depot drive, the knuckle of Humbolt and Marine. 8 Q You say striping and signing. 9 This is the way the lines will be 10 painted on the street? 11 A Yes. And the signs posted in the 12 right-of-way, traffic control signs. 13 Q Where is the signage indicated? 14 A No. 5 says, "Install sign on post or 15 street line as shown." Then a couple of them on the 16 sheet itself it says "R-26." That typically would be 17 a no stopping or no parking. 18 Some of the other ones, there is a W-16 19 in a knuckle on Eighth Street, for example, and those 20 reference the particular type of signs after the 21 squared construction. 22 Q What is the type of sign reference to? 23 MS. BOWMAN: That's vague. 24 Q BY MR. BURG: When you refer to like 25 R-26, is R-26 somewhere in the plans here, or is that Page 79 1 part of the city standard: 2 A That's actually traffic standard. 3 There is the Watch Control manual that an engineer 4 can look up what an R-26 is or — a stop sign has a 5 particular number. A no stopping or no parking sign 6 has another number. A merge right has another 7 number. Each one has its own specific number. 8 Q The sidewalk that is to be installed 9 along the Hofer property frontage with Haven is 10 indicated on the signing and striping plans as well; 11 right? 12 A Yes. 13 Q if you could look at drawing S-201. 14 This sheet depicts the railroad bridge; 15 is that right? 16 A Yes. 17 Q The plan view at the bottom is 18 essentially the view looking down from overhead onto 19 the railroad bridge? 20 A Yes. 21 Q With Haven Avenue going below it; 22 right? 23 A Yes. 24 Q On the west side then north of the 25 railroad bridge would be the area where the Hofer Page 80 1 property is; is that right? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And that area depicts retaining walls B 4 and D or a portion of them that we looked at earlier; 5 right? 6 A Yes. 7 Q So in this area the Hofer property the 8 top of the slope begins below retaining wall B; is 9 that right? 10 A I'm sorry, say that again. 11 Q The top of the slope begins on the 12 downslope side of retaining wall B? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And is that a two -to -one slope down to 15 the retaining wall D? 1.6 A As reflected on the section they vary. 1 I In most extreme case that would be. Closer to the 18 bridge they are. 19 Q Then there is retaining wall D as 20 indicated; right? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And then the downslope side retaining 23 wall D, there is more slope down to the sidewalk; 24 right? 25 A Yes. The Souza Group (925)846-8831 Page 81 21 (Pages 78 to 81) 1 Q And then downslope of the sidewalk 2 there is more slope down to the top of the curb; 3 right? 4 A Yes. 5 Q On the profile grade at the top there 6 is an indication of abut one, bent two through four, 7 and abut five. 8 Do you see those? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Starting with the abut one or abut 11 five, what are those? 12 A Abut, that is part of the structure of 13 the bridge. The bridge abutment where it ducks into 14 the slope. And bent is the name of the column in a �15 bridge structure. 16 Q So there will be three columns in this 17 bridge structure? 18 A Yes. 19 Q One in the middle on the center line of 20 Haven Avenue; right? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And then one on either side of the 23 street; right? 24 A Uh-huh. Behind the curbs, yes. 25 Q Direct you to sheet Ira, landscape Page 82 1 plans. 2 You see the landscaping plan for the 3 portion of Haven Avenue; right? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Are there Haven Avenue station numbers 6 on bere? 7 A Yes, they are. They are just 8 underneath the median area 9 Q Ism it. Okay. 10 Those are the same stationnumbers as 11 were on the layout sheets; right? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And the top planB on the left, that is 14 where the bridge is? 15 A I believe so, or station 53/00. 16 Q And continuing on northerly from the 17 bridge, then, this indicates what is the hardscape in 18 the right-of-way area? 19 A Yes. 20 No. 3 is the concrete header. It's a 21 typical demarcation that we use between public 22 landscaping and private property so the maintenance 23 people know where to stop maintaining, they 24 understand the edge then. 25 Q What is it? Page 83 I A A little concrete header like almost 2 like a moving edge in someone's yard. 3 Q And what is the dimension of that? 4 A Six inches wide. 5 Q High? 6 A Wide. Typically doesn't stand above 7 the grade too much. We don't want a tripping hazard. 8 Q Basically just a six-inch wide piece of 9 concrete to separate the maintenance downslope from 10 there? 11 A Yeah. It's typically used in all of 12 our landscape areas. Demarcation between private and 13 public 14 Q What does P.A- mean on the landscape 15 plans downslope from that? 16 A It's not a typical reference. It could 17 be planting area. is Q In the area indicated by reference 19 construction legend to cobble paving, what does that 20 consist ofl 21 A City typically uses river -washed cobble 22 varying in size six to eight inches, and we lay it 23 within a field to reduce the amount of irrigated 24 area. Typically a 40 percent requirement hardscape. 25 So all that area therewith the little bubbles Page 84 1 reflect they are cobblestones. 2 Q So that is an area where there will not 3 be any planting? 4 A Right Right There should be 5 conforming sheets reflecting the planted areas. 6 Q So when the project is completed as you 7 are driving northbound on Haven under the railroad 8 bridge and then you start to ascend on your left on 9 the slope, you will see some cobble areas, is that 10 it? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And then the location of the sidewalk 13 'is also indicated on here? 14 A Yes, it is. 15 Q There will be irrigation on the slope 16 other than in the cobble areas? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And planting on the slope other than 19 the cobble areas in the sidewalk? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Look at the cross sections Exhibit 4 22 drawing x-08. This is the cross section at stations 23 the bottom is 53 plus 00, the top is 55 plus 50; 24 right? 25 A Yes. The Souza Group (925)846-8831 Page 85 22 (Pages 82 to 85) I Q The bottom is beneath the railroad 2 bridge; is that right? 3 A Yes. 4 Q At the location beneath the railroad 5 bridge, Haven Avenue will be how much lower than the 6 original ground? 7 MS. BOWMAN: That's vague as to location. 8 Where under the bridge? 9 You can answer if you understand the 10 question. 11 THE WITNESS: When I was reading the profiles 12 before, and this is referring to the same, the median 13 curbs are at 1090 as they were in the profiles. 14 Sheet R-11, and I believe I misread this, at least I 15 indicate 1105 with a differential of 23. 16 But the reference numbers at the edge 17 aren't center line. So 90 being a low point very 18 close to the 1090 28 for top of curb. And center of 19 the existing ground over the center line being at , 20 roughly 1117. So a differential of 27 feet which 21 would be a correction in my original which I said 23 22 plus. 23 Q BY MR. BURG: So the deepest part of 24 Haven will be 27 feet lower than the existing ground? 25 A Yes. Page 86 1 Q Let me be sure I understand it. These 2 cross sections, for example, looking at sheet x-15, 3 this is facing north? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Okay. So the Hofer property will be on 6 the left-hand side of the page? 7 A Right. 8 Q So just the traveled surface of Haven 9 Avenue after the project is done will meet the 1.0 elevation of the existing ground at 61 plus 50? 11 A Yeah. The outside lane and the 12 shoulder would be right there. The inside lane is 13 still slightly below. 1.4 Q But from 61150 if I turned around went 15 south, that is the beginning of the descent? 16 A Yeah. 17 Q And reaches its lowest point at station. 18 53? 19 A Under the bridge there. I think you 20 point out that it was even further below on the 21 vertical. You point out to me that 52/50 was 22 actually lower than 53100. Vertical curve hits low 23 points on the south side of the bridge at 24 approximately 52 plus 50. 25 Q So if I am understanding this right, Page 88 1 Q And the cross sections from x-08 and 1 2 forward indicate the cross section as one drives 2 3 northerly on Haven from below the railroad bridge? 3 4 A Yes. 4 5 Q As we see in the next succeeding pages 5 6 the location of Haven Avenue dips to ascend and get 6 7 closer to original ground level? 7 8 A Yes. 8 9 Q The street finally meets the existing 9 10 grade at station 61 plus 50? 10 11 A It's very close in there. Part of the 11 12 west side orthe street is actually above at that 12 13 point The median is slightly below the existing 13 14 grade. 14 15 Q On the east side it meets -- 15 16 A On the east side the curb is right on. 16 17 Q So basically from the cast side of 17 18 Haven Avenue where the Hofer property is -- 18 19 A The east side is the Rock Jersey 19 20 property. The Hofer property at that pointis you 20 21 actually slightly below grade of where our ultimate 21 22 construction will be. 22 23 On the Hofer it's already met grade 23 24 down at 60/50 below the bottom on that page. The two 24 25 lines intersect on that left side of the page. 25 Page 87 then a vehicle that is driving southbound on Haven would begin the decent on Haven Avenue at approximately 61.5; correct? A 61 plus 50. Q And reach it lowest point at 52 plus 50? A Yes. Q The total distance of the descent is 900 feet? A 61150 and -- Q And 52 plus 50? A Yes. Q Directing you back to the complaint and resolution of necessity, Exhibit 5. Page 7 of 12 resolution of necessity. It says POB. Do you see that? A Yes. Q Point of beginning? A Yes. - Q Northerly of that point there will be no change in the existing right-of-way; right? A Yes. MS. BOWMAN: As is depicted on this document; is that correct? THE WITNESS: Yes. The Souza Group (925),846-8831 Page 89 23 (Pages 86 to 89) I MS. BOWMAN: Okay. 2 Q BY MR- BURG: And looking at pages 11 3 of 12 and 12 of 12, this is the mapping of the . 4 temporary construction easement; is that right? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Temporary construction easement starts 7 at the northern boundary of the Hofer property; is 8 that right? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And its width is 116 feet at that 11 point? 12 A Yes. 13 Q The temporary construction easement 14 area continues on page 12 of 12 to the south? 15 A Right 16 Q There is an indication that the width 17 varies there. 18 Do you see that? 19 A Yes. 20 Q What is the variations? 21 A At what point? 22 Q Oh, that is a variation because the 23 right-of-way is at an angle? 24 A There's several variations there. It 25 is jogging. Page 90 1 Is there a reference to something 2 varying? The lines jog in and out there. 3 Ob, I see where you see varies. It 4 actually says that 5 Yeah, that's because it is at an angle; 6 the two lines are converging if you are going 7 southerly. 8 Q The right-of-way line is at an angle; 9 right? 10 A Yes. 11 Q So the width of the temporary 12 construction easement diminishes as you go south? 13 A Yes. 14 Q . And then it,'%" being the temporary 15 construction easemmtjuts out to 105.7 feet? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Actually 105.7 there includes the 34.3 18 feet of right-of-way doesn't it? 19 A It's the total. 20 Q So the actual width of the temporary 21 construction easement would be the difference between 22 those two? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And at its widest, then, the temporary 25 construction easement is 116.40 feet wide? Page'91 1 A Yes. 2 Q What happens to the temporary 3 construction easement after two years? 4 A As much of the road as necessary is 5 removed, all of it depending on what Mr. Hofer needs, 6 and it's graded clean and left for him to do with as 7 he needs to. 8 Q It expires at the end of two years? 9 A Yes. 10 (Recess.) 11 MR. BURG: Back on the record. 12 Auer the deposition as we discussed 13 earlier this morning, the city will supply copies of 14 the resolutions of necessity for the other properties 15 involved in the project and a copy of the design 16 contract or contracts. 17 And we can get those within about two 18 weeks? 19 MS. BOWMAN: Yes. 20 MIL BURG: And I will reserve my right to 21 resume the deposition to ask the witness questions 22 about those documents, although, as I said off the 23 record, I don't anticipate now the need to do so. 24 MS. BOWMAN: Okay. 25 MR. BURG: With that I have no further Page 92 1 questions. 2 Do you have any questions. 3 MS. BOWMAN: Yeah. I have a couple of 4 follow-up questions. 5 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY MS. BOWMAN: 8 Q In reference to drawing No. R-8 sheet 9 10 out of 123, you see the driveway A; is that 10 correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Okay. Do you have anunderstanding as 13 to why the city did not complete that driveway? 14 MR- BURG: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. 15 Q BY MS. BOWMAN: You can answer. He is 16 just preserving his right. 17 A As I indicated before, the drive A is 18 one possible method of accessing Mr. Hofer's 19 property. Being that both properties were not 20 developed, the city decided it would be better for 21 all the developers involved if they between 22 themselves derived a more acceptable solution. It 23 would preclude them from having to remove the drive, 24 save them the cost, and provide the ability to build 25 something mom suitable to future development Page 93 The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 24 (Pages 90 to 93) 1 Q And so is access given to the Hofer 2 property in the after condition as a result of this 3 project from Haven? 4 MR. BURG: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. 5 THE WITNESS: As a result of this project the 6 Hofer property will have full signalized left turn . 7 access or potential therefore upon development where 8 they do not have today. 9 Q BY MS. BOWMAN: Now, there was 10 discussion about a bus bay taper where it states on 11 drawing R-8 sheet 10 of 123,'Begin bus bay taper." 12 Why is the bus bay taper located on the 13 Iiofer side of the Haven project? 14 A Bus taper is typically located on the 15 bay side of the intersection. This would be the 16 southwest side of the Jersey Boulevard Haven Avenue 17 intersection. They would uormally be the 18 responsibility of the developer. Since the city has 19 a project we are installing at this, time, that would 20 also be the logical location to extend the bus bay 21 and install a driveway. Very standard construction 22 throughout the city. 23 Q And then there was some discussion with 24 regard to the original access point to the Hofer 25 property. Page 94 1 Would the Hofer property be able to 2 have access from Haven at another location other that 3 the driveway A? 4 MR BURG: Objection. Vague and ambiguous, 5 calls for speculation. 6 THE WITNESS: Very similar to the Rock Jersel 7 site, they would be able to have a driveway on their 8 frontage, and it would be up to them in their 9 developing process to decide how steep or how much 10 grading they would be willing to do to access the 11 site to help determine their northor south location. 12 MS. BOWMAN: I have no further questions. 13 14 FURTHER EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. BURG: 16 Q A bus bay taper is a place fora bus to 17 pull over! 18 A Yes. 19 Q And load or unload passengers; right? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Is a driveway access to the property 22 behind a bus bay taper permitted? 23 A Typically they do what is called a bus 24 bay right turn, and the bus would stop in the first 25 portion of it, and it would lead into a right turn Page 95 1 into the site. It would be very standard 2 construction. 3 Q Meaning that would be a combination„a 4 bus bay taper and a deceleration lane; right? 5 A That's exactly what it is called. 6 Q Which would be longer than the 120 feet 7 for the bay taper here; right? 8 A For the total, yeah, yeah. It would be 9 longer. 10 Q How much longer? 11 A Logically it would extend from there 12 maybe another 100,125 feet 13 Q To the south? 14 A Yeah. To where a driveway access would 15 be. 16 Q You mentioned that there would be a 17 left turn signalized access into the Hofer property, 18 right? 19 A Yes. 20 Q After the project is constructed by the 21 city, there will be no left turn from Haven to 22 Jersey; right? 23 A The potential is there. The left turn 24 pocket will be constructed with the project 25 Barricade will be there. Upon a proposed Page 96 1 development, the improvements could be completed. 2 Q After the project is constructed by the 3 city, there will be a wood barricade across the drive 4 A as shown in the plans; right? 5 A Yes. For safety purposes. You don't 6 want people driving off into the dirt willy nilly 7 into somebody's property. 8 Q Actually west of the wood barrier the 9 city is constructing nothing; right? 10 A Currently,no. 11 Yes, correct 12 Q So when you say there will be a 13 signalized left turn access, signalized access that 14 will lead into a wood barrier; right? 15 A For now. 16 Q That is what the city is constructing; 17 right? 18 A Yes. 19 MR. BURG: No further questions. 20 TTTE WITNESS: But the project does leave the 21 opportunity. for someone to have left turn signalized 22 access to Mr. Hofer's property which does not exist 23 today. 24 Q BY MR. BURG: Leaves that opportunity, 25 but what the city is constructing is -- The Souza Group (925)846-8831 Page 97 25 (Pages 94 to 97) J 1 A Doesn't include that. 2 Q -- a left turn signalized access into a 3 wood barrier, right? 4 A Yes. 5 MR BURG: No further questions. 6 Do you have anything further? 7 MS. BOWMAN: No. I have no further 8 questions. 9 MR BURG: Propose that the original 10 transcript be sent to Ms. Bowman. She will make it 11 available to the witness to read, make any 12 corrections she wishes to make, and sign under 13 penalty of perjury. 14 The original transcript will be 15 returned to and maintained by Ms. Bowman. She will 16 produce it upon request at any further proceedings of 17 this action. She will notify me within 30 days of 18 the receipt of the signing and corrections, if any, 19 to the transcript. 20 And if Pm not notified by that time of 21 the signing and corrections, if any, stipulate that 22 an unsigned certified copy can be used for all 23 purposes in this action as if it were a sifted 24 original. 25 MS. BOWMAN: So stipulated. Page 98 1 MR. BURG: Okay. Thank you. 2 (At the hour of 2:00 p.m., 3 the deposition was adjourned.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )SS. COUNTY OFLOS ANGELES ) I declare under penally of perjury that I have read the foregoing transcript, I have made any corrections, additions or deletions that I was desirous of making in order to render the within transcript true and correct, and IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name this _day of 2007. MARIA EMILY PEREZ Page 100 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 2 ) SS. 3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 4 5 6 1, Marilyn R. •Kass, Certified Shorthand 7. Reporter No. 2383, in and for the State of 8 California, do hereby certify: 9 That, prior to being examined, the 10 witness named in the foregoing deposition, was by 11 me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole 12 truth and nothing but the truth; 13 That said deposition was taken down by 14 me stenographically at the time and place therein set 15 forth and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my 16 direction; 17 That the foregoing deposition is a true 18 record of the testimony and all objections made at 19 the time of the examination. 20 . I further certify that I have no 21 interest in the event of the action. 22 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed 23 my name this day of 2007. 24 25 Certified Shorthand Reporter #23 83 Page 101 The Sousa Group (925) 846-8831 26 (Pages 98 to 101) AAL 3:17 abandoned 35:12 ability 93:24 able 50:18,23 51:1,12 71:8 95-1,7 abut 82:6,7,10 82:10212 abutment 82:13 Acacia 6:16 acceptable 93:22 access22:7,13 22:21 43:11,15 48:20 50:4,18 50:23 51:1,25 52:13 53:21,23 54:25 55-6,17 55:20 71:18 77:2,6 78:24 94:1,7,24 95:2 95:10,21 96:14 96:17 97:13,13 97:22 98:2 accessed 22:2 accessible 43:14 accessing 45:13 93:18 accompanied 15:14 accuracy 7:2 acquisition 6:22 7:5 action 7:11 64:1 98:17,23 101:21 actual 19:22 30:12 91:20 additional9:17 11:15 66:20 71:2 additions 100:13 adjourned 99:3 adjusted 46:8,12 adjustments 46:1.11 advanced 2:11 12:8 AFTERNOON 73:1 agency 12:4 agreement 12:17 ahead 70:10 al 1:9 alignment 74:9 74:11 75:17 allowed 50:8 53:21 alternative 49:17 ambiguous 38:24 93:14 94:4 95:4 amount 84:23 Angeles 3:5,15 3:20 100:8 101:3 angle 63:8 90:23 91:5,8 answer 5:6 8:22 22:6 23:16,17 24:17,19 41:8 71:7 86:9 93:15 answered 56:21 anticipate 92:23 anticipated 70:19 Anybody 53:3,8 apart28:5 apparent20:13 65:1 appear 37:25 appeared 3:8,17 3:21 appearing 77:2 appears 45:3 approaching 23:3,7 24:1 approved 11:7 54`18 approximate 26:17 78:10 approximately 26:1,9 32:13 32:17,24 33:10 33:18 36:8,13 59:4,21 67:20 88:24 89:3 approximations 32:19 area 12:5 38:5 39:18,23 40:3 .44:21 45:10,12 47:23 49:3 61:22 64:8,11 68:4,5,15 73:14 76:4 80:25 81:3;7 83:8,18 84:17 84:18,24,25 85:2 90:14 areas 84:12 85:5 85:9,16,19 ascend 59:24 85:8 87:6 aside 41:10 asked 15:8,20 56:21,24 asks 8:11 9:2 17:1 assistant 4:21 5:2 6:25 53:2 assisted 6:20 assisting 6:22 associate 4:13,22 5:9,15 Association 12:3 attached 64:6 attention 33:6 42:18 attorney 6:20 9:17 audibly 5:6 Authority 47:14 authorize 13:22 available 98:11 Avenue 2:13 3:15 7:15 9:25 17:19 18:15,18 19:3,10 20:23 22:24 23:1 24:2 25:4,7,14 25:25 26:20,25 27:18 28:5,16 29:10 32:7 33:7 35:11,15 37:13 41:4,15 42:19 48:5 49:1 51:12 52:13,14 55:1 56:10 58:11 59:3,17 60:8 64:13,19,23 65:6,8,11,12 66:13,18 67:6 67:24 68:4,8 69:2,13 71:3 74:7 76:7 79:5 80:21 82:20 83:3,5 86:5 87:6,18 88:9 89:2 94:16 aware 13:5 a.m 3:3 B 1:8 2:8 28:19 28:25 29:5,7 33:20,20,25 34:11,21,25 65:21 81:3,8 81:12 83:13 back 18:8 29:1 31:16 32:6 33:4 34:14,15 35:6 36:14 40:4 42:15 45:21 46:4,25 61:21,23 62:18 65:10 70:11 77:18 78:1,2 89:13 92:11 bad 25:12 41:1 61:3 barricade 49:7 50:5 96:25 97:3 barrier 51:5,6 51:18,22 97:8 97:14 98:3 basically 84:8 87:17 bay 35:14,18,20 35:21,22,25 36:1,7,16,19 37:4,10,25 38:3,4,6 42:13 54:9 94:10,11 94:12,15,20 95:16,22,24 96:4,7 bays 42:5 began 56:3 70:9 beginning 8:18 9:10 12:12 34:2 75:9 88:15 89:18 begins 36:7,12 59:23 63:11 81:8,11 begun 17:24 behalf 3:17,22 believe 5:11 8:8 16:6 17:11 18:1 19:16,16 21:8 32:12 43:3,9 53:13 58:15 63:22 83:15 86:14 beneath 27:21 86:1,4 beneficial49:13 bent 82:6,14 Bernardino 1:2 12:3,5 best 11:1 14:2 32:14 43:19,20 49:17 56`:19 57:1,2 better 34:8 93:20 beyond 48:9 71:3,5 102 The Souza Group (925)846-8831 bid 13:22 Billings 53:2 bit40:11 boarder 41:5,19 border 32:10 40:23 bordered 41:3 bottom 26:11 40:8,13 80:17 85:23 86:1 87:24 Boulevard 3:5 3:20 5:19 48:10 51:11 54:15 55:18 94:16 boundary 32:21 48:9 90:7 Bowman 2:6 3:17 5:24 8:6 11:15 15:12,17 15:22 17:5,14 17:17 19:12 22:4,16 23:14 24:15 27:7,9 28:25 30:21 37:5 38:24 39:4 40:24 41:6 45:17 51:3,7 54:3 56:21 61:8 62:20 63:13 67:14,16,20,22 68:11 71:4 79:23 86:7 89:23 90:1 92:19,24 93:3 93:7,15 94:9 95:12 98:7,10 98:15,25 boy 33:21 break 45:18 56:23 78:7 bridge 6:14,16 26:21 27:2,21 41:11 70:7 75:1 77:19 80:14,19,25 ' 81:18 82:13,13 82:15,17 83:14 83:17 85:8 86:2,5,8 87:3 88:19,23 briefly 5:14 bring 11:12 46:2 brought 8:9 9:13 9:19 10:10,21 11:9 12:24 13:1 25:19 bubble 49:25 bubbles 84:25 build 68:21 93:24 building 22:11 buildings 55:15 built 20:21 43:2 43:10 70:25 BURG 2:5 3:21 4:4 5:25 8:4,10 11:17,23 15:10 15:13 16:1,10 17:7,10,18 19:19 22:9,20 23:19 24:22 25:23 27:8,12 29:1 31:5 37:7 39:1,8 41:1,12 44:7 45:19,21 51:10 54:4,7 56:24 61:10 62:23 63:18 64:5 67:18,21 67:23 68:14 71:12 73:10 79:24 86:23 90:2 92:11,20 92:25 93:14 94:4 95:4,15 97:19,24 98:5 98:9 99:1 bus 21:9,11,19 35:14,18,20,21 35:22,23,25 36:7,16,19,21 36:24 37:2,4 37:10,25 38:3 38:4,5,8 42:5 42:13 54:9 94:10,11,12,14 94:20 95:16,16 95:22,23,24 96:4 C California 1:1 3:5,8,16,20 10:8 47:13 73:25 100:6 101:1,8 call 20:22 called 3:10 68:15 95:23 96:5 calling 22:16 23:17 24:15,18 40:24 41:6 51:3 71:4 calls 22:4 68:17 95:5 case 15:20 68:20 81:17 catch 7:2 31:17 categories 9:11 11:10 13:2,7 category13:18 17:2 center19:12,16 19:17,17,19,20 19:21,22,23,25 20:2,2,5,6,8,11 20:12,14,14,17 20:22 26:4,14 26:15,22 27:17 31:3 33:7 44:13 48:5 54:21 58:4 59:2 64:13,18 64:23 65:1,1,3 65:6,8 66:13 66:17 70:3,8 82:19 86:17,18 86:19 103 The Souza Group (925)846-8831 centered 19:10 Certain 1:9 certified 3:6 98:22 101:6,25 certify 101:8,20 cetera 1:9 28:1 chain 62:12 chain -linked 61:13,16,20 62:15,24 63:2 change 20:18 39:22,25 46:14 46:23 52:16,18 52:20 89:21 changed 46:15 46:16 58:14,18 58:18 changes 11:1 46:7 58:16 70:6 check 6:24 Christmas 13:25 city 1:5 2:12 4:11,15,18 5:21 6:3,4 8:11 9:3 12:9 16:25 17:23 37:1 44:20 46:20 48:22,23 49:5 49:11 52:22 53:1 54:18,18 56:3 68:15 80:1 84:21 92:13 93:13,20 94:18,22 96:21 97:3,9,16,25 city's 44:3 51:17 civil 4:20,24 clarification 30:21 39:5 clean 92:6 clear 33:134:6 50:21 clearer 43:23 clipped H:18 close 46:10 86:18 87:11 closed 18:10,12 closely 53:9 closer 32:18 44:15 81:17 87:7 closure 18:14 clouded 39:19 39:24 40:3 cobble 84:19,21 85:9,16,19 cobblestones 85:1 collectively 11:19 column 82:14 columns 82:16 combination 96:3 comes 30:15 coming31:14,18 commenced 17:22 18:20 19:9 22:3,25 24:6 commences 19:1 commencing 3:3 comments 7:1 company 52:11 complaint2:15 63:25 64:7 65:19 68:1 89:13 complete 93:13 completed 17:25 51:18 64:22 68:13 74:16 85:6 97:1 completely 21:16 59:10 completion 14:6 conclude 67:18 conclusion 23:17 24:16 concrete 83:20 84:1,9 condemnation 15:25 condition 17:19 68:13 94:2 conditions 60:16 confident 53:6 conforming 85:5 confused 62:22 connection 75:16 connections 77:18 consideration 49:14 considered 38:5 Considering 13:25 consist 12:7 84:20 construct 37:1 49:15 constructed 17:20 35:22 36:25 39:15 44:20 48:6 49:18 502,6 50:16,17,22,25 55:1 59:3 66:15 67:2,5 67:24 69:3 76:13,14 77:10 78:20 96:20,24 97:2 constructing 97:9,16,25 construction 10:5 12:21 13:16,20,23 14:2,5 16:21 17:14,15,21 18:20 19:1,9 19:17,22,25 20:5,11 22:3 22:24 24:5 39:6,9,22 40:2 48:3 49:12,24 51:17,21 55:17 55:24 56:9,16 57:6 61:23 65:1;3,4 74:15 75:10,12,14,17 75:19,22 76:1 76:3,7,19 77:16,23 78:5 79:21 84:19 87:22 90:4,6 90:13 91:12,15 91:21,25 92:3 94:21 96:2 consultant58:18 continues 27:13 60:19 73:17 90:14 continuing 83:16 contract 17:7,16 17:23 92:16 contracts 16:20 17:11 92:16 control 79:12 80:3 converging 91:6 copies 16:10 92:13 copy 7:22 27:7,8 63:24,25 92:15 98:22 correct15:25 16:5 18:16 23:1 24:3 29:6 32:11 40:20 48:6 51:19,22 52:14 54:10 61:14 62:3 63:9 67:13 73:15 89:3,24 93:10 97:11 100:15 correction 86:21 corrections 10:18 98:12,18 98:21 100:13 cost 12:19 16:13 16:16 93:24 counsel 3:17,22 county 1:2 65:18 100:8 101:3 couple 12:22 24:21 33:22 79:15 93:3 COURT 1:1 cross 23:8 44:7 45:22 46:3,5 47:6 51:12 70:5 85:21,22 87:1,2 88:2 crossed 23:20 crosses 62:6,11 62:24 63:1 74:24 crossing23:9 27:11 CSR 1:24 Cucamonga 1:5 2:13 4:11,15 4:19 7:15 17:24 74:3 cul-de-sac 48:17 49:12 curb 26:12,23,24 30:25 35:6,19 36:14 37:3,7,9 37:10,17,18,19 37:22,24 38:3 38:4 40:12,14 44:15 57:22,23 58:2,3,7,10 60:2 67:7,7,12 67:12 82:2 86:18 87:16 curbs 21:6 82:24 86:13 current 13:16,20 44:17 65:4 currently 5:17 18:13 50:13 54:24 97:10 Curt 53:2 curve 88:22 CVPVD 74:13 ........ --- _D..._..-- D 28;15,23 29:2 29:5,7,12,13 29:18,21 30:1 30:2,8 81:4,15 81:19,23 Dalton 53:14 date 10:11,15 56:7 day 10:18 65:4 72:3 100:17 101:23 days98:17 deceleration 96:4 December 13:25 57:7 decent89:2 decide 43:20 95:9 decided 93:20 Declaration 1:9 declare 100:11 dedicate 71:2 dedicated 71:11 - 71:13,14,24 deep 35:25 41:15 deepest25:10 86:23 Defendants 1:10 3:10,22 8:1 11:20 25:20 44:4 64:2 defined 55:5 definitive 68:24 deletions 100:13 demarcation 83:21 84:12 demolished 21:16 depending 15:7 29:22 63:16 92:5 depends 50:13 depict 31:8 60:16 depicted 57:12 61:8 62:2 65:2 66:4 67:14,25 89:23 depiction 60:15 depicts 31:9 59:25 65:11 80:14 81:3 deposition 1:14 2:2,10 3:2 7:19 7:22,23,23 8:6 8:11,12 9:2,12 9:14,20 10:10 92:12,21 99:3 101:10,13,17 depot 79:7 depression 31:18 68:21 derive 49:17 derived 93:22 descends 33:15 descent 88:15 89:8 describe12:6 description 64:8 descriptions 6:23 15:14 design 6:19 7:7 16:21 17:14,16 68:25 92:15 designed 20:13 desirous 100:14 determine 26:8 95:11 determined 43:17 detour 56:10,13 57:4 76:3,8,12 76:24,25 78:19 develop 49:14 developed 93:20 developer 53:13 94:18 developers 93:21 developing 95:9 development 36:23 49:16 50:9 55:10 71:9,20 93:25 94:7 97:1 104 The Souza Group (925)946-8831 dies 34:3 42:12 differ 69:17 difference 19:24 26:18 47:20 54:2 91:21 different 20:16 57:18 differential 53:24 54:3,4 86:15,20 dimension 84:3 diminish 41:24 diminishes 91:12 dip 27:1 37:25 44:24 59:18 69:1 dips 59:20 87:6 direct 54:25 64:5 82:25 Directing 89:13 direction 31:20 77:5 101:16 directions 19:3 directly 26:21 52:14 directors 8:12 dirt 97:6 disbursed 12:12 discovery 9:18 discuss 17:18 discussed 70:13 78:13 92:12 discussion 94:10 94:23 disruption 75:7 distance 28:7 36:15 53:19 54:14,20 64:18 89:8 distinguish 26:23 District 17:25 74:4 divided 68.17 document 8:9 70:24 89:23 documents 2:11 6:25 9:11,13 9:20 11:10,13 11:18,19 12:7 12:25 13:1,6 13:15 15:7 16:25 17:12 20:10 44:3 92:22 Domain 2:15 DOROTfiY 1:8 double 37:18,19 downslope 81:12 81:22 82:1 84:9,15 drawing 27:4 47:1 57:10 58:24 60:10,18 62:1 64:15 66:4,11 73:12 75:9 76:15 77:13 78:14 79:1 80:13 85:22 93:8 94:11 drawings.6:20 7:7 49:11 drew 33:5 42:17 drive 48:16,17 48:18,19,21,25 49:7 50:1,8,19 51:2,19 79:7 93:17,23 97:3 driven 23:19 24:22 drives 87:2 driveway 43:15 43:17 49:18 51:25 52:12 53:17 54:5,11 54:16 55:22 60:6 93:9,13 94:21 95:3,7 95:21 96:14 driving 23:4 24:2 85:7 89:1 97:6 dropping 6:15 ducks 82:13 due69:1 duly 3:11 4:2 101:11 duties 5:15 Dyer 5:23,24,25 6:2 D-y-e-r 5:24 E 2:8 earlier42:18 64:25 70:13 78:11 81:4 92:13 easement 39:6,9 55:24 56:9 61-24 90:4,6 90:13 91:12,15 91:21,25 92:3 easily 54:6 east 18:5,7,21 28:20 37:20 38:5 51:24. 52:1,12 58:8 58:11 62:15 64:19 66:16 70:3 74:10,23 75:4 87:15,16 87:17,19 east -west 64:23 Ed 27:7 edge 83:24 84:2 86:16 Edison 18:2 21:18 74:1 EDWARD 3:21 eight4:25 16:7,9 29:23,24 30:3 30:8,16 31:2 84:22 Eighteen 4:16 56:17 Eighth 79:5,19 eight -foot 31:16 36:2 105 The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 either 13:22,24 20:15,25 21:7 21:9 35:20 67:9 82:22 Electric 73:25 elevation 25:11 25:11 26,11 46:16 57:16 59:17 88:10 elevations 26:17 57:14 58:20 Emily 2:2 3:9 4:1,7 73:4 100:22 Eminent 2:15 employed 4:10 4:14,18 employee 6:4 employees 8:13 12:1 ends 42:7,9 engineer 4:13,20 4:21,22,24 5:10,15 6:3,24 45:25 50:14 54:18,19 80:3 Engineering 7:6 engineers 71:20 enter 51:12 Entered 4:20 entire 16:2 46:24 56:15 61:11 70:10 entrance 43:3,5 43:6 53:17 54:16 55:4,5 76:25 entry 43:1 ESQ 3:21 essentially 8 0: 18 estimate 12:21 12:22 14:2 16:13 32:14 56:19 57:1,3,6 78:10 estimated 14:7 estimates 16:16 estimate's 12:20 estimation 59:22 et 1:9,9 28:1 event101:21 exactly 96:5 examination 2:4 4:4 73:9 93:6 95:14 101:19 examined 3:11 73:6 101:9 example 28:11 51:11 79:19 88:2 excavation 77:12 77:20 excerpt2:14 44:1 excuse 44:15 Exhibit 7:22 8:1 8:4,10,11 9:10 11:11,19,20,24 11:25 12:7,25 13:3,7 25:18 25:20,24 27:5 44:1,4,10 45:22 47:2 57:11 63:25 64:2,7,8 65:19 65:20,21 70:5 73:12 78:15 85:21 89:14 exist 97:22 existed 61:5 existence 13:5 existing 19:10 20:22 21:14 26:14 41:25 44:11,14 59:3 59:14,17 60:16 62:7,19 63:8 63:12,23 64:12 71:3 86:19,24 87:9,13 88:10 89:21 exists 61:2 expect13:22 expected 78:4 expires 92:8 explain 74:12 extend 48:9 94:20 96:11 extends 28:15 50:9 extent6:20 extra 35:22 extreme 53:25 81:17 e-mail 12:1 e-mails 11:15 E-m-i-t-y 4:8 face 37:17,18 38:3 facing 88:3 fairly 42:9 familiar 7:10,12 7:13 68:6 far6:21 7:1 17:23 22:16 25:10 41:20 49:25 feet 20:3,3 26:1 26:9 28:418,11 29:23,24,24 30:3,8,17 31:2 31:14 32:1 34:4,22 35:1,3 36:1,16,17 37:15,20 44:16 54:12,17 58:21 58:22 64:13 66:8,13,17,22 67:2,3,3,7,9,12 67:25 68:9,16 68:24 69:4,6,9 69:25 70:2,8 70:14 86:20,24 89:9 90:10 91:15,18,25 96:6,12 fence 32:15 42:23 55:9 60:21 61:2,5 61:13,16,20 62:6,8,12,16 62:24 63:2 FG 32:2 34:14 34:17 field 84:23 fifty 34:4 figure 16:2 final 77:17 finally 18:2 41:25 58:10 87:9 financial 11:16 find 46:3 Finish 30:2 finished 29:25 30:3,15,18,22 32:4 33:10,14 34:15,18,24 first 3:114:18 4:25 10:11 17:21 28:24 75:21 95:24 five34:3 57:18 58:25 67:21 82:7,11 five-minute 45:17 flat42:9 59:6,9 Floor 3:15 flow 38:3 follow 13:24 18:2 46:21 follows 4:2 73:7 follow-up 93:4 Foothill 5:19 footing 30:14,16 31:11,11 foregoing 100:12 101:10 101:17 foresee15:22 forth 3:12 101:15 forward 87:2 foundation 40:25 41:7 four55:14 74:13 82:6 front10:9 18:15 32:2 33:15 34:17,18,24 48:8 60:22,24 67:6 68:8 73:19 frontage 22:14 22:17,18 41:3 41:13,14 60:24 61:11 73:15 80:9 95:8 fronting 41:10 full4:5 94:6 fully 71:11,13,14 71:24 funding 2:11 12:8,9 funds 12:11,13 further 73:7 88:20 92:25 95:12,14 97:19 98:5,6,7,16 101:20 future 39:22 40:2 49:24 93:25 G 3:21 gap 60:2 gas 73:23 gate 43:5,6,8,21 44:12,14 55:6 55:9 general 75:13 generally 12:6 76:18 gentleman 53:14 give 27:8 31:22 43:23 given 94:1 glance25:1 go 6:15 29:1 40:4 46:25 48:2 74:10 91:12 goes 14:14 going7:21 11:18 23:14 25:17 43:25 65:7 68:22 70:19 77:15 80:21 91:6 good 16:1 59:22 gotten 16:7 government 65:18 Governments 12:4 grade 2:13 5:18 6:7,10,15 9:25 12:14 22:25 23:1,9,20 25:4 30:4,7,15,22 31:6,17,20 32:4 33:6,10 33:14 34:15,18 34:24 41:25 44:15 55:2 68:22 82:5 84:7 87:10,14 87:21,23 graded 92:6 grades 45:5 grading 77:11 77:19 95:10 Grand 3:15 ground 26:14 29:25 30:2 56:23 59:4,15 86:6,19,24 87:7 88:10 guess 26:19 51:7 gutter 37:20 38:2 gutters 21:6 H 2:8 half 20:15,15 71:16 halfway 22:22 hand 7:21 25:17 43:25 63:24 handed 9:22 10:2 11:17 handicapped 50:4 handling 78:16 happen 50:11 happening 75:25 76:19 happens 20:11 31:1 48:25 77:22 92:2 hard 10:24 hardscape 83:17 84:24 hash 27:12 Haven 2:13 5:18 6:7,10'7:15 9:24 12:9,14 17:19 18:15,18 18:20 19:2,10 20:22 21:1,10 22:8,14,19,24 23:1,4,20 24:2 24:6 25:4,7,11 25:14,25 26:20 26:25 27:18 28:5 29:10 33:6 35:15 37:12 38:9,12 41:4;14,15 42:1,19 43:11 48:5 49:1 50:7 51:12 52:13,14 54:25 55:21 56:10 57:24 58:11 59:3,17 61:11 64:13,19 64:23 65:6,8 65:11,12 66:13 66:17 67:6,8,9 67:12,24 68:4 68:8 69:2,13 71:3 74:7 76:6 76:7,20 78:1 79:4 80:9,21 106 The Souza Group (925)846-8831 82:20 833,5 85:7 86:5,24 87:3,6,18 88:8 89:1,2 94:3,13 94:16 95:2 96:21 hazard 84:7 head 46:9.53:16 63:11,16 70:18 71:10 header 83:20 84:1 heading 33:15 51:11 heads 41:25 height 29:20,22 30:7 33:13 34:20,23 help 45:9 95:11 hereinafter 3:12 hereunto 100:16 herewith 8:3 11:22 25:22 44:6 64:4 high 29:12,25 31:2,14,16,17 43:22 44:11 84:5 higher 30:12 46:9 highest 29:23 30:1,6 33:10 40:22 41:4,9 41:10,18,21 historic 20:17 21:21 22:11,21 historical20:10 historically 20:16 hits 88:22 Hofer 1:8,8 7:f3 7:18 15:2 17:19 18:16 21:17,22 22:2 22:25 23:12,24 24:1,3,9,13 25:2,5 29:9 32:10,21 40:23 41:3,5,13,14 41:19 42:22 43:2,10,22 44:12 48:9,20 50:18 51:1,12 54:8 55:3,8,25 57:5 60:22 6.1:11,17 62:3 63:19 64:19 66:8,16,21 67:6 68:9 69:15,18 70:14 71:1,23,23 73:15,20 76:8 76:24 77:1 78:20,23 80:9 80:25 81:7 87:18,20,23 88:5 90:7 92:5 94:1,6,13,24 95:1 96:17 Hofer's 41:20,22 93:18 97:22 Horizon 18:1 horizontal 45:15 57:17 hour3:3 99:2 House 22:8,10 22:12 Humbolt 7:14 18:19,23 19:2 21:1,10,15 28:16 32:7,9 32:11 35:7,11 41:11 61:17 79:7 hundred 34:4 identification 8:2 11:21 25:21 44:5 64:3 identify 26:5 III 5:19 imagine 16:4 immediately 26:15 improved 21:11 improvements 75:15 97:1 inches 84:4,22 include 39:5 98:1 included 8:3 11:22 25:22 44:6 64:4 includes 73:14 75:18 91:17 including 6:7 38:21,25 increase41:21 increases 70:7 INDEX 2:1 indicate 27:6 39:21,24 86:15 87:2 indicated 10:12 27:17 37:8,12 39:13 42:4,12 43:21 51:25 57:19 79:13 80:10 81:20 84:18 85:13 93:17 indicates 27:25 37:9 75:21 83:17 indication 38:11 38:14,18 82:6 90:16 inside 88:12 insta1179:14 94:21 installation 6:14 installed 80:8 installing 94:19 intend 6:12 intended 61:15 intent 14:14 interest101:21 interfere 24:12 interference 107 The Souza Group (925)846-8831 24:16 intersect87:25 intersected 18:20,23 intersection 27:11 35:7 50:3 53:20 54:15 60:7,8 74:22 76:20 77:25,25 94:15 94:17 intersects 32:9 74:20 involved 53:10 92:15 93:21 irrigated 84:23 irrigation 85:15 issue 15:23 items 9:5 January5:1 10:12 14:1 57:8 Jerry5:23 6:2 Jersey 6:16 18:18,20 19:2 21:1,10,15 22:23 24:6,23 48:10,15 51:11 51:14,15 52:6 52:8,13,22 53:15,18 54:11 54:15,16,22 55:7,11,16,18 60:8 69:14,19 69:21 70:3,22 74:17,18,19,21 74:24,24 76:20 78:1 87:19 94:16 95:6 96:22 Joe 6:2 jog 91:2 jogging 90:25 jogs 31:11 joins 62:6 July 5:1,3,4 junior 4:20,24 juts 91:15 Kass 1:24 3:6 101:6 keep 45:8 keeps 38:2 kind 5:12 21:13 KIRSTEN 3:16 knew 46:21 know 13:10,13 21:21,24 22:6 22:18,20,22 24:19 38:8,10 40:2 43:17 46:17 52:9 58:16,17 61:3 68:3,5,7,16 69:20 70:16,21 71:9,10,22 83:23 knowledge 11:1 19:15 71:5 knuckle 79:6,7 79:19 labeled 28:15 29:15 lacks 40:25 41:7 laid 70:10 75:3 78:6 land 48:25 71:19 landscape 82:25 84:12,14 landscaped 19:7 45:10,12 48:4 landscaping 83:2,22 lane 18:6,14 35:22 48:10 50:7,12 71:17 88:11,12 96:4 lanes 18:12 19:2 68:19 71:16 large 5:17 larger 70:11 latest 46:2 law 3:4,14,19 lawsuit 38:22 63:5 lay 84:22 layout 27:10 83:11 lead 95:25 97:14 leave 97:20 Leaves 97:24 left 9:16 10:11 23:5,12,24 31:19 48:10 49:16 50:8 51:16 57:22,23 58:2 60:1,5 83:13 85:8 87:25 92:6 94:6 96:17,21 96:23 97:13,21 98:2 left-hand 50:7 50:11 88:6 legal 14:11,12,13 14:14 15:1,13 23:17 24:15 64:8 legals 6:23 7:4 legend 84:19 length 46:24 56:15 letters 47:12 Let's 29:1 level 58:22 87:7 LICENSE 1:25 light 24:14 limit 41:13 line 18:1,3 19:17 19:19,20,21.,22 19:23,25 20:4 20:6,10,11,16 20:22 26:4,14 26:15 27:12,17 32:15,15 33:7 35:19 37:3,7 37:18,19,21 38:19,21 39:2 39:10,11 40:14 42:3,23 44:17 47:18,22 58:4 59:2,14 62:2,5 62:7,11,14,18 62:19,24 63:1 63:4,4,7,9,12 63:20,21 64:9 64:23 65:1,1,3 65:6,8,13,16 65:17,24 66:3 66:3,5,8,12,13 66:17 70:3,8 73:20,23 74:15 74:16 79:15 82:19 86:17,19 91:8 lines 20:17 62:21 79:9 87:25 91:2,6 link 62:12 list 9:4 listed 58:20 litigation 13:8 13:11 little 35:4 38:2 40:10,11 61:8 62:22 84:1,25 LLP 3:4,19 load 95:19 located 21:14 34:11 54:22 62:15 94:12,14 location 43:20 53:21 54:7 55:21 57:17 62:15 64:24 77:5 78:1 85:12 86:4,7 87:6 94:20 95:2,11 logical 94:20 Logically 96:11 long4:14 14:5 32:1 33:25 56:13,19 67:20 78:3 longer 67:16 96:6,9,10 look 23:23 25:15 25:23 27:4 43:13 46:25 47:1,7 55:2 57:10 65:19 73:11 78:14 79:1 80:4,13 85:21 looked 81:4 looking 10:20 11:3 26:2,3 31:5,23 32:6 44:10 62:1 70:4 80:18 88:2 90:2 looks 35:4 44:16 45:4 69:25 77:17 Los 3:5,15,20 100:8 101:3 low26:11 86:17 88:22 lower 10:11 46:10 86:5,24 88:22 lowered 25:11 lowering 25:14 25:24 lowest 26:3,20 26:23 59:20 88:17 89:5 lunchtime 67:17 L-3 82:25 M main 43:3 47:17 47:22 maintain 37:1 45:9 48:23 maintained 98:15 maintaining 93:23 maintenance 45:10,11,13 83:22 84:9 major 68:17 77:1.2 majority 47:23 making 77:17 100:14 manage 5:16 6:6 management 5:17 managing 6:17 MANATT 3:4 3:19 manual 80:3 map 14:14,15,24 55:15 65:21 mapping 90:3 maps 14:16 15:1 15:14 16:12 March 1:16 2:3 3:2 Maria 1:15 2:2 3:9 4:1,7 73:4 100:22 Marilyn 1:24 3:6 101:6 Marine 35:7 79:7 mark7:21 11:18 25:17 43:25 50:15 63:24 marked 8:1 11:20 12:25 20:10 25:20 44:4 64:2 Matches 59:9 maximum 25:13 25:13,24 30:7 34:20,23 43:19 70:13,16,21 mean 14:12 15:5 22:9 36:4 45:11 46:12,15 53:23 54:1 57:15 60:12 69:1 71:12 84:14 meaning 60:24 71:14 96:3 means 22:18 40:3 63:14 meant 41:23 Measure 12:11 12:13 median 19:5 20:12,14,23 37:16 48:4,12 48:14 58:2,3,7 60:1 67:10 68:19 71:16 83:8 86:12 87:13 meet 88:9 meeting 77:19 meets 42:4 59:14 87:9,15 mentioned 96:16 merge 80:6 met 87:23 method 93:18 middle 20:12,23 22:14 40:17 74:6 75:4 82:19 million 12:18,23 minimum 43:18 54:14 56:17,25 minus 34:3 minutes 67:21 misread 96:14 missed 7:3 modified 50:5 moment 17:19 months 4:25 13:24 14:7 56:17,22,25 57:1 74:13 morning 92:13 Move 26:16 Moved 26:1 l moves 38:2 74:23 mowing 84:2 108 The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 lid-a-r-i-a 4:7 name 4:6 52:4 52:11 53:14,15 82:14 100:17 101:23 named 101:10 narrower 69:18 near 17:19 32:9 44:13,25 nearest 38:8 necessarily 30:25 necessary 75:15 75:16 92:4 necessity 14:18 15:15,19 16:5 16:11 64:6 65:21 89:14,15 92:14 need 5:6 8:22 46:5 92:23 needed 56:10 71:18 needs 6:21 92:5 92:7 negotiate 53:11 negotiated 74:18 negotiations 52:19,21,24 never 70:25 new 30:22 nilly 97:6 normally 94:17 north 18:19 23:4 24:2 27:13 28:11,16 31:15 31:21 36:12,15 41:25 47:17 64:11 74:21 76:6 77:5,19 80:24 88:3 95:11 northbound 19:4 23:7,11 23:20 50:7 85:7 northerly 28:16 33:15 58:25 63:19,19 73:17 83:16 87:3 89:20 northern 32:11 32:21 90:7 northwest 7:14 76:21 notation 32:2 34:14,17 39:13 39:18 40:6 65:12 note 11:7 37:9 noted 11:4 notes 60:10. notice2:10 3:1 7:23 8:6,11 9:2 14:13 notices 14:17 notified 98:20 notify 98:17 November 13:24 14:3 57:7,8 number 2:9 26:6 29:16 68:25 80:5;6,7,7 numbers 27:17 27:25 33:5 34:7 83:5,10 86:16 object 19:12 23:14 Objection 22:4 24:15 40:24 51:3 56:21 93:14 94:4 95:4 objections 101:18 occur 36:22 occurring 77:11 occurs 31:3 36:23 75:17 October 13:23 office 55:15 officers 8:12 offices 3:4,14,19 offloaded 35:24 offset 20:1 Oh 39:15 90:22 91:3 okay 8:19 15:16 17:10,17 19:25 29:6 30:6 31:9 31:24 33:13 41:23 51:7,9 56:24 62:23 63:15 67:22 72:1 83:9 88:5 90:1 92:24 93:12 99:1 Olympic 3:5,20 Once 7:2 ones 10:25 79:18 00 37:12 ooOOoo 1:3 open 49:2,16 opportunity 97:21,24 opposite 54:7,8 order44:1 100:14 original65:18 78:1 86:6,21 87:7 94:24 98:9,14,24 outside 88:11 overhead 80:18 oversee 6:19 owner 71:1,22 owns 52:9 O'Neil 6:2,4 P page2:4,9 8:10 9:10 10:11 11:25 26:5,16 60:19 65:20 67:25 75:21 76:15 77:9 109 The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 87:24,25 88:6 89:14 90:14 pages 10:24 11:11 13:2 33:22 87:5 90:2 painted 79:10 paper51:5 paragraph 8:16 8:18 parce148:20 55:3,15 74:25 Pardon 5:8 park 35:23 parking 79:17 80:5 parkway 71:17 parkways 68:19 part 12:13 15:3 22:19 30:13 35:10 36:24 38:15 49:18 50:1,2 61:14 73:13,14 80:1. 82:12 86:23 87:11 partial42:23 participate 52:23 participated 53:7 particular 79:20 80:5 pass 25:8 passed 18:15 passengers 35:24 95:19 pavement 5:20 76:3 paving 84:19 . paying 12:13 penalty 98:13 100:11 people 20:1 83:23 97:6 perceive 20:1 percent 44:22 84:24 Perez 1:15 2:2 3:9 4:1,7,9 11:24 73:4,11 100:22 perfectly 59:6,9 period 4:23 55:25 perjury 98:13 100:11 permanent 63:6 66:23 permitted 95:22 person 8:25 9:3 9:8 53:6 personally 3:8 personnel45:13 phase 5:19 75:22 76:1,2,11,16 76:19 77:8,13 77:16 78:3,17 phases 78:8 phasing 75:14 PHELPS 3:4,19 PHILLIP 1:8 PMLLIPS 3:4 3:19 physical 19:18 physically 43:14 picture 43:24 piece41:21 77:20 84:8 pieces 75:16 place 65:3,5 95:16 101:14 placed 36:19 49:7 53:18 74:6,14 Plaintiff 1:6 318 plan 6:24 14:11 33:21 39:25 49:6 78:16 80:17 83:2,13 planes 25:16 planned 68:4,8 planners 53:4 plans 2:12,14 9:21,23,24 10:3,10,16,21 10:22 11:4,5,8 12:24 14:8 20:13 25:18 42:12 44:2 46:2,22 49:12 49:21 68:15 73:11,13 74:14 75:10,12 79:25 80:10 83:1 84:15 97:4 planted 85:5 planting 84:17 85:3,18 plat 14:11,12,14 15:14 65:2 please 4:6 23:18 plus 27:22 28:1 28:7,8,10 32:17 33:2,3 33:11,18 34:3 34:7,9 36:8,13 37:11 59:4,21 60:4 67.2 85:23,23 86:22 87:10 88:10,24 89:4,5,11 POB 89:15 pocket 96:24 point 12:20 16:1 16:8 18:11 22:8,13,21 23:23 25:10 26:3,20,23 28:16 29:23 33:10 40:22 43:11 45:2 49:2 57:2 59:16 62:6 77:3, 86:17 87:13,20 88:17 88:20,21 89:5 89:18,20 90:11 90:21 94:24 points 28:4 88:23 poles 21:18 portion 12:9 18:10 33:9 35:11 42:9 71:17 74:16 76:8 77:12 81:4 83:3 95:25 portions 14:20 possession 563 possible 93:18 Possibly 26:22 post 79:14 posted 79:11 potentia149:15 94:7 96:23 pre 60:16 62:11 63:8,21 66:7 preclude 93:23 preparation 6:19 prepared 7:4,7 49:11 present4:19 25:11 presented 16:8 presently 4:9 25:4 preserve 70:10 preserving 93:16 prevent75:6 previous 77:6 previously 10:23 13:8,10 31:23 44:11,14 73:6 printed 10:18 printing 10:15 10:19 prior 55:16 101:9 private 36:22 83:22 84:12 probably 43:16 problems 41:6 proceed 40:14 42:22 proceeding 58:25 proceedings 99:16 proceeds18:7 74:23 process 71:9 95:9 produce 8:12 15:17 16:10 173,5,17 98:16 produced 9:5 10:23 11:14 13:8,11 15:1,4 15:10 16:18,23 17:1,10 44:2 68:25 production 9:3 9:12 44:3 profile25:15 26:4,12 31:6 31:19 33:6 34:10 46:1,8 46:13,23 57:14 57:21,22 58:1 59:2 60:1 82:5 profiles 43:13 57:18 58:13,25 86:11,13 project 5:18 6:8 6:11,12,18 7:8 8:13 9:25 10:3 12:10,14,19 13:16,21 14:9 15:18 16:3,14 16:21 17:20 18:19 20:21 22:25 24:5 25:7 26:25 35:11 36:24 38:16 39:2 43:2,10 46:7 46:24 47:8 48:5 49:19 50:2,6,17,22 50:25 51:18 52:16 55:1,17 55:20 60:14,16 61:6,14 62:2 62:12 63:8,21 64:22 65:7,8 66:7,12,15 67:1,5,24 68:13 69:3,7 69:10 70:9,25 85:6 88:9 92:15 943,5 94:13,19 96:20 96:24 97:2,20 projects 5:16,17 6:7 15:24 promoted 4:21 properties 14:21 15:2 49:13 92:14 93:19 property 7:10,14 7:14,17,18 8:14 13:17 14:9 15:2,21 17:20 18:16 21:22 22:2,13 23:1,3,5,8,12 23:24 24:1,3,9 24:13 25:2,5 29:9 32:11,15 32:22 36:23 40:23 41:3,5 41:13,14,19,20 41:22 42:23 43:2,11,22 44:12,17 48:8 50:19 51:1,13 52:1,5,6,9,13 53:18 54:8,12 54:23 55:7,8 55:11,16,25 56:4 57:5 60:22 61:11,17 62:3 63:19 64:20 66:8,17 66:21 67:6 68:9 69:14,15 69:18,19 70:14 70:22 71:1,10 71:23,23 73:15 73:20 76:9,25 77:1,6 78:21 78:23 80:9 81:1,7 83:22 87:18,20,20 88:5 90:7 93:19 942,6 94:25 95:1,21 96:17 97:7,22 propose 43:15 98:9 proposed 44:17 53:20 55:10,15 59:14 96`:25 provide 48:19 71:15 93:24 provided 9:17 53:19 55:7 Psomas 7:6 66:10 public 83:21 84:13 pull 35:23 95:17 purpose 48:18 74:25 purposes 39:4 49:17 97:5 98:23 pursuant 3:1 pushed 76:21 put 10:9 13:14 54:5 71:24 74:14 putting 16:11 20:14 P-a-r-e-z 4:8 P.A 84:14 p.m 72:2,3 73:2 99:2 - Q --- qualified 8:13 9:3 question 9:19 11:3 19:13,14 23:16 25:12 110 The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 37:5 41:1 50:21 51:8 61:3 62:20 70:20 71:6 86:10 questions 92:21 93:1,2,4 95:12 97:19 98:5,8 Quickly 26:10 quite 26:19 _ R _ R 1:8,24 3:6,16 101:6 rail 6:13,14,15 10:8 47:13 76:22 railroad 23:8,11 23:20 25:8 26:21 27:1,11 27:21 68:20 75:1 76:5 80:14,19,25 85:7 86:1,4 87:3 rails 76:23 77:18 ramps 50:4 Rancho 1:5 2:13 4:11,15,19 7:15 rapidly 74:14 RCV 1:7 reach 89:5 reaches 59:3 75:1 88:17 read 98:11 100:12 reading 33:11 86:11 ready 18:2 realigns 18:8 reason 20:9 39:23 reasonable 53:21,23 receipt98:18 recess45:20 72:2 73:5 92:10 record 4:6 8:23 34:6 45:21 72:1 92:11,23 101:18 reduce 84:23 reduced 10 1: 15 refer 7:17 16:14 16:20 34:7 52:4 79:24 reference 8:20 26:13 31:22 42:15,17,18 46:5 69:23 70:23 79:20,22 84:16,18 86:16 91:1 93:8 referenced'8:16 references 28:10 68:5 referencing 26:10 64:15 referred 22:12 referring 86:12 reflect 13:15 49:21 63:22 74:8 85:1 reflected 39:11 49:2 70:2 74:9 74:20 79:3 81:16 reflecting 85:5 reflects 48:17 76:2,4 regard17:11_ 94:24 regarding 11:16 Regional 10:8 47:13 rehabilitations 5:20 reimbursed 12:17 reimbursement 12:10 relate 16:14,21 related 74:15 relative 12:8 15:20 relocated 18:3 relocating 77:25 relocation 17:25 remember 15:9 15:19 16:19,24 22:15 40:1 46:9,19 53:15 58:17 REMEMBER.. 3:1 removal 60:10 remove 93:23 removed 60:14 61:13,21 92:5 removing 77:24 render100:14 replacement 77:25 report 5:22 6:1 Reported 1:22 reporter 3:7 8:2 11:21 25:21 33:2 44:5 64:3 101:7,25 reports 6:2 represented 3:16 3:21 represents 37:19 request 12:10 54:17 98:16 requested 9:4,11 13:17 requesting 15:8 required 16:4 54:14 68:21 71:2 requirement 84:24 requires 50:14 rerouting 75:18 reserve 92:20 resolution 15:17 16:5,6 64:6 65:20 89:14,15 111 The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 resolutions 14:17 15:15 16:11 92:14 respect7:12 responsibilities 5:15 responsibility 94:18 responsive 11:10 13:2,6 result 26:25 35:10 38:22 94:2,5 resume 92:21 Resumed 73:9 retaining 28:14' 28:15,19,23,25 29:2,5,7,7,12 29:18,20 30:1 30:8 31:6,10 33:14,20,25 34:1,10,20,24 35:3 45:8 81:3 81:8,12,15,19 81:22 returned 98:15 returns 41:25 50:3 review 6:22,25 reviewed 16:25 reviewing 7:1 71:20 revised 10:25 revision 39:24 revisions 10:22 11:4,7 Revocable 1:9 RICRARllS1... 3:14 Rick 53:14 right 7:4 8:7 9:25 10:6 14:21 18:21,24 20:7,19 23:9 23:24 24:3,9 24:24 25:1,2,8 26:16 27:2,14 28:5,8,12,23 29:7,18 30:19 30:23 31:19,25 32:22 33:7,11 33:15 34:12,18 36:5,10 37:8 38:16,19,23 39:10 41:5,16 41:19 42:1,5 42:13 43:12 45:7 48:11 49:5,8 50:19 54:9,12 55:18 56:1,7,11 57:19 58:5,7,8 58:10 59:5,15 59:18 60:5,10 60:19 62:12,25 63:2,5,12 64:9 64:14 66:9,22 67:10,11 69:7 70:14 73:23 74:7,16 75:10 76:9,16 77:1 77:10 78:12,17 78:21,24,24 80:6,11,15,22 81:1,5,9,20,24 82:3,20,23 83:3,11 85:4,4 85:24 86:2 87:16 88:7,12 88:25 89:21 90:4,8,15 91:9 92:20 93:16 95:19,24,25 96:4,7,18,22 97:4,9,14,17 98:3 right-of-way 6:21 14:8,10 14:15,23 16:2 16:12 19:11 20:3,4 21:14 38:19,21 39:2 39:9,11 40:19 44:18 49:15 y 62:2,5,7,11,14 62:19,19,23 63:1,3,4,7,8,12 63:20,21,23 64:9,12 66:7 66:16,21 67:2 67:23 68:4,8 68:12,14,19,18 68:21 69:2,12 71:2,3,15 ' 73:19 79:12 83:18 89:21 90:23 91:9,18 right -turn 71:17 rise 44:15 river -washed 84:21 road 20:18 31:17 56:10,13 57:4 68:17 76:4,22 76:24 77:1,24 78:2,20 92:4 roadways 20:17 Rock52:6,8,13 52:22 53:14,18 54:11,16,22 55:7,11,16 69:14,19,21 70:3,22 74:17 74:18,18,24 87:19 95:6 Rockefeller 52:10 53:12 roughly 22:14 54:21 63:15 70:8 77:4 86:20 route 76:12 run 76:8 runs 33:25 34:2 R-1126:7 57:10 86:14 R-12 58:24 60:2 R-18 60:10,15,21 R-19 60:18,22 62:1 64:11 R-26 79:16,25,25 80:4 12-347:1 65:10 66:4 R-7 27:4,16 28:14 32:6 35:6 47:9 R-8 27:13 32:22 35:14 37:8,24 38:11 40:3,7 42:4,16 48:16 49:6 51:24 55:22 93:8 94:11 RIW 38:18 S 2:8 safety 97:5 San 1:2 123,4 Sanbag 11:16 12:1,2 sat 78:12 save 93:24 saying 31:10 68:12 says 26:14 39:22 79:14,16 89:15 91:4 Scale 22:8,10,12 schedule 13:16 13:21 78:5 scope 71:5 SCRRA 46:4 47:9 SC-175:9,21 SC-2 76:15 SC-3 77:8 SC-4 77:13 SC-5 77:21 sea 58:22 second 47:1.6 section 47:6 65:11,12,16,17 65:24 66:3,3,5 66:8,12 67:15 67:18 81:16 85:22 87:2 sectioning 65:18 sections 43:23 44:8 45:23 46:3,5 47:4,5 70:5 85:21 87:1 88:2 see 8:15,20 9:6 10:13 15:13 23:4,12,15,24 24:3,9 25:2 27:19,23'28:2 28:17,21 29:2 29:3 31:2,9,13 31:21 32:8 35:8,16 37:11 38:1 39:15,16 39:19 42:19,24 47:10 48:1 52:2 60:3,23 61:18 65:14,22 66:1 70:6 75:23 82:8 83:2,9 85:9 87:5 89:16 90:18 91:3,3 93:9 seen 8:4 sent 14:13,17 98:10 separate 6:13 14:15 84:9 separation 2:13 5:18 6:7,10 9:25 12:14 22:25 68:22 September 5:11 13:23 series 14:16 service 75:7 SESSION 73:1 set 2:12 3:12 9:22,24 10:3,5 10:10,20,22,23 11:2,1725:18 46:2 74:14 101:14 setback 68:23 settling 16:9 seven 4:25 seventh 18:9 sewer 18:1,3 74:6,15,15,21 75:3 shadowed 61:22 sheet 26:5,7,7 27:4,5,6,13,16 28:14 29:15,15 31:6 32:6,22 33:4,23 34:11 35:6,14 37:8 37:24 38:11 40:3,7 42:4 47:1,3,9 48:16 49:6 51:24 57:12,13,19 58:24 60:2,15 60:19 64:11 65:10 66:4 70:5 73:12,18 73:18 75:8 77:21 78:15 79:2,3,16 80:14 82:25 86:14 88:2 93:8 94:11 sheets 29:16 60:21 83:11 85:5 shelter 3621,25 shelters 21:19 shoofly 47:25 48:2 76:4 shorter 33:16 Shorthand 3:7 101:6,25 shoulder 88:12 shoulders 37:2 show 34:8 47:6 75:13,14 shown 35:7 37:24 52:12 55:21 60:21 61:16 79:15 97:4 shows 31:10 35:14 47:9 78:19 side 18:5,8,21,24 20.15,25 21:4 21:7,9 24:12 26:13 29:9 32:11 35:15 36:10,12 37:4 37:15 38:5,5,7 38:9,12 40:8 47:23 51:24 52:1,12 54:8 57:23 58:8,11 61:17 64:19 65:12 66:16 67:8,10 70:1,3 70:12 74:10,21 75:4 76:6 77:19 80:24 81:12,22 82:22 87:12,15,16,17 87:19,25 88:6 88:23 94:13,15 94:16 sides 69:13 sidewalk 36:2 40:9,11,12,16 42:4,12 80:8 81:23 82:1 85:12,19 sidewalks 20:25 21:3 siding 47:9,15 sign 21:12 79:14 79:22 80:4,5 98:12 signage 79:13 signal 24:6,9,23 signalized 48:19 53:20 94:6 96:17 97:13,13 97:21 98:2 signals 50:5 signed 98:23 significant 42:8 significantly 112 nie Source Group (925) 846-8831 70:7 signing 79:4,8 80:10 98:18,21 signs 79:11,12 79:20 similar 55:2 69:14 95:6 single 14:23 sir 5:8 6:5 7:20 8:24 9:7 13:12 14:19 20:24 25:9 28:3 sitc21:17 43:19 53:22 71:18,20 95:7,11 96:1 six 29:23,24 30:3 30:8,16 31:2 84:4,22 six-foot 31:14,16 six-inch 84:8 size 84:22 skooch 74:25 slight 46:18 slightly 19:16 20:6,8 34:5 76:21 87:13,21 88:13 slope 18:7 29:22 30:25 38:12,15 40:7,8,12,13 40:17,19,22 41:2,4,15,18 41:21,24 42:3 42:7,11,15 43:12,16,21 44:11,19,19,22 44:23 45:14 68:23 74:10 81:8,11,14,23 82:2,14 85:9 85:15,18 small 22:11 smushed 5:12 solution 93:22 somebody's 97:7 someone's 84:2 sorry 30:11 52:7 59:8 70:23 81:10 sort36:18,21 south 3:15 18:19 22:23 23:4,8 24:2,23 31:15 36:10,15 37:11 41:11 42:9 59:16,16,23 74:16 76:6 77:5 88:15,23 90:14 91:12 95:11 96:13 southbound 19:4 24:8 51:11 71:16 89:1 southerly 91:7 southern 10:8 32:10 40:23 41:5,19 47:13 48:9 73:14,25 southwest 94:16 southwesterly 63:11,17 specific 14:10 80:7 specifically 15:20 35:23 64:7 speculation 22:5 22:16 24:18 40:25 41:7 51:4 71:4 95:5 spell 4:5 spelled 5:24 spoke 64:25' squared 79:21 Sr 5:23 SS 100:7 101:2 SS-3 79:1 staff 46:20 53:4 stage 75:22,25 76:2,11,16,19 77:8,9,13,15 77:21,22 78:3 78:17,17 stages 78:8 staging 75:10,12 75:22 stand 31:2 47:12 84:6 standard 68:24 80:1,2 94:21 96:1 standing 35:4 stands 30:16 38:19 start 14:2 18:2 31:17 57:6 85:8 started 9:22 18:15 Starting 82:10 starts 31:18 59:18 90:6 state 1:1 3:7 4:5 11:6 100:6 101:1,7 states 94:10 station 26:10 27:16,21,25 28:7,10,11 32:6,13,24 33:5,18 34:2,7 36:7,13 37:11 39:14 42:19 44:13 45:3 59:4,21 60:4 63:15,18 64:12 83:5,10,15 87:10 88:17 stations 31:21,23 33:7 63:16 79:5 85:22 stay 50:15 steep 43:17 44:25 95:9 steeper45:4,5 steepest 45:7 steepness 43:18 stenographica... 101:14 stipulate 98:21 113 The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 stipulated 98:25 stop 36:21 38:8 80:4 83:23 95:24 stopped 24:8,13 24:23 stopping 79:17 80:5 stops 21:9,11 street 6:15 18:5 18:7,8,10 . 19:11,15,18 20:2,2,15 21:1 21:4,7 26:13 27:11 46:17 47:7 49:16 50:4,10 51:25 52:1 57:16 58:5 60:13,24 64:15 70:1,11 70:12 75:4,5 76:5 79:6,10 79:15,19 82:23 87:9,12 streets 6:16 striping 79:4,8 80:10 structure 36:18 75:1 82:12,15 82:17 structures 21:13 24:11 60:13 70:9 studies 16:14 study 16:15 sub 68:4,5,15 subject 7:11 submit 71:21 subscribed 100:17 101:22 succeeding 87:5 sufficient 53:19 71:15 suggested 52:18 suit43:19 suitable 93:25 summarize 5:14 SUPERIOR 1:1 supply 92:13 sure 15:12 18:6 20:6,15 30:6 45:19 47:24 52:10 88:1 surface29:25 30:2,18,22 88:8 surprised 46:1,3 46:20 49:24 survey 65:17 switch 77:18 sworn 3:11 4:2 73:6 101:11 symmetric 69:12 S-20180:13 S-228 33:23 34:11 S-230 29:15,18 31:6 33:4 T 2:8 tag 35:4 take 14:5,7 26:18 49:15 66:21,23 69:13 69:14 taken 8:14 13:17 14:9,21 15:3 16:3 64:8 72:2 101:13 takes 16:12 talk 67:19 talked 40:6 talking 7:18 41:2 68:11 tallest 33:12 taper 35:14,18 36:7,16 94:10 94:11,12,14 95:16,22 96:4 96:7 tapering 35:2 tapers 48:10 62:18 TCE 39:13,18 telephone 73:20 tell4:17 10:17 10:22,25 11:23 21:12 25:24 44:10 76:18 telling 30:5 temporary 39:5 39:8 55:24 56:9 61:23 75:16 76:3,5 76:22,23 77:24 79:6 90:4,6,13 91:11,14,20,24 92:2 Ten 34:22 35:1 term 65:17 terms 68:12 testified 3:12 4:2 73:7 testify 8:13 9:4 101:11 testifying 73:5 testimony 101:18 Thank 27:9 99:1 thereof 3:3 They'd 43:14 thing 21:17 things 7:2 9:15 9:16 think 15:19 16:7 16:8 17:5 21:20 49:23 88:19 third 65:10 three 19:4,4 34:4 45:14 55:14 68:19 71:15 74:13 77:21,22 82:16 three -to -one 44:21,23 45:4 45:9,14 Thursday 1:16 3:2 TH-3 78:14 tic 74:9 ties 74:22 tie-in 74:22 time 4:18,23 15:5 20:18 35:13 56:23 70:9 73:5 94:19 98:20 101:14,19 title 4:12 titles 4:17 today 9:20 10:21 25:19 61:4 94:8 97:23 top 8:18 11:25 26:12 31:6,10 31:11 33:13 34:10,11 37:21 38:4,11,14 40:6 42:3,11 42:15 46:9 53:15 57:21,22 57:22,23 58:2 58:7,10 60:1 70:18 71:10 81:8,11 82:2,5 83:13 85:23 86:18 total 12:19 29:16 36:15 67:23 89:8 91:19 96:8 touching 22:19 to -be -construe... 27:1 track 47:9,15,16 47:18,22,24,25 48:2,2 tracks 23:9,12 25:8 44:24,25 45:8 48:15 69:2 75:2 76:5 traffic 6:13,13 18:6 24:14 50:14 54:18 75:18 76:22,23 78:16,19 79:12 80:2 trains 47:23 transaction 23:21 transcript34:8 98:10,14,19 100:12,15 transition 35:19 40:10 45:2 transitioned 37:3 transitions 31:15 36:14 37:10 traveled 19:2 88:8 traverse47:23 trees 24:21 tripping 84:7 true23:13 25:5 29:10 34:15 36:8 51:13 62:19 63:21 73:21 100:15 101:17 Trust 1:9 trustees1:8 truth 101:11,12 101:12 try 45:8 trying 16:2 32:19 46:21 turn 48:10 50:7 50:8,12 51:16 60:5 65:10 75:8 94:6 95:24,25 96:17 96:21,23 97:13 97:21 99:2 turned 88:14 two 5:1713:24 35:3'37:20 47:21 49:13 55:25 56:6 76:16 77:8,13 77:14 78:17,17 82:6 87:24 91:6,22 92:3,8 92:17 two-story 55:14 two -to -one 45:1 81:14 tying 76:5 78:2 type 79:20,22 typewriting 101:15 typical 47:4,5 83:21 84:16 typically 36:22 40:1 47:7 50:14 54:17 68:18 79:16 84:6,11,21,24 94:14 95:23 uh-huh 5:5 8:21 20:20 29:19 30:9 82:24 ultimate 44:18 63:1,3,20 64:9 68:3,7,12 74:8 75:17 87:21 ultimately 35:2 79:6 underground 30:13,14 . underneath 83:8 underpass 77:9 understand 7:18 19:13,14 23:16 24:17 30:6 37:5 51:8 62:20 63:14 71:6 83:24 86:9 88:1 understanding 45:25 46:6 89:25 93:12 understood 68:22 unload 95:19 unloaded 35:24 unsigned 98:22 updated 12:21 URS 7:9 17:8 use 21:21 47:24 50:16 56:14,20 57:4 76:12 83:21 uses84:21 utilities 17:24 utility 17:12' 18:14 46:19 73:13 U-3 73:12 vacant 54:24 vacated 35:12 vague 19:12 23:14 38:24 63:13 79:23 86:7 93:14 94:4 95:4 Valley 17:24 variance 68:23 variation 31:3 90:22 variations 90:20 90:24 varies 29:22 90:17 91:3 variety 5:16,20 6:6 various 2:11 14:17,20,20 vary 81:16 varying 84:22 91:2 vehicle 89:1 vehicles 23:3,7 23:11 24:1,8 24:13 50:18,23 51:1,10 vehicular 6:13 vertical 45:15 46:16 53:24 54:1 57:16 58:22 88:21,22 view 24:12,16 114 The Souza Group (925)846-8831 80:17,18 visual20:1,22 vote 12:11 vs 1:7 wait 14:1 29:1 wall28:14,15,19 28:23,25 29:2 29:5,7,7,12,18 29:21 30:1,3,8 30:12,16 31:1 31;4,6,10,14 31:16,17,25 32:3 33:9,14 33:15,17,20,25 34:1,11,14,15 34:17,18,21,24 34:25 35:5 81:8,12,15,19 81:23 walls 45:9 81:3 want10:9 17:18 43:18 64:5 84:7 97:6 wanted 41 t 12 43:15 46:2 wasn't 17:10 50:21 Watch 80:3 water 17:24 74:3 74:3 way 7:5 10:20 17:22 42:16 48:14,15 50:24 60:14 67:25 79:9 week 9:16 weeks 92:18 went 12:11 15:25 46:17 49:25 70:10 88:14 west 3:5,20 18:23 24:11 26:12 29:5,6,9 35:15 36:4 37:4,15,17 38:5,7,9,12,18 39:9 40`.8 44:17 51:21 57:23 62:7 65:12 80:24 87:12 97:8 Westbound 51:14,15 westerly 58:3 westernmost 37:21 we'll67:19 WHEREOF 100:16 101:22 wide 54:12 66:22 68:3 84:4,6,8 91:25 widened 20:18 Widening 5:19 wider 69:19 widest 66:20,24 67:1,3 69:20 91:24 widtb 37:12 42:18 64-12 70:14,16;21 90:10,16 91:11 91:20 willing 95:10 willy 97:6 winery 21:23,25 wishes 98:12 witness 3:10 8:8 15:16,19 17:13 17:15 19:14 22:7,19 23:18 , 24:20 27:10 30:24 37:6 39:7 41:9 51:6 51:9 54:5 56:22 61:9 62:21 63:15 67:15 71:8 73:5 86:11 89:25 92:21 94:5 95:6 97:20 98:11 100:16 101:10 101:22 wood 49:6 51:18 51:22 97:3,8 97:14 98:3 words 59:11 work 18:15 working 10:7 writings 9:4 written 16:13,16 W-16 79:18 x2:8 61:8 x-08 85:22 87:1 x-15 88:2 Y yard 84:2 yeah 17:4 30:14 30:24 33:16 39:17 45:7 48:14 51:16 57:2,9,9 59:7,9 61:9 67:15 75:6 84:11 88:11,16 91:5 93:3 96:8,8,14 year 12:11,22 57:7 years 4:16 5:12 12:18,22 55:25 56:6 923,8 zero 35:2 Zeros 59:12 $1312:19 $1512:22 42383101:25 --.... 0......------ 00 27:22 28:1,8,8 115 The Souza Group (925) 846-8831 85.23 07 57:8 08 57:8 094962 1:7 12:10 7:22 8:1,4 8:10,11 9:10 11:10,11 13:2 13:3,7,7 64:7 1:15 72:3 73:2 1.09:11 11:10 13:2,7 33:11 33:18 36:1 93:9 94:11 10:30 3:3 100 28:4,8 96:12 101.3 67.3 105.7.91:15,17 1090 26:18 86:13 86:18 1090,72 26:11 112:11 44:16 65:24 90:2 1100 26:17 1103 26:18,19 110526:17 86:15 1117 86:20 11355 3:5,20 116 90:10 116.40 91:25 11710:24 12 65:20,25 67:25 89:14 903,3,3,14,14 12-foot 44.14 12:30 72:2 120 20:3 68:24 693,6 96:6 120-foot 68:18 123 26:7 27:5 70:6 93:9 94:11 125 96:12 13 26`:7 57:13 130 69:9 133 70:2,8 134 67:25 68:9 68:16 71:3 14-feet 67:10 18 14:7 56:22,25 57:1 18-month 78:10 1910:12 1990 5:4 22:11 8:10 11:19,20,24,25 12:7 13:1 2:00 99:2 20 28:10,11 37:9 44:16 59:4 200 31:25 2002 5:11 20071:16 2:3 3:2 10:12 13:23 14:3 57:7 100:18 101:23 200814:3 201012:12,18 204012:12,18 2160:19 22 1:16 2:3 3:2 220 36:16,17 228 33:24 2326:1,8 86:15 86:21 23831:25 101:7 25 2:12 250 54:17,21 27 42:19 86:20 86:24 28 73:12 86:18 29 60:4 73:18 3 2:12 25:18,20 25:24 27:5 47:2 57:11 73:12 78:15 93:20 30 32:17 33:2,3 44:16 98:17 3129:15 33 66:8 75:8 34 66:13 34.3 66:21 67:3 70:14 91:17 35 54:12 355 3:14 4 2:14 9:10 11:11 13:3 44:1,4,10 45:22 70:5 85:21 4,95 2:5 4037:15 67:9 78:15 84:24 40th 3:15 40-foot 37:12 42:18 442:14 48 31:14 52:15 11:11 13:3,18 63:25 64:2 65:19 79`:14 89:14 50 34:7,9 79:2 85:23 87:10 88:10,24 89:4 89:6,11 5123 47:2 52 59:21 88:24 89:5,11 52150 88:21 53 27:22 85:23 88:18 53/0026:10 34:2 70:6 83:15 88:22 53/50 70:2,7 54 28:1,7,10,11 32:6,17 33:11 45:5 54/30 32:16 54/45 32:18 5528:8 33:18 45:4,6 85:23 56 34:7,9 453,6 56/50 34:3,5 5837:11 42:19 44:13 59 36:7 6 68:4,5,15 60 20:3 63:15,18 64:12 60150 87:24 6133:2,3 36:13 59:4 87:10 88:10 89:4 61.20 59:16 61.5 89:3 61/30 32:25 33:2 61150 88:14 89:10 62/15 60:4 63 60:4 642:15 67 64:13 66:17 67:2 68 69:25 765:20 89:14 79 36:8 8 2:10 67:25 70:5 80 59:21 9 17:2 27:5 905:1 86:17 900 89:9 90064 3:6,21 )0071-3101 3:16 )3 2:6 )4 67:6,12 , )936:13 The Souza Group 116 (925)846-8831 EXHIBIT F k 1 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation 2 REGINA N. DANNER (137210) KIRSTEN R. BOWIN AN (181627) 3 355 South Grand Avenue, 40s' Floor , I L Los Angeles, CA 90071 SF COURT 4 Telephone: (213) 626-8484 RANCHO CUCAMONGA D 101NCT Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 4 JUL 3 1 2007 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 1= 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY i 4 , 7 8 DEPUTY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 9 10 a o o CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Case No. RCV 091735 a 11x" p Plaintiff, STIPULATION. BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF LU 0 . 12 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND — o V vs. DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND z 13 COMMUNITY. BANK FOR ENTRY OF U) o DR LANDMARK, et al., JUDGMENT AND FINAL, ORDER.OF d 14 CONDEMNATION Defendant. `^ 15 [Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] 0 16 [APN:0209-131-01] P 17 ACTION FILED: November 29, 2005 18 WHEREAS Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "CiV) seeks to acquire by 19 exercise of its poker of eminent domain certain real property interests (the "Subject Property D, 20 which are more frilly described in the Complaint in Eminent Domain on file in this action; 21 WHEREAS the City is acquiring the Subject Propertyfor public street purposes and- for 22 all uses necessary and convenient thereto; 23 WHEREAS Defendant DR Landmark, a California Corporation ("DR Landmark") filed 24 an answer in this action wherein it represents and warrants that it is the owner of fee title to the 25 Subject Property; 26 WHEREAS Defendant DR Landmark is the successor -in -interest to a certain Sign 27 Agreement dated September 3, 1991 ("Sign Agreement") between HCS Construction Supplies 28 y d ("HCS") and Kunz and Company ("Kunz-), wherein Kunz agreed to maintain various / STH'UL CrION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND / COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION !!! �� 11231-0155\937429%2doc rJ 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 advertising strictures on the Subject Property; WHEREAS Defendant Community Bank ("Community Bank") filed a general appearance and non -opposition to relief requested with a reservation of lien rights to the eminent domainproceeds. Community Bank executed a disclaimer of any interest in the Subject Property after having withdrawn the sum of S286,700.00, which represents the funds on deposit with the San Bernardino Superior Court Clerk (the "Court Clerk"); WHEREAS Defendant HCS Cutler, a California Corporation ("HCS Cutler") filed an Answer in this action, and later filed a disclaimer of any interest in or to the Subject Property or to any portion of the compensation to be awarded in this proceeding; WHEREAS the Court Clerk has entered the defaults of Defendants. All Persons Unknown Having or Claiming Any Title or Interestin or to the Property. Sought to be Condemned Herein; and, WHEREAS the City DR Landmark and Community Bank* (the ,"parties") wish to resolve the disputed issues between them and to satisfy all claims constituting encumbrances or. liens against the Subject Property. NOW, THEREFORE; the City, DR Landmark and Community Bank agree and stipulate as follows: The City commenced this action in eminent domain on November 29, 2005, to, acquire the Subject Property for public street purposes and for all uses necessary or convenient thereto. DR Landmark's property (the "larger parcel" )' consists of 5.2 acres of land (226,734 square feet) at 26t1i Street and Haven -Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The larger parcel is identified by the San Bernardino County Assessor as Assessor's Parcel Number 0209- 131-01, and is commonly known as 1045126a' Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2. The interests in the Subject Property the City seeks to acquire consist of a fee interest of20,719 square feet, and a 24-month temporary construction easement of 12,296 square feet. The interests the City is acquiring in this proceeding and that are the subject of this Stipulation and the Complaint herein, are described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES -2- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF C1TY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK 11231-01551937429v2.doc FOR ENTRY OP JUDGM ENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION =�1 :Mo _E14 1 (A.P.N.0209-131-01) 2 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE 3 OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 4 COMMENC 1NG AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN 5 AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND'26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 6 HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET 7 TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING- THENCE 8 LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO 9 A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF 10 WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 117.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL 11 WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT 12 AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 13 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST 14 RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 15 CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 16 17 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (A.P.N.0209-131-01) 18 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF 19 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED' IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF 20 SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 21 COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN 22 AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 23 26TH STREET NORTH 89058'29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 0001'31" EAST 30.00 FEET 24 TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26TH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID 25 SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29019'04" WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26 89056'55" EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°29'01" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN 27 AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE 28 BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING -3- STIPULATION I3Y PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUN71TY HANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-01551937429v2.doc 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89030' 18" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. The Subject Property is also described and depicted in Exhibit A to this Stipulation. 3. On November 29, 2005, the City deposited with the San Bernardino Superior Court Clerk, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1255.010 et seq., the sum of $286,700 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars) as the probable just compensation for the Subject Property.. 4. The City wasauthorized to, and did, take possession of the Subject Property on April 25,.2006,.in accordance with an Order for Possession made by this Court on January 10, 2006, and served on January 25, 2606. 5. On or about January,2,.2007, pursuant to a Stipulation executed by the City, DR Landmark and Community Bank, defendant, Community Bank withdrew from the San Bernardino Court Clerk the sum of $286,700.00 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars). This sum represents payment of any and all claims in this action by Community Bank, and represents offset toward any balance owed on it's security interest in the Subject Property. The sums withdrawn represent the entire funds on deposit with the Court Clerk. 6. The parties wish to resolve this proceeding fully with this Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Final Order of Condemnation. This Stipulation is made with respect to all claims arising from or related to the acquisition by the City of the Subject Property, including any security interest claimed by Community Bank. DR Landmark agrees to deliver clear title to the Subject Property, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. a I IPU�A I Iun By PLAIN I IFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK . 11231-0155\977429e2.doc FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 1 8. The DR Landmark, as the successor -in -interest to the Sign Agreement dated 2 September 3, 1991 between HCS and Kunz, agrees assign to the City all of its rights, titles, 3 interests, and obligations in, to and under the Sign Agreement, and City desires and agrees to 4 assume all of DR Landmark's rights, title, interests and obligations in, to and under the Sign 5 Agreement. 6 9. The City and DR Landmark agree that the total just compensation to be paid in 7 this proceeding for the Subject Property, which includes compensation for the temporary 8 construction easement, is $450,000.00 (Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars) less offset for 9 payment to Community Bank as described in paragraph 5. 10 10. The City and DR Landmark agree that in the event the temporary construction zo 11 easement must be extended beyond the twenty-four (24) month period, the City will pay the wo 12 rental rate of $1,000.00 per month directly to the property owners. The extension of time for the L Z o 13 temporary construction easement will not exceed twelve (12) months. o� a 14 11. The City and DR Landmark further agree that after the completion of the Project, U s 15 the City will vacate a portion of excess land ("excess parcel of land") to DR Landmark o a S 16 consisting of approximately 8,265 square feet to DR Landmark. The excess parcel of land is x V 17 described in Exhibit B. �Y 18 12. The City and DR Landmark agree that the total just compensation in this action 19 shall be paid as follows: 20 a. Within five (5) business days after the.date of execution of this Stipulation 21 by all parties and delivery of the Grant Deed specified in Section (b) below, whichever is later, 22 the City shall deliver to Defendant's attorney, Charles Cummings of Sullivan, Workman & Dee, 23 the amount of $163,300.00 (One Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars) (the 24 "funds") in the form of a check made payable to Sullivan, Workman & Dee Trust Account on 25 behalf of DR Landmark. 26 b. Grant Deed. DR Landmark covenants and agrees to deliver to the City a 27 Grant Deed duly executed and acknowledged by the City, granting and conveying to the City the 28 Subject Property. The Grant Deed shall be in a form satisfactory to the City and the City's 5 STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON'GA, DEFENDA`ITS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK 11231-01551937929"2.doc FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION z z = O Lr)a Ix o w z2 O F o to s in q N i U C ilup ?%s'i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M counsel and shall be accepted by the City prior to recording. The grant deed will convey the fee interest of 20,719 square feet. C. Grant Deed. After the completion of the Project, the City covenants and agrees to deliver to DR Landmark a Grant Deed duly executed and acknowledged by DR Landmark, granting and conveying to DR Landmark the excess parcel of land as described in paragraph 11, The Grant Deed shall be in a form satisfactory to DR Landmark and its counsel. The grant deed shall convey the fee interest of 8265 square feet as identified in Exhibit B. d. Authorization to Record Documents and Disburse Funds. Prior to release of funds from City to DR Landmark and its attorneys, each of the'fol'lowing conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The Subject Property conveyed by DR Landmark to the City shall be free and clear of monetary liens and encumbrances. (2) DR Landmark shall have delivered the executed Assignment and Assumption Agreement as described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation. (3) DR Landmark shall have delivered to the City and received the City's notice of approval or satisfaction or waiver of all of the contingencies. to City's obligations hereunder, as provided for in Section 12 (e); and e. City's Contingencies, For the benefit of the City, the City's obligation to consummate the purchase of the Properties shall be contingent upon and subject to the occurrence of all of the following (or the City's written waiver thereof, it being agreed that the City can waive any or all such contingencies): (1) Effective at the time of signing this Stipulation and delivery of the Deed, the representations and warranties of DR Landmark and Community Bank contained in this Stipulation are all true and correct. (2) The delivery of all documents pursuant to Section 12(b) hereof. f. Default. In the event of a breach or default under this Stipulation by either City, DR Landmark or Community Bank, the non -defaulting party shall have, in addition to all rights available at law or equity, the right to terminate this Stipulation for the purchase and -6- STIPULATION BY rL IN I U-V CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COIDIMUVITY BANK 11231-0Lis V37A29Jl.doc FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z 6 11 o �. 0 0 12 W LD 13 z o a 14 3 s 15 � p w 16 Q z Z C a 17 i` =Yi 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i sale of the Subject Property, by delivering written notice thereof to the defaulting party, and if City is the non -defaulting party, City shall thereupon promptly receive a refund of all prior deposits and payments. Such termination by a non -defaulting party shall be without prejudice to the non -defaulting party's rights and remedies at law or equity. g. Notices. All notices and demands shall be given in writing by certified mail, postage prepaid, and return receipt requested, or by personal delivery. Notices shall be considered given upon the earlier of (a) personal delivery, (b) two (2) business days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid; certified or registered, return receipt requested, or (c) one (1) business day following deposit with an overnight carrier service. A copy of all notices shall be sent to Escrow Holder. Notices shall be addressed as provided below for the respective party; provided that if any party gives notice in writing of a change of name or address, notices to such party shall thereafter be given as demanded in that notice: BUYER: City of Rancho Cucarnbnga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attn: Maria Perez, Associate Engineer COPY TO: Richards, Watson & Gershon 1 Civic Center Circle, P.O. Box 1059 Brea, California 92822-1059 Attn:. James L. Markman SELLER: DR Landmark c/o Sullivan, Workman &Dee 800 South Figueroa Street, Twelfth Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2521 Attn: Charles Cummings -7- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK l 123I -0I551937429v2,doc FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 1 h. Further Instructions. Each party agrees to execute such other and 2 further documents as may be necessary or proper in order to consummate the transaction 3 contemplated by this Stipulation. 4 i. Amendments. Any'amendments to this Stipulation shall be effective only 5 when duly executed and delivered by the City and DR Landmark. 6 13. Within five (5) business days following receipt of.the payment described in 7 paragraph 12a, above, Charles Cummings, counsel for DR Landmark, shall execute and return to 8 1 counsel for the City an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation in the form attached 9 to this Stipulation as Exhibit C,. acknowledging on DR Landmark's behalf receipt from the City 10 of the warrant specified in paragraph 12a, above, and payment by the City of the sums specified 11 in paragraph 12a, above. 12 14. DR Landmark expressly acknowledges that payment on its behalf of the total sum 13 of $450,000.00 (Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars), as detailed in paragraphs 9 and 12 14 above, and the conveyance of the excess parcel of land, as detailed in paragraph 10 above, 15 constitutes full and final settlement of any and all claims arising from the City's taking of the 16 Subject Property including without limitation (a), claims for compensation for, the Subject 17 Property; (b) all payments, if any, which may be required by law to be paid to DR Landmark 18 arising from the displacement of any business activities on the Subject Property; (c) severance 19 damages; (d) precondemnation damages; (e) inverse condemnation; (f) loss of business goodwill; 20 (g) de facto taking; (h) damages for violation of civil or constitutional rights; .(i) costs; 0) 21 litigation expenses; (k) expertwitness fees; (1) attorneys' fees; (m) interest; (n) relocation 22 assistance or benefits; (o) owner participation rights; (p) abandonment costs; (q) cost to cure 23 damages, or (r) any other claim or reason, whether relating to the City's acquisition of the 24 Subject Property, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Subject Property, or this 25 proceeding. 26 15. DR Landmark warrants that it is not aware of any other person or entity with any 27 right or entitlement, by lien or otherwise, to the Subject Property or to the just compensation 28 awarded in this proceeding for the Properties. Specifically, and without limitation, DR -8- STIPULATIOA BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK 11231-0I55\937429v2.doc FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION h 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 j Landmark warrants and agrees: a. That they are the record owners of the Subject Property. b. That aside from the security interest claimed by Community Bank, DR Landmark knows of no other claims or liens presently claimed or which will be claimed against the Subject Property. d. That it will not further encumber the Subject Property.or allow the Subject Property to be further encumbered before entry of the Final Order of Condemnation in this action. C. That to DR Landmark's best knowledge, the Subject Property is free and clear of all hazardous and toxic substances, materials, and waste; and that they have no notice of any pending or threatened action or proceeding arising from the condition of the Subject Property;or alleged violation of environmental; health;, or safety statutes,, ordinances, or, regulations. DR Landmark agrees that notwithstanding the conveyance to the City of the Subject Property, DR Landmark shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City from and against any and all claims, liabilities, suits, losses, costs; expenses and damages, including without limitation attorneys' fees and costs; arising from.any claim for loss or damage to any portion of the Subject Property; from and against all claims for injuries or death of persons; and for the cost of cleaning up the Subject Property and removing hazardous or toxic substances, materials, and waste therefrom, by reason of contamination or adverse effects on the environment, or by reason of any statutes, ordinances, orders, rules, or regulations of any governmental entity or agency requiring the clean-up of the Subject Property caused by or resulting from any hazardous material, substance, or waste existing on or under the Subject Property before April 25, 2006. f. That neither this Stipulation nor anything it requires or provides, including the transfer of the Properties to the City, violates or will violate any contract, agreement, or instrument to which DR Landmark is a party, or that affects the Subject Property, and that conveyance of the Properties to the City does not require consent of any person whois not a party to this Stipulation. s 1 WULA 11UN 13Y PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOT FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND 1123"I555937429v2.doc pjM zo o2 Lr) O W � a 2 z oW H cn 5 C1 q O 'N c �V 1 g. That there ate no written or oral leases or contractual rights or options to 2 lease, purchase, or That to enjoy possession, rights, or any interest in the Subject Property 3 or to any part of the Subject Property, and that no person has any right of possession to the 4 Subject Property. 5 h. That they do not know of any pending, threatened, or potential litigation, 6 action, or proceeding against DR Landmark or any other party before any court or administrative 7 tribunal which is.in any way related to the Subject Property, except for this action pending as San 8 Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. RCV 091735. The settlement of the case at bar is 9 not intended to waive any right or claim which DR Landmark may have or may legally assert in 10 the above stated pending action. 11 16. The parties agree that this Stipulation is a settlement of all claims relating to the 12 Subject Property or to this proceeding, in order to avoid further litigation. Specifically and 13 without/ limitation,:the parties agree: 14 a. That entry of the Final Order of Condemnation in this proceeding 15 constitutes the waiver and release by DR Landmark' and Community Bank: of any and all claims 16 against the City or its officials, agents, contractors, or employees in connection with the Subject 17. Property or with this action that DR.Landmark and Community Bank have or could have 18 asserted in this action, and a waiver of any damage that may have been sustained as a result of 19 the City's,efforts to acquire the Subject.Property or as a result of any preliminary steps to such 20 acquisition. 21 b. That the payment described in paragraph 5 above will satisfy a portion of 22 the security interest in the Subject Property for benefit of the holders of Community Bank. 23 17. In effecting this Stipulation, each of the parties has had the Opportunity to receive 24 full and complete legal advice about the provisions of this Stipulation, and each signatory to the 25 Stipulation certifies that he or she has read all of this Stipulation and that he or she understands 26 it. This Stipulation has been fully negotiated among the City, DR Landmark and Community 27 Bank, and shall be constnied as if drafted by all parties to this Stipulation. 28 18. Except as otherwise set forth in this Stipulation and except for breach of any -10- STIPUL4TION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK l 1231-01551937429Yt.dac FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION z 0 w� LU .� z .o 0 3 rn s C4 U o z a �YJ 2 0 0 10 11 12. 13 14 15- 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 terms or conditions contained in this Stipulation, DR Landmark and Community Bank waive and forever release the City including its successors, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, representatives, and anyone acting on or for the City's behalf, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action, or liabilities, known or unknown, based upon or arising in connection with the Complaint in Eminent Domain herein; the Project for which the City is acquiring the Subject Property, or from the City's acquisition of the Subject Property. 19, By such release, DR Landmark and Community Bank waive any rights under California Civil' Code Section 1542, which provides, "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." 20. This Stipulation is made and executed, and is intended to be performed, within the State of California, and is to be construed under California law. 21.. If any provision of this Stipulation is held invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect and shall not be impaired or invalidated by the failed provision. 22. The parties agree that each will bear its own attorney's fees and costs in . connection with this proceeding and this Stipulation. 23. If any party to this Stipulation incurs attorney's fees in order to enforce, defend, or interpret any of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Stipulation or because of a breach of this Stipulation by another party, the prevailing party (whother by suit, negotiation, arbitration, or settlement) shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees from the other party. 24. DR Landmark agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City in the event of breach of DR Landmark's warranties and agreements set forth above. In particular, but without limitation, DR Landmark agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City against any future claim by the County of San Bernardino for taxes on the Subject Property. 25. The City, DR Landmark, 'and Community Bank agree that this Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original instrument; and all of which together shall constitute the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment. -11- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFEA*DANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK 11231-0155V937429v2.dac FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION I' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 26. Upon filing with the Court the Acknowledgment of Receipt described in paragraph 12 above, the parties to this, Stipulation agree that a Judgment in Condemnation in the form attached as Exhibit D to this Stipulation and a Final Order of Condemnation in the form attached as Exhibit E to this Stipulation may be entered by the Court without further notice to DR Landmark or to Community 13ank. IT ISSOSTIPULATED. DATED: I ZO 2007 RACHEL DR LANDMARK DATED: 2:I 007 DAVID HALSTEAD DR LANDMARK Approved as.to Fenn,��o 2007: SULLIVAN WORKMAN & DEE By: /� �/L�z C ES CUMMINGS Attorneys for Defendant DR LANDMARK DATED: Q,� 1 g , 2007 THE LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE C. MEYERSON By. La rence ence C. Meyerson Attorneys for Defendant COMMUNITY BANK -12- STIPULATION EY PLARJTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY SANK 11231-0155937429v2.doc FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z 11 i� a 12 W V' z 13 o� 14 o s 15 16 x� U k K a 17 j rtiu _•r'i 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: 6 r a � ,2007 Approved as to Form, 2007: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER KIRSTEN R. BO NLAN By: �-V -'+h KIRSTEN R. BOWMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �TVMS L. MARKMAN, City Attomey 0 -13- STIPUGATION BYPLAEJTIFF CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK 11231-0I5S937429v2.doc FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION EXHIBIT A .. - --- ----- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 20 Exhibit A to Stipulation to Judgment: Legal Description and Maps of Subject Property Interests LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES (A.P.N.0209-131-01) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0°28' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING. SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 47029'01"'WEST 23.18 FEET;THENCE NORTH 89056'55 WEST 98.79TEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM.SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID:PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 117.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (A.P.N.0209-131-01) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 26TH STREET NORTH 89058'29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 0'01'31" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26TH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2901'9'04" WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°56'55" EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47029'01" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING -14- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY B/v\'K 11231-0155V37429 V2.doc FOR ENTRY OP JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION Z% o2 R!R ERP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89030' 18" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAIDTRUE POINT OF BEGMNING. CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. -15- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK 1123]-0155\937429v2.doc FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION EXHIBIT B I Exhibit B to Stipulation to Judgment: Map of Excess Portion of Land 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Z00 � 11 x� 12 Uj W l7 o 13 � 14 a s 15 o. ¢ 16 x� u� 17 i 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -16- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0155\937429v2.doc J`t���a�M- E EXHIBIT C i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 o 11 x� 12 � o z 0 13. z� o .� 14 Ln s 15 o 16- '�� 17 �r v� 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E 0 9 Exhibit C to Stipulation to Judgment: Form of Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation -17- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK 11271-0155W37429v2.dac FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 0 1 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation 2 REGINA N. DANNER (137210) KIRSTEN R. BOWMAN (181627) 3 355 South Grand Avenue, 40`h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 4 Telephone: (213) 626-8484 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, VS. DR LANDMARK, et al., Defendants. e Case NO. RCV 09 173 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF JUST COMPENSATION [Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Govt Code § 6103]- [APN: 0209-131-01] IACTION FILED: November 29, 2005 This acknowledges that on July � 2007, Charles Cummings of 17 SULLIVAN, WORKMAN AND DEE, attorneys for Defendant DR LANDMARK, 18 received from the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Check Number 254436 in the 19 amount of S 163,300.00 (One $undred Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars) 20 payable to: SULLIVAN, WORKMAN & DEE on behalf of DR LANDMARK as full and 21 final payment for the.real property interests in Plaintiff's Complaint herein. This payment 22 represents the payment of just compensation in this action. 23 DATED: r a 2007 SULLIVAN, WORKMAN & DEE 24 25 _ By: r 26 CHARLES CUMMIN S Attorney for Defendants 27 DR Landmark 28 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION 11231-0154\944963v1.doc i I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 o `e 11 x� LU o 12 V z 13 CJ W 14 N 's 15 o� 16 a 17 E,:v 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit D to Stipulation to Judgment: Form of Judgment of Condemnation -18- STIPULATION $Y PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY $ANK 11231-0155%937429v2.doc FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE. OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, V. DR LANDMARK, et al., Defendants. Case No. RCV 091735 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION [Assessor's Parcel No. 0209-131-01] Exempt from Filing Fees [Govt. Code 61033 ACTION FILED: November 29, 2005 Plaintiff City. of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") filed a Complaint in Eminent. Domain on November 29, 2005, to acquire certain real property interests (the "Subject Property"); for public street purposes and for all uses necessary or convenient thereto. The Subject Property interests consist of a fee interest of 20,719 square feet, and a 24-month temporary construction easement of 12,296 square feet., The Subject Property interests are part of a larger parcel, which consists of 5.2 acres of land identified as San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01, and is commonly known as 10451 26t1i Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, On November 29, 2005, the City deposited with the San Bernardino Superior Court Clerk (the "Court Clerk") the sum of $286,700.00 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand. Seven Hundred Dollars) as the probable just compensation for the Subject Property interests. On April 25, 2006, the City was authorized to, and did take possession of the Subject Property, in accordance with Order for Possession made by this Court on January 10, 2006, and served on January 25, 2006. 11231-01541937862v1.doc [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 10 11 12, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The City, and Defendants DR Landmark and Community Bank entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Final Order of Condemnation (the "Stipulation"), filed with this Corot m Defendant, HCS Cutler, a California Corporation ("HCS Cutler") disclaimed any interest ' in or to the Subject Property or to any portion of the compensation to be awarded in this proceeding. Defendant, Community Bank filed a disclaimer of any interest in or to the Subject Property or to any further compensation to be awarded in this proceeding after having withdrawn the sum of $286,700.00 00 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars) from the ,Court Clerk. This sum represents payment for any and all claims by Community Bank in this proceeding. Defendants, all Persons Unknown Having or Claiming Any Title or Interest in or to the Property Sought to be Condemned Herein, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, have been defaulted by the Clerk of the Superior Court. In accordance with the Stipulation, the sum of $450,000.00 (Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars) less the sum of $286,700.00,paid to Community Bank, is hereby adjudged as the total monetary just compensation to be paid by the City to DR Landmark in this proceeding. On or about July 20, 2007, Charles Cummings, counsel for DR Landmark, executed an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation on DR Landmark's behalf, acknowledging receipt of warrant number'254436 from the City in the sum of $163,300.00 (One Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars). The City filed this Acknowledgment with the Court on NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Stipulation is incorporated herein by this reference. 1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED,.AND DECREED that the Property, is hereby condemned for the uses and purposes stated in the Complaint in Eminent Domain. The Property interests are depicted on Exhibit "l"hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference. The Subject Property interests the City is acquiring in this proceeding and that are the _2_ 11231-0154\937862vI.doc [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION I subject of this Stipulation and the Complaint herein, are described as follows: 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES 3 (A.P.N.0209-131-01) 4 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN 5 BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MOREPARTICULARLY 6 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 7 CONIMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 8 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE 9 LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'S0" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN 10 AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; SOUTH 47029'01" zo 0 11 WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89056'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO _ � A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET w o 12 MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE a 13 SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 117.45,FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL o WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES 14 FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT 3 AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; 15 THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH " s 89'56'39" EAST 116:00 FEET TO, SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE � q w, 16 OF HAVEN AVENUE;_ THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID 17 TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 'v 18 CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 19 V LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT 20 I (A.P.N.0209-131-01) 21 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN 22 BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY 23 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 24 COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 25 FEET WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 26TH STREET NORTH 89058'29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE 26 LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 0001'31" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26TH STREET 27 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34°56'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; 28 THENCE SOUTH 29019'04" WEST 192.3-3 FEET; THENCE SOUTH -3- 11231-0154\937862v1.doe [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 10 11 12 13 14 .15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 89056'55," EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47029'01" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028'10" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89°30'18" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the use for which the Property is condemned, namely for public street purposes and for all purposes necessary or convenient thereto, is a public use; that the public interest and necessity require the project for which the Property is condemned; that this project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible'with the greatest public good and the least private injury; that the Property is necessary for the project; and that the City is entitled to condemn the Property by virtue of the provisions of California Constitution Article 1, Section 19; California Government Code Sections 37350, 37350.5; 37351„40401, and 40404; by California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1230.610, 1240.050, 1240.110, 1240,120, 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650; and by other provisions of law. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that consistent with the Stipulation, the payment on DR Landmark's behalf of $450,000.00 (Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars), consisting of the original deposit of $286,700.00 (of which was disbursed to Defendant Community Bank), on behalf of DR Landmark, and a warrant in the sum of $163,300.00 (One Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars) by the City payable to DR Landmark, constitutes fall and final settlement of any and all claims arising from the City's taking the Property including, without limitation (a) claims for compensation for the Property; (b) all payments, if any, which may be required by law to be paid to DR Landmark arising from the displacement of any business activities on the Property; (c) severance damages; (d) precondemnation damages; (a) inverse condemnation; (f) loss of business goodwill; (g) de -4- 1'1231-0154\937862v1.doc [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION &4Y 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ?2 facto taking; (h) damages for violation of civil or constitutional rights; (i) costs; 0) litigation expenses; (k) expert witness fees; (1) attorneys' fees; (m) interest; (n) relocation assistance -or benefits; (o) owner participation rights; (p) abandonment costs; (q) cost fo cure damages, or (r) any other claim or reason, whether relating to the City's acquisition of the Property, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Property, or this proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that consistent with the Stipulation, the payment on Community Bank's behalf of $286,700.00 (two hundred eighty-six thousand,, seven hundred dollars), consisting of the funds withdrawn from the Court Clerk, constitutes full and final settlement of any and all claims arising from the City's taking the Property including without limitation (a) claims for compensation for Community Bank's security interest in the Property; (b) all payments, if any, which may be required by law to be paid to Community Bank arising from the displacement of any business activities involving the security interest; (c) severance damages; (d) precondemnation damages; (e) inverse condemnation; (f) loss of business goodwill; (g) de facto taking; (h) damages for violation of civil or constitutional rights; (i) costs; 0) litigation expenses; (k) expert witness fees; (1) ,attorneys" fees; (m) interest; (n) relocation assistance or benefits; (o) owner participation rights; (p) abandonment costs; (q) cost to cure damages, or (r) any other claim or reason, whether relating to the City's acquisition of the Property, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Property, or this proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that despite service of process in this action, no other person has asserted any interest in the compensation to be awarded in this action, and that all such persons are hereby adjudged in accordance with Code of . Civil Procedure Section 1250.220(d) to possess no compensable interest in the Property. 11231-0154 V 37862v1.doc -5- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION I The Clerk is directed to enter this Judgment in Condemnation forthwith. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 DATED: .2007 4 5 6 Judge of the Superior Court 7 8 9 10 o F 11 Ln 12 w a l7 Z a 13 14 a Ns 15 Offered by; o < Q 16 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation x 4 17 Y 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- 11231-0154\937862vl.doc [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 9 I Exhibit "1" to Judgment in Condemnation: Sketch Depicting Property Location 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 011 x� � a w g 12 ID 9 z o O 13 14 - 3 o � 15 „ x� 16 . u� 17 :Aft .Vj 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT L-i CONDEMNATION 11231-0154\937862vl.doc EXHIBIT E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z 11 0 o� W� 12 13 Z q O a 14 s 15 � q W 16 �< 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Exhibit E to Stipulation to Judgment: Form of Final Order of Condemnation -19- STtPULAT10N 13Y PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUiv'I7Y BANK 11231-0155\937429W2.doc FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION I . 1 Am 3 4 5 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 8 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Case No. RCV 091735 9 Plaintiff, FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 10 V. [Assessor's Parcel No. 0209-131-01] Z g os 11 DR LANDMARK, et al., Exempt from Filing Fees [Govt. Code 6103] N o w s 12 Defendants. ACTION FILED: November 29, 2005 —g z o 13 � w 0 a 14 N s 15 Judgment in Condemnation having been entered in this action on 2007; o te _ �i 16 and said Judgment having provided that upon payment of the total sum specified in said Ce ` 17 Judgment, Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") is entitled to a Final Order of PIOv ERP' 18 Condemnation in this action; and it appearing to the Court that the City has paid for the benefit 19 of Defendants DR Landmark the total sum specified in said Judgment, as evidenced by the 20 Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation executed by Charles Cummings on July 20, 21 2007 and Sled on ; 22 It further appearing to the Court that the City and defendant Community Bank, Inc., have 23 resolved the issues between them as evidenced -in a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment -filed with 24 the Court on ; 25 It further appearing to the Court that all parties to the action have been served and that no 26 other person has claimed any interest in the compensation to'be awarded in this action; 27 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 28 the Subject Property Interests consisting of a fee interest of 20,719 square feet, and a 24-month 11231-0154\988639vl.doo FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 0 I I temporary construction easement of 12,296 square feet in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which 2 are part of a larger parcel, consisting of 5.2 acres of land identified as San Bernardino County 3 Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01, and is commonly (mown as 10451 26`h Street in the City 4 of Rancho Cucamonga, are condemned and taken for a public use, namely for public street 5 purposes and for all uses necessary or convenient tbereto. 6 The legal description of t11is condemned property (the `Property") is as follows: 7 8 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES 9 (A.P.N.0209-131-01) 10 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE o �2 11 OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID o COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 12 COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN z a 13 AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 o FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF N 14 HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET s 15- TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN Ln ca AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 16 LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 47029'01" z• WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89156'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO E < 17 A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET ;avr MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF v� 18 WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 117.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL 19 WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT 20 AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 21 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST 22 RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0o28' 10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, 23 CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 24 25 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT 26 (A.P.N.0209-131-01) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF 27 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE 28 OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF 2 11231-01SA9886390.doc FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION z = o� xa 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 26TH STREET NORTH 89058'29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 0001'31" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26TH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29019'04"WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89056'55" EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°29'01" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE;, THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028'10" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89030' 18" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. , CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED; ADJUDGED AND DECREED that on recording of a certified copy of this Final Order of Condemnation with the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, title to the Subject Property Interest described above shall vest in Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga, its successors and its assigns. Plaintiff has taken possession of the Subject Property Interest pursuant to an order for possession with an effective date of April25, 2006 (date of apportionment). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all taxes, current and delinquent, and all penalties and costs on the Subject Property Interest described above shall be cancelled, if applicable, as of April25, 2006 the date of apportionment pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5081 et seq. _3_ 11231-0154\988639v1.doc FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z 11 o� x� 8 12 W � a z s 13 o� Ln 0 14 ¢Q s 1s Ln o< 16 z= uR 17 Y 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Clerk is ordered to enter this Final Order of Condemnation forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: . 2007 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Offered by: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation -4- 11231.0154V' 88639v1.doe FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION A �, • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 zo _0 11 w 8 12 z 13 0� U 14 O 15 _ ? 16 vo =� 17 v� 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit 1 to Judgment in Condemnation: Sketch Depicting Property Location K 11231-0154U88639v1.doc FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 6 7 8 9 10 ii 12' 13 19' 9J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 PS OMAS EX—MBIT `A' LEGAL I)L''SCRH'TION FOR Pu Av: si ECTPvRPOsrs (APN T09_13I-01) Resolution No. 05-328 Page 5 of 10 THAT PORTION OF LOT'I OF TRACT MAP2.203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,- FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRMED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND.26 "STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE. NORTH 89°31'50" WEST 3300 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND TRE.1agE POINT OP i3EGTNNING THBNCB LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 47°29'01." WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN pARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES' FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0°28' I W, EAST 177.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLYALONG. SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028'107, WEST 193_I4 FEET TO SAID TRT)E POINT OF BE-GINNIN{Z CONTAINING 0:476 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SAPu b. 22, burvcyVeO�lNa�p4kpn.3W-Ill-01 m09]203 do L.:Lbu±±, ]003 — Lcm:LC}.1 Slicer I Oft Resolution No.:05-328 Page 6 of•10 C i i 1 SEE EXHIBIT '13' ATLdCHID HMRETO AND MADE'A PART HEREOF 2 . 3 THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE DIVISION 4 AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP 5 ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA_ 6 ' 7 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF Y 9 . I It" � 12 VAR[ I. LAtMkPN, PLS $679 13 LICI NSE EXFnMS 09/30/05 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 -'21 22 23 2a 25 26 27 28 ' 29 30 A m:vunlaMollwm�uq,W�wl,yp�,Sw.�s�-0� R,av2sm ao� s°pi�,u,2oof [tm:I.CIt . Sheet 2 af2 DATE ' a Resolution No. 05-328 Page 7 of 10 EXHIBIT- "8° _ f'OC 26TH STREET ,- • a m HALSTEAD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP o APH NO. R09-ISI- aI � • POxraOA OF Lar 7 pLi N *TRACT MAP " 03 5.rz9 o,•w D BOOK S4 Pl�� Im 23 T8• j � . N893B'55'W 98:79' _-- ?POB _ JERSEY m p N 2 SLVD ID FOOT PU rc UTILITY Ac(IsAp OF QµIFE1RH�f AECOROEPP/'HY m JANUURY 17. IRLI• Ri GOOK 5231. PACQ IIO. OR -_-_---_-__ 1 T1 G.00' I SG9•SG'39'E 134' 6 $ HUMBOLT AVE 1 USCR,PTIdp A PORTION 0/ LOT ' Z Or IN SNE CI SY o RANCHO CUCxuONOA. S2203. STATEa SAN CERNAROINO. SHEET I OF I raTC cc M-FORNIA. SCALC, NONE LC' /ti ORAFTCW LCY AN WEI»y,ITsR CNLCKEO, LW//JP tilj iRa)n pu �mu.y llNt __-- RLAAOLR RUASZOOIoa EXHIBIT- "8° _ f'OC 26TH STREET ,- • a m HALSTEAD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP o APH NO. R09-ISI- aI � • POxraOA OF Lar 7 pLi N *TRACT MAP " 03 5.rz9 o,•w D BOOK S4 Pl�� Im 23 T8• j � . N893B'55'W 98:79' _-- ?POB _ JERSEY m p N 2 SLVD ID FOOT PU rc UTILITY Ac(IsAp OF QµIFE1RH�f AECOROEPP/'HY m JANUURY 17. IRLI• Ri GOOK 5231. PACQ IIO. OR -_-_---_-__ 1 T1 G.00' I SG9•SG'39'E 134' 6 $ HUMBOLT AVE 1 USCR,PTIdp A PORTION 0/ LOT ' Z Or IN SNE CI SY o RANCHO CUCxuONOA. S2203. STATEa SAN CERNAROINO. SHEET I OF I raTC cc M-FORNIA. SCALC, NONE LC' /ti ORAFTCW LCY AN WEI»y,ITsR CNLCKEO, LW//JP tilj iRa)n pu �mu.y llNt __-- RLAAOLR RUASZOOIoa 22 m 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 c ►=J Resolution No. 05-328 Page 8 of 10 PS OMAS I BIT°A'-i 2 to LsGALDESCRUvnON TEMPORARY CONSTRUL-170N EASEMENT (APN 209-131-01) ' THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF. SAN I3ERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,,. FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGfi 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: I! I COMA&NCINGATTHBCENTERLINE7NTERSECTION:OFHAVEN.AVENUI]i Is (CURREN[ LY 13d FfiET WIDE) AND 16ntSTREET (60 FEET WID �: THENCE, 13 WESTERLY ALONG Tim CENTERLINE OF20 S3REE(NORIH 89°58?Z4" WE$T 14 76:26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING, SAID CENTERLWE SoU`140001'31" EAST. 16 THE FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT+OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26th STREET AND 17 THE TR Tr'•'yntnrr.OF BEIQ*pVNM, THENCE MVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT i7 OF' WAY LRZE SOUTH 34°56'30^.F.AS 40 74 pEtT. THENCE 18 9OU98.79 .2 9'oA^ WEST I92,:33 FEET' TRENCH SOUTH 89°56'55"BAST i9 98:79.FEET; THENCS'NORTIi 47'29.01"'EAST Z.I8 FEET TO THE VMST RIGHT 20 OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE ; ONCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID 21 WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0'2810" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF q,CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADRIS OF 20.0D FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89-3D'18" POINT N TANGENCY STREET; TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 267" STREET; THEWESTERLY ALONG SAM SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89°58'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID p B CONTAINING-0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SEE EXHIBIT 'B' ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART, HEREOF MAUu 7OO/Ot1�^M�I�Ca�Vepal,4rc•70i.111-01-kn�tCtD11307 doe sa�6�11, 70D5 1sn�:LCM Sllcet 1 ofS M=lutlon No. 05-328 t Page g of 90 ! PS OMAS 1 2 THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION -IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN, TI•IL.DIVISION 3 AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF'nM SUBDIVISION MAP 'STATE 4 ACT OF THEOF CALIFORNIA. 6 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF 7 . 9 10 i l 741RI7s LA EN, PLS 5679 S f�T 7 �; 12 LICENSE MM'09/30/05 DATE 13 14 13 qvy W ' st Na 5679 , 17 r :'s 2 cos la 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 29 30 �rc�xun2004UItnuvc/JcC+uVryeJ�Lpn.la9.i31.0�-e �Rwsx7psCa ;Lcm xam Shod 2 of 2 Resolution No. 05-328 Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT _ 26TH STREET Sb 00` Tp.c 3D'g 40 ' 40 7474 HALSTEAD FAMILY PAHTHCRsmp ux ra- 7aD-171- a1 h�@, PgF37JOA1. OP LOT J 7AACT MAP 2908 BOOK 84 PAW 66 sa . to rmt ru c vnur. ' GrHCAUFORWA rsLCpJE t�m ANY. JANUANY 17. 1DE1. N HCgK a77a. PAGE A20, CIA •-"�q ___.. ...--....._ __- i. I I I 7 I r of SAx aENniolin."'"'"'•' SHEET I OF I j STALL aF CALUpgxl,� SCALE, xaNE . �^ O onAFTEO, L[11 V Ww? f� xlCy ME CHCCFEa, C{yi/p JF nI nn A lml gyplJ don i -•-•.... NUA7U1 2UNf200449 PY `.vo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Linda I. Pomatto, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On July 31, 2007, I served the within documents: STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION [ ] by causing facsimile transmission of the document(s) listed above from (213) 626-8484 to the person(s) and facsimile number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 P.M. This transmission was reported as complete and without error. A copy of the transmission report(s), which was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, is attached. Service by facsimile has been made pursuant to a prior written agreement between the parties. [X] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice; it'would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business'. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal .cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in this affidavit. [ ] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre- paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a FEDERAL EXPRESS agent for delivery, or deposited in a FEDERAL EXPRESS box or other facility regularly maintained, by FEDERAL EXPRESS, in an envelope or package, designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. [ ] by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. [ ] by causing personal delivery by First Legal Support Services, 1511 West Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90026 of the documents) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. See Attached Service List I declare under penalty ofpedury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 31, 2007 Linda I. Pomatto 11231-0154V 17929vt.doe c ' 1 SERVICE LIST 2 3 Mr. Charles D. Cummings, Esq. Ms. Karen McCreary, Esq. 4 SULLIVAN, WORKMAN & DEE 800 South Figueroa Street 5 Twelfth Floor ` Los Angeles, California 90017-2521 6 Lawrence C. Meyerson 7 THE LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCES C. MEYERSON 270 N. Canon Drive, Penthouse 8 Beverly Hills, California 90210 9 10 11 &' .- 12 LU 0 13 0 �^ ` ¢a 14 3 0 "s 15 rn in S g 16 17 yi 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 . 28 2 11231-0154V17929vl.doc EXHIBIT G W-1410 _!P 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FILEI�N BFRNANDINp ro NP( y /Ix t C;Y SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, V. DR LANDMARK, et al., Defendants. Case No. RCV 091735 -DJ JUDGMENT IN ' CONDEMNATION [Assessor's Parcel No. 0209-131-01] Exempt from Filing Fees [Govt. Code 6103] ACTION FILED: November 29, 2005 Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") filed a Complaint in Eminent Domain on November 29, 2005,'to acquire certain real property interests (the "Subject Property"), for public street purposes and for all uses necessary or convenient thereto, The Subject Property interests consist of a fee interest of 2%719 square feet, and a 24-month temporary construction easement of 12,296 square feet. The Subject Property interests are part of a larger parcel, which consists of 5.2 acres of land identified as San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01, and is commonly known as 10451 26a' Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, On November 29, 2005, the City deposited with the San Bernardino Superior Court Clerk (the "Court Clerk") the sum of $286,700.00 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars) as the probable just compensation for the Subject Property interests. On April 25, 2006, the City was authorized to, and did take possession of the Subject Property, in accordance with Order for Possession made by this Court on January 10, 2006, and served on January 25, 2006. 11231-0154V37862v 1.doc [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION R:V F�YJ 2 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E The City, and Defendants DR Landmark and Community Bank entered into a Stipulation for Entry of judgment and Final Order of Condemnation (the "Stipulation"), filed with this Court on August 1, 2007. Defendant, HCS Cutler, a California Corporation ("HCS Cutler") disclaimed any interest in or to the Subject Property or to any portion of the compensation to be awarded in this proceeding. Defendant, Community Bank filed a disclaimer of any interest in or to the Subject Property or to any further compensation to be awarded in this proceeding after having withdrawn the sum of $286,700.00 00 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars) from the Court Clerk This sum represents payment for any and all claims by Community Bank in this proceeding. Defendants, all Persons Unknown Having or Claiming Any Title or Interest in or to the Property Sought to be Condemned Herein, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, have been defaulted by the. Clerk of the Superior Court. In accordance with the Stipulation, the sum of $450,000.00 (Four hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars) less the sum of $286,700.00 paid to Community Bank, is hereby adjudged as the total monetary just compensation to be paid by the City to DR Landmark in this proceeding. On or about July 20, 2007, Charles Cummings, counsel for DR Landmark, executed.an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation on DR Landmark's behalf, acknowledging receipt of warrant number 254436 from the City in the sum of $163,300.00 (One Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars). The City filed this Acknowledgment with the Court on August 1, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Stipulation is incorporated herein by this reference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Property, is hereby condemned for the uses and purposes stated in the Complaint in Eminent Domain. The Property interests are depicted on Exhibit "1" hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference. The Subject Property interests the City is acquiring in this proceeding and that are the -2- 11231-0I541937862v1.doc [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION zo rn c o W � c.� a 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E subject of this Stipulation and the Complaint herein; are described as follows; LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES (A.P.N. 0209-13 1-01) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 117.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 193,14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS, LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (A.P.N. 0209-131-01) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 26TH STREET NORTH 89058'29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 0001'31" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26TH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29019'04" WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH -3- 11231-0154\937862vl.doc [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION RiY EH! l3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 r. 89056'55" EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47c29'01" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89030'18" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the use for which the Property is condemned, namely for public street purposes and for all purposes necessary or convenient thereto, is a public use; that the public interest and necessity require the project for which the Property is condemned; that this project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public goad and the least private injury; that the Property is necessary for the project; and that the City is entitled to condemn the Property by virtue of the provisions of California Constitution Article I, Section 19; California Government Code Sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404; by California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1230.010, 1240.050, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650; and by other provisions of Iaw. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that consistent with the Stipulation, the payment on DR Landmark's behalf of $450,000.00 (Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars), consisting of the original deposit of $286,700:00 (of which was disbursed to Defendant Community Bank), on behalf of DR Landmark, and a warrant in the sum of $163,300.00 (One Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars) by the City payable to DR Landmark, constitutes full and final settlement of any and all claims arising from the City's taking the Property including without limitation (a) claims for compensation for the Property; (b) all payments, if any, which may be required by law to be paid to DR Landmark arising from the displacement of any business activities on the Property, (c) severance damages; (d) precondemnation damages; (e) inverse condemnation; (f) loss of business goodwill; (g) de -4- 11231-0154\937862v1.doc [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C C facto taking; (h) damages for violation of civil or constitutional rights; (i) costs; 0) litigation expenses; (k) expert witness fees; (1) attorneys' fees; (m) interest; (n) relocation assistance or benefits; (o) owner participation rights; (p) abandonment costs; (q) cost to cure damages, or (r) any other claim or reason, whether relating to the City's acquisition of the Property, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Property, or this proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that consistent with the Stipulation, the payment on Community Bank's behalf of $286,700.00 (two hundred eighty-six thousand, seven hundred dollars), consisting of the funds withdrawn from the Court Clerk, constitutes full and final settlement of any and all claims arising from the City's taking the Property including without limitation (a) claims for compensation for Community Bank's security interest in the Property, (b) all payments, if any, which may be required by law to be paid to Community Bank arising from the displacement of any business activities involving the security interest; (c) severance damage's; (d) precondemnation damages; (e) inverse condemnation; (f) loss of business goodwill; (g) de facto taking; (h) damages for violation of civil or constitutional rights; (i) costs; 6) litigation expenses; (k) expert witness fees; (1) attorneys' fees; (m) interest; (n) relocation assistance or benefits; (o) owner participation rights; (p) abandonment costs; (q) cost to cure damages, or (r) any other claim or reason, whether relating to the City's acquisition of the Property, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Property, or this proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that despite service of process in this action, no other person has asserted any interest in the compensation to be awarded in this action, and that all such persons are hereby adjudged in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1250.220(d) to possess no compensable interest in the Property. ]]23I-01541937862vl.doc -5- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION I The Clerk is directed to enter this Judgment in Condemnation forthwith. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 DATED: AUG 0 9 2007 2007 4 5 r 4u&g6ortneSuperior 6 Court Ben T. Kayashima 7 8 9 10 z o2• 2 lI a 12 W $ z2 13 oW F g 14 ¢Nis a Offered by: o w 16 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation x rr `2 a 17 'v 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-01541937862v1.doc m EXHIBIT 1 I Exhibit "1" to Judgment in Condemnation: Sketch Depicting.Property Location 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 w 8 12 z o LL. 13 0 " 14 - 3 o 15 ( ,r = 16 V k' a. 17 =� =!'! i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11 231-0154v37862v1.doe RiV El: 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E PROOF OF SERVICE I, Linda I. Pomatto, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On August 6, 2007, I served the within documents: [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION ] by causing facsimile transmission of the document(s) listed above from (213) 626-8484 to the person(s) and facsimile nrunber(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 P.M. This transmission was reported as complete and without error. A copy of the transmission report(s), which was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, is attached. Service by facsimile has been made pursuant to a prior written agreement between the parties. [X] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service.. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after, date of deposit for mailing contained in this affidavit. [ ] by placing, the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre- paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a FEDERAL EXPRESS agent for delivery, or deposited in a FEDERAL EXPRESS box or other facility regularly maintained by FEDERAL EXPRESS, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. [ ] by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. [ ] by causing personal delivery by First Legal Support Services, 1511 West Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90026 of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. See Attached Service List I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 6, 2007 e�'�jQL//J Linda I. Pomatto 11231-0154V 17929vl.doc 1 SERVICE LIST 2 3 Mr. Charles D. Cummings, Esq. Ms. Karen McCreary, Esq. 4 SULLNAN, WORKMAN & DEE 800 South Figueroa Street 5 Twelfth Floor Los Angeles,. California 90017-2521 6 Lawrence C. Meyerson 7 THE LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCES C. MnTRSON 270 N. Canon Drive, Penthouse 8 Beverly Hills, California 90210 9 10 o S a � 11 12 W 8 _ 13 z2 O F 14 s 15 in o 3 ¢ S 16 x= 17 Jv 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 I 11231-01541917929v l.dc c EXHIBIT H Branch :NCS,User :RGAR Comment: Station Id :HUMS nivvmaN+mn.n,..1 W naanan ll r..0 na MnN��ary �maTnn ann a.11..ry nreum ('nnn9m Tnl. ungnv rawn,.f l Recorded In 011109 Records. County of San Bernardino 9/10/2007 PLEASE COMPLETE THIS INFORMATIONF LARRY WALKER S2G29 PM. to+• _^+= Auditor/Controller — Recorder RECORDING REQUESTED BY: City of Rancho Cucamonga P Counter 10500 Civic Center Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Doc#: 2007-0519728 Titles: 1 Pages: 10 Fees 37.00 AND WHEN RECORDED I IIIIII IIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIII IIII RICHARDS, WATSON&t GERSHON �00 RRIDr E39 Kirsten R. Bowman. EsCr. 355 South Figueroa Street 40th Floor Los Anqeles, CA 90071 (Rev. M:na) SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION Title of Document THIS AREA FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY THIS COVER SHEET ADDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION ($3.00 Additional Recording Fee Applies) (Wae/SJDoc FaaMLovxr Snree SB-RECC SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page I of 10 Printed on 11/18/2016 7:58:29 AM Document: OR 2007.519728 Branch :NCS,User :RGAR Comment: Station Id :HUMS 2 3 C7 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Z o _ � I1 w' 12 o ' 13 � W 14 s 15 o _ 16 U o =s; 17 =Yi 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IMnimnnu rm.men nr DnW—I LC va Re P�nP�pUry imarTn9 ynn naiwry vr¢rem rnPY bni JMld nn �rort.e r..anN.n S PERIOR COURT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RANCHO CUCAMONOA DISTRICT AUG 2 0 2007 BY DEPUTY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Case No. RCV 091735 Plaintiff, FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION V. [Assessor's Parcel No. 0209-131-01] DR LANDMARK, e! al., Exempt from Filing Fees [Govt. Code 61031 Defendants. ACTION FILED: November 29, 2005 Judgment in Condemnation having been entered in this action on August 9, 2007; and said Judgment having provided that upon payment of the total sum specified in said Judgment, Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") is entitled to a Final Order of Condemnation in this action; and it appearing to the Court that the City has paid for the benefit of Defendants DR Landmark the total sum specified in said Judgment, as evidenced by the Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation executed by Charles Cummings on July 20, 2007 and filed on August 1, 2007; It further appearing to the Court that the City and defendant Community Bank, Inc., have resolved the issues between them as evidenced in a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment filed with the Court on August 1, 2007; It further appearing to the Court that all parties to the action have been served and that no other person has claimed any interest in the compensation to be awarded in this action; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Subject Property Interests consisting of a fee interest of 20,719 square feet, and a 24-month 11231-01541988639v].doe FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 2 of 10 Printed on 11/18/2016 7:58:30 AM Document: OR 2007.519728 Branch :NCS,User AGAR Cominene Station Id :HUMS Ikri�mervxr�mMM nY IIaAT.r�ll: ra c. m�rmury Mapinp a.n n.i..�y.��-m %�rran�rmt an �nna,wrv>n 1 I temporary construction easement of 12,296 square feet in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which 2 are parl of a larger parcel, consisting of 5.2 acres of land identified as San Bernardino County 3 Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01, and is commonly known as 10451 26'h Street in the City 4 of Rancho Cucamonga, are condemned and taken for a public use, namely for public street 5 purposes and for all uses necessary or convenient thereto. 6 The legal description of this condemned property (the "Property") is as follows: 8 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES 9 (A.P.N.0209-131-01) 10 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE 0 a 11 OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID x o COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 0 12 G COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN Z a 13 AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 0 W FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF :r 14 HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028'10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET N s 15 TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 16 LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 47°29'01" _ WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO 17 A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET rger MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF , 18 WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 117.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL 19 WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT 20 AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 21 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST 22 RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 23 24 CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 25 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT 26 (A.P.N.0209-131-01) THAT PORTION OF LOT I OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF 27 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE 28 OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF -2- 1123I-0I54t9686390.doc FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 3 of 10 Printed on 11/18/2016 7:58:30 AM Document: OR 2007.519728 Branch :NCS,User:RGAR Comment: Station Id :HUM8 mu�m.mc �rmr.n M naarrn. i i r. va a: rvnnr..urr u.aga�..n n.i...n vFr.m r rrr�nr'.�mr aii,hrn,._.nn.n 1 SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 2 COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN 3 AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 4 26TH STREET NORTH 89058'29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 0001'31" EAST 30.00 FEET 5 TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26TH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID 6 SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29019'04" WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 7 89056'55" EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47029'01" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN 8 AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE 9 BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, 10 NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89030' 18" TO A POINT 0. I 1 OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH x a STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF w S 12 WAY LINE NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 13 0—CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 14 `< IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that on recording of a — 3 15 ca < certified copy of this Final Order of Condemnation with the County Recorder of the County of 16 _ San Bernardino, State of California, title to the Subject Property Interest described above shall 17 �" vest in Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga, its successors and its assigns. 18 19 Plaintiff has taken possession of the Subject Property Interest pursuant to an order for possession with an effective date of April 25, 2006 (date of apportionment). 20 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all taxes, current and 22 delinquent, and all penalties and costs on the Subject Property Interest described above shall be 23 cancelled, if applicable, as of April 25, 2006 the date of apportionment pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5081 e! seq. 24 25 26 27 28 -3- 11231-0154t988639v1.doc FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 4 of 10 Printed on 11/18/2016 7:58:30 AM Document: OR 2007.519728 Branch :NCS,User :RGAR Comment Station Id :HUM8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 zo 2 11 12 w 13 0 14 ?'— 3 15 (n 3 w ¢ 16 x < 17 'v 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 m..irma�n p��.M.n nv naurre. ur. w. a.• rronneurr �^=pmo •.n n.nwry .rn-m mr,yrrnnr.i•, au ,yrr. �....n..n The Clerk is ordered to enter this Final Order of Condemnation forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: AUG 2 0 S�trw, 2007 , I! /� Wdff Ctf-T—HE, Offered by: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation -4- FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0154\988639v1.doc SAN BERNARDINO,CA Document: OR 2007.519728 Page 5 of 10 Printed on 11/18/2016 7:58:30 AM Branch :NCS,User :RGAR Comment: Station Id :HUM8 Y 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z o = g 11 � s w g 12 � a z' 13 0 14 — 3 o 15 = 16 V o a 17 iu 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 b ,omn mprm ,de pauT—ll r. m nn prnprirt i—,np A,d nelwl fl,—fnpYr9nr]Mtl Arl npnarnwrverl Exhibit I to Judgment in Condemnation: Sketch Depicting Property Location FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION I I231-0154V88639v1.doc SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 6 of 10 Printed on 11/18/2016 7:58:30 AM Document: OR 2007.519728 Branch :NCS,User :AGAR Comment: Station Id :HUMS CITY 1 , RANCHO CUCAMONGA EASEMENT -IR LANDMARK Jr�� F 09 SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 7 of 10 Printed on 11/18/2016 7:58:31 AM Document: OR 2007.519728 Branch :NCS,User :RGAR Comment: Station Id :HUM8 10 z = 0 � 11 w g 12 CD — 13 14 3 v " 15 o = 16 u o 17 =v� I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 no..��m.�rtr,nmPn ny �alaTra l.lf. via m=vmn�mury �maa��a.�n n.m..y..mrm rnrr�gm „ma nu,gn. ,a.a,�.n PROOF OF SERVICE I, Linda I. Pomatto, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On August 16, 2007, I served the within documents: FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION by causing facsimile transmission of the document(s) listed above from (213) 626-8484 to the person(s) and facsimile number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 P.M. This transmission was reported as complete and without error. A copy of the transmission report(s), which was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, is attached. Service by facsimile has been made pursuant to a prior written agreement between the parties. [X] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in this affidavit. [ ] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre- paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a FEDERAL EXPRESS agent for delivery, or deposited'in a FEDERAL EXPRESS box or other facility regularly maintained by FEDERAL EXPRESS, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. [ ] by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. [ ] by causing personal delivery by First Legal Support Services,1511 West Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90026 of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. See Attached Service List I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct: Executed on August 16, 2007LAO Linda I. Pomatto 11231-0154\917929v1.doc SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 8 of 10 Printed on 11/18/2016 7:58:31 AM Document: OR 2007.519728 Branch :NCS,User :RGAR Comment: Station Id :HUMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 zo 0 11 xa 12 w S z 13 0 a 14 Q q 3 15 o a 16 x 17 .r =v� 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 nxmm�mx nrmnm M mnn.n � � c w e.. rmn,•u,nmM�o =m nau.,y ysem lnnrgm Yln; nn ��9nz rwrvnn SERVICE LIST Mr. Charles D. Cummings, Esq. Ms. Karen McCreary, Esq. SULLIVAN, WORKMAN & DEE 800 South Figueroa Street Twelfth Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2521 Lawrence C. Meyerson THE LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCES C. MEYERSON 270 N. Canon Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, California 90210 11231-0154\917929vLdoc 2 SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 9 of 10 Printed on 11/18/2016 7:58:31 AM Document: OR 2007.519728 Branch :NCS,User: RGAR Comment: Station Id :HUM8 __�— no..�.mo�a rm.em ny oanr,P.ur..�.a. p�onfi..un �ma�mo,m nornay q.,.mrrynpnnroi, an �hv,�,..o�..n THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS ATTACHED IS A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINALON FILEAND OF RECORD IN MYOFFICE. j' ATTEST. JRR56BAKENTNER Clsr' iupedor Ca, 's of California, in a, ,Ull o. B Deptdl ATE SEP 0 4 2007 SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 10 of 10 Printed on 11/18/2016 7:58:31 AM Document: OR 2007.519728 EXHIBIT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z g _ I1 o�c 8 W 12 z 13 3; 14 o 3 15 i 16 V F 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER, SBN: 137210 KIRSTEN R. BOWMAN, SBN: 181627 MARICELA MARROQUIN, SBN: 232321 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor • Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 Telephone: (213) 626-8484 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO- RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, VS. PHILLIP R. HOFER AND DOROTHY B. HOFER, as trustees of that Certain Revocable Declaration of Trust, etc., et al., Defendant. Case No. RCV 094962 STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION [APN: 0209-131-02] [Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103) D Try —( @Fi: 200 TM4E: &M a.1:. TRIAL DATE: October 22, 2007 TIME: 8:30 a.m. DEPT: R-11 Hon. Martin Hildreth WHEREAS Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") seeks to acquire by exercise of its power of eminent domain, a 15,225 square foot fee interest and a 66,803 square foot temporary construction easement for the term of twenty-four months t -pan of the real property more fully described in the City's complaint as 8812 Haven Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and further identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-02 ("Subject Property"). The fee interest and temporary construction easement being acquired will be referred STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION u- ti-+Mel i_ rUh_ I111044"CA, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to collectively as "Subject Property Interests." WHEREAS the City is acquiring the Subject Property Interests for public sheet purposes and for all uses necessary and convenient thereto; WHEREAS Defendants Hofer Properties, LLC and Pioneer, LLC (collectively referred to herein as "Defendants") filed an answer in this action wherein they represent and warrant that they are the owners of fee title to the Subject Properly; WHEREAS Defendants Phillip R. Hofer and Dorothy B. Hofer, as Trustees of that certain revocable declaration of trust, known as the Phillip and Dorothy Hofer Revocable Trust and Paul B. Hofer and Laura Jean Hofer, as Trustees of that certain revocable trust, known as the Paul and Laura Jean Hofer Revocable Trust were dismissed from this action on August 25, 2006; WHEREAS Defendant Southern California Gas Company disclaimed any and all interests in this proceeding on August 10, 2006; WHEREAS the Superior Court Clerk entered the defaults of Defendants Any and All Persons Unknown Having or Claiming Any Title or Interest in or to the Property Sought to be Condemned Herein on February 21, 2007; and WHEREAS The City and Defendants have agreed to fully settle this action between them pursuant to the Stipulation described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Plaintiff, City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Defendants Hofer Properties, LLC and Pioneer, LLC, through their respective counsel, that the Court enter the [Proposed] Judgment in Condemnation, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED THAT: 1. The total amount of monetan compensation to be paid in this action by City to Defendants is the sum of $2,000,000.00 (Two Million Dollars), inclusive of statutory interest, fees and costs 1 "the Total Compensation"). The $2,000;000-o0'rotal Compensation is comprised as follows: a. On May 3, 2006, City deposited the sum of $228,685.00 (Two Hundred Twenty - Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Dollars) with the Clerk of the Superior Court as the -2- STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION �`" - 1_31.0 W IVh,2d,c 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 amount of probable just compensation for the Subject Property Interests in this proceeding. Defendants been authorized to wthdrmw the entire sum of $228,685.00 (Two Hundred Twenty -Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Dollars) along with interest, which the C lerk of the Court has reported to be $13,029.99 (Thirteen Thousand Twenty -Nine Dollars and 99/100 rfom the "' • __ a,.,__', ) :•�'nte - ,pursuant to a Stipulation and Order dated October 5, 2007. The total amount scheduled to be hh ithdrawn b% Defendants is $241,714.99 ("the Scheduled Withdrawal Amount") but the Scheduled Withdrawal Amount 11 not N et been paid to Defendants b. Presuming the Scheduled W'ithdrartal Amount k paid Lo Delendan1s, t4he total amount of just compensation remaining to be paid to Defendants �,„ i I I be the sum of $1,758,285.01 (One Million Seven Hundred Fifty -Eight Thousand Two Hundred Eighty -Five Dollars and 01/1001 ("the Remaining Compensation" . 2. The "fotal Compensation will be paid as follow a. Within five (5) business days after the date of execution of this Stipulation by both parties, the City shall deliver the Remaining Compensation to Defendants' attorney, Edward Burg of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips the atmountof $ sir, ""' '-'-" 14111a e I FI RO -) in the forth of a check made payable to Manati. Phelps ° Phi -- • Client''- 'Hofer Properties, LLC, b. The parties anticipate that the Scheduled Withdrawal Amount will be paid to Defendants bh no later than November 15, 2007, and that the Scheduled Withdrawal Amount Mien added to the Remaining Compensation will equal the Total Compensation However, if, for am region, the Scheduled W ithdrawal Amount is not paid to Defendants bN November 15 2007. the Cih will pa% to Defendants, within five business daN s after November 15. 2007 yhetever amount is necessarh to assure that the total compensation paid to Defendants is ey ay I to $'_ 000 000 With the evicention of interest na menl- if an paid to Defendants under oars raph 3. in no event shall the total amount of compensation paid to Defendants eviceed $2 000 000 If am pat ments are paid to Defendants Pursuant to this sub -paragraph Defendants will cooperate -3- STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 1♦✓+1bp�aJl Aw.11'_31-n1G` IOl 144n%7 do. ar ED 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 �_th thz Citr to allow the Cih to recoup am such amounts from the Scheduled Withdrawal. 3. 11' all or am amount of the Total Compensation is not actualk received b Delendants br November IS 2007 interest on such unpaid amount- shall begin to accrue on Not ember 15. 2007 at the apportionment rate authorized b Code C'iv Proc ! 1268 350 compounded puarterP as provided bi Code Cic Prue. 5 1268 360 and interest shall coming- to accrue on such unpaid amount umil paid d~. Within five (5) business days following receipt of the payt»ew rotal Compensation described in paragraph 11. above, Edward Burg, counsel for Defendants, shall execute and return to counsel for the City an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation in the form attached to this Stipulation as Exhibit B, acknowledging receipt frt.m 0ze-�,,.-of the '..�.::.:,;t-,e��,t,--e Ibtpl C'mnoensatiun set Furth in paragraphs•'• •• 4-i. In addition to the foregoing monetary compensation, ° ",-,a,� :•a. az;(•ih aetces to relocate the bus bay taper currently planned to be constructed adjacent to the Subject P.epertyPruoem's Eronta along Haven Avenu _. t*tto. and Citt agrees that no bus bar taper will be constructed at am location adjacent to the Subiea Prupertt's frontage along Haven Avenue. The purpose of relocating the bus bar taper is to alkm the Subiect Provem to hire direct access to and from Haven A%enue Notwithslandi 1g am other rile or polic% of the C'io Defendants and the C it% agree that the Subject Property will have direct access onto -to and from Haven Avenue at a location directly across Haven Avenue from the euNentapprot ed Rock -Jersey access point onto Haven Avenue from Assessor's Parcel No. 0209-143-02. - �.....:'4-6 01, does not need to construct Driveway A from the intersection of Jersey Boulevard and Haven Avenue as pan of the Haven Atenue Grad Separation Project which was intended to provide the Subject Property- with access from Jersey Boulevard and Haven Avenue. 6. 7. Notwithstanding am other rule or polio of the Cit%. Defendants and the C'in agree that Defendants will not be obligated to master plan any proposed future development -4- (STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of the Subject Prooerh with the adjacent Halstead prepeq+Prunem to the north. Assessor'> Parcel No. 0209- G I -01. 38. City has taken possession of the Subject Property Interests described in the Complaint herein pursuant to an Order for Possession tiled Nlat 25, 2006, which became effective on October 11, 2006. The temporary construction easement being acquired through this eminent domain action is set to expire on October 11, 2008. Defendants agree to extend the Temporary Construction Easement up through and including November 30, 2009, g. 1whe er+t9 Pat ment of the Total Compensation referenced in paragraph 21, the xleeatirxrtNtiih's agreement to relocate the bus bay taper and to provide the Subject Prooem direct access alfe€to and from Haven Avenue referenced in paragraph 4i, and the City's agreement that Defendants do not need to master plan the Subject Property with the Halstead Propem referenced in paragraph t-�. -1 comprise the total just compensation to be paid by City to Defendants in this action. Defendants expressly acknowledge that said nwnetx payment shall be in full and final settlement of any and all claims arising out of the taking of the Subject Property Interests, including, but not limited to, claims for compensation for the Subject Property Interests, severance damages, inverse condemnation, loss of goodwill, costs, litigation expenses, expert witness fees, attorneys fees, interest, relocation assistance and benefits, improvements pertaining to the realty, or any other claim or reason, whether relating to the Project for which the Subject Property Interests are sought to be acquired or to this action. 10. Tha Defendants warrant that there are no unpaid real property taxes, penalties or costs due on the Subject Property Interest for the period ending October 11, 2006, the date of possession, and hereby promises to indemnify City in the amount of any such unpaid taxes and/or penalties and/or any legal fees and costs incurred by City in connection with any such unpaid taxes and/or penalties. S- STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 1 I 1 1. *4Defendants further warrant that they are not aware of any other person or 2 entity with any right or entitlement, by lien or otherwise, to the Subject Property or to the just 3 compensation awarded in this proceeding for the Subject Property Interests. Specifically, and 4 without limitation, Defendants warrant and agree: 5 I a. That they are the record owners of the Subject Property I nterests. 6 b. That Defendants know of no claims or liens presently claimed or which 7 will be claimed against the Subject Property Iwer_ests. 8 C. That Defendants will not further encumber the Subject Property Interests 9 or allow the Subject Property Interesu to be further encumbered before entry of the Final Order 10 of Condemnation in this action. 0 8 I I I d. That to Defendants' best knowledge, the Subject Property i-Interests are x 3 W5 12 free and clear of all hazardous and toxic substances, materials, and waste; and that they have no Z P 13 notice of any pending or threatened action or proceeding arising from the condition of the OW 14 Subject Propemt or alleged violation of environmental, health, or safety statutes, ordinances, or 3 to : IS regulations. ".' _"- -!he ,.s "I fl; - v16 -, n...eFl! n,c.,... _ha ..,-_..i,. r- t . _ . , ,mile, x 17 - .. -:. _: and damages. nelwding 18 .. _ . 19 20 21 23 24 _ .- - 25 „--_.-. hefOfe .bef 26 e. That neither this Stipulation nor anything it requires or provides, including 27 the transfer of the Subject Property Interests to the City, violates or will violate any contract, 28 I agreement, or instrument to which Defendants are a party, or that affects the Subject Property -6- STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hnei_esis, and that conveyance of the Subject Property Interests to the City does not require consent of any person who is not a part), to this Stipulation. f. That there are no written or oral leases or contractual rights or options to lease, purchase, license or otherwise to enjoy possession, rights, or any interest in the Subject Property Interests or to any part of the Subject Property Interests, and that no person other th_�n the Cit, has any right of possession to the Subject Property Interests. g. That they do not know of any pending, threatened, or potential litigation, action, or proceeding against Defendants or any other party before any court or administrative tribunal which is in any way, related to the Subject Property, except for this action pending as San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. RCV 094962. 12. Each party shall bear its own litigation expenses, including but not limited to all attomey's fees, appraisers' fees, expert witness fees, and any and all other fees or costs of any nature, including costs set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5. 13. A11 taxes_ ii_:;;__, , J. 1, penalties, and costs which are a lien on the Subject Property Intere+ts, including all taxes and assessments which are apportioned andur imposed with respect to any period after October 11, 2006 are hereby canceled and extinguished pursuant to sections 4986 and 5081 rr seq. of the Revenue and Taxation Code as of the date of apportionment, which is October 1 12006. 14. Defendants shall be entitled to apply to the appropriate County agency for reimbursement of any taxes paid by or on its behalf for the period ending October 11, 2006 to the present. 15. Each party to this waives the right to move for anew trial and to all other post judgment proceedings and the right to appeal herein. 16. The parties hereto have stipulated that a Statement of Decision is hereby waived. 17, In effecting this Stipulation, each of the parties has had the opportunity to receive full and complete legal advice about the provisions of this Stipulation, and each signatory to the Stipulation certifies that he or she has read all of this Stipulation and that he or she understands it. This Stipulation has been fully negotiated between the City and Defendants, and shall be -7- STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 construed as if drafted by all parties to this Stipulation. 18. Except as otherwise set forth in this Stipulation and except for breach of any terms or conditions contained in this Stipulation, Defendants and the C its waive and forever release Nxe-C-iky-each other including mtheir successors, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, representatives, and anyone acting on or for t 'athe it behalf, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action, or liabilities, known or unknown, based upon or arising in connection with the Complaint in Eminent Domain herein, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Subject Property Interests, or from the City's acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. other than the duties and obligations cre atc t h, this Stipulation. 19. By such release, Defendants and the C in waive any rights under California Civil Code Section 1542, which provides, "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her. must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor." 20. This Stipulation is made and executed, and is intended to be performed, within the State of California, and is to be construed under California law. 21. If any provision of this Stipulation is held invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect and shall not be impaired or invalidated by the failed provision. 22. If any party to this Stipulation incurs attorney's fees in order to enforce, defend, or interpret any of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Stipulation or because of a breach of this Stipulation by another party, the prevailing party (whether by suit, negotiation, arbitration, or settlement) shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney'.s fees from the other party. 23. Notice will be promptly given to the Court of satisfaction of all the terms of t{Ii, the Judgment in Condemnation attached to thi, Stipulation, and upon such satisfaction, the City shall prepare and file a proposed Final Order of Condemnation for entry by this Court. .8. STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 o a 11 x 8 12 W � 1I3 O W g 14 3` IS o � 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24. Cit}and Defendants agree that this Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed on original instrument, and all, when taken together, shall constitute the Stipulation. 25. Tbi, Stipulation shall be binding upon and shall insure to the benefit of the parties and their successors, assigns and grantees 26 Each sienaton to this Stipulation represents and warrants that the, have authority to sign on behalf of and to bind the p:Ut� on whose behalf rhet are signing and that all recuired corporate. entire or governmental resolutions npprosals and authorizations hate been obtained to allot[ them to eign this Stipulation and bind the Parts on whose behall'thel are sieniny. IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED: , 2007 HOPER PROPERTIES, LLC Paul B. Hofer, Ill Manatw BN: John M. Hofer, Manager DATED: , 2007 PIONEER, LLC Paul B. Hofer Ill Manager BN: JohnM Hofer Manager -9- STeULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION l �'ry�: UMedlne FornmtrW: Underline ft aLLeE: Underline 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a e I I o�c 12 W z 13 '„ 0 14 3 i 15 o � 16 x 17 Z5 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Approved as to Form, . 2007: MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS- I..P By: EDWARD BURG Attorneys for Defendants HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC and PIONEER. LLC DATED: 12007 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: JAMES L. MARKMAN, City Attorney Approved as to Form, . 2007: RICKARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER KIRSTEN R. BOWMAN Qm KIRSTEN R. BOWMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -10- STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT EXHIBIT J I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 j 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7.9 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINAN. DANNER, SBN: 137210 KIRSTENR. BOWMAN, SBN: I81627 MARIC; LA MARROQUIN, SBN: 232321 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 Telephone: (213) 626-8484 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUPFRIOR COURT OF THE STATE OR CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO— RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, PHILLIP R. HOFER AND DOROTHY B. HOFER, as trustees of that Certain Revocable Declaration of Trust, etc., et al., Defendant. Case No. RCV 094962 STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION [APN: 0209-131-02] [Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] Hon. Martin Hildreth WHEREAS Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") seeks to acquire by exercise of its power of eminent domain, a 15,225 square foot fee interest and a 66,803 square foot temporary construction easement for the term of twenty-four months, part of the real property more fully described in the City's complaint as 8812 Haven Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and further identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-02 ("Subject Property"). The fee interest and temporary construction easement being acquired will be referred to collectively as "Subject Property Interests." WHEREAS the City is acquiring the Subject Property Interests for public street purposes and for all uses necessary and convenient thereto; STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-016211014014 Q.dw W a i�qr =ri. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7.R WHEREAS Defendants Hofer Properties, LLC and Pioneer, LLC (collectively referred to herein as "Defendants") filed an answer in this action wherein they represent and warrant that they are the owners of fee title to the Subject Property; WHEREAS Defendants Phillip R. Hofer and Dorothy B. Hofer, as Trustees of that certain revocable declaration of trust, known as the Phillip and Dorothy Hofer Revocable Trust and Paul B. Hofer and Laura Jean Hofer, as Trustees of that certain revocable trust, known as the Paul and Laura Jean Hofer Revocable Trust were dismissed from this action on August 25, 2006; WHEREAS Defendant Southern California Gas Company disclaimed any and all interests in this proceeding on August 10, 2006; WHEREAS the Superior Court Clerk entered the defaults of Defendants Any and All Persons Unknown Having or Claiming Any Title or Interest in or to the Property Sought to be Condemned Herein on February 21, 2007; and WHEREAS the City and Defendants have agreed to fully settle this action between them pursuant to the Stipulation described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Defendants Hofer Properties, LLC and Pioneer, LLC, through their respective counsel, that the Cotnt enter the [Proposed] Judgment in Condemnation, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED THAT: 1. The total amount of monetary compensation to be paid in this action by City to Defendants is the sum of $2,000,000.00 (Two Million Dollars), inclusive of statutory interest, fees and costs ("the Total Compensation"). The Total Compensation is comprised as follows: a. On May 3, 2006, City deposited the sum of $228,685.00 (Two Hundred Twenty - Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Dollars) with the Clerk of the Superior Court as the amount of probable just compensation for the Subject Property Interests in this proceeding. Defendants have been authorized to withdraw the entire sum of $228,685.00 (Two Hundred 11231-0162\1014014v1.doe _2_ STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7.R ; Twenty -Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Dollars) along with interest, pursuant to a Stipulation and Order dated October 5, 2007. b. The total amount of just compensation remaining to be paid to Defendants is the sum of $1,771,315 (One Million Seven Hundred Seventy -One Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen Dollars). Within five (5) business days of receipt of payment from the Court, Defendants agree to refund to City any and all sums included therein as interest accrued on the funds on deposit. Defendants shall deliver to City's attorney, Kirsten R. Bowman of Richards, Watson & Gershon, a check for said interest as provided above. 2. The Total Compensation will be paid as follows: a. Within five (5) business days after the date of execution of this Stipulation by both parties, the City shall deliver to Defendants' attorney, Edward Burg of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips the amount of $1,771,315.00 (One Million Seven Hundred Seventy -One Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen Dollars) in the form of a check made payable to Hofer Properties, LLC. b. If this amount is not actually received by Defendants by November 15, 2007, interest on this amount shall begin to accrue on November 15, 2007 at the apportionment rate authorized by Code Civ. Proc. § 1268.350, compounded quarterly as provided by Code Civ. Proc. § 1268,360, and interest shall continue to accrue on this amount until paid. 3. Within five (5) business days following receipt of the Total Compensation described in paragraph 1, above, Edward Burg, counsel for Defendants, shall execute and return to counsel for the City an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation in the form attached to this Stipulation as Exhibit B, acknowledging receipt of the Total Compensation set forth in paragraph 1. 4. In addition to the foregoing monetary compensation, City agrees to relocate the bus bay taper currently planned to be constructed adjacent to the Subject Property's frontage along Haven Avenue, and City agrees that no bus bay taper will be constructed at any location adjacent to the Subject Property's frontage along Haven Avenue. The purpose of relocating the bus bay taper is to allow the Subject Property to have direct access to and from Haven Avenue. -3- STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-0162\10140140.doc W Rift _vA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2R Notwithstanding any other rule or policy of the City, Defendants and the City agree that the Subject Property will have direct access to and from Haven Avenue at a location directly across Haven Avenue from the approved Rock -Jersey access point onto Haven Avenue from Assessor's Parcel No. 0209-143-02. 5. City does not need tcf construct Driveway A from the intersection of Jersey Boulevard and Haven Avenue as part of the Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project, which was intended to provide the Subject Property with access from Jersey Boulevard and Haven Avenue. 6. Notwithstanding any other rule or policy of the City, Defendants and the City agree that Defendants will not be obligated to master plan any proposed future development of the Subject Property with the adjacent Halstead Property to the north, Assessor's Parcel No. 0209-131-01. 7. City has taken possession of the Subject Property Interests described in the Complaint herein pursuant to an Order for Possession filed May 25, 2006, which became effective on October 11, 2006. The.temporary construction easement being acquired through this eminent domain action is set to expire on October 11, 2008. Defendants agree to extend the Temporary Construction Easement up through and including November 30, 2009. 8. Payment of the Total Compensation referenced in paragraph 1, the City's agreement to relocate the bus bay taper and to provide the Subject Property direct access to and from Haven Avenue referenced in paragraph 4, and the City's agreement that Defendants do not need to master plan the Subject Property with the Halstead Property referenced in paragraph 6 comprise the total just compensation to be paid by City to Defendants in this action. Defendants expressly acknowledge that said payment shall be in full and final settlement of any and all claims arising out of the taking of the Subject Property Interests, including, but not limited to, claims for compensation for the Subject Property Interests, severance damages, inverse condemnation, loss of goodwill, costs, litigation expenses, expert witness fees, attorneys fees, interest, relocation assistance and benefits, improvements pertaining to the realty, or any other 11231-016211014014Y1.doc -4- STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION zo O a xa N .o JX o w LD a z2 o� 0. to 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1R claim or reason, whether relating to the Project for which the Subject Property Interests are sought to be acquired or to this action. 9: The entry of the Final Order of Condemnation constitutes the waiver and release by Defendants of any and all claims against City, its officials, agents, contractors, and employees in connection with the Subject Property Interests or this eminent domain proceeding that were asserted or could have been asserted in this proceeding, other than the duties and obligations created by this Stipulation. 10. Defendants warrant that there are no unpaid real property taxes, penalties or costs due on the Subject Property Interest for the period ending October 11, 2006, the date of possession, and hereby promises to indemnify City in the amount of any such unpaid taxes and/or penalties and/or any legal fees and costs incurred by City in connection with any such unpaid taxes and/or penalties. 11. Defendants further warrant that they are not aware of any other person or entity with any right or entitlement, by lien or otherwise, to the Subject Property or to the just compensation awarded in this proceeding for the Subject Property Interests, Specifically, and without limitation, Defendants warrant and agree: a. That they are the record owners of the Subject Property Interests. b. That Defendants know of no claims or liens presently claimed or which will be claimed against the Subject Property Interests. C. That Defendants will not further encumber the Subject Property Interests or allow the Subject Property Interests to be further encumbered before entry of the Final Order of Condemnation in this action. d. That to Defendants' best knowledge, the Subject Property Interests are free and clear of all hazardous and toxic substances, materials, and waste; and that they have no notice of any pending or threatened action or proceeding arising from the condition of the Subject Property, or alleged violation of environmental, health, or safety statutes, ordinances, or regulations. -5- STWULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-0162110140140.do ?Yi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 9A e. That neither this Stipulation nor anything it requires or provides, including the transfer of the Subject Property Interests to the City, violates or will violate any contract, agreement, or instrument to which Defendants are a party, or that affects the Subject Property Interests, and that conveyance of the Subject Property Interests to the City does not require consent of any person who is not a party to this Stipulation. f. That there are no written or oral leases or contractual rights or options to lease, purchase, license or otherwise to enjoy possession, rights, or any interest in the Subject Property Interests or to any part of the Subject Property Interests, and that no person other than the City has any right of possession to the Subject Property Interests. g. That they do not know of any pending, threatened, or potential litigation, action, or proceeding against Defendants or any other party before any court or administrative tribunal which is in any way related to the Subject Property, except for this action pending as San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. RCV 094962. 12. Each party shall hear its own litigation expenses, including but not limited to all attorney's fees, appraisers' fees, expert witness fees, and any and all other fees or costs of any nature, including costs set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5. 13. _ All taxes and assessments, penalties, and costs which are a lien on the Subject Property Interests, including all taxes and assessments which are apportioned or imposed with respect to any period after October 11, 2006 are hereby canceled and extinguished pursuant to sections 4986 and 5081 e1 seg. of the Revenue and Taxation Code as of the date of apportionment, which is October 11, 2006. 14. Defendants shall be entitled to apply to the appropriate County agency for reimbursement of any taxes paid by or on its behalf for the period October 11, 2006 to the present. 15. Each party to this Stipulation waives the right to move for a new trial and to all other post judgment proceedings and the right to appeal herein. 16. The parties hereto have stipulated that a Statement of Decision is hereby waived. -6- STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-0162UO14014v1.do 7 13 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 9..8 IT In effecting this Stipulation, each of the parties has had the opportunity to receive full and complete legal advice about the provisions of this Stipulation, and each signatory to the Stipulation certifies that he or she has read all of this Stipulation and that he or she understands it. This Stipulation has been fully negotiated between the City and Defendants, and shall be construed as if drafted by all parties to this Stipulation. 18. Except as otherwise set forth in this Stipulation and except for breach of any terms or conditions contained in this Stipulation, Defendants and the City waive and forever release each other including their successors, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, representatives, and anyone acting on or for their behalf, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action, or liabilities, known or unknown, based upon or arising in connection with the Complaint in Eminent Domain herein, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Subject Property Interests, or from the City's acquisition of the Subject Property Interests, other than the duties and obligations. created by this Stipulation. 19. By such release, Defendants and the City waive any rights under California Civil Code Section 1542, which provides, "A general release does not extend to claims which the . creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor." 20. This Stipulation is made and executed, and is intended to be performed, within the State of California, and is to be construed under California law, 21. If any provision of this Stipulation is held invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect and shall not be impaired or invalidated by the failed provision. 22. If any party to this Stipulation incurs attorney's fees in order to enforce, defend, or interpret any of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Stipulation or because of a breach of this Stipulation by another party, the prevailing party (whether by suit, negotiation, arbitration, or settlement) shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees from the other party. 11231-016211014014 v I . doe _7- STIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7R e 23. Notice will be promptly given to the Court of satisfaction of all the terms of the Judgment in Condemnation attached to this Stipulation, and upon such satisfaction, the City shall prepare and file a proposed Final Order of Condemnation for entry by this Court. 24. City and Defendants agree that ft Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed on original instrument, and all, when taken together, shall constitute the Stipulation. 25. This Stipulation shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors, assigns, and grantees. 26. Each signatory to this Stipulation represents and warrants that they have authority to sign on behalf of� and to bind, the party on whose behalf they are signing, and that all required corporate, entity, or governmental resolutions, approvals, and authorizations have been obtained to allow them.to sign 'tbla Stipulation and bind the parry on whose behalf they are signing. IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED; I I ` t 2007 DATED: U l �J .2007 HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC B}. Paul B. Hofer, III, 14 alter By: John M. Hofer, Manager PIONEER, LLC 1 13y. aul B. Hofer, III, ivlaua er By John M. Hofer, Manager STIPULATION TO XDDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-0162U D14014V I Aec E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g 9 10 z w e 12 a E 13 14 u 5 15 o t s u� lbl a ` 17 gY LL— 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2x 23. Notice will be promptly given to the Court of satisfaction of all the terms of the Judgment in Condemnation attached to ibis Stipulation, and upon such satisfaction, the City shall prepare and file a proposed Final Order of Condemnation for entry by this Court 24. City and Defendants agree that this Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, each ofwbich shall be deemed on original instrument, and all, when taken together, shall constitute the Stipulation, 25. This Stipulation shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their sncccssars, assigns, and grantees. 26. Each signatory to this Stipulation represents and warrants that they have authority to sign on behalf of, and to bind, the party on whose behalf they are signing, and that all required corporate, entity, or govcrarnentat resolutions, approvals, and authoriZallons have been obtained to allow them to sign this Stipulation and bind the party on whose bebalfthey are signing. 1 rf IS SO STIPULATED. DATED: N - I q .2007 DATED. I I - 1 4 2007 HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC By: Paul B. Hofer, M, Manager By: p . John M. Hofer, Man PIONEER, LLC By: Paul B. Hofer. la, Manager By: Doha M. Hofer, .rvfanag . .g. STIPULATION TO AW(WENT IN CONDEh1NATIOR 11111-0IEtlin I40I4v1Ax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 9..9 No✓ Approved as to.Form 04f. /3 , 2007: MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP By: DWARD BURG Attorneys for Defendants HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC and PJONEER. LLC DATED: IZV, 1,6r .2007 Approved as to Form, �i 1 2007: RICHARDS, WATSON& GERSHON AProfessional Corporation RBGINA N. DANNER KIRSTEN R. BOWMAN By: KIRS BOWMAW Attomeys for Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: 4da,12.1 ,,o'�JAMES L. MARKMAN, City Attorney -9- SIIPULATION TO JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-016211014014VIAUG EXHIBIT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z g LO w � 12 z 13 oW V) o "< 14 — 3 _., 16 U C a 17 wy 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON AProfessional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER, SBN: 137210 KIRSTENR BOWMAN, SBN: 181627 MARICELA MARROQUIN, SBN: 232321 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 Telephone: (213) 626-8494 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO— RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, vs. PHILLIP R. HOFER AND DOROTHY B. HOFER, as trustees of that Certain Revocable Declaration of Trust, etc., et al., Defendant. Case No. RCV 094962 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION [APN: 0209-131-02] [Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] Hon. Martin Hildreth Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ("City") filed the Complaint in Eminent Domain herein on May 3, 2006 to acquire by eminent domain a 15,225 square foot fee interest and a 66,803 square foot temporary construction easement ("Subject Property Interests") for the term of twenty-four months on part of the real property described in City's complaint as 8812 Haven Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and further identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-02 ("Subject Property") in connection with the construction, repair and maintenance of the Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project, and all uses necessary and convenient thereto ("Project"). The Subject Property Interests are described more particularly in Plaintiff's Complaint on file herein and below as: 11231-0162 \ 1010471 v I . do o JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION �v 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN-BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PORTION OF FEE INTEREST ACOUMED: THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0-28' 10" EAST 531.23 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89*31'50- WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 0°28' 10" EAST 579.13 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89056'39" WEST 34.30 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTAINT 34.30 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 308.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 6045'53" EAST 272.38 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.350 ACRES MORE OR LESS, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT: THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 11231-016211010471 vl.doc -2- RWMENT AI CONDEMNATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (134 FEET WIDE) AND JERSEY BOULEVARD (80 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 4256 PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 38 PAGES 64 AND 65 OF PARCEL MAPS, - OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0°28' 10" EAST 144A6 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89°56'39" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89056'39" WEST 116.00 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0'28' 10" EAST 341.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°19' 10" EAST 19.64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0041'05" EAST 69.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°26'21" WEST 9.60 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 105.70 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 180.69 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 89056759" WEST 45.00 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 150.70 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 110.33 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH SV56'39" EAST 116.40 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 34.30 FaT MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 0028' 10" EAST 308.60 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 6045'53" EAST 272.38 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 122.87 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 11231-01621101047M.dcc -3- JUDGMENT AT CONDE'NINA71ON I CONTAINING 1.534 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 2 It appearing that a settlement has been reached between Plaintiff, the CITY OF 3 RANCHO CUCAIMONTGA ("City") and the Defendants HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC and 4 PIONEER, LLC (collectively referred to herein as "Defendants"), the fee owners herein; and 5 It further appearing that Defendant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS, filed a disclaimer 6 herein, disclaiming any right, title or interest in or to the Subject Property Interests to be 7 condemned as described in City's Complaint and to the just compensation to be awarded; and 8 It further appearing that Defendants PHILLIP F. HOFER and DOROTHY B. HOFER, as 9 Trustees of the Phillip and Dorothy Hofer Revocable Trust, and PAUL B. HOFER, JR. and 10 LAURA JEAN HOFER, as Trustees of the Paul and Laura Jean Hofer Revocable Trust, have z 11 been dismissed from this action; and o� sd ' 0 12 It further appearing that Defendants ANY AND ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN HAVING w z 13 OR CLAMNG TO HAVE ANY TITLE OR INTEREST IN OR TO THE PROPERTY oW �-2 14 SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED HEREIN, having been regularly served with process, and Q q { V a 15 having failed to appear and answer City's Complaint filed herein, and the default of these ntZ ¢ a 16 defendants having been duly entered and evidence having been considered by the Court; W 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: v 18 1. The purpose for which the Subject Property Interests are sought to be condemned 19 is a public use authorized bylaw, and the taking of the Subject Property Interests are necessary 20 for such use. 21 2. City shall pay to Defendants total monetary compensation in the sum of 22 $2,000,000.00 (Two Million Dollars), inclusive of statutory interest, fees and costs ("the Total 23 Compensation"). The Total Compensation is comprised as follows: 24 a- On May 3, 2006, City deposited the sum of $229,685.00 (Two Hundred Twenty- 25 Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Dollars) with the Clerk of the Superior Court as the 26 amount of probable just compensation for the Subject Property Interests in this proceeding. 27 Defendants have been authorized to withdraw the entire sum of $228,685.00 (Two Hundred 28 -4- JUDGMENTIN CONDEMNATION 11231-016V,1010471 vl.doc 9� .1 Twenty -Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Dollars) along with interest, pursuant to a 2 Stipulation and Order dated October 5, 2007 3 b. The total amount ofjust compensation remaining to be paid to Defendants is the 4 sum of $1,771,315 (One Million Seven Hundred Seventy -One Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen 5 Dollars). Within five (5) business days of receipt of payment from the Court, Defendants agree 6 to refund to City any and all sums included therein as interest accrued on the funds on deposit. 7 Defendants shall deliver to City's attorney, Kirsten R. Bowman of Richards, Watson & Gershon, 8 a check for said interest as provided above. 9 3. The Total Compensation will be paid as follows. - to a. Within five (5) business days after the date of execution of the Stipulation for I I Entry of Judgment in Condemnation ("Stipulation') by both parties, the City shall deliver to 12 Defendants' attorney, Edward Burg of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips the amount of $1,771,315.00 13 (One Million Seven Hundred Seventy -One Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen Dollars) in the form 14 of a check made payable to Hofer Properties, LLC. 15 b. If this amount is not actually received by Defendants by November 15, 2007, 16 interest on this amount shall begin to accrue on November 15, 2007 at the apportionment rate 17 authorized by Code Civ, Proc. § 1268.350, compounded quarterly as provided by Code Civ. 18 Proc. § 1269.360, and interest shall continue to accrue on this amount until paid. 19 4. Within five (5) business days following receipt of the Total Compensation 20 described in paragraph 2, above, Edward Burg, counsel for Defendants, shall execute and return 21 to counsel for the City an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation in the form 22 attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit B, acknowledging receipt of the Total Compensation set 23 forth in paragraph 2. 24 5. In addition to the foregoing monetary compensation, City shall relocate the bus 25 bay taper currently planned to be constructed adjacent to the Subject Property's frontage along 26 Haven Avenue, and City agrees that no bus bay taper will be constructed at any location adjacent 27 to the Subject Property's frontage along Haven Avenue. The purpose of relocating the bus bay 28 taper is to allow the Subject Property to have direct access to and from Haven Avenue. -5- RMGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-0162\1010471 vl.doc I Notwithstanding any other rule or policy of the City, the Subject Property will have direct access 2 to and from Haven Avenue at a location directly across Haven Avenue from the approved Rock- 3 Jersey access point onto Haven Avenue from Assessor's Parcel No. 0209-143-02. 4 6. City does not need to construct Driveway A from the intersection of Jersey 5 Boulevard and Haven Avenue as part of the Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project, which was 6 intended to provide the Subject Property with access from Jersey Boulevard and Haven Avenue. 7 7. Notwithstanding any other rule or policy of the City, Defendants shall not be 8 obligated to master plan any proposed future development of the Subject Property with the 9 adjacent Halstead Property to the north, Assessor's Parcel No. 0209-131-01. 10 8. City has taken possession of the Subject Property Interests described in the zo 0 11 Complaint herein pursuant to an Order for Possession filed May 25, 2006, which became z� K 0 12 effective on October 11, 2006. The temporary construction easement being acquired through 1.1J V r 0 13 this eminent domain action is set to expire on October 11, 2008. The Temporary Construction ow 8 14 Easement is hereby extended up through and including November 30, 2009. ¢d — < 15 9. Payment of the Total Compensation referenced in paragraph 2, the City's 16 relocating the bus bay taper and to providing the Subject Property direct access to and from s 17 Haven Avenue referenced in paragraph 5, and Defendants not being required to master plan the v� 18 Subject Property with the Halstead Property referenced in paragraph 7 comprise the total just 19 compensation to be paid by City to Defendants in this action. Defendants expressly 20 acknowledge that said payment shall be in full and final settlement of any and all claims arising 21 out of the taking of the Subject Property Interests, including, but not limited to, claims for 22 compensation for the Subject Property Interests, severance damages, inverse condemnation, loss 23 of goodwill, costs, litigation expenses, expert witness fees, attorneys fees, interest, relocation 24 assistance and benefits, improvements pertaining to the realty, or any other claim or reason, 25 whether relating to the Project for which the Subject Property Interests are sought to be acquired 26 or to this action. 27 10. The entry of the Final Order of Condemnation constitutes the waiver and release 28 by Defendants of any and all claims against City, its officials, agents, contractors, and employees -6- JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-016211010171 vl.doc zo o� T < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' 27 28 in connection with the Subject Property Interests or this eminent domain proceeding that were asserted or could have been asserted in this proceeding, other than the duties and obligations created by the Stipulation and this Judgment. 11. Defendants warrant that there are no unpaid real property taxes, penalties or costs due on the Subject Property Interest for the period ending October 1 I, 2006, the date of possession, and hereby promises to indemnify City in the amount of any such unpaid taxes and/or penalties and/or any legal fees and costs incurred by City in connection with any such unpaid taxes and/or penalties. 12. Defendants further warrant that they are not aware of any other person or entity with any right or entitlement, by lien or otherwise, to the Subject Property or to the just compensation awarded in this proceeding for the Subject Property Interests. Specifically, and without limitation, Defendants warrant and agree: a. That they are the record owners of the Subject Property Interests. b. That Defendants know of no claims or liens presently claimed or which will be claimed against the Subject Property Interests. C. That Defendants will not further encumber the Subject Property Interests or allow the Subject Property Interests to be further encumbered before entry of the Final Order of Condemnation in this action. d. That to Defendants' best knowledge, the Subject Property Interests are free and clear of all hazardous and toxic substances, materials, and waste; and that they have no notice of any pending or threatened action or proceeding arising from the condition of the Subject Property, or alleged violation of environmental, health, or safety statutes, ordinances, or regulations. C. That neither the Stipulation nor anything it requires or provides, including the transfer of the Subject Property Interests to the City, violates or will violate any contract, agreement, or instrument to which Defendants are a party, or that affects the Subject Property Interests, and that conveyance of the Subject Property Interests to the City does not require consent of any person who is not a party to the Stipulation. -7- JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-0162U D 10471 vl.do R:i�10 =Lw' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 f. That there are no written or oral leases or contractual rights or options to lease, purchase, license or otherwise to enjoy possession, rights, or any interest in the Subject Property Interests or to any part of the Subject Property Interests, and that no person other than the City has any right of possession to the Subject Property interests. g. That they do not know of any pending, threatened, or potential litigation, action, or proceeding against Defendants or any other party before any court or administrative tribunal which is in any way related to the Subject Property, except for this action pending as San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. RCV 094962, 13. Each party shall bear its own litigation expenses, including but not limited to all attorney's fees, appraisers' fees, engineers' fees, and any and all other fees or costs of any nature, including costs set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5. 14. All taxes and assessments, penalties, and costs which are a lien on the Subject Property Interests, including all taxes and assessments which are apportioned and imposed with respect to any period after October 11, 2006 are hereby canceled and extinguished pursuant to sections 4986 and 5081 of the Revenue and Taxation Code as of the date of apportionment, which is October 11, 2006. 15. Defendants shall be entitled to apply to the appropriate County agency for reimbursement of any taxes paid by.or on its behalf for the period October 11, 2006 to the present. 16. Each party to this Judgment waives the right to move for a new trial and to all other post judgment proceedings and the right to appeal herein. 17. The parties hereto have stipulated that a Statement of Decision is hereby waived. 18. In effecting the Stipulation, each of the parties has had the opportunity to receive full and complete legal advice about the provisions of the Stipulation, and each signatory to the Stipulation certifies that he or she has read all of the Stipulation and that he or she understands 4. The Stipulation has been fully negotiated between the City and Defendants, and shall be construed as if drafted by all parties to the Stipulation. 8 1I231-0162U010471vUM JUDGN ENT IN CONDEMNATION EeA I 19. Except as otherwise set forth in the Stipulation and except for breach of any terms 2 or conditions contained in the Stipulation, Defendants and the City waive and forever release 3 each other including their successors, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, representatives, and 4 anyone acting on or for their behalf, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions or causes 5 of action, or liabilities, known or unknown, based upon or arising in connection with the 6 Complaint in Eminent Domain herein, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Subject 7 Property Interests, or from the City's acquisition of the Subject Property Interests other than the 8 duties and obligations created by the Stipulation and by this Judgment. 9 20. By such release, Defendants and the City waive any rights under California Civil 10 Code Section 1542, which provides, "A general release does not extend to claims which the 11 creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, 12 which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the 13 debtor." 14 21. The Stipulation is made and executed, and is intended to be performed, within the 15 State of California, and is to be construed under California law. 16 22. If any provision of the Stipulation is held invalid, void, or unenforceable, the 17 remaining provisions shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect and shall not be impaired 18 or invalidated by the failed provision. 19 J 23. If any party to the Stipulation incurs attorney's fees in order to enforce, defend, or 20 interpret any of the terms, provisions, or conditions of the Stipulation or this Judgment or 21 because of breach of the Stipulation by another party, the prevailing party (whether by suit, 22 negotiation, arbitration, or settlement) shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees from 23 the other party. 24 24. Notice will be promptly given to the Court of satisfaction of all the terms of this 25 Judgment in Condemnation, and upon such satisfaction, the City shall prepare and file a 26 proposed Final Order of Condemnation for entry by this Court. 27 25. This Stipulation and this Judgment shall be binding upon and shall inure to the 28 benefit of the parties and their successors, assigns, and grantees. -9- JUDGMENf IN CONDEMNATION 11231-01621101047104m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z o 11 oa x� 12 w g z2 13 LO N 14 Q 15 tz N , o a 16 LJ x� to 17 RIM 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26. Each signatory to this Stipulation represents and warrants that they have authority to sign on behalf of, and to bind, the party on whose behalf they are signing, and that all required corporate, entity, or governmental resolutions, approvals, and authorizations have been obtained to allow them to sign this Stipulation and bind the party on whose behalf they are signing. 27. Upon filing of the Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation, there being no further compensation remaining to be paid to any party, the portion of the Subject Property Interests described above as "Portion of Fee Interest Acquired" is condemned as to Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA and as against Defendants HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC, PIONEER LLC and ANY AND ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN HAVING OR CLAIMING TO HAVE ANY TITLE OR INTEREST IN OR TO THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED HEREIN, in fee simple absolute, and all interests of said Defendants in and to the subject real property described herein shall be terminated. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 2007 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT -10- JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 112 31-016211010471 v l .doc EXHIBIT B JJm nrA I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER (137210) KIRSTEN R. BOWMAN (IS1627) 355 South Grand Avenue, 40'h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 626-8484 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Case No. RCV 094962 Plaintiff, i ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF JUST COMPENSATION vs. [Exempt from Piling Fees Pursuant to Gem Code 4 6103] PHILLIP R. HOFER AND DOROTHY B. HOFER, as trustees of that Certain [APN: 0209-131-02] Revocable Declaration of Trust, etc., et al., Defendants. This acknowledges that on _ , 2007, Edward Burg of MANATT, PHELPS AND PHILLIPS, attorneys for Defendants HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC and PIONEER, LLC, received from the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Check Number in the amount of $ 1,771,3I5.00 (One Million Seven Hundred Seventy -One Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen Dollars) payable to: HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC and Check No. from the San Bernardino Superior Court Clerk in the amount of $ 228,685 (Two Hundred Twenty -Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighty -Five Dollars) plus $ to be refunded to the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA as full and final payment for the real property interests in Plaintiff's Complaint herein. This payment represents the payment of just compensation in this action. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION 11231-016211013950VI.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z I 0 x� "' a 12 u, s z 13 z� 0 d 14 s 15 o� a 16 x� 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: , 2007 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS EDWARD BURG Attorney for Defendants Hofer Properties, LLC and Pioneer, LLC -2- AC&NOWLEDUEMENT OF RECEIPT OF JUST COMPENSATION 11231-0 162%1013950v1.dnc EXHIBIT K 1 2 3 41 5! 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER, SBN: 13 72 10 KIRSTF_N R. BOWMAN, SBN: 181627 MARICELA MARROQUIN, SBN: 232321 355 South Grand Avenue,40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 Telephone: (213) 626-8484 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO— RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, vs. PHILLIP R. HOFER AND DOROTHY B. HOFER, as trustees of that Certain Revocable Declaration of Trust, etc., et al., Defendant. Case No. RCV 094962 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION [APN:0209-131-02] [Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] Hon. Martin Hildreth Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ("City") filed the Complaint in Eminent Domain herein on May 3, 2006 to acquire by eminent domain a 15,225 square foot fee interest and a 66,803 square foot temporary construction easement ("Subject Property Interests") for the term of twenty-four months on part of the real property described in City's complaint as 8812 Haven Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and further identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-02 ("Subject Property") in connection with the construction, repair and maintenance of the Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project, and all uses necessary and convenient thereto ("Project"). The Subject Property Interests are described more particularly in Plaintiff's Complaint on file herein and below as: 11231-0162\1010471vLdoc JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 9f =FA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PORTION OF FEE INTEREST ACQUIRED: THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST -531.23 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89°31'50" WEST 33,00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 0°28' 10" EAST 579.13 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89056'39" WEST 34.30 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 34.30 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 308.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 6045'53" EAST 272.38 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.350 ACRES MORE OR LESS. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT: THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: -2- 11231-0162\1010471vl.doc JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION zv� 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (134 FEET WIDE) AND JERSEY BOULEVARD (80 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 4256 PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 38 PAGES 64 AND 65 OF PARCEL MAPS, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 144.46 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89056'39" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89056'39" WEST 116.00 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0'28' 10" EAST 341.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°19' 10" EAST 19.64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°41'05" EAST 69.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°26'21" WEST 9.60 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 105.70 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 180.69 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 89056'59" WEST 45.00 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 150.70 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 110.33 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.40 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 34.30 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 0028' 10" EAST 308.60 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 6045'53" EAST 272.38 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 122.87 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. -3- 1 1231-0162\1 010471 vl.doc JUDGMENT IN CONDFXINATION 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONTAINING 1.534 ACRES MORE ORLESS, It appearing that a settlement has been reached between Plaintiff, the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ("City") and the Defendants HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC and PIONEER, LLC (collectively referred to herein as "Defendants"), the fee owners herein; and It further appearing that Defendant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS, filed a disclaimer herein, disclaiming any right, title or interest in or to the Subject Property Interests to be condemned as described in City's Complaint and to the just compensation to be awarded; and It further appearing that Defendants PHILLIP F. HOFER and DOROTHY B. HOFEk as Trustees of the Phillip and Dorothy Hofer Revocable Trust, and PAUL B. HOFER, JR. and LAURA JEAN HOFER, as Trustees of the Paul and Laura Jean Hofer Revocable Trust, have been dismissed from this action; and It further appearing that Defendants ANY AND ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN HAVING OR CLAIMING TO HAVE ANY TITLE OR INTEREST IN OR TO THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED HEREIN, having been regularly served with process, and having failed to appear and answer City's Complaint filed herein, and the default of these defendants having been duly entered and evidence having been considered by the Court; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: The purpose for which the Subject Property Interests are sought to be condemned is a public use authorized by law, and the taking of the Subject Property Interests are necessary for such use. 2. City shall pay to Defendants total monetary compensation in the sum of r $2,000,000.00 (Two Million Dollars), inclusive of statutory interest, fees and costs ("the Total Compensation'). The Total Compensation is comprised as follows: a. On May 3, 2006, City deposited the sum of $228,685.00 (Two Hundred Twenty - Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Dollars) with the Clerk of the Superior Court as the amount of probable just compensation for the Subject Property Interests in this proceeding. Defendants have been authorized to withdraw the entire sum of $229,685.00 (Two Hundred -4- JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 1 1231-0162\1010471 vl.doc 9r _r4 1 Twenty -Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Dollars) along with interest, pursuant.to a 2 Stipulation and Order dated October 5, 2007 3 b. The total amount of just compensation remaining to be paid to Defendants is the 4 sum of %1,771,315 (One Million Seven Hundred Seventy -One Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen 5 Dollars). Within five (5) business days of receipt of payment from the Court, Defendants agree 6 to refund to City any and all sums included therein as interest accrued on the funds on deposit. 7 Defendants shall deliver to City's attorney, Kirsten R. Bowman of Richards, Watson & Gershon, 8 a check for said interest as provided above. 9 3. The Total Compensation will be paid as follows: 10 a. Within five (5) business days after the date of execution of the Stipulation for 11 Entry of Judgment in Condemnation ("Stipulation") by both parties, the City shall deliver to 12 Defendants' attorney, Edward Burg ofManatt, Phelps & Phillips the amount of $1,771,315.00 13 (One Million Seven Hundred Seventy -One Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen Dollars) in the form 14 of a check made payable to Hofer Properties, LLC. 15 b. If this amount is not actually received by Defendants by November 15, 2007, 16 interest on this amount shall begin to accrue on November 15, 2007 at the apportionment rate '17' ' authorized by Code Civ. Proc. §-1268.350, compounded quarterly as provided by Code Civ. 18 Proc. § 1268.360, and interest shall continue to accrue on this amount until paid. 19 4. Within five (5) business days following receipt of the Total Compensation 20 described in paragraph 2, above, Edward Burg, counsel for Defendants, shall execute and return 21 to counsel for the City an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation in the form 22 attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit B, acknowledging receipt of the Total Compensation set 23 forth in paragraph 2. 24 5. In addition to the foregoing monetary compensation, City shall relocate the bus 25 bay taper currently planned to be constructed adjacent to the Subject Property's frontage along 26 Haven Avenue, and City agrees that no bus bay taper will be constructed at any location adjacent 27 to the Subject Property's frontage along Haven Avenue. The purpose of relocating the bus bay 28 taper is to allow the Subject Property to have direct access to and from Haven Avenue. -5- JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-0162\1010471 vl.doc =Yi 2 m 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notwithstanding any other rule or policy of the City, the Subject Property will have direct access to and from Haven Avenue at a location directly across Haven Avenue from the approved Rock - Jersey access point onto Haven Avenue from Assessor's Parcel No. 0209-143-02. 6. City does not need to construct Driveway A from the intersection of Jersey Boulevard and Haven Avenue as part of the Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project, which was intended to provide the Subject Property with access from Jersey Boulevard and Haven Avenue. 7. Notwithstanding any other rule or policy of the City, Defendants shall not be obligated to master plan any proposed future development of the Subject Property with the adjacent Halstead Property to the north, Assessor's Parcel No. 0209-131-01. 8. City has taken possession of the Subject Property Interests described in the Complaint herein pursuant to an Order for Possession filed May 25, 2006, which became effective on October 11, 2006. The temporary construction easement being acquired through this eminent domain action is set to expire on October 11, 2008. The Temporary Construction Easement is hereby extended up through and including November 30, 2009. 9. Payment of the Total Compensation referenced in paragraph 2, the City's relocating the bus bay taper and to providing the Subject Property direct access to and from Haven Avenue referenced in paragraph 5, and Defendants not being required to master plan the Subject Property with the Halstead Property referenced in paragraph 7 comprise the total just compensation to be paid by City to Defendants in this action. Defendants expressly acknowledge that said payment shall be in full and final settlement of any and all claims arising out of the taking of the Subject Property Interests, including, but not limited to, claims for compensation for the Subject Property Interests, severance damages, inverse condemnation, loss of goodwill, costs, litigation expenses, expert witness fees, attorneys fees, interest, relocation assistance and benefits, improvements pertaining to the realty, or any other claim or reason, whether relating to the Project for which the Subject Property Interests are sought to be acquired or to this action. 10. The entry of the Final Order of Condemnation constitutes the waiver and release by Defendants of any and all claims against City, its officials, agents, contractors, and employees -6- JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-0162\1010471vl.doc 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 '17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in connection with the Subject Property Interests or this eminent domain proceeding that were asserted or could have been asserted in this proceeding, other than the duties and obligations created by the Stipulation and this.Judgment. 11. Defendants warrant that there are no unpaid real property taxes, penalties or costs due on the Subject Property Interest for the period ending October 11, 2006, the date of possession, and hereby promises to indemnify City in the amount of any such unpaid taxes and/or penalties and/or any legal fees and costs incurred by City in connection with any such unpaid taxes and/or penalties. 12. Defendants further warrant that they are not aware of any other person or entity with any right or entitlement, by lien or otherwise, to the Subject Property or to the just compensation awarded in this proceeding for the Subject Property Interests. Specifically, and without limitation, Defendants warrant and agree: a. That they are the record owners of the Subject Property Interests. b. That Defendants know of no claims or liens presently claimed or which will be claimed against the Subject Property Interests. G. That Defendants will not further encumber the Subject Property Interests or allow the Subject. Property Interests to be further encumbered before entry of the Final Order of Condemnation in this action. d. That to Defendants' best knowledge, the Subject Property Interests are free and clear of all hazardous and toxic substances, materials, and waste; and that they have no notice of any pending or threatened action or proceeding arising from the condition of the Subject Property, or alleged violation of environmental, health, or safety statutes, ordinances, or regulations. e. That neither the Stipulation nor anything it requires or provides, including the transfer of the Subject Property Interests to the City, violates or will violate any contract, agreement, or instrument to which Defendants are a party, or that affects the Subject Property Interests, and that conveyance of the Subject Property Interests to the City does not require consent of any person who is not a party to the Stipulation. -7- JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-0162\10I0471v1.doc z = o2 M Ln � x 4 _r I f. That there are no written or oral leases or contractual rights or options to lease, i 2 purchase, license or otherwise to enjoy possession, rights, or any interest in the Subject, Property 3 Interests or to any part of the Subject Property Interests, and that no person other than the City 4 has any right of possession to the Subject Property Interests. 5 g. That they do not know of any pending, threatened, or potential litigation, 6 action, or proceeding against Defendants or any other party before any court or administrative 7 tribunal which is in any way related to the Subject Property, except for this action pending as San 8 Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. RCV 094962. 9 13. Each party shall bear its own litigation expenses, including but not limited to all 10 attorney's fees, appraisers' fees, engineers' fees, and any and all other fees or costs of any nature, I 1 including costs set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5. 12. .. 14. All taxes and assessments, penalties, and costs which are a lien on the Subject 13 Property Interests, including all taxes and assessments which are apportioned and imposed with 14 respect to any period after October 11, 2006 are hereby canceled and extinguished pursuant to 15 sections 4986 and 5081 of the Revenue and Taxation Code as of the date of apportionment, 16 which is October 11, 2006. 17 15. Defendants shall be entitled to apply to the appropriate County agency for 18 reimbursement of any taxes paid by or on its behalf for the period October 11, 2006 to the 19 present. 20 16. Each party to this Judgment waives the right to move for a new trial and to all 21 other post judgment proceedings and the right to appeal herein. -. 22 17. The parties hereto have stipulated that a Statement of Decision is hereby 23 waived. 24 18. In effecting the Stipulation, each of the parties has had the opportunity to receive 25 full and complete legal advice about the provisions of the Stipulation, and each signatory to the 26 Stipulation certifies that he or she has read at] of the Stipulation and that he or she understands it. 27 The Stipulation has been fully negotiated between the City and Defendants, and shall be 28 construed as if drafted by all parties to the Stipulation. -8- JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-0162\1010471v1.doc L rj� a ar _v� 1 19. Except as otherwise set forth in the Stipulation and except for breach of any terms 2 or conditions contained in the Stipulation, Defendants and the City waive and forever release 3 each other including their successors, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, representatives, and 4 anyone acting on or for thew behalf, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions or causes 5 of action, or liabilities, known or unknown, based upon or arising in connection with the 6 Complaint in Eminent Domain herein, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Subject 7 Property Interests, or from the City's acquisition of the Subject Property Interests other than the 8 duties and obligations created by the Stipulation and by this Judgment. 9 20. By such release, Defendants and the City waive any rights under California Civil 10 Code Section 1542, which provides, "A general release does not extend to claims which the 11 creditor does'not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, 12.. which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the 13 debtor." 14 21. The Stipulation is made and executed, and is intended to be performed, within the 15 State of California, and is to be construed under California law. 16 22. If any provision of the Stipulation is held invalid, void, or unenforceable, the 17 remaining provisions shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect and shall not be impaired 18 or invalidated by the failed provision. 19 23. If any party to the Stipulation incurs attorney's fees in order to enforce, defend, or 20 interpret any of the terms, provisions, or conditions of the Stipulation or this Judgment or 21 because of a breach of the Stipulation by another party, the prevailing party (whether by suit, 22 negotiation, arbitration, or settlement) shall be entitled to recover reasonable attomey's fees from 23 the other party. 24 24. Notice will be promptly given to the Court of satisfaction of all the terms of this 25 Judgment in Condemnation, and.upon such satisfaction, the City shall prepare and file a 26 proposed Final Order of Condemnation for entry by this Court. 27 25. This Stipulation and this Judgment shall be binding upon and shall inure to the 28 benefit of the parties and their successors, assigns, and grantees. -9- JUDG&11i IN CONDEMNATION 11231-016211010471v1.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7' 81 9I 10 z II oG x� 12 w C7 — a 13 0 d 14 a 15 v, s o cy-16 xd ai 17 vj 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 II, 27 no 26. Each signatory to this Stipulation represents and warrants that they have authority to sign on behalf of, and to bind, the party on whose behalf they are signing, and that all required corporate, entity, or governmental resolutions, approvals, and authorizations have been obtained to allow them to sign this Stipulation and bind the party on whose behalf they are signing. 27. Upon Fling of the Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation, there being no further compensation remaining to be paid to any parry, the portion of the Subject Property Interests described above as "Portion of Fee Interest. Acquired" is condemned as to Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA and as against Defendants HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC, PIONEER, LLC and ANY AND ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN HAVING OR CLAIMING TO HAVE ANY TITLE OR INTEREST IN OR TO THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED HEREIN, in fee simple absolute, and all interests of said Defendants in and to the subject real property described herein shall be terminated. IT IS SO ORDERED, Date: NOV 3 0 2001 2007 MARTIN A. HlLE)BETH JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT -10- JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 11231-0162\1010471v1.doc 2 M 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Linda I. Pomatto, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On December 10, 2007, I served the within documents: [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION [ j by causing facsimile transmission of the document(s) listed above from (213) 626-8484 to the person(s) and facsimile number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 P.M. This transmission was reported as complete and without error. A copyof the transmission report(s), which was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, is attached. Service by facsimile has been made pursuant to a prior written agreement between the parties. [ X ] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid; in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in this affidavit. [ ] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre- paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a agent for delivery, or deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. Charles Gomez, Esq. Edward G. Burg, Esq. George Soneff, Esq. Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips 11355 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on December 10, 2007. LINDA I. POMATTO 11231-0162\910543v1.doc EXHIBIT L 1L Z CCUNT'OIOR Cot iT RAVCHF SAN rD2 TOOLICAMOGAf R 3 DEC 9 Zoo? 4 5 Deputy .01 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, I Case No. RCV 094962 12 Plaintiff, [YID] FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 13 vs. (Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103) 14 PHILLIP R. HOFER AND DOROTHY B. HOFER, as trustees of that Certain [APN: 0209-131-02) 15 Revocable Declaration of Trust, etc., et al. ACTION FILED: May 3, 2006 16 Defendants. 17 18 Judgment in Condemnation having been entered in this action on November 30, 2007; 19 and said Judgment having provided that upon payment of the total sum specified in said 20 Judgment, Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City) is entitled to a Final Order of 21 Condemnation in this action; and it appearing to the Court that the City has paid for benefit of 22 Defendants, Hofer Properties, LLC and Pioneer, LLC (collectively referred to herein as 23 "Defendants") the total sum specified in said Judgment, as evidenced by the Acknowledgment of 24 Receipt of Just Compensation executed by Edward Burg, and filed on November 30, 2007; 25 It further appearing to the Court that the City and Defendants have resolved the issues 26 between them as evidenced in the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment filed with the Court on 27 November 30, 2007. 28 It further appearing to the Court that no other person has claimed any interest in the [ -I- [PROPOSED) FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0162\1019277vIAd d o a Irl o w g L a �,rJ Cl 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 compensation to be awarded in this action; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that a portion of the real property owned by Hofer Properties, LLC and Pioneer, LLC ("Defendants"), identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-02 ("Subject Properly") and commonly known as 8812 Haven Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, are condemned and taken for a public.use, namely for public street purposes, and for all uses necessary and convenient thereto. The legal descriptions of the condemned property ("Property") are as follows: (APN 0209-131-02) LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PORTION OF FEE INTEREST ACQUIRED: THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028'10" EAST 531.23 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 0028'10" EAST 579.13 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89056'39" WEST 34.30 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 34.30 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 308.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 6045' 53" EAST 272.3 8 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.350 ACRES MORE OR LESS. -2- [PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0162\1019277v1.doe I TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT: 2 THAT PORTION OF LOT I OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE 3 OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID 4 COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN 5 AVENUE (134 FEET WIDE) AND JERSEY BOULEVARD (80 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 4256 PER MAP FILED IN 6 BOOK 38 PAGES 64 AND 65 OF PARCEL MAPS, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE 7 CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 144.46 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89056'39" 8 WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF 9 BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89056'39" WEST 116.00 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN 10 PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE o a 11 SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST _ 341.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'19'10" EAST 19.64 FEET; THENCE W o 12 SOUTH 0041'05" EAST 69.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°26'21" WEST c� < 9.60 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT z o 13 105.70 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE WEST LOW RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE ALONG LAST 14 SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028'10" EAST 180.69 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 89056'59" — 3 15 WEST 45.00 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND o DISTANT 150.70 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE E 16 WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE _ ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINESOUTH0028' 10" EAST 1,10.33 17 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET ;ft WIDE) AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE ALONG ri 18 SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.40 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 34.30 FEET MEASURED 19 AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE 20 NORTH 0028' 10" EAST 308.60 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 6045'53" EAST 272.38 FEET TO SAID 21 WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 122.87 FEET TO 22 SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 23 CONTAINING 1.534 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 24 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. 25 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that upon filing a 27 certified copy of this Final Order of Condemnation with the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, title to the Property interests shall vest in 28 -3- 11231-0162V 019277v1.doc [PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 10 z oo 11 in xa 0 12 W 0 z� 13 o" w 14 � s 15 o ¢ 16 x� � a 17 'v 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City's successors and assigns. DATED: DEC i ,,q 2007 neAwnN A. HILDREM Judge of the Superior Court -4- [PROPOSEQ] FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11 231-0162%1019277vl.do ;8 ,ro 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Linda I. Pomatto, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On December 10, 2007, I served the within doctn'lents: [PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION [ ] by causing facsimile transmission of the document(s) listed above from (213) 626-8484 to the person(s),and facsimile number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 P.M. This transmission was reported as complete and without error. A copy of the transmission report(s), which was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, is attached. Service by facsimile has been made pursuant to a prior written agreement between the parties. [ X ] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar'with the firms practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in this affidavit. [ ] by placing the documents) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre- paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a agent for delivery, or deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. Charles Gomez, Esq. Edward G. Burg, Esq. George Soneff, Esq. Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips 11355 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064 I declare under penalty of per]ury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on December 10, 2007. O� R,TDA I. POMATTO 11231-0162\910543v 1.doc EXHIBIT M AMER �r=iIN FirstAmerican •>,�..:.. _:.>~�.m:mum:.�:..;,.�:�,�...,�..��.�.,.....m�:ink«:..�..�,.,�,�,.a,.,,.�..:,.w,:.:.�:e,..m.isu..�m,e� _ ,.. -�wx._ _ _ ..,�,.,.y..:.s. _ „:..,�.:»sa�„>. myfirstAm Combined Report 10411 26th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Property Address: 10411 26th St Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Combined Report 10411 26th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 11/02/2016 All information contained herein is subject to the Limitation of Liability for Informational Reportset forth on the last page hereof. 02005-2016 First American Financial Corporation and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. o-51 PMp„�C 9 y SF FirstAmerican n?vFirstAm' Property Profile 10411 26th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Property Information Owner(s): Power Medic Technologies Inc Mailing Address: 10411 26th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Owner Phone: Unknown Property Address: 10411 26th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Vesting Type: N/A Alt. APN: County: San Bernardino APN: 0209-131-01-0000 Map Coord: 12-C4 Census Tract: 002110 Lot#: 1 Block: Subdivision: Tract: 2203 Legal: Tract No 2203 N 378 Ft Lot 1 Ex St And Ex Addl St Property Characteristics Use: Warehouse Zoning: - -------- Sale and Loan Information Year Built / Eff.: 1980 / 1980 Lot Size Ac / Sq Ft: 4.87 / 212137 Sale/Rec Date: 02/20/2014 / 03/27/2014 �$2,500,000 *$/Sq. Ft.: $109.65 Sale Price: 1st Loan: $2,250,000 Doc No.: 000000109409 Loan Type: Small Business Doc Type: Grant Deed Transfer Date: 03/27/2014 Seller: D R Landmark Inc Lender: Community Bk Sq. Ft.: 22800 #of Units: 2nd Mtg.: Prior Sale Ari Prior Sale Date: 07/16/2004 Prior Doc No.: 527334 Prior Doc Type: Deed �$/,Sq`Ft 1s a calculation of Sale9Fnce divldedi�bylSq Feet ' ,' � -`�'' *"�' . • � ;°t-' x,.� °, Tax Information Imp Value: $517,767 Exemption Type: Land Value: $2,071,069 Tax Year/ 2015/15051 Total Value: - $2,588,836 - Tax Value: $2,588,836 Total Tax Amt: - - - -- -__ . $29,991.16 —---------'---------- - - -... - - - - ---- - -- ------'--------- Improved: 20% Property Profile 10411 26th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 11/2/2016 Page 1 (of 1) This report is only for the myFirstAm user who applied for it. No one else can rely on it. As a myFirstAm user, you already agreed to our disclaimer regarding third party property Information accuracy. You can view it here: ww..myfirstam.com/Security/ShowEULA. 02005-2016 First American Financial Corporation and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. ORANGE COAST TITLE (, RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL THIS DEED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN BELOW, MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: Name Street POWER MEDIC TECHNOLOGIES & Address 10411 26th STREET city Stae RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA. 91730 Zip CEO ROSS A. ALLAIRE Electronically Recorded in Official Records, County of San Bernardino DENNIS DRAEGER e ASSESSOR - RECORDER - CLERK ` 753 Orange Coast Title Company Doc #: 2014-0109409 Titles: 1 ORDER NO. 210-1533918-02 ®�Npan'A IL TAX STATEMENTS TO: ESCROW NO. 11491-NH SAME AS ABOVE RECORDERS USE ONLY 3/27/2014 04:18 PM NO Pages: 3 Fees 31.00 Taxes 2750.00 Other .00 PAID 2781.00 GRANT DEED TAX PARCEL NO. 0209-131.01-0-000 The undersigned declares that the documentary transfer tax is $2,750.00 and is X computed on the full value of the interest of the property convcyccl, or is computed on the full value less the value of liens or encumbrances remaining thereon at the time of sale. The land, tenements or realty is located in unincorporated area X city RANCHO CUCAMONGA and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which Is hereby acknowledged, D.R. LANDMARK, INC. as A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION hereby GRANT(S) to POWER MEDIC TECHNOLOGIES . INC- The following described real property in the City of RANCHO CUCAMONGA County of San Bernardino, State of California: LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF AS EXHIBIT 'A" Dated 02/20/2014 STATE OF C. COUNTY OF On herore 111e. Notary Pu Personally appealed gasis jwho prdved [o nA on thefufTiA s>odence to be the persons) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capachy(ies), and that by his/hcr/I Lsignaturc(s) on the inslr eat the peison(s), of the entity upon behalf of u� rch the ir'srson(s) acted, execut .d the instrument. tify under PgIPPiA1�TY OVIOURY" under the laws of the. Slate of California the foreg0ip para,.raph i T e and coned. Notary Public D.R. LANDMARK, INC. A�CAALLI(FORNIA CORPORATION B4'1 cz )1 RACHEL WI/JNETSKI BI DAVID HALS EAD N.HERRERA QMy commission a 1946580 Notary Public - California zzSan Bernardino County Comm. Expires Aug 29, 2015 (Notary Sea]) TO PARTY SHOWN\ BELOW: IF NO PARTY SO SHORN, MAIL AS DIRECTED ABOVE. Name \ Street Address City E Slate MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: SAMEASABOVE RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL THIS DEED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN BELOW, MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: Name Street POWER MEDIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC Address 10411 26" Street City Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 State C/O Ross A. Allaire Zip ORDER NO. 210-1533918-02 ESCROW NO. 11491-NH CERTIFICATION Under the provisions of Government Code 2735.1.7 1 certify under the penalty of perjury that the following is true copy of illegible wording found in the attache6 document: I Date: Signature: Print Name: D� - a W RECORDERS USE ONLY GRANT DEED TAX PARCEL NO. 0209-131-01-0-000 The undersigned declares that the documentary transfer tax is $2,750.00 and is X computed on the full value of the interest of the property conveyed, or is computed on the full value less the value of liens or encumbrances remaining thereon at the time of sale. The land, tenements or realty is located in unincorporated area X city RANCHO CUCAMONGA and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, D.R. LANDMARK, INC. as A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION hereby GRANT(S) to POWER MEDIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. The following described real property in the City of RANCHO CUCAMONGA County of San Bernardino, State of California: LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF AS EXHIBIT 'A" Dated D.R. LANDMARK, INC. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION COUNTY OF ) BY: On before me, RACHEL WINETSKY Notary Public personally appeared BY: DAVID HALSTEAD who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the. person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature Notary Public (Notary Seal) MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO PARTY SHOWN BELOW: IF NO PARTY SO SHOWN, MAIL AS DIRECTED ABOVE. Name Street Address City & State Order No. 210-1533918-02 Exhibit "A" That portion of Lot 1 of Tract No. 2203, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 34, Page 65 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 1, thence North 0 degrees, 16 minutes West, 702 feet along the West line of said Lot to the true point of beginning, thence South 89 degrees, 52 minutes East, 599.46 feet more or less to a point in the East line of said Lot, thence North 0 degrees, 19 minutes West, 378 feet, more or less, to the Northeast corner of said Lot,. thence North 89 degrees, 52 minutes West, 599.10 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot, thence South 0 degrees, 16 minutes East, 378 feet more or less to the point of beginning. Property herein described is also shown on the Licensed Land Surveyor's Map, recorded in Book 2 of Record of Surveys, Page 61. Excepting therefrom that portion conveyed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by that certain Final Order Condemnation Case No: RCV 091735 recorded September 10, 2007 as Instrument No.2007-0519728 of Official Records described as follows: That portion of Lot lof Tract Map 2203, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, filed in Book 34, Page 65, records of said County, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the centerline intersection of Haven Avenue (currently 134 feet wide) and 26th Street (60 feet wide) thence Southerly along the centerline of Haven Avenue South 0028' 10" East 215.75 feet; thence leaving said centerline North 89031 '50" West 33.00 feet to a point on the West right of way line of said Haven Avenue and the true point of beginning, thence leaving said West right of way line South 47029'01" West 23.18 feet; thence North 89056'55" West 98.79 feet to a line drawn parallel' with and distant 116.00 feet measured at right angles from said West right of way line; thence Southerly along said parallel line South 0°28' 10" Fast 117.45 feet to a line drawn parallel with and distant 702.00 feet measured at right angles from the North right of way line of Humboldt Avenue (280 feet wide) as shown on Tract Map 2203; thence Easterly along said parallel line South 89°56' 39" East 116.00 feet to said West right of way line of Haven Avenue; thence Northerly along said West right of way line. North 0028'10" West 193.14 feet to said true point of beginning. ' PSS PMER/C4 ` FirstAmerican n vFirstAm° Transaction History 10411 26th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Transaction History provides records for the past ten years. To request additional information, please contact your local Sales Representative, Customer Service Department, or for an additional fee you may click here . History Record # 1 : SALE/TRANSFER Buyer: Power Medic Technologies Inc Seller: D R Landmark Inc Transaction Date: 02/20/2014 Sale Price: $2,500,000 Recording Date: 03/27/2014 Sale Price Type: Full Value Recorded Doc #: 000000109409 Title Company: Orange Coast Title Co. Document Type: Deed Transfer Vesting Type: N/A FINANCE Mortgage Recording Date: 03/27/2014 Mortgage Transfer Type: Resale Mortgage Document #: 000000109410 Mortgage Rate Type: Adjustable Lender: Community Bk Mortgage Term: Document Type Trust Deed/Mortgage Vesting Type: N/A Loan Amount: $2,250,000 Mortgage Rate: Borrower 1: Power Medic Technologies Inc Borrower 2: Borrower 3: Borrower 4: History Record # 2 : FINANCE Mortgage Recording Date: 03/31/2011 Mortgage Document #: 128237 Lender: Community Bank Na Document Type Trust Deed/Mortgage Loan Amount: Borrower 1: D R Landmark Inc Borrower 3: Continued on next page... Mortgage Transfer Type: Refinance Mortgage Rate Type: Fix.. Mortgage Term: Vesting Type: N/A Mortgage Rate: Borrower 2: Borrower 4: Transaction History 10411 26th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 11/2/2016 Page 1 (of 2) All information contained herein is subject to the Limitation of Liability for Informational Report set forth on the last page hereof. m2005-2016 First American Financial Corporation and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. »nFirstAm"' Transaction Hisl 10411 2' yt, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 History Record # 3 : SALUTRANSFER Buyer: D R Landmark Inc Seller: Halstead Tr Transaction Date: 07/16/2004 Sale Price: Recording Date: 07/23/2004 Sale Price Type: Recorded Doc #: 527334 Title Company: Alliance Title Document Type: Deed Transfer Vesting Type: N/A FINANCE Mortgage Recording Date: 07/2312004 Mortgage Transfer Type: Refinance Mortgage Document #: 527335 Mortgage Rate Type: Fix Lender: Community Bank Na Mortgage Term: Document Type Trust Deed/Mortgage Vesting Type: N/A Loan Amount: $2,100,000 Mortgage Rate: Borrower 1: D R Landmark Inc Borrower 2: Borrower 3: Borrower 4: History Record # 4 : SALEITRANSFER Buyer: Halstead,Donald Seller: Transaction Date: 05/04/1992 .Sale Price: Recording Date: 05/11/1992 Sale Price Type: Recorded Doc #: 0000198745 Title Company: Document Type: Deed Transfer Vesting Type: N/A Transaction History 10411 26th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 11/2/2016 Page 2 (of 2) 02005-2016 First American Financial Corporationand/or its affiliates. All rights reserved 'MW �FirstAmerican • ••—"..flfu..:...,u-l�'[.SMia.u'v....R4.'wY.wWEtv��i2'd,.uLG• -^N Z.yV.4"L`�F"!'�.euw .v"ai`EYd�K4fXdYF. . w. v.::��...: b...��.i",i� myFirstAm' Comparable Sales 10411 26th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject Property APN Property Address Sale Price Year Built Sq. Ft. Rec. Date Dist. from Subj. 0209-131-01- 10411 26th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 $2,500,000 1980 22800 0000 Comparable Sales A. 0209-234-08- 10270 Philadelphia CT , Rancho Cucamonga, $2,500,000 2004 17408 04/11/2016 0.40 mi 0000 CA 91730 B. 0209-234-10- 10220 Philadelphia CT , Rancho Cucamonga, $2,700,000 2004 26133 02/05/2016 0.44 mi 0000 CA 91730 C. 0229-262-34- 9070 Bridgeport PL , Rancho Cucamonga, CA $2,832,000 1986 21753 02/29/2016 1.18 mi 0000 91730 D. 0211-222-06- 4237 E Airport DR , Ontario, CA 91761 $2,780,500 1992 19388 02/29/2016 2.37 mi 0000 Comparable Sales 10411 26th. St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 11/02/2016 Page 1 (of 2) All information contained herein is subject to the Limitation of Liability for Informational Report set forth on the last page hereof. 02005-2016 First American Financial Corporation and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. nii;FirstAnn"' Comparable Se 10 16th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Comparable Statistics Average : Low : High ; Sale Price: $2,703,125 $2,500,000 $2,832,000 Loan Amount: $1,448,000 $1,448,000 $1,448,000 Sq. FL: 21170.5 17408 26133 Sale $ /Sq. Ft': $128 $144 $108 iSiSq tt Asa caic�ulation of Sale Price dlvided,by-SfFt .; T p „'W '., r^F^• ,. "+s""� Tv is ; s .... ..r..,._,.3e-a�uarse,.,.._....:a.,a..,....a..�.._....,.?. A�4, Comparable Sales 10411 26th St, Rancho Cucamonga; CA 91730 11/02/2016 Page 2 (of 2) 02005-2016 First American Financial Corporation and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Sj AMER/ -'� FirstAmerican � .:.M.::*Y:cA.^,�.�.::N.s,xwe„sass.R.w�++,..^1r.'•^..+m�:z'�,:�:w?.,.�"^_„4u�.,.+...�l,e�'.'�.as,ratr'me".c".:.yf,LG.z:�Sc.�.,G ..7.,�ss.. «a�u�m�Mf... M.n....w.,. _.. -.•.. ...,-,..+, .......�.. myFirstAml Tax Map 10411 26th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Ptn. Trad No. 2203, M.B. 34/65 city of Rancho Cucamonga 0209— 13 ' - Tax Rate Area "—"------"—' 15051 -AVE - -- T I I I I I i " I I . ____-_—_____."_________ -. _____.. ______—__----AVI--- Assessor's Map Bank 0209 Page 13 eeplember 2004 San Bernardino County Limitation of Liability for Informational Report IMPORTANT —READ CAREFULLY:THIS REPORT IS NOT AN INSURED PRODUCT OR SERVICE OR A REPRESENTATION OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY. IT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT OR PRELIMINARY REPORT, OR ANY FORM OF TITLE INSURANCE OR GUARANTY. THIS REPORT IS ISSUED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APPLICANT THEREFOR, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR RELIED UPON BY ANY OTHER PERSON. THIS REPORT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT FIRST AMERICAN'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. FIRST AMERICAN DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS COMPLETE OR FREE FROM ERROR, AND THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS PROVIDED WITHOUT ANY WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND; AS -IS, AND WITH ALL FAULTS, AS A MATERIAL PART OF THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN IN EXCHANGE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THIS REPORT, RECIPIENT AGREES THAT FIRST AMERICAN'S SOLE LIABILITY FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY AN ERROR OR OMISSION DUE TO INACCURATE INFORMATION OR NEGLIGENCE IN PREPARING THIS REPORT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FEE CHARGED FOR THE REPORT. RECIPIENT ACCEPTS THIS REPORT WITH THIS LIMITATION AND AGREES THAT FIRST AMERICAN WOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED THIS REPORT BUT FOR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY DESCRIBED ABOVE. FIRST AMERICAN MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY AS TO THE LEGALITY OR PROPRIETY OF RECIPIENT'S USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN. Tax Map 10411 26th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 11/2/2016 Page 1 (of 1) ©2005-2016 First American Financial Corporation and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. EXHIBIT N CIV-170214-RCV-RS091735-XPMOTII-0IIII91102 III 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIII III IIII IIIII II IIII II II'lllll IIOIIuIIIIIIIIIII �IIl�ull System Code: CIV Case Number: RS091735 Case Type: RCV Action Code: XPMOT Action Date: 02/14/17 Action Time: 9:11 Action Seq: 0002 Printed by: MKILG Scanned Document Coversheet THIS COVERSHEET IS FOR COURT PURPOSES ONLY, AND THIS IS NOT A PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD. YOU WILL NOT BE CHARGED FOR THIS PAGE Ex-Parte Motion Re: PLA APP FOR NUNC PRO TUNIC MODIFICATION TO JMNT IN to be heard on 02/15/17 at 8:30 in department 828X. IIII IIII 111 l I II II I I II II I II III NEW FILE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON (�t A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER Bar No. 137210� F I L E D ( ) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA rdanner@rwglaw.com COUNTY OF SAN13ERNARDINO MICHAEL F. YOSHIBA (Bar No. 177301) , a SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT myoshiba@rwglaw.com U 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor FEB 14 2011 Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone: 213.626.8484 BY � Facsimile: 213.626.0078 DEPUTY Attorneys for Plaintiff Fee in ate sr= 2 of 0_ 0. D� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P — ISM�fW, e8s�0- SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, V. DR LANDMARK, et al., Defendant. Case No. RCV 091735 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A NUNC PRO TUNC MODIFICATION TO THE JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL F. YOSHIBA IN SUPPORT THEREOF [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] [APN: 0209-131-011 Judge: Hon. Michael A. Sachs Date: February 15, 2017 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: S28 Action Filed: November 29.2005 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 15, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in Department S28 of the above -entitled court, Plaintiff, City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") will apply ex parte to the Court for a correction or modification, nunc pro tune correcting the legal description of the real property interests condemned by the City contained in the Judgment in Condemnation (entered on August 7, 2007, see Exhibit 1) and Final Order of Condemnation (entered on August 16, 2007, see Exhibit 2). Ex Parte Application For a Nunc Pro Tunc Modification to the Judgment in Condemnation and Final Order of Condemnation 11231-0154@037774v I.doc I The portion of the legal description in the Judgment in Condemnation (see Exhibit 1 2 dated August 7, 2007 being corrected by this application for nunc pro tune modification is 3 as follows: Page 3, lines 2 to 18, inclusive, of the Judgment in Condemnation shall be 4 corrected to read (see change, originally 117.45 and replaced with 177.45, in bold below): 5 "LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES 6 (A.P.N.0209-131-01) 7 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN 8 BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE 9 PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 10 COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) Z o 11 AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE o < SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN � a 12 AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE w LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST i 13 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY z LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT Ln 0 14 OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT d OF WAY LINE SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET; 3 15 THENCE NORTH 89056'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO A LINE (n s DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET t 16 MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST = p RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG K 17 SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 002 8'10" EAST 177.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 18 DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES ='Y• FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 19 HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID 20 PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; 21 THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID 22 TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 23 CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS." 24 25 The Final Order of Condemnation (see Exhibit 2) dated August 16, 2007 being 26 corrected by this application for nunc pro tune modification is as follows: Page 2, lines 8 to 27 24, inclusive, of the Final Order of Condemnation shall be corrected to read (see change, 28 originally 117.45 and replaced with 177.45, in bold below): -2- Ex Parte Application For a Nunc Pro Tune Modification to the Judgment in Condemnation and Final Order of Condemnation 11231-0154t2037774vl.doc Ire, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES (A.P.N. 0209-13 1 -0 1) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89056'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 177.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 002 8'10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS." This ex parte application is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d), and pursuant to the inherent power of the court to control its own processes. The application is based upon this ex parte application, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, upon all of the pleadings, papers, and records on file in this action, upon such Ex Parte Application For a Nunc Pro Tunc 1231-0154%2037774v1 doc to and Final Order of 0 5 6 7 9 10 z o 11 o� =i 12 K < 13 z� Ln 0 14 15 W 16 ¢ _0 K 7 17 < �V 18 19 20 21, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 matters as to which the court may take mandatory or permissive judicial notice, and upon such further argument and evidence as may be received by the Court. 11 Dated: February 13, 2017 Ex Parte Application For a 11231-0154k2037774v I. doe RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER MICHAEL F. YOSHIBA By. MIC E Y SHIBA Attorneys fo aintiff CITY OF CHO CUCAMONGA to me Judgment In Order of I MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 1. INTRODUCTION 3 The City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") initiated an eminent domain action on 4 November 29, 2005 by filing a Complaint in Eminent Domain (see Exhibit 4) to acquire a 5 partial -fee interest and a temporary construction easement from the real property commonly 6 known as 10451 26t1' Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and was identified by the San 7 Bernardino County Assessor as Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01. 8 At the time the Complaint in Eminent Domain (see Exhibit 4) was filed, the property 9 was designated as Assessor Parcel Number 0209-131-01 (see Exhibit 3). The City sought 10 to acquire the property interests for the construction of the Haven Avenue Grade Separation z o 11 Project. This Court issued its Judgment in Condemnation ("Judgment", see Exhibit 1) on o0 v 12 August 7, 2007 and the Final Order of Condemnation ("Final Order", see Exhibit 2) filed w z o 13 on August 16, 2007 and recorded on September 10, 2007. 14 It was recently discovered that the legal description in the Judgment and Final Order as 3 15 had an incorrect descriptive that is now reflected in the San Bernardino County Assessor's v, s r 16 Parcel Map (117.45 feet instead of the correct length of 177.45 feet, see annotated Exhibits L) 0 17 3-A, 3-13, 3-C, 3-D and 3-E) that didn't reflect the correct legal description and area that RP 18 were included as Exhibits to the City's Complaint in Eminent Domain and Resolution of 19 Necessity (see Exhibit 4). The City was only recently notified that the current property 20 owner is proposing to develop this property, and that promptly correcting the legal 21 description is necessary before final consideration of the property owners' proposal. 22 Declaration of Michael F. Yoshiba ("Yoshiba decl.") ¶ 2. This application is being 23 submitted to amend the legal descriptions in the Judgment and Final Order (see attached, 24 proposed Amended Judgment ,in Condemnation (see Exhibit 5) and proposed Amended 25 Final Order of Condemnation (see Exhibit 6). 26 All parties to the original Stipulation for Judgment in Condemnation ("Stipulation", 27 see Exhibit 7) have been notified of this ex parte application. Yoshiba decl. ¶¶ 3 and 12. 28 -5- Ex Parte Application For a Nunc Pro Tune Modification to the Judgment in Condemnation and Final Order of Condem_ nation 11231-0154k2037774v1.doc 1 II. THE COURT IS EMPOWERED TO CLARIFY OR CORRECT A 2 JUDGMENT AND/OR ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC 3 Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d) provides that "the court may, upon motion of the 4 injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as 5 entered, so as to conform to the judgment or orders directed ...." This statute provides this 6 court with "the power, after final judgment, and regardless of lapse of time, to correct 7 clerical errors or misprisions in its records, whether made by the clerk, counsel or the court 8 itself, so that the records will conform to and speak the truth." 7 Witkin, California 9 Procedure § 69 (4th ed. 1997) (citations omitted). 10 The Judgment and Final Order (see Exhibits 1 and 2) prepared by a previous z o I I attorney for the City contained an inaccurate "distance" in the legal description of the oQ 0 12 property rights being acquired by the City through the Stipulation. The Judgment and Final W � 13 Order included a distance reference of 117.45 feet instead of the correct length of 177.45 —z z 14 feet. The incorrect distance was used in a "metes and bounds" type legal description ¢d 15 leading to an incorrect final property description, the incorrect property description was N 5 0 16 recorded and later added to the San Bernardino County Assessor's map overlay. (See ¢W 4 17 Exhibits 3, 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D and 3-E; Comparative maps were prepared depicting the %Y 18 incorrect and the corrected property boundaries.) The correct legal description is contained 19 in the Complaint in Eminent Domain and the Resolution of Necessity (see Exhibit 4). 20 The incorrect legal description of the property being acquired by the City was 21 missed by the parties to the Stipulation and therefore the approved Judgment and Final 22 Order did not appropriately identify that the stated legal description of property was 23 inconsistent with the Resolution of Necessity and Complaint in Eminent Domain. Yoshiba 24 decl., 14. Because the City was only recently notified that the current property owner is 25 proposing to develop this property, promptly correcting the legal description is necessary 26 before final consideration of the property owners' development proposal. Yoshiba decl., ¶ 27 2. The City, therefore requests that the Court modify the Judgment and Final Order as 28 proposed in the Amended Judgment in Condemnation (see Exhibit 5) and proposed -6- Ex Parte Application For a Nunc Pro Time Modification to the Judgment in Condemnation and Final Order of Condemnation 11231-0154\2037774v I. doe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z o 11 oQ v=i 12 C2 u, o 13 z 0 14 ¢a ` 15 o < 16N Q W u 2 17 � a %b I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Amended Final Order of Condemnation (see Exhibit 6), so that these documents correctly coincide with the legal descriptions in the Complaint in Eminent Domain and the Resolution of Necessity (see Exhibit 4). The nunc pro tune relief sought herein by the City under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d) is justifiable and warranted. IIIII. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the City respectfully requests that this ex parte application be granted by the court and that the Amended Judgment in Condemnation (see Exhibit 5) and proposed Amended Final Order of Condemnation (see Exhibit 6)•are allowed to be filed and approved by the court. (Dated: February 13, 2017 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER MICHAEL F. YOSHIBA B� MIC OS IBA Attorneys for P ' tiff CITY OF RAN HO CUCAMONGA 11231-0154U037774v1.doc a and Final Order of z Z o0 =a In 02 W a z� ow L ¢d — 3 U g M a � w x uo 0� < �Y 91 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL F. YOSHIBA I, Michael F. Yoshiba, declare as follows: I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all of the courts in the State of California. I am a Shareholder with the law firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon, a Professional Corporation, counsel of record for City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under oath. 2. I recently discovered that the legal description in the Judgment and Final Order had an incorrect descriptive that is now reflected in the San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel Map (117.45 feet instead of the correct length of 177.45 feet, see annotated Exhibits 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D and 3-E) that didn't reflect the correct legal description and area that were included as Exhibits to the City's Complaint in Eminent Domain and Resolution of Necessity (see Exhibit 4). The City was only recently notified that the current property owner is proposing to develop this property, and that promptly correcting the legal description is necessary before final consideration of the property owners' proposal. 3. All parties to the original Stipulation for Judgment in Condemnation (see Exhibit 7) have been notified of this ex pane application. I promptly contacted the defendants (see para. 12 below) through their attorneys of record upon learning of this error, provided them with a copy of this Ex Parte Application, Exhibits, and the proposed Amended Judgment in Condemnation and Amended Final Order of Condemnation. I confirmed, telephonically and in writing, that they do not object to this proposed mine pro tune application modifying the Judgment and Final Order. 4. The incorrect legal description of the property being acquired by the City was missed by the parties to the Stipulation and therefore the approved Judgment and Final Order did not appropriately identify that the stated legal description of property was inconsistent with the Resolution of Necessity found in the Complaint in Eminent Domain. W Ex Parte Application For a Nune Pro Tunc Modification to the Judgment in Condemnation It231-0154t2037774v I.doc zo o� L C w0 � a z o 0 L 3 !n C x u o ..c e:8 _5ro 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. Attached as Exhibit "1" is a true and correct copy of the Judgment in Condemnation approved by the Court on August 7, 2007. 6. Attached as Exhibit "2" is a true, and correct copy of the Final Order of Condemnation approved by the Court on August 16, 2007. 7. Attached as Exhibit "3" are true and correct copies of the San Bernardino County Assessor's Maps with my annotations, and renderings depicting the areas in the Judgment in Condemnation, Final Order of Condemnation, proposed Amended Judgment in Condemnation and proposed Amended Final Order of Condemnation. 8. Attached as Exhibit "4" is a true and correct copy of the proposed ;"Complaint in Eminent Domain" and the Resolution of Necessity exhibit. 9. Attached as Exhibit "5" is a true and correct copy of the proposed "Amended Judgment in Condemnation." 10. Attached as Exhibit "6" is a true and correct copy of the proposed "Amended Final Order of Condemnation." 11. Attached as Exhibit "7" is a true and correct copy of the "Stipulation by Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga, and Defendants DR Landmark and Community Bank for Entry of Judgment and Final Order of Condemnation." 12. I have provided written and verbal notice of the City's EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A NUNC PRO TUNC MODIFICATION TO THE JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL F. YOSHIBA IN SUPPORT THEREOF hearing to: a) b) Attorney Charles Cumming of Sullivan Workman & Dee representing defendant DR Landmark, 600 N Rosemead Boulevard, Suite 209, Pasadena, California 91107, ccummings@swdlaw.net, (213) 624- 5544. (Telephonic notice on January 19, 2017 and a copy of proposed Ex Parte Application provided on February 2 and 10, 2017), and Attorney Codette G. Wallace, General Counsel for defendant Community Bank, 460 Sierra Madre Villa Avenue, Pasadena, tx rar[e npp icanon ror a 11231-0154\2037774v1.doc 1 California 91107, cwallace@cbank.com, (626) 568-2108. (Telephonic 2 notice and a copy of proposed Ex Parte Application provided on 3 February 3 and 10, 2017): 4 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 5 foregoing is true and correct. 6 Executed on this 13th day of February, 2017, at Los Angeles, California. 7 8 A is ael F. Yoshiba 9 10 z o� o 11 to g 12 W � 13 z2 O w 14 as 3 15 In s c „ 16 ¢W = U 17 K a _YI 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -10- Ex Parte Application For a Nunc Pro Tunc Modification to the Judgment in Condemnation and Final Order of Condemnation I I231-0154\2037774vI.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 zo 0 11 L w s 1.2 z o 13o " " Ln a 14 — 3 2 15 ce ce a _ 16 U o E2 ` 17 Rift _�Y� 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 surt�0'JOR i:Otj , otat'ga SAN r7,Gl-WCI',T' COCNTY . ey 'S- it. DeAW< SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, V. DR LANDMARK, et al., Defendants. Case No. RCV 091735 [6 D] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION [Assessor's Parcel No. 0209-131-01] Exempt from Filing Fees [Govt. Code 61031 ACTION FILED: November 29, 2005 Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") filed a Complaint in Eminent Domain on November 29, 2005, to acquire certain real property interests (the "Subject Property"), for public street purposes and for all uses necessary or convenient thereto. The Subject Property interests consist of a fee interest of 20,719 square feet, and a 24-month temporary construction easement of 12,296 square feet. The Subject Property interests are part of a larger parcel, which consists of 5.2 acres of land identified as San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01, and is commonly known as 10451 26th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. On November 29, 2005, the City deposited with the San Bernardino Superior Court Clerk (the "Court Clerk") the sum of $286,700.00 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars) as the probable just compensation for the Subject Property interests. On April 25, 2006, the City was authorized to, and did take possession of the Subject Property, in accordance with Order for Possession made by this Court on January 10, 2006, and served on January 25, 2006. Exhibit 1 11231-0154\9378G2vl.doc [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION _lY� 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The City, and Defendants DR Landmark and Community Bank entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Final Order of Condemnation (the "Stipulation"), filed with this Court on August 1, 2007. Defendant, HCS Cutler, a California Corporation ("HCS Cutler") disclaimed any interest in or to the Subject Property or to any portion of the compensation to be awarded in this proceeding. Defendant, Community Bank filed a disclaimer of any interest in or to the Subject Property or to any further compensation to be awarded in this proceeding after having withdrawn the sum of $286,700.00 00 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars) from the Court Clerk. This sum represents payment for any and all claims by Community Bank in this proceeding. Defendants, all Persons Unknown Having or Claiming Any Title or Interest in or to the Property Sought to be Condemned Herein, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, have been defaulted by the Clerk of the Superior Court. In accordance with the Stipulation, the sum of $450,000.00 (Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars) less the sum of $286,700.00 paid to Community Bank, is hereby adjudged as the total monetary just compensation to be paid by the City to DR Landmark in this proceeding. On or about July 20, 2007, Charles Cummings, counsel for DR Landmark, executed an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation on DR Landmark's behalf, acknowledging receipt of warrant number254436 from the City in the sum of $163,300.00 (One Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars). The City filed this Acknowledgment.with the Court on August 1, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Stipulation is incorporated herein by this reference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Property, is hereby condemned for the uses and purposes stated in the Complaint in Eminent Domain. The Property interests are depicted on Exhibit "1" hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference, The Subject Property interests the City is acquiring in this proceeding and that are the -2- 1 1231-0154V 37862v1.doc [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION ;v K2 FA 2 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 subject of this Stipulation and the Complaint herein, are described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES (A.P.N. 0209-13 1 -01) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028'10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 117.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (A.P.N. 0209-131-01) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 26TH STREET NORTH 89058'29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 0001'31" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26TH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29019'04" WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH -3- 11231-0154\937862v1.doc [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 4 '9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 89056'55" EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°29'01" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89030' 18" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the use for which the Property is condemned, namely for public street purposes and for all purposes necessary or convenient thereto, is a public use; that the public interest and necessity require the project for which the Property is condemned; that this project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; that the Property is necessary for the project; and that the City is entitled to condemn the Property by virtue of the provisions of California Constitution Article I, Section 19; California Government Code Sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404; by California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1230.010, 1240.050, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650; and by other provisions of law. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that consistent with the Stipulation, the payment on DR Landmark's behalf of $450,000.00 (Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars), consisting of the original deposit of $286,700.00 (of which was disbursed to Defendant Community Bank), on behalf of DR Landmark, and a warrant in the sum of $163,300.00 (One Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars) by the City payable to DR Landmark, constitutes full and final settlement of any and all claims arising from the City's taking the Property including without limitation (a) claims for compensation for the Property; (b) all payments, if any, which may be required by law to be paid to DR Landmark arising from the displacement of any business activities on the Property; (c) severance damages; (d) precondemnation damages; (e) inverse condemnation; (f) loss of business goodwill; (g) de -4- 11231-0154\9378G2vl.doc [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION a — 3 V 5 y 0 6 10 11 12. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 facto taking; (h) damages for violation of civil or constitutional rights; (i) costs; 0) litigation expenses; (k) expert witness fees; (1) attorneys' fees; (m) interest; (n) relocation assistance or benefits; (o) owner participation rights; (p) abandonment costs; (q) cost to cure damages, or (r) any other claim or reason, whether relating to the City's acquisition of the Property, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Property, or this proceeding: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that consistent with the Stipulation, the payment on Community Bank's behalf of $286,700.00 (two hundred eighty-six thousand, seven hundred dollars), consisting of the funds. withdrawn from the Court Clerk, constitutes full and final settlement of any and all claims arising from the City's taking the Property including without limitation (a) claims for compensation for Community Bank's security interest in the Property; (b) all payments, if any, which may be required by law to be paid to Community Bank arising from the displacement of any businessactivities involving the security interest; (c) severance damages; (d) precondemnation damages; (e) inverse condemnation; (0 loss of business goodwill; (g) de facto taking; (h) damages for violation of civil or constitutional rights; (i) costs; 0) litigation expenses; (k) expert witness fees; (1) attorneys' fees; (m) interest; (n) relocation assistance or benefits; (o) owner participation rights; (p) abandonment costs; (q) cost to cure damages, or (r) any other claim or reason, whether relating to the City's acquisition of the Property, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Property, or this proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that despite service of process in this action, no other person has asserted any interest in the compensation to be awarded in this action, and that all such persons are hereby adjudged in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1250.220(d) to possess no compensable interest in the Property. 11231-0154\937862v1.doo -5- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 zoo . 11 x� = 12 W - = 13 Z N 14 5 15 o 16 x < 17 v 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v The Clerk is directed to enter this Judgment in Condemnation forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: AUG 0 9 2001 , 2007 Ben Kayashima Judge of the Superior Offered by: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation -6- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION I I 231-0154\937862vl.doc I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 zo oz 11 w 12 z z 2 13 O L 4 14 — 3 o a 15 N _ ? 16 U C 2 a 17 �V 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit "1" to Judgment in Condemnation: Sketch Depicting Property Location 11231-01541937862v1.doc [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EASEMENT -DR LANDMARK NTS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Linda I. Pomatto, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South . Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On August 6, 2007, I served the within documents: [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION [ ] by causing facsimile transmission of the document(s) listed above from (213) 626-8484 to the person(s) and facsimile number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 P.M. This transmission was reported as complete and without error. A copy of the transmission report(s), which was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, is attached. Service by facsimile has been made pursuant to a prior written agreement between the parties. [X] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in this affidavit. by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre- paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a FEDERAL EXPRESS agent for delivery, or deposited in a FEDERAL EXPRESS box or other facility regularly maintained by FEDERAL EXPRESS, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. [ ] by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. [ ] by causing personal delivery by First Legal Support Services, 1511 West Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90026 of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es). set forth below. See Attached Service List I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 6, 2007 Linda I. Pomatto I I231-0154\917929v I.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z 11 0 o� _^ 12 � •� w g z 13 O 14 ¢a N5 15 Do o 16 x� 2 17 v iv, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Mr. Charles D. Cummings, Esq. Ms. Karen McCreary, Esq. SULLIVAN, WORKMAN & DEE 800 South Figueroa Street Twelfth Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2521 Lawrence C. Meyerson THE LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCES C. MEYERSON 270 N. Canon Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, California 90210 11231-0154\917929v1.doc Nj P V PLEASE COMPLETE THIS INFORMATION RECORDING REQUESTED BY: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9M0 AND WHEN RECORDEDMAILTO: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Kirsten R. Bowman, Esa. 355 South Figueroa Street 40th40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Recorded In Official Records, Coanly ol•San Bernardino 911012007 2 LARRY WALKER PM [ a Auditor/Controller - RecorderSG SG V P Counter r Doc#: 2007—'0519728 titles: t Pages: 10' III IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�III OTaxes ther RID P $39.00 SPACE .ABOVE FOR .RECORDER'S USE ONLY INAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION Title of Document THIS AREA FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY THIS,COVER SHEET ADDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION ($3.00 Additional Recording Fee -Applies) (Rev. 6100.he) (Wod/&[DO eramCover Sheep Exhibit 2 SB RECC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, V. DR LANDMARK, et al., Defendants. Case No. RCV 091735 FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION [Assessor's Parcel No. 0209-131-011 Exempt from Filing Fees [Govt. C e 3] fiv ACTION FILED: Nov e — 2940 Judgment in Condemnation having been entered in,this action on said Judgment having provided that upon payment of the total sum specified in said Judgment, Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") is entitled to a Final Order of Condemnation in this action; and it appearing to the Court that the City has paid for the benefit of Defendants DR Landmark the total sum specified in said Judgment, as evidenced by the Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation executed by Charles Cummings on July 20, 2007 and filed on August 1, 2007; It further appearing to the Court that the City and defendant Community Bank, Inc., have resolved the issues between them as evidenced in a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment filed with the Court on August 1, 2007; It further appearing to the Court that all parties to the action have been served and that no other person has claimed any interest in the compensation to be awarded in this action; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Subject Property Interests consisting of a fee interest of20,719 square feet, and a 24-month FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0154\988639vl.doc ;IY :.v4 2 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 temporary construction easement of 12,296 square feet in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which are part of a larger parcel, consisting of 5.2 acres of land identified as San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01, and is commonly known as 10451 261h Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, are condemned and taken for a public use, namely for public street purposes and for all uses necessary or convenient thereto. The legal description of this condemned property (the "Property") is as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES (A.P.N. 0209-13 1 -01) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 117.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (A.P.N.0209-131-01) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF -2- FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION I I231-0154\988639v Ldoc 0 . 10 z . 11 o� x� 12 W o z� 13 oW F o 14 ¢a a Ln s IS o i 16 u it 17 < v 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 26TH STREET NORTH 89058'29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 0001'31" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26TH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29019'04" WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89056'55" EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°29'01" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89030' 18" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that on recording of a certified copy of this Final Order of Condemnation with the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, title to the Subject Property Interest described above shall vest in Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga, its successors and its assigns. Plaintiff has taken possession of the Subject Property Interest pursuant to an order for possession with an effective date of April 25, 2006 (date of apportionment). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all taxes, current and delinquent, and all penalties and costs on the Subject Property Interest described above shall be cancelled, if applicable, as of April 25, 2006 the date of apportionment pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5081 et seq. -3- FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION I I231-0154\988639vl.doc I' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z 11 0 o� x� 12 w $ —z Z� O W Q a 14 Ns 15 o 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Clerk is ordered to enter this Final Order of Condemnation forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: AUG 2 0 M�n 2007 G T SUPERIOR COURT WN T. KAYAS!-IMA Offered by: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation -4- FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0154\988639v1.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z = zo 11 w 12 G a oz o. 13 Ln < 14 - 3 o a 15 16 v c 17 �V 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit 1 to Judgment in Condemnation: Sketch Depicting Property Location FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION I I231-0154\988639v 1.doc 3 cn 5 ;r _2rA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Linda I. Pomatto, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On August 16, 2007, I served the within documents: FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION [ ] by causing facsimile transmission of the document(s) listed above from (213) 626-8484 to the person(s) and facsimile number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 P.M. This transmission was reported as complete and without error. A copy of the transmission report(s), which was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, is attached. Service by facsimile has been made pursuant to a prior written agreement between the parties. [X] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in this affidavit. [ ] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre- paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a FEDERAL EXPRESS agent for delivery, or deposited in a FEDERAL EXPRESS box or other facility regularly maintained by FEDERAL EXPRESS, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. [ ] by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. [ ] by causing personal delivery by First Legal Support Services, 1511 West Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90026 of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. See Attached Service List I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 16, 2007 I I 231-0154\917929v Ldoc jLindaI. Pomatto 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z o2 11 2 xa V' 12 W � �= 13 z2 o " W 0 14 ¢a � 's 15 0 4. ¢ 16 •17 w :vim 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Mr. Charles D. Cummings, Esq. Ms. Karen McCreary, Esq. SULLIVAN, WORKMAN & DEE 800 South Figueroa Street Twelfth Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2521 Lawrence C. Meyerson THE LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCES C. MEYERSON 270 N. Canon Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, California 90210 11231.0154\917929v 1.doc 2 I 11 The Clerk is ordered to enter this Final Order of Condemnation forthwith. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 5 Dated: AUG 2 h sa , 2007 6 G T SUPERIOR COURT 9FN T. pKAYMNIVA .7 8 9 10 0 0 . 11 xa Ln a 12 W U) Offered by: Z� 13 Ln RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation 14 Ln s 15 O � i� 16 17 v. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION I I231-0154\988639v1.doc f0 °e� a 5 Por. Tract No. 2203 or M. B. 34/65 loss f� V L M1 O O v N 9 O a O G y� � O N H N O v• � E C 9 N � V [~j 6 V 9 N y O rn a I Q Rancho Cacainango city 209-13 Tox Rafe Ana 15051 E a - •P� Jl •_ )f1[• �-'- �—MARINE _ _ AVE— •If O 1 "°9'19$0 This plat is for your aid in locating Your land with ra}prunrP 1p Mr t� and 114 �' I If i f survey. While this plat is believed to be correct. the Company assumes no liability for any loss occuring by reason of reliance thereon. CHICAGO TITLEaNSURANCE COMPANY -- Im Assessors Map Nate -Asa awl; Bar. a Lot Book E09. Pape 13 Numbers Shmm In Ciirles San Bernar'dfno County I lei 4AP IS �eR M! POpp DS( DP AD YAIOf[Y IAY4IIOY DN!l. G.q., 1 �J SrplemCer 2004 Ptn. Tract No. 2203, M.B. 34/65 City of Rancho Cucamonga -0209— t 3 Tax Role Area 15051 -- —If H� F--------------------—-----------------— L- — —--va 141E O i Assessor's Map Book 0209 Page 13 San Bernardino County N Judgment in Condemnation (filed 8/7/07) and ® Final Order of Condemnation (filed 8/16/07) (APN-0209-131-02 IWA.1flYIE�1 -TPOB J 60 feet (177.45'-117.45') LJ 0 Illli YFP IS LpR iC[ ppxpJSl dF AO iAla['Y IA;AIIJR CNLR. Ptn. Tract No. 2203, M.B. 34/65 City of Rancho Cucamonga 0209 — 13 Tax Rote Area 15051 O -- nAvix ------'----------------------------- PY I I I I �F fi ----IIkRIfIF—_____—_ O ' Assessor's leap Book 0209 Page 13 SRplember zooa San Bernardino County II — C e u property N Corrected area- Amended Judgment in Condemnation and Amended Final Order of Condemnation [APN 0209-131-021 �23•i W �d - TFOB 702' FROM HUMBOLDT AVE. EXHIBIT 3-D r 4 .- ri E I nli YRV I: ,CA Ie[ AYFp DS( 9I AG L1l0RCY IAIA❑DY 441t. Ph. Tract No. 2203, M.B. 34/65 City of Rancho Cucolhonga 02og— 13 Tax Rate Area 15051 ' pzt, loz I 1 I I 1 P , u__��,.pl�E___________ O Assessor's leap September zaaA Boo13 Son kBernardi0209 no County La EXHIQIT 4 Q m LL N C O N U 0 O a` • 0 I RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation 2 REGINA N. DANNER, State Bar No. 137210 KIRSTEN BOWMAN, State Bar No. 181627 3 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 4 Telephone: (213) 626-8484 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Go",n� ��sc�F•,<<��• pll`� Np� - f0 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT 10 _ 0- 1 I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a U)� 0 municipal corporation, a 12 zo 13 Plaintiff, N w o 3 a 14 V. o 3 15 D.R. LANDMARK, INC., a California p 16 corporation; HCS CUTLER, a corporation; _¢ U o COMMUNITY BANK; DOES 1 THROUGH 1.7 100, inclusive; and ANY AND ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN HAVING OR —`� 18 CLAIMING TO HAVE ANY TITLE OR INTEREST IN OR TO THE PROPERTY 19 SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED HEREIN, 20 Defendants. 21 22 C 1 Case No. T a - COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN [APN 0209-131-011 [Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Govt. Code §61031 23 PLAINTIFF, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ALLEGES: 24 1. Plaintiff, City of Rancho Cucamonga ("Plaintiff'), is and, at all times mentioned 25 herein, has been a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the 26 laws of the State of California, and located entirely within the boundaries of the County of San 27 Bernardino, State of California. 28 Exhibit 4 1123I-0I35/860384 COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN z o L W l.7 < zS2 O W ¢a —En 5 � a � T aZ x" U C a &Y uVj 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Defendants DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, and ANY AND ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN HAVING OR CLAIMING TO HAVE ANY TITLE OR INTEREST IN OR TO THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED HEREIN are sued and designated herein by fictitious names and capacities for the reason that their true hames and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Said defendants, and each of them, have or, claim to have an interest in the property described herein, the nature, character or extent of which interest is unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint and to substitute the true names and capacities of said defendants when those names and capacities are ascertained. The public interest and necessity require the acquisition by Plaintiff of the property interests sought to be condemned herein for a public use, namely for the construction of the Haven Avenue Grade Separation, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto. Plaintiff is entitled to condemn said property interests for such uses by virtue of the provisions of Cali fornia Constitution Article 1, Section 19; California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404; by California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including but not limited to sections 1240.010 through 1240.050, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1.24.0410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650; and by other provisions of law. 4.. The property interests sought to be acquired herein are sought for the construction of a grade separation at Haven Avenue and related purposes and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Haven Grade Separation Project (the "project"). The public interest and necessity require the project; the project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and the property interests described herein are necessary for the project. 5. The offer required by Government Code section 7267.2 has been made to the owners of record. 6. Plaintiff, at its regular City Council meeting held November 16, 2005,. adopted Resolution No. 05-328, a Resolution of Necessity (a certified copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit "I "), by a unanimous vote of all of its voting members. Resolution No. 05-328 finds and determines that the public interest and necessity -2- 11231-0135/860384 COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN ;,AY _•yi `A 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 require the acquisition of the property interests described herein ("subject property interests") for the public use and purposes herein set forth, and authorizes and directs the attorneys for Plaintiff to institute these eminent domain proceedings for the acquisition of the property interests described herein. In adopting Resolution No. 05-328, the City Council also found that based on the evidence presented at the November 16, 2005 hearing, including the Staff Report and documents referenced therein, the acquisition of the subject property interests is in the best interest of the Cify of Rancho Cucamonga. The City Council further found that the acquisition of the subject property interests promotes the interest of the City and is necessary for the lowering of the existing grade of Haven Avenue where it intersects the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) railroad tracks, construction of a temporary detour of Haven Avenue during construction, and cul-de-sac at Humboldt Avenue and 8th Street where they intersect with Haven Avenue, and the installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks on both sides of Haven Avenue. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project to alleviate traffic congestion and provide safety at the railroad crossing. S. The subject property interests sought to be condemned herein are a 20,719 square - foot land area in fee and a 12,296 square foot land area acquired as a temporary construction easement for a period not to exceed 24 months from the date of possession by plaintiff on the property commonly known as 10451 26th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01. The subject property interests are more particularly described as follows: Assessor's Parcel Number: Portions of Assessor's Parcel Number 0209- 131-01 in fee More Particularly Described as Follows: In Exhibit "A" to Resolution of Necessity (Exhibit "1" hereto). Portions of Assessor's Parcel Number 0209- In Exhibit "A-l" to Resolution of Necessity 131-01 as a temporary construction easement (Exhibit "1" hereto). -3- COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN 11231-0135/860384 z = 02 xz m W o V' a' z� O V) —a in 0 x U o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The area to be purchased in fee and as a temporary construction easement described above are depicted in Exhibit `B" and `B-l" to the Resolution of Necessity. Exhibits "A," "A- 1," "B," and `B-l" to the Resolution of Necessity, which contain the legal description of the subject property interests and diagrams depicting the subject property interests, are incorporated herein by this reference. 9. The names of all owners and claimants to said subject property interests or any part thereof, or interests therein, insofar as known to Plaintiff, and'a statement of the claimed interest of each, are hereinafter set forth for the convenience of the Court and parties and not as allegations as to which Plaintiff intends to be bound. Name D.R. LANDMARK. INC. HCS CUTLER, INC. COMMUNITY BANK WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays: Interest FEE OWNER LESSEE TRUSTEE IN DEED OF TRUST BENEFICIARY OF DEED OF TRUST 1. That defendants, and each of them, be required to answer to set forth the nature and extent of the interests claimed by each of them in the subject property interests sought to be condemned in this action; 2. That such interests in said subject property interests be determined and adjudicated in this action and that the just compensation be ascertained and assessed and the amount of the award for said subject property interests be first determined between Plaintiff and all defendants claiming an interest therein; 3. That upon payment to or for the benefit of the defendants entitled to just compensation or damages, into court for their benefit, of the amount of just compensation so ascertained, the -4- COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN 11231-0135/860384 RESOLUTION NO. 05-328 A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE CITYCOUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0209- 131-01 NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE HAVEN GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The City of Rancho Cucamonga is a municipal. corporation in the County of San Bemardino, State of California. SECTION 2: The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for 'a public use, namely for the Haven Grade Separation Project ('Proposed Project")., and all uses necessary or convenient thereto pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Rancho Cucamonga to acquire property by eminent domain by California, Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 37353, 40401, 40404, and 54031 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq., including, but not limitedto sections 1240.010 through 1240.050, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other provisions of law. SECTION 3: The real property interests sought to be taken are. a partial acquisition of fee simple and a temporary construction easement for roadway purposes on the property identified as 10451 264" Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California, also identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01. The legal descriptions of the Subject Property Interests are attached as Exhibits "A" and "A-1"to this Resolution and the Subject Property Interests are depicted on the diagrams attached as Exhibits "B" and "B-1" to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. The Subject Property Interests are required for the Haven Grade Separation Project. SECTION 4: The acquisition of the Subject Property Interests is required to carry out and make effective the principal purpose of the Proposed Project. A general description of the Proposed Project is set forth in the Staff Report. dated November. 16, 2005 and the evidence, reports, and documents cited in that Staff Report are all incorporated herein by this reference. The potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project were studied and analyzed in connection with the Initial Site Assessment ("ISA") and Initial Study for the Haven Grade Separation Project. Resolution No. 05-328 Page 2 of 10 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, in certifying the ISA'for the Proposed Project, the City Council, as the lead agency, found that with the mitigation measures and all significant impacts identified in the ISA have been mitigated, avoided, or reduced to an acceptable level, except for one identified unavoidable impact described in the Statement of Facts of Findings. The unavoidable significant impact of the project as identified in the Statement of Facts of Findings is outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the. project identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations., On September 8, 2004, the City conducted a public hearing to certify the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Project. The City executed a Mitigated Negative Declaration on September 8, 2004. Further, in accordance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines section 15075, the`City prepared a Notice of Determination, which was posted by the County Clerk on September 14, 2004. The ISA together with its Exhibits, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Notice of Determination are on file in the Office of. the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and are incorporated in this report by this reference. City Staff, in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity, has reviewed all of the environmental documentation prepared on the Proposed Project, including Certification of the Initial ' Site Assessment and the Notice of Determination and pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Codes. City Staff concluded that there have been no substantial changes in the Proposed Project or the circumstances surrounding the project, nor has the City obtained any new information of substantial importance that could have been known with reasonable diligence at the time that the negative declaration was adopted that would require further environmental review. Therefore; no further environmental documentation is necessary and there continues to be no substantial evidence that the Proposed Projector the proposed acquisitions of the Subject Property Interests will have any significant environmental impact. SECTION 5: The real property interests sought to be acquired are currently being used as vacant land on an industrial facility. The Proposed Project will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of any existing public use or as the public use may reasonably be expected to exist in the future as allowed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure' Section 1240.510. Resolution No. 05-328 Page 3 of.10, SECTION 6: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds and determines that: A. The public interest and necessity require the Proposed Project; B. The Proposed Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; C. The property interests hereinabove described are necessary to carry out and make effective the principal purpose of the Proposed Project; D. The Proposed Project will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of any existing public use oras the public use may reasonably be expected to exist in the future as allowed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510; and E. The offer required by Section 1267.2 of the Government Code has been made to the owners of record and/or due diligence has been exercised in order to comply with Section 7267.2. SECTION 7: The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based on the record before the City Council on November 16, 2005 when it adopted this Resolution, including the'Staff Report dated November 16, 2005, all documents referenced and incorporated in the Staff' Report, the testimony at the hearing, and.the records and documents prepared in connection with the Proposed Project, all of which are incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. SECTION 8: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga authorizes and directs the CityAttorneys office and Staff to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire by eminent domain the real property interests described in Exhibits "A" and "A-1 " attached hereto. SECTION 9: This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. SECTION 10: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause this Resolution and her certification' to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council of this. City. , Please see the following page for formal adoption, certification and signatures .Resolution No. 05-328 Page 4-of 10 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16t° day of November 2005.: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: ATTEST: Alexander, Gutierrez, Michael, Spagnolo, Williams None None None ebra J. AaC�MCCiity Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho,Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify -that the foregoing' Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 16"' day of November 2005. Executed this 17 ° day of November 2005, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. The foregoing insun:rsuiN:le is ucrract cap+y of the original file in this office. ATTEST MJ -V . . DEBRAJ.ADAMS City C Rrncho Cu an , Cal Debra J. Ad m , CM(:, City Clerk Resolution No_.05-328 Page.5 of 10 a, .. t XHIBIT `A' 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 3 FOR PUBLIC STREET PuRPosus 4 5 (APN 209-131-01) 6 THAT PORTION OF LOT I OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO 7 CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 8 FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE 9 PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: to t i COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE 12 (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26 "STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE t3 SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE 14 SOUTH 0028' 10"EAST 215.75-FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE 15 NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF 16 WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF 17 BEGINNINGTHENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE 1s SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89056*55" WEST tv 98.79 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET zo MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; . 21 THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 22 177.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET 23 MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 24 HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; 25 THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID. PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89°56'39" EAST 26 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; 27 THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 28 0028' 10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING 29 30 CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS_ 3l m12un700d0b�suMrV<pahVapv4bpo-±09-UI-0i m093303 dne Sep 4xnEc ]2, �005 — t`"'Lcm Sheet 1 of Resolution No..05-328 Page 6 6f,10 i SEE EXHIBIT 'B' ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF J THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE DIVISION 4 AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP. , s ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA_ 6., 7 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF 8 c. 10 9 12 KARI I. LAU03N. PIS $679 DATE 13 LICENSE EXPIRES 09/30/05 14 15 16 Ha 5677 .a 17 19. 20 ..2I S p�.m6cr13, wow s'u"w�����-dn-lus•u�-0�_R.avLas ao� Um:LCM '- Sheet oft ® • Resolution No. 05-328 Page 7 of 10 EXHIBIT. nbu Poc 26TH STRE!f E. ly 0 a m HALSTEAD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP m (APR NV. 209-111- 01 W i .N. P0RADIJ OF LOT 1 u= r z. TFtAi'ir MAP 2203 Sar29'0l"W f 23 18 hoaxa Pam as 989'56'551W -- TPOB _ JERSEY R BLVD 0 10 FOOT PN 10 OTIUTY 11fi m AS Q Eli F'ZNCRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY ri OF CALIFORNIA REC0ROEE1 JANOA" 17. 1951. IN BOOR 523O. PACE 470. OR 4 ..------------ , 116.00• ---'I i 9'Sfi:39'E 134' 0 33' 101' N HUMBOLT AVE I OESCR.PTIOH- A PORTION OF LOT 2 OF TRACT YAP 2203. ' IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CVCAuONCA. SHEET 1 of I CO(ANIT 0< SAN OCRNAHOIN0. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SCALE. NONE ® m OIIAFTECH LCY O" I •.F�50 N N.ti C=ON CHCCNCO, L70VP-/F MIT RUABCR 2UASIOO4Oe ill) TY•11T3 (TN) s,f•wujnq Resolution No. 05-328 Page 8 of 10 BIT'A'—t UGAL DEscR imm 3 TCMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT 4 5 (APN 209-131-01) 6 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO 7 CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, E FILED IN HOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE 9 PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 10 I I COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE 12 (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 261H STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE 13 WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 26"STREET NORTH 89°58'29^ WEST 14 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 000111" EAST 15 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26'b STREET AND 16 THE TRU>; POINT OP BEG:INNrNPI THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT 17 OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE Is SOUTH 29'19'04" WEST 192.33 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 89-56-55" EAST 19 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47'29'Ol" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT 20 OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENTM; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID 21 WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 00281-10" WEST 165-67 FEET TO THE 22 BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLy HAVING A RADIUS 23 OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 24 3114 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89030' I8" 25 TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26n{ 26 STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE 27 NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF'$EGINNIN G. 2B 29 CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 30 31 SEE EXHIBIT'B' ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF m:umuooaae�..m yv�wwcc».M7,,.]o9-nl-ol-kn- mwgnw dw s.��m v.3ow t"°`�� Sheol I of 2 Resolution 'No. 05-32b Page 9 of 10. 1 . PSOMAS 2 THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION 15 NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE DIVISION. ' 3 AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP 4 ACT OF THE -STATE OF CALIFORNIA. s 6 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF '. 7 .. - 9 I I KARI 3- Lk EN, PLS 5619 DATE 12 LICENSE IRES 09/30/05 - 13 14 E*` 16 Na 5679 17 tom. 9/5n/2005 18 .. wCAU 19 20 21 . 22 23 .. - 24 25 26 27 28 ' 19 30 �1tun266C06lsuweyV«pV�oklvpn-!09.131-01� _rcv09Z2034a 9.p.mber7t SOCS t" `�� Sheet 2 of 2 EXHIBIT B-1 EXHIBIT a 26TH STREET o SO'01'31'E I 3000, TPCB 534'S6'30'£ . 40.74' cr� HALSTEAO FAMILY PARTNERSHIP C Ary APN tq. 209-131- 01 h . PORrJON of: Lo-r I Tf1ACT MAP 2208 BOOK 34 PAOE M 98.79' 589'S6'S5'E to Foote r PucvunuTY OF CFNEAAL TELEPHONE COMPANY • OF CAUFORNIA RECORDED JANUARY 17, 1261. w ROOX'23& PACE 420. OR __...______- F_ A PORTION OF LOT I Of TRAC7 MAP IZOJ, IN THE CITY OF RINCNO CUCAMONGA.' COG12T Of SAN BYRNAADIND, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Resolution No. 05-328 Page 10 of 10 0�89'30'1B.", I �+ O n' Q o� o z z I 1 ,,N47-29'01-E 23 18' _ JERSEY BLVD' i i i SHEET I OF I SCALE, NONE DRAFTED, LAM CMECRE0• UAR/PJF MUN6 JO6 CR 2URS200401, r.� Q A S m LL m C O N N m EXHIBIT 5 9 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PV -vi RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER (Bar No. 137210) rdanner@rwglaw.com MICHAEL F. YOSHIBA (Bar No. 177301) myoshiba@rwglaw.com 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone: 213.626.8484 Facsimile: 213.626.0078 Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF RANCHO.CUCAMONGA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Case No. RCV 091735 AMENDED JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 61031 [APN: 0209-131-01] Action Filed: November 29. 2005 16 17 Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") filed a Complaint in Eminent 18 Domain on November 29, 2005, to acquire certain real property interests (the "Subject 19 Property"), for public street purposes and for all uses necessary or convenient thereto. The 20 Subject Property interests consist of a fee interest of 20,719 square feet, and a 24-month 21 temporary construction easement of 12,296 square feet. The Subject Property interests are 22 part of a larger parcel, which consists of 5.2 acres of land identified as San Bernardino 23 County Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01, and is commonly known as 10451 26th 24 Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 25 On November 29, 2005, the City deposited with the San Bernardino Superior Court 26 Clerk (the "Court Clerk") the sum of $286,700.00 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand 27 Seven Hundred Dollars) as the probable just compensation for the Subject Property 28 interests. Exhibit 5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, V. DR LANDMARK, et al., Defendant. Amended Judgment in Condemnation 1 On April 25, 2006, the City was authorized to, and did take possession of the Subjecl 2 Property, in accordance with Order for Possession made by this Court on January 10, 2006, 3 and served on January 25, 2006. 4 The City, and Defendants DR Landmark and Community Bank entered into a 5 Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Final Order of Condemnation (the "Stipulation"), 6 filed with this Court on August 1, 2007. 7 Defendant, HCS Cutler, a California Corporation ("HCS Cutler") disclaimed any 8 interest in or to the Subject Property or to any portion of the compensation to be awarded in 9 this proceeding. 10 Defendant, Community Bank filed a disclaimer of any interest in or to the Subject z o 1 l Property or to any further compensation to be awarded in this proceeding after having 0 cn 12 withdrawn the sum of $286,700.00 00 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred. w g 13 Dollars) from the Court Clerk. This sum represents payment for any and all claims by z0 0 0 14 Community Bank in this proceeding. ¢a 3 15 Defendants, all Persons Unknown Having or Claiming Any Title or Interest in or to to s w16 the Property Sought to be Condemned Herein, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, have _ 17 been defaulted by the Clerk of the Superior Court. vo 18 In accordance with the Stipulation, the sum of $450,000.00 (Four Hundred Fifty 19 Thousand Dollars) less the sum of $286,700.00 paid to Community Bank, is hereby 20 adjudged as the total monetary just compensation to be paid by the City to DR Landmark in 21 this proceeding. 22 On or about July 20, 2007, Charles Cummings, counsel for DR Landmark, executed 23 an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation on DR Landmark's behalf, 24 acknowledging receipt of warrant number 254436 from the City in the sum of $,163,300.00 25 (One Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars). The City filed this 26 Acknowledgment with the Court on August 1, 2007. 27 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 28 Stipulation is incorporated herein by this reference. -2- Amended Judgment in Condemnation - i 1 1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 2 Subject Property, is hereby condemned for the uses and purposes stated in the Complaint in 3 Eminent Domain. The Subject Property interests are depicted on Exhibit "1" hereto, which 4 is incorporated herein by this reference, The Subject Property interests the City is acquiring 5 in this proceeding and that are the subject of this Stipulation and the Complaint herein, are 6 described as follows: 7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES 8 (A.P.N.0209-131-01) 9 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 10 FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: z 11 o o COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN g 12 AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN = 13 AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID z CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE w 14 WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE a POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY 3 3 15 LINE SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56'55" WEST v s 98.79 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 16 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY v o 17 LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 477.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND F2 < DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH &48 18 RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS =y! SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID 19 PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG 20 SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 21 CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS. - 22 23 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT 24 (A.P.N.0209-131-01) 25 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, ,IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 26 FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 27 COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN 28 AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET -3- Amended Judgment in Condemnation n w_ni camMnrar.,i n,,, I WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 26TH STREET NORTH 89058'29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID 2 CENTERLINE SOUTH 0001'31" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26TH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 3 THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29°19'04" WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE 4 SOUTH 89056'55" EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°29'01" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE; 5 THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE 6 SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG 7 SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89030' 18" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH STREET; 8 THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 9 CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 10 z o 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the use for 0 12 which the Subject Property is condemned, namely for public street purposes and for all w 13 purposes necessary or convenient thereto, is a public use; that the public interest and z2 to14 necessity require the project for which the Subject Property is condemned; that this project ¢d a 15 is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public to s W16 good and the least private injury; that the Subject Property is necessary for the project; and u 17 that the City is entitled to condemn the Subject Property by virtue of the provisions of � 4 �v 18 California Constitution Article T Section 19; California Government Code Sections 37350, 19 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404; by California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 20 1230.010, 1240.050, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650; and by other 21 provisions of law. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that consistent with 23 the Stipulation, the payment on DR Landmark's behalf of $450,000.00 (Four Hundred Fifty 24 Thousand Dollars), consisting of the original deposit of $286,700.00 (of which was 25 disbursed to Defendant Community Bank), on behalf of DR Landmark, and a warrant in the 26 sum of $163,300.00 (One Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars) by the 27 City payable to DR Landmark, constitutes full and final settlement of any and all claims 28 arising from the City's taking the Subject Property including without limitation (a) claims -4- Amended Judgment in Condemnation i rn i _m amonzaeuo i n„� I for compensation for the Subject Property; (b) all payments, if any, which may be required 2 by law to be paid to DR Landmark arising from the displacement of any business activities 3 on the Subject Property; (c) severance damages; (d) precondemnation damages; (e) inverse 4 condemnation; (f) loss of business goodwill; (g) de facto taking; (h) damages for violation 5 of civil or constitutional rights; (i) costs; 0) litigation expenses; (k) expert witness fees; (1) 6 attorneys' fees; (m) interest; (n) relocation assistance or benefits; (o) owner participation 7 rights; (p) abandonment costs; (q) cost to cure damages, or (r) any other claim or reason, 8 whether relating to the City's acquisition of the Subject Property, the Project for which the 9 City is acquiring the Subject Property, or this proceeding. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that consistent with z o 11 the Stipulation, the payment on Community Bank's behalf of $286,700.00 (two hundred 0 v) g 12 eighty-six thousand, seven hundred dollars), consisting of the funds withdrawn from the LU g 13 Court Clerk, constitutes full and final settlement of any and all claims arising from the z� 0 0 14 City's taking the Subject Property including without limitation (a) claims for compensation ¢a 3 15 for Community Bank's security interest in the Subject Property; (b) all payments, if any, Ln Q a 16 which may be required by law to be paid to Community Bank arising from the <� ¢W u 17 displacement of any business activities involving the security interest; (c) severance %r 18 damages; (d) precondemnation damages; (e) inverse condemnation; (f) loss of business 19 goodwill; (g) de facto taking; (h) damages for violation of civil or constitutional rights; (i) 20 costs; 0) litigation expenses; (k) expert witness fees; (1) attorneys' fees; (m) interest; (n) 21 relocation assistance or benefits; (o) owner participation rights; (p) abandonment costs; (q) 22 cost to cure damages, or (r) any other claim or reason, whether relating to the City's 23 acquisition of the Subject Property, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Subject 24 Property, or this proceeding. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that despite service 26 of process in this action, no other person has asserted any interest in the compensation to be 27 awarded in this action, and that all such persons are hereby adjudged in accordance with 28 Amended Judgment in Condemnation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z 11 o2 N g 12 L p W � 13 z� o� 0 14 ¢d 3 15 N ¢w 16 x 17 �V 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Code of Civil Procedure Section 1250.220(d) to possess no compensable interest in the Subject Property. The Clerk is directed to enter this Amended Judgment in Condemnation forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED. II Dated: 2017 Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California -6- Amended Judgment in Condemnation i fi.- C Yb, -o 7+42 8+00 DRI VE wm/l !8265.14 SF II + 0 0 0 HAVEN A VENUE o m63+00 61+00.. 62+00 0 •.� W LL.I CITY OF RANCHO CUCA40NGA EASEMENT —DR LANDMARK o� NTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER (Bar No. 137210) rdanner@rwglaw.com MICHAEL F. YOSHIBA (Bar No. 177301) myoshiba@rwglaw.com 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone: 213.626.8484 Facsimile: 213.626.0078 Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, V. DR LANDMARK, et al., Defendant. Case No. RCV 091735 AMENDED FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103) [APN: 0209-131-01 ] Action Filed: November 29.2005 Amended Judgment in Condemnation having been entered in this action on August 9, 2007; and said Amended Judgment having provided that upon payment of the total sum specified in said Judgment, Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") is entitled to a Amended Final Order of Condemnation in this action; and it appearing to the Court that the City has paid for the benefit of Defendants DR Landmark the total sum specified in said Judgment, as evidenced by the Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation executed by Charles Cummings on July 20, 2007 and filed on August 1, 2007; It further appearing to the Court that the City and defendant Community Bank, Inc., have resolved the issues between them as evidenced in a Stipulation for Entry of filed with he Court on August 1, 2007; W Exhibit 6 nci_nisaMIaaas„ i n,.,, Amended Final Order of Condemnation Ll E 1 It further appearing to the Court that all parties to the action have been served and 2 that no other person has claimed any interest in the compensation to be awarded in this 3 action; 4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED 5 that the "Subject Property" interests consisting of a fee interest of 20,719 square feet, and a 6 24-month temporary construction easement of 12,296 square feet in the City of Rancho 7 Cucamonga, which are part of a larger parcel, consisting of 5.2 acres of land identified as 8 San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01, and is commonly known 9 as 10451 26th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, are condemned and taken for a 10 public use, namely for public street purposes and for all uses necessary or convenient Z o 11 thereto. o2 12 The legal,description of this condemned property (the "Subject Property") is as W g 13 follows: z� 0 0 14 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES ¢d 3 15 (A.P.N.0209-131-01) U a 16 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO _ CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 17 FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ft 18 =P COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN 19 AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN 20 AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 21 WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY 22 LINE SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 23 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 24 0028' 10" EAST 177.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH 25 RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID 26 PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG 27 SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 28 2 Amended Final Order of Condemnation i nzi_ni sa�meFas„i a..� I CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT 3 (A.P.N.0209-131-01) 4 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 5 FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 6 COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN 7 AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 26TH STREET 8 NORTH 89058' 29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 0001'31" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF 9 WAY LINE OF SAID 26TH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" 10 EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29019'04" WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89056'55" EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°29'01" EAST 23.18 Z .0 11 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE; o < THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH in 0 12 0028' 10" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE o SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE t' = 13 NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG z a SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89030' 18" TO A POINT OF 0 14 TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH STREET; a THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 3 15 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Ln '=m 16 CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. ¢W 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that on recording of a 18 certified copy of this Amended Final Order of Condemnation with the County Recorder of 19 the County of San Bernardino, State of California, title to the Subject Property interests 20 described above shall vest in Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga, its successors and its 21 assigns. 22 Plaintiff has taken possession of the Subject Property interests pursuant to an order 23 for possession with an effective date of April 25, 2006 (date of apportionment), 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all taxes,'current 25 and delinquent, and all penalties and costs on the Subject Property interests described above 26 shall be cancelled, if applicable, as of April 25, 2006 the date of apportionment pursuant to 27 Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5081 et seq. 28 -3- Amended Final Order of Condemnation 119'iLN Sd\9n4a6aSvi dM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z o 11 0 vv) 12 X u, 13 z� 0 14 0 ¢a 3 15 U Q < 16 ar x� 17 �V 18 v, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Clerk is ordered to enter this Amended Final Order of Condemnation forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED. I Dated: ' . 2017 Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California -4- Amended Final Order of Condemnation I III I.nl Shc' UAAS,.I AM I Exhibit 1 to Amended Judgment in Condemnation: 2 Sketch Depicting Subject Property Location 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z o 11 o� a 12 LL, g 13 z2 0 0 14 as 15 3 (1 o < 16 ¢w a 17 � a �v :Vj 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- Amended Final Order of Condemnation 119iIJp Sd19Md6d5vl dry Branch :NCS,User :RGAR Comment: Station Id :HUMS i \•� 742 B+00 / DTRI VE A �8265.14 SF + 0 HA VEN A VENUE �.61t�-00 62+00 J W VJ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ EASEMENT -DR LANDMARK rats SAN 6F,RNARDIN'O,CA Documcnt: OR 2007,519728 Page 7 of 10 Printed on 1 1/18/2016 7:58:31 AM TKF-EfiU(,(T 500-522-9191 304d PCW RECYCLED TAB fl4N prmnde'xesxoml FiVECSS mn? IWU,: r Or, =ronutl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER (137210) KIRSTEN R. BOWMAN (181627) 355 South Grand Avenue, 40`h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 626-8484 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FILET) COUNTY OF SAAN COURT RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT JUL 3 1 Z007 Z �-WWWRV-44=6-&- SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, VS. DR LANDMARK, et al., Defendant. Case No. RCV 091735 STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,AND DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION [Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] [APN:0209-131-01] ACTION FILED: November 29, 2005 WHEREAS Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") seeks to acquire by exercise of its power of eminent domain certain real property interests (the "Subject Property"), which are more fully described in the Complaint in Eminent Domain on file in this action; WHEREAS the City is acquiring the Subject Property for public street purposes and for all uses necessary and convenient thereto; WHEREAS Defendant DR Landmark, a California Corporation ("DR Landmark") filed an answer in this action wherein it represents and warrants that it is the owner of fee title to the Subject Property; WHEREAS Defendant DR Landmark is the successor -in -interest to a certain Sign Agreement dated September 3, 1991 ("Sign Agreement') between HCS Construction Supplies ("HCS") and Kunz and Company ("Kunz"), wherein Kunz agreed to maintain various STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LAND MARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-01551937429v2.doc Exhibit 7 RZI _FY U 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 advertising structures on the Subject Property; WHEREAS Defendant Community Bank ("Community Bank") filed a general appearance and non -opposition to relief requested with a reservation of lien rights to the eminent domain proceeds. Community Bank executed a disclaimer of any interest in the Subject Property after having withdrawn the sum of $286,700.00, which represents the funds on deposit with the San Bernardino Superior Court Clerk (the "Court Clerk"); WHEREAS Defendant HCS Cutler; a California Corporation ("HCS Cutler") filed an Answer in this action, and later filed a disclaimer of any interest in or to the Subject Property or to any portion of the compensation to be awarded in this proceeding; WHEREAS the Court Clerk has entered the -defaults of Defendants All Persons Unknown Having or Claiming Any Title or Interest in or to the Property Sought to be Condemned Herein; and, WHEREAS the City, DR Landmark and Community Bank (the "parties") wish to resolve the disputed issues between them and to satisfy all claims constituting encumbrances or liens against the Subject Property. NOW, THEREFORE, the City, DR Landmark and Community Bank' agree and stipulate as follows: The City commenced this action in eminent domain on November 29, 2005, to acquire the Subject Property for public street purposes and for all uses necessary or convenient thereto. DR Landmark's property (the "larger parcel")'. consists of 5.2 acres of land (226,734 square feet) at 26"' Street and Haven Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The larger parcel is identified by the San Bernardino County Assessor as Assessor's Parcel Number 0209- 131-01, and is commonly known as 10451 26`h Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2. The interests in the Subject Property the City seeks to acquire consist of a fee interest of 20,719 square feet, and a 24-month temporary construction easement of 12,296 square feet. The interests the City is acquiring in this proceeding and that are the subject of this Stipulation and the Complaint herein, are described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES -2- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF.RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION I I231-0155\937429v2.doc z = o� x < In c o W &4M E.Y4 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (A.P.N. 0209-13 1 -0 1) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028'10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT.116.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 117.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS. SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (A.P.N.0209-131-01) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 26TH STREET NORTH 89058'29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 0001'31" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH.RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26TH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29019'04" WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89056'55" EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°29'01" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING -3- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION I M1-0155\937429v2.doc 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89030' 18" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. The Subject Property is also described and depicted in Exhibit A to this Stipulation. On November 29, 2005, the City deposited with the San Bernardino Superior Court Clerk, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1255.010 et seq., the sum of $286,700 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars) as the probable just compensation for the Subject Property. 4. The City was authorized to, and did, take possession of the Subject Property on April 25, 2006, in accordance with an Order for Possession made by this Court on January 10, 2006, and served on January 25, 2006. 5. On or about January 2, 2007, pursuant to a Stipulation executed by the City, DR Landmark and Community Bank, defendant, Community Bank withdrew from the San Bernardino Court Clerk the sum of $286,700.00 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars). This sum represents payment of any and all claims in this action by Community Bank, and represents offset toward any balance owed on it's security interest in the Subject Property. The sums withdrawn represent the entire funds on deposit with the Court Clerk. 6. The parties wish to resolve this proceeding fully with this Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Final Order of Condemnation. This Stipulation is made with respect to all claims arising from or related to the acquisition by the City of the Subject Property, including any security interest claimed by Community Bank. DR Landmark agrees to deliver clear title to the Subject Property, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. -4- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0155\937429v2.doc ;V EdrJ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. The DR Landmark, as the successor -in -interest to the Sign Agreement dated September 3, 1991 between HCS and Kunz, agrees assign to the City all of its rights, titles, interests, and obligations in, to and under the Sign Agreement, and City desires and agrees to assume all of DR Landmark's rights, title, interests and obligations in, to and under the Sign Agreement. 9. The City and DR Landmark agree that the total just compensation to be paid in this proceeding for the Subject Property, which includes compensation for the temporary construction easement, is $450,000.00 (Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars) less offset for payment to Community Bank as described in paragraph 5. 10. The City and DR Landmark agree that in the event the temporary construction easement must be extended beyond the twenty-four (24) month period, the City will pay the rental rate of $1,000.00 per month directly to the property owners. The extension of time for the temporary construction easement will not exceed twelve (12) months. 11. The City and DR Landmark further agree that after the completion of the Project, the City will vacate a portion of excess land ("excess parcel of land") to DR Landmark consisting of approximately 8,265 square feet to DR Landmark. The excess parcel of land is described in Exhibit B. 12. The City and DR Landmark agree that the total just compensation in this action shall be paid as follows: a. Within five (5) business days after the. date of execution of this Stipulation by all parties and delivery of the Grant Deed specified in Section (b) below, whichever is later, the City shall deliver to Defendant's attorney, Charles Cummings of Sullivan, Workman & Dee, the amount of $163,300.00 (One Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars) (the "funds") in the form of a check made payable to Sullivan, Workman & Dee Trust Account on behalf of DR Landmark. b. Grant Deed. DR Landmark covenants and agrees to deliver to the City a Grant Deed duly executed and acknowledged by the City, granting and conveying to the City the Subject Property. The Grant Deed shall be in a form satisfactory to the City and the City's -5- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11271-0155\937429v2.doc RIM _IYJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 counsel and shall be accepted by the City prior to recording. The grant deed will convey the fee interest of 20,719 square feet. C. Grant Deed. After the completion of the Project, the City covenants and agrees to deliver to DR Landmark a Grant Deed duly executed and acknowledged by DR Landmark, granting and conveying to DR Landmark the excess parcel of land as described in paragraph 11. The Grant Deed shall be in a form satisfactory to DR Landmark and its counsel. The grant deed shall convey the fee interest of 8265 square feet as identified in Exhibit B. d. Authorization to Record Documents and Disburse Funds. Prior to release of funds from City to .DR Landmark and its attorneys, each of the following conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The Subject Property conveyed by DR Landmark to the City shall be free and clear of monetary liens and encumbrances. (2) DR Landmark shall have delivered the executed Assignment and Assumption Agreement as described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation. (3) DR Landmark shall have delivered to the City and received the City's, notice of approval or satisfaction or waiver of all of the contingencies to City's obligations hereunder, as provided for in Section 12 (e); and C. City's Contingencies. For the benefit of the City, the City's obligation to consummate the purchase of the Properties shall be contingent upon and subject to the occurrence of all of the following (or the City's written waiver thereof, it being agreed that the City can waive any or all such contingencies): (1) Effective at the time of signing this Stipulation and delivery of the Deed, the representations and warranties of DR Landmark and Community Bank contained in this Stipulation are all true and correct. (2) The delivery of all documents pursuant to Section 12(b) hereof. f. Default. In the event of a breach or default under this Stipulation by either City, DR Landmark or Community Bank, the non -defaulting party shall have, in addition to all rights available at law or equity, the right to terminate this Stipulation for the purchase and -6- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0155\937429v2.doc _v4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ]5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sale of the Subject Property, by delivering written notice thereof to the defaulting party, and if City is the non -defaulting party, City shall thereupon promptly receive a refund of all prior deposits and payments. Such termination by a non -defaulting party shall be without prejudice to the non -defaulting party's rights and remedies at law or equity. g. Notices. All notices and demands shall be given in writing by certified mail, postage prepaid, and return receipt requested, or by personal delivery. Notices shall be considered given upon the earlier of (a) personal delivery, (b) two (2) business days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered, return receipt requested, or (c) one (1) business day following deposit with an overnight carrier service. A copy of all notices shall be sent to Escrow Holder. Notices shall be addressed as provided below for the respective party; provided that if any party gives notice in writing of a change of name or address, notices to such party shall thereafter be given as demanded in that notice: BUYER: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia 91730 Attn: Maria Perez, Associate Engineer COPY TO: Richards, Watson & Gershon 1 Civic Center Circle, P.O.. Box 1059 Brea, California 92822-1059 Attn: James L. Markman SELLER: DR Landmark c/o Sullivan, Workman & Dee 800 South Figueroa Street, Twelfth Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2521 Attn: Charles Cummings -7- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-015A937429v2.doc &r _may! 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 h. Further Instructions. Each party agrees to execute such other and further documents as may be necessary or proper in order to consummate the transaction contemplated by this Stipulation. Amendments. Any amendments to this Stipulation shall be effective only when duly executed and delivered by the City and DR Landmark. 13. Within five (5) business days following receipt of the payment described in paragraph 12a, above, Charles Cummings, counsel for DR Landmark, shall execute and return to counsel for the City an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation in the form attached to this Stipulation as Exhibit C, acknowledging on DR Landmark's behalf receipt from the City of the warrant specified in paragraph 12a, above, and payment by the City of the sums specified in paragraph 12a, above. 14. DR Landmark expressly acknowledges that payment on its behalf of the total sum of $450,000.00 (Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars), as detailed in paragraphs 9 and 12 above, and the conveyance of the excess parcel of land, as detailed in paragraph 10 above, constitutes full and final settlement of any and all claims arising from the qity's taking of the Subject Property including without limitation (a) claims for compensation for the Subject Property; (b) all payments, if any, which may be required by law to be paid to DR Landmark arising from the displacement of any business activities on the Subject Property; (c) severance damages; (d) precondemnation damages; (e) inverse condemnation; (f) loss of business goodwill; (g) de facto taking; (h) damages for violation of civil or constitutional rights; (i) costs; 6) litigation expenses; (k) expert witness fees; (1) attorneys' fees; (m) interest; (n) relocation assistance or benefits; (o) owner participation rights; (p) abandonment costs; (q) cost to cure damages, or (r) any other claim or reason, whether relating to the City's acquisition of the Subject Property, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Subject Property, or this proceeding. 15. DR Landmark warrants that it is not aware of any other person or entity with any right or entitlement, by lien or otherwise, to the Subject Property or to the just. compensation awarded in this proceeding for the Properties. Specifically, and without limitation, DR -8- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0155\937429v2.doe =2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Landmark warrants and agrees: a. That they are the record owners of the Subject Property. That aside from the security interest claimed by Community Bank, DR Landmark knows of no other claims or lieris presently claimed or which will be claimed against the Subject Property. d. That it will not further encumber the Subject Property.or allow the Subject Property to be further encumbered before entry of the Final Order of Condemnation in this action. e. That to DR Landmark's best knowledge, the Subject Property is free and clear of all hazardous and toxic substances, materials, and waste; and that they have no notice of any pending or threatened action or proceeding arising from the condition of the Subject Property, or alleged violation of environmental, health, or safety statutes, ordinances, or regulations. DR Landmark agrees that notwithstanding the conveyance to the City of the Subject Property, DR Landmark shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City from and against any and all claims, liabilities, suits, losses, costs, expenses and damages, including without limitation attorneys' fees and costs, arising from any claim for loss or damage to any portion of the Subject Property; from and against all claims for injuriesor death of persons; and for the cost of cleaning up the Subject Property and removing hazardous or toxic substances, materials, and waste therefrom, by reason of contamination or adverse effects on the environment, or by reason of any statutes, ordinances, orders, rules, or regulations of any governmental entity or agency requiring the clean-up of the Subject Property caused by or resulting from any hazardous material, substance, or waste existing on or under the Subject Property before April 25, 2006. f That neither this Stipulation nor anything it requires or provides, including the transfer of the Properties to the City, violates or will violate any contract, agreement, or instrument to which DR Landmark is a party, or that affects the Subject Property, and that conveyance of the Properties to the City does not require consent of any person who is not a party to this Stipulation. -9- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0155\937429v2.doc 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 g. That there are no written or oral leases or contractual rights or options to lease, purchase, or otherwise to enjoy possession, rights, or any interest in the Subject Property or to any part of the Subject Property, and that no person has any right of possession to the Subject Property. h. That they do not know of any pending, threatened, or potential litigation, action, or proceeding against DR Landmark or any other party before any court or administrative tribunal which is in any way related to the Subject Property, except for this action pending as San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. RCV 091735. The settlement of the case at bar is not intended to waive any right or claim which DR Landmark may have or may legally assert in the above stated pending action. 16. The parties agree that this Stipulation is a settlement of all claims relating to the Subject Property or to this proceeding, in order to avoid further litigation. Specifically and without/ limitation, the parties agree: a. That entry of the Final Order of Condemnation in this proceeding constitutes the waiver and release by DR Landmark and Community Bank of any and all claims against the City or its officials, agents, contractors, or employees in connection with the Subject Property or with this action that DR Landmark and Community Bank have or could have asserted in this action, and a waiver of any damage that may have been sustained as a result of the City's efforts to acquire the Subject Property or as a result of any preliminary steps to such acquisition. That the payment described in paragraph 5 above will satisfy a portion of the security interest in the Subject Property for benefit of the holders of Community Bank. 17. In effecting this Stipulation, each of the parties has had the opportunity to receive full and complete legal advice about the provisions of this Stipulation, and each signatory to the Stipulation certifies that he or she has read all of this Stipulation and that he or she understands it. This Stipulation has been fully negotiated among the City, DR Landmark and Community Bank, and shall be construed as if drafted by all parties to this Stipulation. 18. Except as otherwise set forth in this Stipulation and except for breach of any -10- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0155\937429v2.doc RIM _r� 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 terms or conditions contained in this Stipulation, DR Landmark and Community Bank waive and forever release the City including its successors, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, representatives, and anyone acting on or for the City's behalf, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action, or liabilities, known or unknown, based upon or arising in connection with the Complaint in Eminent Domain herein, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Subject Property, or from the City's acquisition of the Subject Property. 19. By such release, DR Landmark and Community Bank waive any rights under California Civil Code Section 1542, which provides, "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist, in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." 20. This Stipulation is made and executed, and is. intended to be performed, within the State of California, and is to be construed under California law. 21, If anyprovision of this Stipulation is held invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect and shall not be impaired or invalidated by the failed provision. 22. The parties agree that each will bear its own attorney's fees and costs in connection with this proceeding and this Stipulation. 23. If any party_to this Stipulation incurs attorney's fees in order to enforce, defend, or interpret any of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Stipulation or because of a breach of this Stipulation by another party, the prevailing party (whether by suit, negotiation, arbitration, or settlement) shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees from the other party. 24. DR Landmark agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City in the event of breach of DR Landmark's warranties and agreements set forth above. In particular, but, without limitation, DR Landmark agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City against any future claim by the County of San Bernardino for taxes on the Subject Property. 25. The City, DR Landmark,'and Community Bank agree that this Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original instrument; and all of which together shall constitute the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment. -11- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0155\937429v2,doe z = C: V g LU o W � �a —z z2 O w If, o _Q ,n o a ¢Z V o CC < iV _wi 2 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26, Upon filing with the Court the Acknowledgment of Receipt described in paragraph 12 above, the parties to this Stipulation agree that a Judgment in Condemnation in the form attached as Exhibit D to this Stipulation and a Final Order of Condemnation in the form attached as Exhibit E to this Stipulation may be entered by the Court without further notice to DR Landmark or to Community Bank. IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED: 512p O , 2007 RACHEL W DR LANDMARK DATED: �007 DAVID HALSTEAD DR LANDMARK Approved as to Form,,&4�L 2007: SULLIVAN WORKMAN & DEE Attorneys for Defendant DR LANDMARK DATED: (� , Lp_ / g , 2007 THE LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE C. MEYERSON By: g r'... C La rence C. Meyerson Attorneys for Defendant COMMUNITY BANK -12- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0155\937429v2.doc M1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z o11 q x a 12 w 13 Y Z � O a 0 14 a 15 In 'S o W 16 x� < 17 =, Y r,t 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: 2007 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: . �� �AMES L. MARkMAN, City Attorney Approved as to Form, , 2007: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER KIRSTEN R. BOWMAN By: KIRSTEN R. BOWMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -13- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0155\937429v2.doc 0 10 z I1 o� x 0 12 W � z 13 o ul 14 N15 o w 16 17 =Yi 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit A to Stipulation to Judgment: Legal Description and Maps of Subject Property Interests - LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES (A.P.N.0209-131-01) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89°31'50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET;THENCE NORTH 89056'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 117.45 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (A.P.N.0209-131-01) THAT PORTION OF LOT I OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 26TH STREET NORTH 89058'29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 0'01'31" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26TH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29019'04" WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°56'55" EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47029'01" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0°28' 10" \ WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING -14 STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0155\937429v2Ad 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 oz z 11 x 12 w g z� Q N ¢a 14 s 15 Ln o a ¢ 16 2 a F, < 17 >v 54 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 26.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89030' 18" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 0 -15- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION - 11231-0155\937429v2.doc 1 Exhibit B to Stipulation to Judgment: Map of Excess Portion of Land 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z a o� I1 0 Coe 0 12 w 0 13 z 2 " o 14 ¢a s 15 o a ¢ 16 x F 17 w 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -16- STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DEFENDANTS DR LANDMARK AND COMMUNITY BANK FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION 11231-0155\937429v2.doc CITY .OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EASEMENT -DR LANDMARK NTS 40 &4 10 11 12 1'3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Kelley Herrington, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-3101. On February 13, 2017, I served the within document(s) described as: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A NUNC PRO TUNC MODIFICATION TO THE JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION AND FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL F. YOSHIBA IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the interested parties in this action as stated below: Charles Cummings Sullivan Workman & Dee 600 N Rosemead Boulevard, Suite 209 Pasadena, California 91107 (213)624-5544 Email: Cummings@swdlaw.net Codette G. Wallace, General Counsel Community Bank 460 Sierra Madre Villa Avenue Pasadena, California 91107 (626)568-2108 Email: cwallace@cbank.com Attorney for Defendant Attorney for Defendant DR Landmark Community Bank ❑X (BY MAIL) By placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth above. I placed each such envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this Firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 13, 2017, at Los Angeles, California Kelley Herrington ,' ' - i (Type or print name) ( / (Signa re) 1231-0154\2040912v I.doe EXHIBIT O 0 I 1 2 3 4 5I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14' 15 16i 17 18 19 201 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 .28 RICHARDS; WATSON & GERSHON . A Professional Corporation , REGINA N. DANNER (Bar No. 137210) rdanner c@rwglaw.com MICHAEL F. YOSHIBA (Bar No. 177301) myoshiba@rwglaw.com 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone: 213.626.8484 Facsimile: 213.626.0078 Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT FEB 16 2017 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Case No. RCV 091735 Plaintiff, AMENDED JUDGMENT IN V. CONDEMNATION LANDMARK, et al., (Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103) Defendant. [APN: 0209-131-01 ] Action Filed: November 29. 2005 Plaintiff City of Rancho. Cucamonga (the "City") filed a Complaint in Eminent Domain on November 29, 2005-1 to acquire certain real property interests (the "Subject Property"), for public street purposes and for all uses necessary or convenient thereto. The Subject Property interests consist of a fee interest of 20,719 square feet, and a 24-month temporary construction easement of 12,296 square feet. The Subject Property interests are part of a larger parcel, which consists of 5.2 acres of land identified as San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01, and is commonly known as 10451 26th Street in. the City of Rancho Cucamonga. On November 29, 2005, the City deposited with the San Bernardino Superior Court Clerk (the "Court Clerk") the sum of $286,700.06 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars) as the probablejust compensation for the Subject Property interests. in Condemnation 11231-0154\2034636v1.doc 0 I On April 25, 2006, the City was authorized to, and did take possession of the Subject 2 Property, in accordance with Order for Possession made by this Court `on January 10, 2006, 3 and served on January 25, 2006. 4 The City, and -Defendants DR Landmark and Community Bank entered into a 5 Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Final Order of Condemnation (the "Stipulation"), 6 filed with this Court on August 1, 2007. 7 Defendant, HCS Cutler, 'a California Corporation ("HCS Cutler") disclaimed any 8 interest in or to the Subject Property or to any portion of the compensation to be awarded in 9 this proceeding. 10 Defendant, Community Bank filed a disclaimer of any interest in or to the Subject z o � 11 Property or to any further compensation to be awarded in this proceeding after having o - 4 12 withdrawn the sum of $286,700.00 00 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred x o a 13 Dollars) from the Court Clerk. This suns represents payment for any and all claims by _z CD z� 0 14 Community Bank in this proceeding. 3: ` 15 Defendants, all Persons Unknown Having or Claiming Any Title or Interest in or to li — 3 Ln 16 the Property Sought to be Condemned Herein, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, have e 17 been defaulted by the Clerk of the Superior Court. %v 18 In accordance with the. Stipulation, the sum of $450,000.00 (Four Hundred Fifty 19 Thousand Dollars) less the sun of $286,700.00 paid to Community Bank, is hereby 20 adjudged as the total monetary just compensation to be paid by the City to DR Landmark in 21 this proceeding. 22 On or about July 20, 2007, Charles Cummings, counsel for DR Landmark, executed 23 an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation on DR Landmark's behalf, 24 acknowledging receipt of warrant number 254436 from the City in the sum of $163,300.00 25 (One Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars). The City filed this 26 Acknowledgment with the Court on August 1, 2007. 27 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 28 Stipulation is incorporated herein by this reference. _2_ Amended Judgment in Condemnation 11231-0154\2034636v 1.doc v 1 1. IT IS FURTI=IER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 2 Subject Property, is hereby condemned for the uses and purposes stated in the Complaint in 3 Eminent Domain. The Subject Property interests are depicted on Exhibit "1" hereto, which 4 is incorporated herein by this reference. -The Subject Property interests the City is acquiring 5 in this proceeding and that are the subject of this Stipulation and the Complaint herein, are 6 described as follows: 7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES 8 (A.P.N. 0209-13 1 -0 1) 9 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF. CALIFORNIA, 10 FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: o a 11 COMMENCING AT TIIE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN 12 AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH.STREET (60 FEET w o WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN = 13 AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID z CENTERLINE NORTH 8903 P50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE o 14 WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; TFIENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY 3 ` 15 LINE SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56'55" WEST v) < 98.79.FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT.116.00 rQ N 16 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY _ = LINE; THENCE_ SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 17 0028' 10" EAST IL77.4.5) FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND < DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH R!Mp 18 RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID 19 PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE. NORTHERLY ALONG 20 SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 21 CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES.MORE OR LESS. 22 23 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT 24 (A;P.N.0209-131-01) 25 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 26 FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED'AS FOLLOWS: 27 COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN 28 AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET -3- Amended Judgment in Condemnation 11231-0154@034636v I. doe I WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 26TH STREET NORTH 89058'29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID 2 CENTERLINE SOUTH 0001'31" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26TH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 3 THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29°19'04" WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE 4 SOUTH 89056'55" EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°29'01" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE; 5 THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE 6 SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG 7 SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89030' 18" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH STREET; 8 THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT 01 WAY LINE NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 9 CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 10 Z-, 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the use for oa 12 which the Subject Property is condemned, namely for public street purposes and for all < 13 purposes necessary or convenient thereto, is a public use; that the public interest and Z 0 14 necessity require the project for which the Subject Property is condemned; that this project 15 is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public 02 16 good and the least private injury;:that the Subject Property is necessary for the project; and ¢� G< 17 that the City is entitled to condemn the Subject Property by virtue of the provisions of %Y 18 California Constitution Article I, Section 19; California Government Code Sections 37350, 19 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404; by California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 20 1230.010, 1240.050, 1240.110, 1240,120, 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650; and by other 21 provisions of law. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that consistent with 23 the Stipulation, the payment on DR Landmark's behalf of $450,000.00 (Four Hundred Fifty' 24 Thousand Dollars), consisting of the original deposit of $286,700.00 (of which was 25 disbursed to Defendant Community Bank), on behalf of DR Landmark, and a warrant in the 26 sum of $163,300.00 (One Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars) by the 27 City payable to DR Landmark, constitutes full.and final settlement of any and all claims 28 arising from the City's taking the Subject Property including without limitation (a) claims -4- Amended Judgment in Condemnation 11231-0154t2034636v I.doc 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for compensation for the Subject Property; (b) all,payments, if any, which may be required by law to be paid to DR Landmark arising from the displacement of any business activities on the Subject Property-.(c) severance damages; (d) precondemnation damages; (e) inverse condemnation; (f) loss of business goodwill;.(g) de facto taking; (h) damages for violation of civil or constitutional rights; (i) costs; () litigation expenses; (k) expert witness fees; (1) attorneys' fees; (m) interest; (n) relocation assistance or benefits; (o) owner participation rights; (p) abandonment.costs; (q) cost to cure damages, or (r) any other claim or reason, whether relating to the City's acquisition of the Subject Property, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Subject Property, or this proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that consistent with the Stipulation, the payment on Community Bank's behalf of $286,700.00 (two hundred eighty-six thousand, seven hundred dollars), consisting of the funds withdrawn from the Court Clerk, constitutes full and final settlement of any and all claims arising from the City's taking the Subject Property including without limitation (a) claims for compensation Community Bank's security interest in the Subject Property; (b) all payments, if any, which may be required by law to be paid to Community Bank.arising from the displacement of any business activities involving the security interest; (c) severance damages; (d) precondemnation damages; (e) inverse condemnation; (f) loss of business goodwill; (g) de facto taking; (h) damages for violation of civil or constitutional rights; (i) costs; 0) litigation expenses; (k) expert witness fees; (1) attorneys' fees; (m) interest; (n) relocation assistance or benefits; (o) owner participation rights; (p) abandonment costs; (q) cost to cure damages, or (r) any other claim or reason, whether relating to the City's acquisition.of the Subject Property, the Project for which the City is acquiring the Subject Property, or this proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that despite service of process in this action, no other person has asserted any interest in the compensation to be awarded in this action, and that all such persons are hereby adjudged in accordance with 5 Amended Judgment in Condemnation I I231-0154\2034636v I.doc I Code of Civil Procedure Section 1250.220(d) to possess no compensable interest in the 2 Subject Property. 3 The Clerk is directed to enter this Amended Judgment in Condemnation forthwith. 4 1T 1S SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: l !� , 2017 Judge of Vh8 Super or Court of the State of 7 California' 8 WOHAEL& SACK9 10 0 txn g 12 tY w g 13 z o o w 14 1 ¢ do 15 to s 16 ¢w x 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Amended Judgment in Condemnation 11231-015412034636v 1. doc THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS ATTACHED, CONSISTING OF g_ PAGES), IS A FULL. TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN MY OFFICE. ATTEST P. ANCY CS ESERH.ARDT Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of Califonnia, in and for the Count of San Semardino. Date FH 2 4,2017 EXHIBIT P RECORDING REQUESTED BY Michael F.'Yoshi'ba Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 S. Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO NAME Michael F. Yoshiba Richards, Watson & Gershon MAILING 355 S. Grand Avenue ADDRESS 40th Floor CITY,STATELos Angeles, California ZIP CODE 90071-3101 Recorded in Officia,: S, County of San Bernardino 2128/2817 ov'd DUTTON 4:33 PM wyRr tMM BBANARW. ASSESSOR — RECORDER — CLERK CA SAN NUN 7,j" P Counter Doc#: 2017-0090139 Titles: 1 Pages: 8 Fees 0.00 III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilllllll111 0.ea Oth.AID r PTaxes so0.00 00 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE TITLES) Amended Final Order of Condemnation LS-201 E. 0 �Y =•YJ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON . A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER (Bar No. 137210) rdanner@rwglaw.com MICHA L F. YOSHIBA (Bar No. 177301) myoshiba@rwglaw.cotn 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone: 213.6 2 6.84 84 Facsimile: 213.626.0078 Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FILE® SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT FEB 15 2017 .w�.a , .H. l SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, V. Case No. RCV 091735 AMENDED FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION . DR LANDMARK, et al., [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] Defendant. [APN: 0209-131-01 ] Action Filed: November 29, 2005 Amended Judgment in Condemnation having been entered in this action on August 9, 2.007; and said Amended Judgment having provided that upon payment of the total sum specified in said Judgment, Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") is entitled to a Amended Final Order of Condemnation in this action; and it appearing to the Court that the City has paid for the benefit of Defendants DR Landmark the total sum specified in said Judgment, as evidenced by the Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation executed by Charles Cummings on July 20, 2007 and filed on August 1, 2007; It further appearing to the Court that the City and defendant Community Bank, Inc., have resolved the issues between them as evidenced in a Stipulation for Entry of filed with the Court on August 1, 2007; Amended Final Order of Condemnation 1231-0154\2034645 v I.doc D 1 It further appearing to the Court that all parties to the action have been served and 2 that no other person has claimed any interest in the compensation to be awarded in this 3 action; 4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED 5 that the "Subject Property" interests consisting of a fee interest of 20,719 square feet, and a 6 24-month temporary construction easement of 12,296 square feet in the City of Rancho 7 Cucamonga, which are part of a larger parcel, consisting of 5.2 acres of land identified as 8 San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01, and is commonly known 9 as 10451 26th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, are condemned and taken for a 10 public use, namely for public street purposes and for all uses necessary or convenient 0 o I thereto. d 12 The legal description of this condemned property (the "Subject Property") is as w g a 13 follows: z p 14 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES ad ? 3 15 (A.P.N.0209-131-01) Ln s c�' 16 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO oCUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN, BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 17 FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: �Y 18 KHP COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN 19 AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDF_) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HAVEN 20 AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 21 WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY 22 LINE SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 23 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 24 0028' 10" EAST 11t.A.51 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH 25 RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID 26 PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG 27 SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 28 -2- Amended Final Order of Condemnation 1123:-015412034645v 1,doc 10 Z . I o� L 12 w� z 13 o W 14 ¢a 15 3 cn s W 16 a u 2 17 tE yv 18 _'i'! 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR LESS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (A.P.N. 0209-13 1 -0 1) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 26TH STREET NORTH 89058'29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 0001'31" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 26TH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29°19'04" WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89056'55" EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°29'01 " EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE; ' THENCE NORTHERLY: ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY; NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89'30' 18". TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that on recording of a certified copy of this Amended Final Order of Condemnation with the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, title to the Subject Property interests described above shall vest in Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga, its successors and its assigns. Plaintiff has taken possession of the Subject Property interests pursuant to an order for possession with an effective date of April 25, 2006 (date of apportionment). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all taxes, current and delinquent, and all penalties and costs on the Subject Property interests described above Shall be cancelled, if applicable, as of April 25, 2006 the date of apportionment pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5081 et seq. -3- Amended Final Order of Condemnation 1231-015412034645v1.doc 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Z o 11 0 12' w g G 13 z 0 0 14 ¢a 15 Ln s M4 16� aW vo 17ii %r 18 j =vi 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Clerk is ordered to enter this Amended Final Order of Condemnation forthwith. 1T IS SO ORDERED. Dated:, 2017 ,q /y/� Juc % WcAiAELA..1 .. -4- Amended Final Order of Condemnation 11231-015412034645v I_doc . v_ e og �e q s m m m I 8 7+42 + 00 DRI VE A !8265.14 SF i HAVEN. AVENUE o o ' m63+00 61+00. 62+00 CD W c W CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EASEMENT -DR LANDMARK NTS THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS ATTACHED. CONSISTING OF PAGES). IS A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT COPY F THE ORIGINAL .ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN MY OFFICE. _ ATTESTNIANIvY CS EBEt;i-I.ARDT Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California. in and for the County of San Bernudim Date FED 2 4 2017 9 By Uty T8flie r . nP on EXHIBIT Q rxls uAF Is IOA Ix[ oueF05[ or a0 YAI OR[x Inca IION OxIT. lJ Seplemher 2004 Ph. Tract No 2203, M.B. 34/65 City of Rancho Cucamonga 0209— 13 Tax Rate Area 15051 --ItA wE N-- -— ———— —————— —— ———— ——— — — — — — —— — — — r,e L—= --MA$I-N E — — -------- —-——A-4E-- I O 0 Pin. S.E.1/4, Sec. 11 Assessor's Map Book 0209 Page 13 T.1S., R.7W. San Bernardino County EXHIBIT R HOFER RANCH Since 18M 11248 So. TunNeN Ave. Tr ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761-7688 (909) 467-2624 City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: John Gillison, City Manager 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Purchase of a .476 acre property Cucamonga, CA (adjacent to APN: Cucamonga (the "City Property") Dear Mr. Gillison: April 3, 2018 In Haven Avenue and 26a' Street, Rancho 209-131-01) owned by the City of Rancho I am writing to present you with a purchase offer for the City Property. The City Property was acquired by way of a condemnation judgment, a copy of which is attached to the enclosed Purchase Agreement as Exhibit "A," (the "Landmark Order"). A brief history of the properties may be helpful. Approximately 10 years ago, the City undertook the Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project ("Haven Project"). As part of the Haven Project, the City filed eminent domain cases against the owners of our property APN 209-131-02 ("Hofer Property"), in the action titled City of Rancho Cucamonga v. Hofer, et al., San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. RCVRS094962 ("Hofer Eminent Domain Case"), and against the then -owner of the property directly to the north (APN 209- 131-01) (the "Project Property"), in the action entitled City of Rancho Cucamonga v. D.R. Landmark, Inc., San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. RCVRS091735 ("Landmark Eminent Domain Case"). The Landmark Eminent Domain Case resulted in the Landmark Order. The Landmark Order reflects that fully signalized access would be provided to the Hofer Property via Drive A depicted on the exhibit attached to the Landmark Order. Ned Sciortino of Hillwood Development, our development partner, and I attended two meetings with officials from the City's Planning Department regarding the proposed development of the Project Property and its impact on the Hofer Property. In the first meeting, on August 2, 2016, we were given the impression that the plans for the Project Property would be revised to provide for access to the Hofer Property consistent with the construction of Drive "A" shown in the Landmark Order. However, in the second meeting on October 27, 2016, we were informed that the development on the Project Property would not be modified to provide access to the Hofer Property. We were told that the Hofer Property could have right-in/right-out access to Haven and fire -only access to Marine Avenue. When asked, the City officials could not identify any use which could be approved for the Hofer Property if access were so limited. We were also not provided any details as to how the City Property could legally be incorporated in the private development on the Project Property. We were encouraged by the City to reach out directly to the owner and developer of the Project Property which we did. However, HOFER RANCH Since 1883 11240 00. TURNER Am ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 01761.7688 (909) 467-2624 the developers of the Project Property were not interested in any proposals which would preserve access to the Hofer Property. Obviously this situation is of great concern to me and my family, and we are in the process of exploring available legal remedies to preserve the value of the Hofer Property and enforce the right to a signalized access over Drive "A." It is our hope, however, that we could find a way to avoid expensive and protracted litigation which leads me to present the enclosed offer for your consideration. The enclosed offer provides a substantial economic benefit to the City at a premium price per square foot for the City Property while at the same time preserving the spirit and the letter of the access via Drive A anticipated in the Haven Project. If there are some particulars of the attached offer that are unacceptable, I would welcome a counter. In the absence of some amicable arrangement between the City, the Project Property owner and our family, I am afraid that we will be left with few options to preserve the value of the Hofer Property afforded by Drive A. I look forward to working with you toward a mutually -beneficial arrangement regarding the City Property. If the attached agreement is acceptable to you, please sign both on page 13, initial Sections 11 and 14, and return one of the twoexecuted copies to me to forward to escrow. Yours Truly, AGREEMENT OFPURCHASEAND SALE AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS between - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA and HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC Escrow No: NCS- -SA 1(BS) Escrow Company: First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services Division Escrow Officer: Brian Serikaku AGREEMENT OFPURCHASEAND SALE AND ESCROWINSTRUCTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION Recitals PAGE NO. l. Purchase Price................................................................................................................... 1 2. Escrow............................................................................................................................... 2 3. Intentionally Omitted............................................................... :...................................... 2 4. Possession.......................................................................................................................... 2 5. Title................................................................................................................................... 2 6. Seller's Deliveries..................................................... :..................................... ................... 3 7. Buyer's Deliveries............................................................................................................3 8. Authorization to Record Documents and Disburse Funds................................................4 9. Costs and Expenses............................................................................................................4 10 Tax Prorations.....................................................................................................................4 11. Condition of Property.........................................................................................................4 12. Seller's Representations..................................................................................................... 6 13. Buyer's Representations.................................................................................................... 7 14. Default................................................................................................................................ 7 15. Miscellaneous.....................................................................................................................8 16. General Provisions;.......................................................................................................... 10 17. General Escrow Provisions.............................................................................................. 12 18. Obligations of Escrow Holder......................................................................................... 12 Signatures..................................................................................................................................... 13 AGREEMENT OFPURCHASEAND SALE AND ESCROWINSTRUCTIONS THIS AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS ("Agreement") is made by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (the "Seller"), and HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Buyer"), to be effective upon the date this Agreement has been executed by both parties and delivered to Escrow Holder ("Effective Date"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, Seller is the owner of the approximately .476 acres of land located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, located on Haven Avenue legally described on Page 2 of that certain Amended Final Order of Condemnation recorded in the Official Records, County of San Bernardino, on February 28, 2017 as Document No. 2017-0090139 which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"); WHEREAS, Buyer is the owner of the property located to the south of the Property, an approximately 9.66 acre parcel, APN: 0209-131-02 (`Buyer's Property"); WHEREAS, Seller desires to sell to Buyer, and Buyer desires to purchase from Seller, the Property, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller agrees to sell the Property to Buyer and Buyer agrees to purchase the Property from Seller, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Purchase Price. The purchase price ("Purchase Price") for the Property shall be FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR Dollars ($518,364.00) based upon $25 per square foot of land, which shall be payable as follows: (a) Within three (3) business days after the Effective Date of this Agreement, Buyer shall deposit FIFTEEN THOUSAND Dollars ($15,000.00) (the "Escrow Deposit") with Escrow Holder which will be applied to the Purchase Price; (b) Prior to Close of Escrow, Buyer will deposit with Escrow Holder FIVE HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR Dollars ($503,364.00) representing the balance of the Purchase Price. 2. Escrow. 2.1 Escrow Instructions. This Agreement shall constitute joint escrow instructions of the Buyer and Seller to First American Title Insurance Company ("Escrow Holder" and "Title Company"). Buyer and Seller agree to execute, deliver and be bound by any reasonable or customary supplemental escrow instructions of Escrow Holder or other instruments as may reasonably be required by Escrow Holder in order to consummate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. Any such supplemental instructions of Escrow Holder shall not conflict with, amend or supersede any portions of this Agreement. If there is any inconsistency between such supplemental instructions and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. 2.2 Close of Escrow. For purposes of this Agreement, the "Closing Date" shall be defined as the date the Deed conveying the Property to Buyer is recorded in the Official Records of San Bernardino County, California and shall be concurrent with the fulfillment of the Map Act Condition as hereinafter defined, provided, however, that it shall not be before the Inspection Completion Date as hereafter defined. The Closing Date may be changed if agreed to by both Buyer and Seller with a joint written instruction to the Escrow Holder. The closing under this Agreement shall be referred to herein as the "Close of Escrow" or the "Closing." Close of Escrow is conditioned upon and to be concurrent with compliance with or an exception to the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code § 64410, et seq.) which is expected to be by certificate of compliance or lot line adjustment joining the Property with the Buyer's Property (e.g. Government Code §§ 64428(a)(2) and 66499.35) as acceptable to the Title Company ("Map Act Condition). Buyer and Seller will cooperate in good faith with the fulfillment of the Map Act Condition, but Buyer will pay the costs associated therewith not to exceed $50,000. 3. IntentionallyOmitted-. 4. Possession. Buyer shall have possession of the Property at 5:00 p.m. on the Closing Date, subject to any matters disclosed in the Title Documents (as hereinafter defined) or elsewhere in this Agreement. 5. Title. 5.1 Approval of Title. Title Company shall furnish to Buyer within ten (10) days after the Effective Date a preliminary title report for the Property, ("Title Report"). Buyer will obtain from the Title Company copies of any recorded documents, for the exceptions shown in the Title Report (such documents, together with the Title Report, shall be referred to herein as the "Title Documents"). Seller agrees to remove any exceptions to title created by reason of any deeds of trust or mortgages encumbering the Property, but with respect to any other exceptions reflected in the Title Documents, Buyer shall have until the Inspection Completion Date to notify Seller if Buyer disapproves any such additional exceptions in the Title Documents. The failure of Buyer to give Seller and Escrow Holder notice of any disapproval within the time specified shall be deemed to constitute Buyer's conclusive approval of the state of the title of the Property. 2 Within ten (10) days after receipt of the notice from Buyer, if any, of Buyer's disapproval of any exceptions in the Title Documents, the Seller shall give written notice to Buyer of Seller's election to correct, or not correct, any of those matters disapproved in Buyer's notice, and a failure to so respond shall be deemed an election by Seller not to correct any of the items disapproved of. Within five (5) days after Seller has given its responsive notice as contemplated in the preceding sentence, or within five (5) days after the time has expired for Seller to give such a notice, whichever is earlier, Buyer shall by written notice to Seller elect: (i) to accept the Property in accordance with the condition of title reflected in the Title Documents and as agreed to be corrected, or not corrected, by Seller, or (ii) to terminate the Agreement. In the event of a termination of the Agreement by Buyer pursuant to this provision, Buyer shall be entitled to return of the Escrow Deposit, and Buyer and Seller shall have no further rights or liabilities as to the other related to this Agreement or the Property. 5.2 Title Policy. At close of Escrow, the Title Company shall issue a 2006. extended coverage ALTA owner's policy of title insurance ("Title Policy") in the amount of the Purchase Price insuring title to the Property at the Closing Date, subject only to: (a) general and special property taxes and assessments for the then -current fiscal year; (b) a lien of supplemental taxes, if any assessed pursuant to the Provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75) Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California; and (c) the exceptions to title permitted under Section 5.1, above. 6. Seller's Deliveries. Prior to the Close of Escrow, Seller shall deposit or cause to be deposited into Escrow for delivery to Buyer at Close of Escrow the following: 6.1 A duly executed and acknowledged deed in the form approved by Title Company ("Deed"). 6.2 The Title Policy insuring fee title to the Property or the respective parcel(s) in the full amount of the applicable Purchase Price, in accordance with Sections 5.1 and 5.2, above. 6.3 Any other document provided for herein or reasonably required by Escrow Holder or Title Company. 7. Buyer's Deliveries. At Close of Escrow, Buyer shall deposit or cause to be deposited with the Escrow Holder for Delivery at Close of Escrow the following: 7.1 The cash amount required in accordance with Sections l(a) and (b) and other amounts due from the Buyer under this Agreement. 7.2 Any other document provided for herein or reasonably required by Escrow Holder or Title Company. 3 8. Authorization to Record Documents and Disburse Funds. Escrow Holder is hereby authorized and directed to record the documents and disburse the funds and documents called for hereunder, provided each of the following conditions have been, or will concurrently with the Close of Escrow be, fulfilled: (a) The Map Act Condition has been fulfilled and the Title Company has issued the Title Policy in accordance with Sections 5.1 and 5.2, above. (b) Seller shall have deposited with Escrow Holder the documents and funds required of Seller under this Agreement. (c) Buyer shall have deposited with Escrow Holder the documents and funds required of Buyer under this Agreement. (d) Escrow Holder is authorized to record any instrument delivered through this Escrow, to insert dates of recording, and to attach proper legal descriptions to documents prior to recording, if necessary or proper for the issuance of the Title Policy referred to above. (0 Escrow Holder is authorized to pay the Purchase Price to Seller, make the prorations in Sections 9 and 10, below, and make other prorations or payments as instructed in this Agreement. 9. Costs and Expenses. The cost and expense of the Title Policy, and recordation fees for the Deed and documentary transfer taxes which are not otherwise exempt in this transaction shall be paid by Seller. The escrow fee of Escrow Holder shall be paid by Buyer. 10. Tax Prorations. Since the Property is now owned by a public entity, there are not expected to be any prorations due for property taxes, but Buyer shall pay a supplemental tax bill for the Property taxes due after Closing. 11. Condition of Property. 11.1 Inspections. Buyer acknowledges that as of the Inspection Completion Date (as hereinafter defined), Buyer will have had an adequate opportunity to inspect the Property and to conduct due diligence regarding any leases, subleases, contracts or encumbrances affecting the Property, and to investigate all characteristics and conditions of or affecting the Property, and Buyer hereby waives any and all objections to such matters which could be discovered by such inspection and due diligence. Buyer acknowledges that neither Seller nor any of its directors, officers, partners, members, shareholders, beneficiaries, employees, trustees, servants, attorneys, brokers, assigns, successors, consultants, agents or representatives have made any representations, warranties, guarantees or agreements to or with Buyer on behalf of 4 Seller as to any matters concerning the Property, the present use thereof, or the suitability of Buyer's intended use of the Property. The foregoing disclaimer includes, as applicable and without limitation, soil, water, air quality conditions, lot size, property lines and boundaries, sewer, septic, and well systems and components, topography, climate, water rights, utilities, present and future zoning, soil, subsoil, subsidence, seismic hazards, geologic hazards, landslide hazards, flood hazards, fire hazards, hazardous and toxic materials, lead, asbestos, termites and wood destroying organisms, purpose to the which the Property is suited, drainage, compliance with the rules or requirements of local, state or federal laws or regulations. Buyer is acquiring the Property solely on the basis of its independent review and determination of such matters. Buyer further acknowledges and agrees that the Property is to be purchased, conveyed and accepted by Buyer in its present condition, "AS -IS," and that no patent or latent defect or condition related to the Property, whether or not known or discovered, shall affect the rights of either party hereto. Buyer acknowledges that the Property being sold "AS -IS" is material to the Seller, and that the Purchase Price reflects any allocation of risk associated with the purchase of the Property in its present condition without warranty, representation or guaranty. Buyer waives the rule that disclaimers of warranties shall be construed against Seller and agrees that the disclaimer made herein shall be liberally construed in favor of Seller. Buyer shall have the right to conduct inspections, investigations, lease due diligence, tests, surveys, and other studies of the Property ("Inspections") at Buyer's expense. Buyer shall, within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date ("Inspection Completion Date"), complete these Inspections and notify Seller and Escrow Holder, in writing, of any item(s) disapproved. Seller has no obligation to correct any such disapproved item. The failure of Buyer to give Seller and Escrow Holder notice of any disapproval on or before the Inspection Completion Date shall conclusively be deemed to constitute Buyer's approval of the condition of the Property and the Inspections. Within five (5) days after receipt of the notice from Buyer, if any, of Buyer's disapproval of any condition of the Property, the Seller shall give written notice to Buyer of Seller's election to correct, or not correct, any of those matters disapproved in Buyer's notice, and a failure to so respond shall be deemed an election by Seller not to correct any of the items disapproved of. Within five (5) days after Seller has given its responsive notice as contemplated in the preceding sentence, or within five (5) days after the time has expired for Seller to give such a notice, whichever is earlier, Buyer shall by written notice to Seller elect: (i) to accept the Property in accordance with the condition of Property as agreed to be corrected, or not corrected, by Seller, or (ii) to terminate the Agreement. In the event of a termination of this Agreement by Buyer pursuant to this provision, Buyer shall be entitled to return of the Escrow Deposit, and Buyer and Seller shall have no further rights or liabilities as to the other related to this Agreement or the Property. Failure of Buyer to give notice of acceptance or termination within the time specified by the preceding sentence shall conclusively be deemed to constitute Buyer's approval of the condition of the Property and the Inspections, and the Escrow Deposit shall thereafter be non-refundable to Buyer, excepting only Seller's default hereunder. Seller shall make the Property 'available for such Inspections. BUYER IS STRONGLY ADVISED TO INVESTIGATE THE CONDITION AND SUITABILITY OF ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL MATTERS AFFECTING THE VALUE OR DESIRABILITY OF THE PROPERTY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE MATTERS DISCLAIMED BY SELLER PURSUANT TO THIS. I 11.2. Soil Sampling. As part of the Inspections, Buyer may, at its sole expense, conduct Phase I and/or Phase 11 environmental studies/sampling of the Property (collectively "Soil Sampling"). 11.3. Insurance. In connection with any entry onto the Property by Buyer prior to Close of Escrow, Buyer (or Buyer's contractors) shall, at Buyer's sole cost and expense, maintain the following the following policy of insurance in form and with carriers reasonably acceptable to Seller, naming Seller as an additional insured: Commercial General Liability Insurance on an `occurrence" basis, covering all operations of Buyer as named insured, including, without limitation: (1) owner's and contractor's protective liability, and (2) blanket contractual liability (which includes, without limitation, coverage for the indemnity and hold harmless agreement set forth in this Agreement), against claims for bodily injury, property damage and death, with deletion of the exclusion for operations within fifty (50) feet of a railroad hack (railroad protective liability), if applicable, and with a combined single limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, and Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) in the aggregate, with aggregates applying separately to products/completed operations and all other general liability coverage combined. 11.4. Indemnity. From and after the Effective Date, Buyer shall indemnify, defend (with legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the indemnified party), and hold harmless Seller, and all of its directors, officers, partners, members, shareholders, beneficiaries, employees, trustees, servants, consultants, agents and representatives, past and present, and each of them, and the respective successors, consultants, assigns, executors, administrators (collectively, "Indemnitee"), against all liability, demands, claims, costs, losses, damages, recoveries, settlements, and expenses (including interest, attorney's fees, expert witness fees, damages or losses, or other costs and expenses) incurred by Indemnitee related to any suits, actions, and claims with respect to, in connection with, arising out of or related to: (a) the Inspections as defined in this 11, including without limitation the Soil Sampling; or (b) any mechanic's liens on the Property due to Buyer or Buyer's agents. The duties under this 1 1.1-11.4 shall survive the Close of Escrow, recordation of the Deed and/or termination of this Agreement. BY INITIALING OR SIGNING HERE, BUYER AND SELLER EACH ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT HAS READ, UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS 11 (11.1-11.4, INCLUSIVE). Seller Initials Buyer Initials 12. Seller's Representations. In consideration of Buyer's entering into this Agreement and as an inducement to Buyer to purchase the Property, Seller makes the following representations, each of which: (i) is a condition to Close of Escrow, (ii) is true as of the Effective Date, and (iii) is material and is being relied upon by Buyer: r. 12.1 Authority. Subject to City Council approval which will be sought at the earliest opportunity, Seller has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated herein without obtaining the consent or approval of any other person, entity or governmental authority. The persons whose names are set forth below have full power and authority to sign the name of Buyer to this Agreement and to cause this Agreement to be a binding obligation of Buyer. No consents or waivers of or by any third party are necessary to permit the consummation by Buyer of the transactions contemplated pursuant to this Agreement. 12.2 Truthfulness at Closing. Except as expressly herein otherwise provided, the representations and warranties of Seller set forth in Section 12.1, above, shall be true on and as of the Close of Escrow as if those representations and warranties were made on and as of such time. 13. Buyer's Representations. In consideration of Seller entering into this Agreement and as an inducement to Seller to sell the Property to Buyer, Buyer makes the following representations, each of which: (i) is a condition to Close of Escrow, (ii) is true as of the Effective Date, and (iii) is material and is being relied upon by Seller: 13.1 Authority. Buyer has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated herein without obtaining the consent or approval of any other person, entity or governmental authority. The persons whose names are set forth below have full power and authority to sign the name of Buyer to this Agreement and to cause this Agreement to be a binding obligation of Buyer. No consents or waivers of or by any third party are necessary to permit the consummation by Buyer of the transactions contemplated pursuant to this Agreement. 13.2 Available Funds. Buyer presently has sufficient finds available to consummate the closing of the transaction described in this Agreement. 13.3 Truthfulness at Closing. The representations and warranties of Buyer set forth in Sections 13.1 through 13.2, above, shall be true on and as of the Close of Escrow as if those representations and warranties were made on and as of such time. 14. Buyer's Default. IF THE SALE CONTEMPLATED HEREBY IS NOT CONSUMMATED BY THE CLOSING DATE DUE TO A DEFAULT BY BUYER, SELLER MAY BE DAMAGED AND MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR THOSE DAMAGES, BUT SUCH DAMAGES WILL BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT AND IMPRACTICAL TO ASCERTAIN FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (1) THE DAMAGES TO WHICH SELLER WOULD BE ENTITLED IN A COURT OF LAW WILL BE BASED ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PURCHASE PRICE AND THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE CLOSING DATE; (2) PROOF OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH 7 DAMAGES WILL BE BASED ON OPINIONS OF VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH MAY VARY IN SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS; AND (3) IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT AS OF THE DATE ON WHICH THIS AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO WHETHER THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WILL INCREASE OR DECREASE AS OF THE CLOSING DATE. BUYER DESIRES TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES FOR WHICH BUYER MIGHT BE LIABLE FOR BUYER'S FAILURE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. BUYER AND SELLER WISH TO AVOID THE COSTS AND LENGTHY DELAYS WHICH WOULD RESULT IF SELLER FILED AN ACTION TO COLLECT ITS DAMAGES FOR BUYER'S FAILURE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, BUYER AND SELLER AGREE THAT IF SUCH DEFAULT OCCURS, THE ESCROW DEPOSIT SHALL BE DEEMED TO CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF SELLER'S DAMAGES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§ 1671, 1676 AND 1677 AND SHALL BE PAID TO SELLER. SELLER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR BUYER'S FAILURE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY SHALL BE THE RETENTION OF SUCH AMOUNTS, AND SELLER SHALL BE RELIEVED OF ALL FUTURE DUTIES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. THE PAYMENT AND RETENTION OF SUCH AMOUNT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IS NOT INTENDED AS A FORFEITURE OR PENALTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§ 3275 OR 3369, AND BUYER WAIVES THE PROTECTIONS THOSE SECTIONS. SELLER HEREBY WAIVES THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 3389. THIS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION SHALL NOT LIMIT OR REDUCE BUYER'S DUTIES OR LIABILITIES OF THIS AGREEMENT TO SELLER PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 11.4 AND 16.13. BY INITIALING OR SIGNING HERE, BUYER AND SELLER EACH ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT HAS READ, UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION 14. Seller Initials Buyer Initials 15. Miscellaneous. 15.1 Notices. All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be sent by facsimile, personally delivery or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered by overnight courier and shall be deemed received upon the earlier of: (i) if personally delivered, the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice, (ii) if mailed, three (3) business days after the date of posting by the United States Post Office, (iii) if sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier, when delivered to the specified address, (iv) if sent by facsimile, when confirmation of transmission to the specified facsimile number is obtained, but the notice must also thereafter be served by one of the methods specified in (i) through (iii), above. Email addresses provided below are for convenience only, but notices are only effective under this Agreement if served by one of the methods specified above. The addresses of the parties and of the Escrow Holder shall be as follows: To Seller: City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: John Gillison; City Manager 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2700 (voice) (909) 477-2849 (facsimile) John.Gillison@CityofRC.us (email) To Buyer: Hofer Properties, LLC Attn: Paul B. Hofer, III H248 South Turner Avenue Ontario, CA 91761-7660 (909) 390-2555 (voice) (909) 390-2552 (facsimile) Farmerhofer@aol.com (email) and Hillwood Investment Properties Attn: John Magness, Senior Vice President 901 Via Piemonte, Suite 175 Ontario, CA 91764 (909) 382-0033 (voice) (909) 382-0073 (facsimile) john.magness@hillwood.com (email) Law Office of Kevin F. Gillespie, A Professional Corporation Attn: Kevin F. Gillespie, Esq. 411 Brookside Avenue Redlands, CA92373 (909) 792-2039 (voice) (909) 792-2359 (facsimile) kgillespie@gillespielaw.com (email) To Escrow First American Title Insurance Company Holder: Attn: Brian M. Serikaku 777 South Figueroa Street, 4`h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 271-1774 (voice) (877) 398-8620 (facsimile) bmserikaku@firstam.com (email) Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner detailed in this Section. Rejection or other refusal to accept or the inability to deliver because of changed address of which no notice was given shall be deemed to constitute receipt of the notice, demand, request or communication sent. 15.2 Approvals. Unless otherwise herein provided, whenever an approval or consent required of any Party, such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 16. General Provisions. 16.1 Required Actions of Buyer and Seller. Buyer and Seller agree to execute such furtherinstruments and documents necessary or appropriate to effectuate the intent of this Agreement provided that said instruments do not increase their costs or potential liability beyond what is required under the terms of this Agreement. „ 16.2 Time of Essence. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE OF EACH AND EVERY TERM, CONDITION, OBLIGATION AND PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT. In the event any time period expires on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday of the State of California, the date of performance shall be the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 16.3 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be enforceable against the party actually executing such counterpart, and all of which together shall constitute one instrument. This Agreement will not be effective unless and until it is executed by both Buyer and Seller and a fully executed copy is delivered to Buyer. A facsimile signature shall be deemed to be an original signature, but upon request of the other party, an original signature shall be executed and delivered. 16.4 Captions. Any captions to, or headings of, the sections or subsections of this Agreement are solely for the convenience of the parties hereto, are not a part of this Agreement, and shall not be used for the interpretation or determination of the validity of this Agreement or any provision hereof. 16.5 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the execution and delivery of this Agreement shall not be deemed to confer any rights, benefits or remedies of any kind upon, nor obligate any of the parties hereto, to any person or entity other than the parties hereto. This exclusion does not include Buyer's or Seller's successors, consultants, shareholders, directors, trustees, managers, officers, consultants, advisors, agents or employees to the extent that they have specifically been granted certain rights and protections in this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to relieve or discharge the obligation or liability of any third persons to any party to this Agreement, nor shall any provision give any third persons any right of subrogation or action against any party to this Agreement. 16.6 Recitals and Exhibits. The recitals of this Agreement and each of the Exhibits attached hereto are hereby incorporated herein by this reference. 16.7 Amendment to this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement may not be modified or amended except by an instrument in writing executed by each of the parties hereto. 16.8 Waiver. No waiver by Buyer or Seller of a breach of any of the tenns, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement by the other shall be construed or held to be a waiver of any succeeding or preceding breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, and no waiver shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the waiving party. No waiver of any default by Buyer or Seller hereunder shall be implied from any omission by the other to take any action on account of such default if such default persists or is repeated and no express waiver shall affect a default other thamas specified in such waiver. The consent or approval by any party to or of any act by any other shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent or approval to or of any subsequent similar act or acts by the other party. 16.9 Applicable Law. The provisions of this Agreement and all questions with respect to the construction and enforcement thereof and the rights and liabilities of the parties hereto shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. Any actions or proceedings arising under, growing out of, or in any way related to this Agreement or the Property shall be instituted and prosecuted only in the state or federal courts with jurisdiction over real property located within the County and State where the Property is located, and each party waives its right, under Part I1, Title IV of the California Code of Civil Procedure (or any similar statute or provision under any other state or federal law), to cause any such actions or proceedings to be instituted or prosecuted elsewhere. 16.10 Fees and Other Expenses. Except as otherwise provided herein, each of the parties shall pay its own attorney's, consultant's and other fees and expenses in connection with this Agreement. 16.11 Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior agreements, negotiations and communications, oral or written, and contains the entire agreement between Buyer and Seller as to the subject matter hereof. No subsequent agreement, representation, or promise made by either party hereto, or by or to an employee, officer, agent or representative of either party shall be of any effect unless it is in writing and executed by the party to be bound thereby. 16.12 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 16.13 Attorneys' Fees. In the event that either party is required to commence any action or proceedings, including arbitration, against the other for any claim in any way arising out of this Agreement or the Property, the prevailing party therein shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any amounts or relief otherwise awarded, all reasonable costs incurred in connection therewith, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 16.14 No Presumption. Each provision of this Agreement has been independently and freely negotiated by both parties as if this Agreement were drafted by both parties. In the event of any ambiguity in this Agreement, the parties waive any presumption or rule requiring or permitting interpretation of said ambiguity against or in favor of either party. 16.15 Capacity of Broker Employee/Agents. Buyer and Seller agree that neither Seller nor Buyer have been represented by real estate brokers, agents or finders involved in this transaction. 16.16 Severance. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any provision of this Agreement to be illegal, unenforceable, or invalid, in whole or in part for any reason: (a) the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be unimpaired, and (b) the invalid or unenforceable term or provision shall be amended in a way that is valid and enforceable and that comes closest to expressing the intention of the invalid or unenforceable term or provision. 16.17 Deposit of Funds. All funds deposited herein by Buyer must be in the form of wire transfer, cash, certified or cashier's checks or money orders drawn on or issued by offices of financial institutions located within the State of California and available for immediate deposit into and disbursement from the depository bank account of the Escrow Holder. 17. General Escrow Provisions. Each of the parties hereto has read and agrees to be bound by the General Escrow Provisions set forth in Exhibit `B" attached hereto, provided that if any provision of such General Escrow Provisions conflicts with any provisions of this Agreement the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail. Notwithstanding anything in the General Escrow Provisions to the contrary: i) Buyer and Seller shall not be deemed to release or indemnify Escrow Holder for claims arising out of Escrow Holder's own failure to perform the acts required of Escrow Holder under this Agreement; and ii) any disputes will be resolved as provided in Section 16.9 of this Agreement. 18. Obligations of Escrow Holder. Sections 4, 11, 12 and 13 of this Agreement constitute matters of agreement between Buyer and Seller with reference'to which Escrow Holder is not to be concerned. Each of the parties hereby relieves the Escrow Holder of any liability or obligation with reference to the above - enumerated sections. [Signatures on Next Page] 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. "Seller" (NOTE: Seller Must Also By: Initial Sections 11 and 14) "Buyer" (NOTE: Buyer Must Also By: Initial Sections 11 and 14) City of Rancho Cucamonga Hofer Properties, LLC Paul B. Hofer, III, its Manager First American Title Insurance Company received these escrow instructions executed by Buyer and Seller on 2018 (the "Effective Date" as defined above) and accepts these escrow instructions and agrees to perform the duties of Escrow Holder hereunder. Escrow Holder has inserted the escrow number on the cover page to this Agreement. Dated: 2018 Brian Serikaku, Escrow Officer HOFER:Ranch oCucam on gaP roperty: Contract:Purch aseA greem ent201803 3 0. docx 13 EXHIBITS TO BE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" Amended Final Order of Condemnation (8 Pages) EXHIBIT "B" General Escrow Provisions (4 Pages) EXHIBIT "A" AMENDED FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION EXHIBIT "A" 0a41<)V, P RECORDING REQUESTED BY Michael F.'Yoshi'ba Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 S. Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO NAME Michael F. Yoshiba Richards, Watson & Gershon MAILING 3.55 S. Grand Avenue ADDRESS 40th Floor CITY, STATELos Angeles, California ZIPCODE 90071-3101 Recorded in Official c, CounlV of San Bernardino 2/2812017 vu'u DUTTON 4:33 PM ASSESSOR —RECORDER — CLERK CA SAN P Counter Doc#: 2017-0090139 Titles: 1 Pages: 8 0.00 IIIIIIillllllllililllllllllllllllillllllllllll111 Taxes 0.00 0.00 PFees RIDr se. ee SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE TITLES) Amended Final order of Condemnation FOR RECORDER's USE LS-201 I IJ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Z o 11 o_ 2 n a 12 w g —z 13 z� 0 14 15 �s 16 ¢w u 17 %M 18 19 II 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON . A Professional Corporation REGINA N. DANNER (Bar No. 137210) rdanner@rwglaw.com MICHA L F. YOSHIBA (Bar No. 177301) myoshiba@rwglaw.com 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone: 213.626,8484 Facsimile: 213.626.0078 u Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA F 9 L E D SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT FEB 15 2017 By Deputy J SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Plaintiff, V. DR LANDMARK, et al., Defendant. Case No, RCV 091735 AMENDED FINAL -ORDER OF CONDEMNATION . [Exempt from filin.g fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] [APN: 0209-1.31-0.1 ] Action Filed: November 29, 2005' Amended Judgment in Condemnation having been entered in. this action on August 9, 2007; and said Amended Judgment having provided that upon payment of the total sum specified in said Judgment, Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") is entitled to a Amended Final Order of Condemnation in this action; and it appearing to the Court that the City has paid for the benefit of Defendants DR Landmark the total sum specified in said Judgment, as evidenced by the Acknowledgment of Receipt of Just Compensation executed by Charles Cummings on July 20, 2007 and filed on August 1, 2007; It further appearing to the Court that the City and defendant Community Bank, Inc., have resolved the issues between them as evidenced in a Stipulation for Entry of filed with the Court on August 1, 2007; Amended Final Order of Condemnation .�. 1123I-0154UG34645v Ldoc a 1 It further appearing to the Court that all parties to the action have been served and 2 that no other person has claimed any interest in the compensation to be awarded in this 3 action; 4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED 5 that the "Subject Property" interests consisting of a fee interest of 20,719 square feet, and a 6 24-month temporary construction easement of 12,296 square feet in the City of Rancho 7 Cucamonga, which are part of a larger parcel, consisting of 5.2 acres of land identified as 8 San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel Number 0209-131-01, and is commonly known 9 as 10451 26th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, are condemned and taken for a 10 public use, namely for public street purposes and for all uses necessary or'convenient z o 11 thereto. o2 L g 12 The legal description of this condemned property (the "Subject Property") is as W s < 13 follows: z 0 0 14 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES ad 3 15 (A.P.N. 0209-13 1 -0 1) � s 16 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO u o CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 17 FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE a PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: -'b 18 K,F< COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN 19 AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF .HAVEN 20 AVENUE SOUTH 0028' 10" EAST 215.75 FEET;, THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 89031'50" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 21 WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY 22 LINE SOUTH 47029'01" WEST 23.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56'55" WEST 98.79 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 116.00 23 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE; TfIENCE_SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 24 0 02 8'10" EAST 17=7_';4. S FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 702.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH 25 RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE (280 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 2203; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID 26 PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89056'39" EAST 116.00 FEET TO SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG 27 SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028710" WEST 193.14 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 28 -2- Amended Final Order of Condemnation 11231-0154\2034645,[.doe 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24• 25 26 27 28 CONTAINING 0.476 ACRES MORE OR,LESS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (A.P.N. 0209-13 1 -0 1) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP 2203, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE (CURRENTLY 134 FEET WIDE) AND 26TH STREET (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 26TH STREET NORTH 89058'29" WEST 76.26 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 0001'31" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAYLINE OF SAID 26TH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 34056'30" EAST 40.74 FEET; "THENCE SOUTH 29° 19'04" WEST 192.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89056'55" EAST 98.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°29'01" EAST 23.18 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HAVEN AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY: ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0028' 10" WEST 165.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING.A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY; NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 31.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89.30' 18", TO A POINT OF TANGENCY TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 26TH STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89058'29" WEST 23.69 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.282 ACRES MORE OR LESS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that on recording of a certified copy of this Amended Final Order of Condemnation with the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, title to the Subject Property interests described above shall vest in Plaintiff City of Rancho Cucamonga, its successors and its assigns. Plaintiff has taken possession of the Subject Property interests pursuant to an order for possession with an effective date of April 25, 2006 (date of apportionment). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all taxes, current and delinquent, and all penalties and costs on the Subject Property interests described above shall be cancelled, if applicable, as of April 25, 2006 the date of apportionment pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5081 et seq. -3- Amended Final Order of Condemnation 11231-0154\2034645v1.doc 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 8, 9 10 z o 11 0 cn s 12 g 13 z 0 14 3 15 L s '0 16 ¢w 17 18 _,yam 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Clerk is ordered to enter this Amended Final Order of Condemnation forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED. -. , 1 Dated: y 2017 WCHAEL AA. -4- Amended Final Order of Condemnation , 11231-0134QO34645V Ldoe 8+00 7+42 DRI VE A 8265.14 SE o HAVEN. A VENUE E, J o CQ63+00 61- 00. 62+00 0 \u� W CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EASEMENT -DR LANDMARK .. NTS \ I THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS ATTACHED. CONSISTING OF (D PAGE(S). IS A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL .ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN MY OFFICE. _ ATTEST �vANCY CS C-BERFLA€ D T Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of Califomia. in and for the County of San Bernardino. Date FED 2 4 2017 9 By ua Tannic '` �� �n EXHIBIT "B" GENERAL ESCROW PROVISIONS EXHIBIT `B" Es4 General Provisions -REVISED 3ULN Z014 Receipt of these provisions deems acceptance of the terms. Please read for general information about the escrow process. 1. SPECIAL DISCLOSURES: A. DEPOSIT OF FUNDS &DISBURSEMENTS Unless directed in writing to establish a separate, interest -bearing account together with all necessary taxpayer reporting information, all funds shall be deposited in general escrow accounts in a federally insured financial institution including those affiliated with Escrow Holder ("depositories"). All disbursements shall be made by Escrow Holder's check or by wire transfer unless otherwise instructed in writing. The Good Funds Law (California Insurance Code 12413.1) mandates that Escrow Holder may not disburse funds until the funds are, in fact, available in Escrow Holder's account. Wire transfers are immediately disbursable upon confirmation of receipt. Funds deposited by a cashier's or certified check are generally available on the next banking day following deposit. Funds deposited by a personal check and other types of instruments may not be available until confirmation from Escrow Holder's bank which can vary from 2 to 10 days. B. DISCLOSURE OF POSSIBLE BENEFITS TO ESCROW HOLDER As a result of Escrow Holder maintaining its general escrow accounts with the depositories, Escrow Holder may receive certain financial benefits such as an array of bank services, accommodations, loans or other business transactions from the depositories ("collateral benefits"). All collateral benefits shall accrue to the sole benefit of Escrow Holder and Escrow Holder shall have no obligation to account to the parties to this escrow for the value of any such collateral benefits. C. MISCELLANEOUS FEES Escrow Holder may incur certain additional costs on behalf of the parties for services performed, or fees charged, by third parties. The fees charged by Escrow Holder for services including, but not limited to, wire transfers, overnight delivery/courier services, etc. may include a mark up over the direct cost of such services to reflect the averaging of direct, administrative and overhead charges of Escrow Holder for such services which shall, in no event, exceed $10 for each markup. D. METHOD TO DELIVER PAYOFF TO LENDERS/LIENHOLDERS To minimize the amount of interest due on any existing loan or lien, Escrow Holder will deliver the payoff funds to the lender/lienholder as soon as Escrow Holder is able after confirmation of recordation/close of escrow and as demanded by the lender/lienholder using (a) personal delivery, (b) wire transfer, or (c) overnight delivery service, unless otherwise directed in writing by the affected party. Certain payments such as home equity line of credit payoffs ("HELOCS") may require additional time to process. 2. "CLOSE OF ESCROW"/PRO RATIONS & AD3USTMENTS The term "close of escrow" means the date on which documents are recorded. All prorations and/or adjustments shall be made to the close of escrow based on the number of actual days, unless otherwise instructed in writing. 3. CONTINGENCY PERIODS Escrow Holder shall not be responsible for monitoring contingency time periods between the parties. The parties shall execute such documents as may be requested by Escrow Holder to confirm the status of any such periods. 4. REPORTS a. Preliminary Report -Escrow Holder has neither responsibility nor liability for any title search that may be performed in connection with the issuance of a preliminary report. b. Other Reports -As an accommodation, Escrow Holder may agree to transmit orders for inspection, termite, disclosure and other reports if requested, in writing or orally, by the parties or their agents. Escrow Holder shall deliver copies of any such reports as directed.'Escrow Holder is not responsible for reviewing such reports or advising the parties of the content of same. 5. INFORMATION FROM AFFILIATED COMPANIES Escrow Holder may provide the parties' information to and from its affiliates in connection with the offering of products and services from these affiliates. THIS COMPANY CONDUCTS ESCROW BUSINESS UNDER CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY ISSUED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE. © 2014 First American Title Insurance Company and/or its affiliates. Page 1 of 4 All rights reserved. ♦ NYSE: FAF 6. RECORDATION OF DOCUlk S Escrow Holder is authorized to rei ocuments delivered through escrow w re necessary or proper for the issuance of the requested title insurance policy(ies). Buyer will provide a completed Preliminary Change of Ownership Report form ("PCOR'). If Buyer fails to provide the PCOR, Escrow Holder shall close escrow and charge Buyer any additional fee incurred for recording the documents without the PCOR. Escrow Holder is released from any liability in connection with same. 7. PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES No examination, UCC search, insurance as to personal property and/or the payment of personal property taxes is required unless otherwise instructed in writing. 8. REAL PROPERTY TAXES Real property taxes are prorated based on the most current available tax statement from the tax collector's office. Supplemental taxes may be assessed as a result of a change in ownership or completion of construction. Adjustments due either party based on the actual new tax bill issued after close of escrow or a supplemental tax bill will be made by the parties outside of escrow and Escrow Holder is released of any liability in connection with such adjustments. The first installment of California real property taxes is due November 1st (delinquent December loth) and the second installment is due February 1st (delinquent April loth). If a tax bill is not received from the County at least 30 days prior to the due date, buyer should contact the County Tax Collector's office and request one. Escrow Holder is not responsible for same. 9. CANCELLATION OF ESCROW a. Any party desiring to cancel this escrow shall deliver written notice of cancellation to Escrow Holder. Within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice, Escrow Holder shall send by regular mail to the address on the escrow instructions, one copy of said notice to the other party(ies). Unless written objection to cancellation is delivered to Escrow Holder by a party within 10 days after date of mailing, Escrow Holder is authorized, at its option, to comply with the notice and terminate the escrow. If a written objection is received by Escrow Holder, Escrow Holder is authorized, at its option, to hold all funds and documents in escrow (subject to the Funds Held in Escrow fee) and to take no other action until otherwise directed by either the parties' mutual written instructions or a final order of a court of competent jurisdiction. If no action is taken on this escrow within 6 months after the closing date specified in the escrow instructions, Escrow Holder's obligations shall, at its option, terminate. Upon termination of this escrow, the parties shall pay all fees, charges and reimbursements due to Escrow Holder and all documents and remaining funds held in escrow shall be returned to the parties depositing same. b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon receipt of notice of cancellation by a seller in a.transaction subject to the Home Equity Sales Contract law (CC §1695 etseq.), Escrow Holder shall have the right to unilaterally cancel the escrow and may return all documents and funds without consent by or notice to the buyer. 10. CONFLICTING INSTRUCTIONS & DISPUTES If Escrow Holder becomes aware of any conflicting demands or claims concerning this escrow, Escrow Holder shall have the right to discontinue all further acts on Escrow Holder's part until the conflict is resolved to Escrow Holder's satisfaction. Escrow Holder has the right at its option to file an action in interpleader requiring the parties to litigate their claims/rights. If such an action is filed, the parties jointly and severally agree (a) to pay Escrow Holder's cancellation charges, costs (including the Funds Held in Escrow fee) and reasonable attorneys' fees, and (b) that Escrow Holder is fully released and discharged from all further obligations under the escrow. If an action is brought involving this escrow and/or Escrow Holder, the party(ies) involved in the action agree to indemnify and hold the Escrow Holder harmless against liabilities, damages and costs incurred by Escrow Holder (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) except to the extent that such liabilities, damages and costs were caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Escrow Holder. 11. FUNDS HELD IN ESCROW When funds remain in escrow over 90 days after either close of escrow or estimated close of escrow, a monthly holding fee of $25 shall be imposed by Escrow Holder that is to be charged against the funds held. 12.USURY Escrow Holder is not to be concerned with usury as to any loans or encumbrances in this escrow and is hereby released of any responsibility and/or liability therefore. THIS COMPANY CONDUCTS ESCROW BUSINESS UNDER CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY ISSUED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE. © 2014 First American Title Insurance Company and/or its affiliates. Page 2 of 4 All rights reserved. ♦ NYSE: FAF 13.AMENDMENTSTOESCR01, -3TRUCTIONS Any amendment to the escrow in>, ons must be in writing, executed by all =s and accepted by Escrow Holder Escrow Holder may, at its sole option, elect to accept and act upon oral instructions from the parties. If requested by Escrow Holder the parties agree to confirm said instructions in writing as soon as practicable. The escrow instructions as amended shall constitute the entire escrow agreement between the Escrow Holder and the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter of the escrow. 14. FIRE, HAZARD OR LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICIES In all matters relating to fire, hazard or liability insurance, Escrow Holder may assume that each policy is in force and that the necessary premium has been paid. Escrow Holder is not responsible for obtaining fire, hazard or liability insurance, unless Escrow Holder has received specific written instructions to obtain such insurance prior to close of escrow from the parties or their respective lenders. 15. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS; ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES; AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE Escrow Holder is authorized to rely upon copies of documents, which include facsimile, electronic, NCR, or photocopies as if they were an originally executed document. Escrow Holder may agree to accept electronically signed documents from a platform or program approved by Escrow Holder. If requested by Escrow Holder, the originals of such documents and/or original signatures shall be delivered to Escrow Holder. Escrow Holder may withhold documents and/or funds due to the party until such originals are delivered. Documents to be recorded MUST contain original signatures. Escrow Holder may furnish copies of, any and all documents to the lender(s), real estate broker(s), attorney(s) and/or accountant(s) involved in this transaction upon their request. Delivery of documents by escrow to a real estate broker or agent who is so designated in the purchase agreement shall be deemed delivery to the principal. 16. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPART The escrow instructions and any amendments may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which taken together shall constitute the same instruction. 17. TAX REPORTING, WITHHOLDING & DISCLOSURE The parties are advised to seek independent advice concerning the tax consequences of this transaction, including but not limited to, their withholding, reporting and disclosure obligations. Escrow Holder does not provide tax or legal advice and the parties agree to hold Escrow Holder harmless from any loss or damage that the parties may incur as a result of their failure to comply with federal and/or state tax laws. WITHHOLDING OBLIGATIONSARE THE EXCLUSIVE OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES ESCROW HOLDER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE TO PERFORM THESE OBLIGATIONS UNLESS ESCROW HOLDER AGREES IN WRITING. ` A. TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER REPORTING Federal law requires Escrow Holder to report seller's social security number or tax identification number (both numbers are hereafter referred to as the "TIN"), forwarding address, and the gross sales price to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). To comply with the USA PATRIOT Act, certain taxpayer identification information (including, but not limited to, the TIN) may be required by Escrow Holder from certain persons or entities involved (directly or indirectly) in the transaction prior to closing. Escrow cannot be closed nor any documents recorded until the information is provided and certified as to its accuracy to Escrow Holder. The parties agree to promptly obtain and provide such information as requested by Escrow Holder. B. STATE WITHHOLDING & REPORTING In accordance with Section 18662 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC), a buyer may be required to withhold an amount equal to 3 1/3% (.0333) of the sale price, or an optional gain on sale withholding amount certified by the seller in the case of a disposition of California real property interest by either: 1. A seller who is an individual, trust, estate, or when the disbursement instructions authorize the proceeds to be sent to a financial intermediary of the sellers. 2. A corporate seller that has no permanent place of business in California immediately after the transfer of title to the California property. THIS COMPANY CONDUCTS ESCROW BUSINESS UNDER CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY ISSUED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE. © 2014 First American Title Insurance Company and/or its affiliates. Page 3 of 4 All rights reserved. ♦ NYSE: FAF The buyer may become subject t(, .ilty for failure to withhold an amount e, `,,D the greater of 10 percent of the amount required to be withheld o hundred dollars ($500). However, notwithstanding any other provision included in the California statutes referenced above, no buyer will be required to withhold any amount or be subject to penalty for failure to withhold if any of the following applies: 1. The sale price of the California real property conveyed does not exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). 2. The seller executes a written certificate under the penalty of perjury certifying that the seller is a corporation with a permanent place of business in California. 3. The seller, who is an individual, trust, estate, or a corporation without a permanent place of business in California, executes a written certificate under the penalty of perjury of any of the following: a. The California real property being conveyed is the seller's or decedent's principal residence (within the meaning of Section 121 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)). b. The last use of the property being conveyed was by the transferor as the transferor's principal residence (within the meaning of IRC Section 121). c. The California real property being conveyed is, or will be, exchanged for property of like kind (within the meaning of IRC Section,1031), but only to the extent of the amount of gain not required to be recognized for California income tax purposes under IRC Section 1031. d. The California real property has been compulsorily or involuntarily converted (within the meaning of IRC Section 1033) and the seller intends to acquire property similar or related in service or use so as to be eligible for nonrecognition of gain for California income tax purposes under IRC Section 1033. e. The California real property transaction will result in a loss or net gain not required to be recognized for California income tax purposes. The seller is subject to penalty for knowingly filing a fraudulent certificate for the purpose of avoiding the withholding requirement. Contact FTB: For additional information regarding California withholding or for the Alternative Withholding, contact the Franchise Tax Board at (toll free) 888-792-4900), by e-mail WSCS.GEN@ftb.ca.gov; or visit their website at www.ftb.ca.gov. C. FEDERAL WITHHOLDING & REPORTING Certain federal reporting and withholding requirements exist for real estate transactions where the seller (transferor) is a non-resident alien, a non -domestic corporation, partnership, or limited liability company; or a domestic corporation, partnership or limited liability company controlled by non-residents; or non -..resident corporations, partnerships or limited liability companies. D. TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION DISCLOSURE Federal and state laws require that certain forms include a party's TIN and that such forms or copies of the forms be provided to the other party and to the applicable governmental authorities. Parties to a real estate transaction involving seller -provided financing are required to furnish, disclose, and include the other parry's TIN in their tax returns. Escrow Holder is authorized to release a party's TINs and copies of statutory forms to the other party and to the applicable governmental authorities in the foregoing circumstances. The parties agree to hold Escrow Holder harmless against any fees, costs, or judgments incurred and/or awarded because of the release of their TIN as authorized herein. THIS COMPANY CONDUCTS ESCROW BUSINESS UNDER CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY ISSUED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE. © 2014 First American Title Insurance Company and/or its affiliates. Page 4 of 4 All rights reserved. ♦ NYSE: FAF EXHIBIT S Mayor I is Michael I Mayor Pro Tem Lynne B. Kennedy Council Memhe 3mj. Alexander, Sam Spagnolo, Diane Williams City Manager John R. Gillison 10500 Civic Center Drive I P.O. Box 807 1 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 1 909.477.2700 1 www.CltyofRC.us May 14, 2018 Mr. Paul B. Hofer 11248 So. Turner Avenue Ontario, California 91761-7888 Re: Reply to Hofer Ranch Letter to City of Rancho Cucamonga, dated April 3, 2018 Dear Mr. Hofer: The City is in receipt of your letter of April 3, 2018 that proposes a sale of City -owned property to your ownership group ("Hofer Group"). This property is referred to as the "Landmark Order" property and is located directly north of the Hofer Group's property. I have now had an opportunity to review and consider the terms of your offer, and after consultation with the City Attorney have prepared the following responses. In 2005, the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") determined by a Resolution of Necessity that acquiring a portion of property owned by DR Landmark (San Bernardino Co. Assessor Parcel No. 0209-131-01) was necessary for constructing the Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project ("Project"). The fee portion of the acquisition (20,719 s.f.) was sought for maintenance of a street access point for San Bernardino Co. Assessor Parcel No. 0209-131-02. The City initiated an eminent domain lawsuit, San Bernardino Co. Case No. RCV 091735, and the parties involved negotiated a settlement after which the City, on August 20, 2007, filed the Final Order of Condemnation (amended nunc pro tunc in 2017, see attached) transferring the condemned property to the City. In and around the same time period, the City and the Hofer Group were involved in an eminent domain lawsuit, San Bernardino Co. Case No. RCV 094962, that involved property owned by the Hofer Group ("Subject Property"). The parties and attorneys in your matter participated in protracted negotiations that resulted in a jointly prepared Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in Condemnation ("Stipulation"). On November 30, 2007, the City and the Hofer group filed jointly prepared, approved and executed a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in Condemnation ("Stipulation") that included the following terms: 4. In addition to the foregoing monetary compensation, City agrees to relocate the bus bay taper currently planned to be constructed adjacent to the Subject Property's frontage along Haven Avenue, and City agrees that no bus bay taper will be constructed at any location adjacent to the Subject Property's frontage along Haven Avenue. The purpose of relocating the bus bay taper is to allow the Subject Property to have direct access to and from Haven Avenue. Notwithstanding any other rule or policy of the City, Defendants and the City agree that the Subject Property will have direct access to and from Haven Avenue at a location directly across Haven Avenue from the approved Rock - Jersey access point onto Haven Avenue from Assessor Parcel No. 0209-143-02. Mr. Paul B. Hofer May 14, 2018 Page 2 5. City does not need to construct Driveway A from the intersection of Jersey Boulevard and Haven Avenue as part of the Haven Avenue Grade Separation Project, which was intended to provide the Subject Property with access from Jersey Boulevard and Haven Avenue. These terms in the Stipulation provided four clear directives: (1) the City agreed that no bus bay taper will be constructed at any location adjacent to the Subject Property's frontage along Haven Avenue, (2) the Subject Property in the after -condition will have direct access to and from Haven Avenue at a location selected by the Hofer Group directly across Haven Avenue from the approved Rock -Jersey access point onto Haven Avenue from Assessor Parcel No. 0209-.143-02, (3) the City isn't required to construct Driveway A, and (4) the City does not need to provide the Subject Property with access from Jersey Boulevard and Haven Avenue. The terms of this "Hofer" Stipulation rendered the previous DL Landmark property acquisition unnecessary. As a result of the aforementioned, the City is proceeding with an offer to DL Landmark for repurchasing the DL Landmark property previously condemned by the City, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.245. Therefore, I am respectfully rejecting your recent April 3, 2018 offer to purchase the City's "Landmark Order" property. Although the City does not agree with or adopt your recollections of the aforementioned events as cited in your April 3,2018 letter, we certainly appreciate your concerns and will continue to examine and keep an open mind regarding the available options for disposing of the City's property moving forward. ICMA-CM 'City Manager L� City of Rancho Cucamonga cc: Jason Welday, City of Rancho Cucamonga 11231-0001\2181647v I.dm JOHN R. GILLISON.CRY MANAGER IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII II IIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII III CRY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR RANCHO CUCAMON, CA 91730-3S01 RETURN RECEIPT (ELECTRONIC) 9214 8901 0661 5400 0123 4502 69 MR. PAUL B. HOFER 11248S TURNER AVE ONTARIO, CA 91761.7660 IMPORTANT .............................. .......... ..................... ................... ...................... ...................... .......... ...................................................................................�. CUTS P LD ore....................._.._................................. ........................ _ CVT� iG� p HERE ................................................................................................................................................. �.............................:.................................,.......................I........I....I....1,.... CU1 � ti:G HERE ............................................... IMpbCet6fied8x5Label v1.2.8.0 EXHIBIT T i lr�f I''!if August 21, 2018 John R. Gillison City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 Edward G. Burg Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Direct Dial: (310) 312-4189 E-mail: eburg@manatt.com Re: City -Owned Property (.476 Acres) at Haven Ave and Jersey Boulevard ("the Property") Dear Mr. Gillison: Hofer Properties, LLC has asked me to respond to your May 14, 2018 letter to Paul Hofer. 41649-031 We disagree with the City's recitation and interpretation of the facts, as well as its stated rationale for rejecting Hofer Properties' offer to purchase the Property described above for $518,364. Hofer Properties hereby puts the City on notice that it objects to the City 'proceeding with an offer to DL [sic] Landmark for repurchasing the DL [sic] Landmark property previously condemned by the City, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.245," as stated in your letter. Hofer Properties requests that it be provided written notice regarding the City's consideration or extension of any such "offer to repurchase," as well as any response to the same. All of Hofer Properties' rights against the City, whether in law or equity, regarding the Property and/or the "offer to repurchase" it are expressly hereby reserved. Sincerely, A Z6 Edward G. Burg 320815573.1 11355 West Olympic Boulevard, Los. Angeles, California 90064-1614 Telephone: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312,4224 Albany I Chicago I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington, D.C. EXHIBIT U