Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021/05/05 - Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L. Dor ennis Michael REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem May 5, 2021 Lynne B. Kennedy 10500 Civic Center Drive MemberCouncils of the City Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 rvo,� Ryan A. Hutchison Kristine D. Scott Sam Spagnolo FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD—CITY COUNCIL HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY-SUCCESSOR AGENCY— PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY CLOSED SESSION TRI-COMMUNITIES ROOM 4:30 P.M. REGULAR MEETINGS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive. It Is the Intent to conclude the meeting by 10:00 p.m. unless extended by the concurrence of the City Council. Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can be found at www.cityofrc.us or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 909-774-2023. Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV-3). In response to the Governor's Executive Orders, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health requirements, and to ensure the health and safety of our residents by limiting contact that could spread the COVID-19 virus, there will be no members of the public in attendance at the City Council/Fire District Meetings. Members of the City Council/Fire District and staff may participate in this meeting via a teleconference. In place of in-,person attendance, members of the public are encouraged to watch from the safety of their homes in one of the following ways: Live Streaming on the City's website at https://www.cityofrc.us/your-government/city-council-agendas or Local Cable: RCTV3 Programming Members of the public wishing to speak during public communication may call at the start of the meeting by dialing (909)774-2751, if speaking on a Public Hearing item, please dial in when the Public Hearing is being heard at (909)774-2751 to be added to the queue for public comment. Calls will be answered in the order received. The City of Rancho Cucamonga thanks you in advance for taking all precautions to prevent spreading the COVID-19 virus. If you are an individual with a disability and need a reasonable modification or accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), please contact the City Clerk's Office at (909) 774-2023, 24 hours prior to the meeting so that the City can make reasonable arrangements. CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT Page 1 "Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive." CLOSED SESSION - 4:30 P.M. TRI-COMMUNITIES ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott, and Spagnolo A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION D1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (RCCEA), RANCHO CUCAMONGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION AND FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES — (CITY) D2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: HIMNEL USA, INC. d/b/a ST. MARY'S MONTESSORI SCHOOL AND GLOBAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC VS. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, SBSC CASE NO.: CIVDS 2014554. — (CITY) D3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. DR LANDMARK, INC.; POWER MEDIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 5 INCLUSIVE, SBSC CASE NO.: CIVDS 1904713 — (CITY) D4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: PEPE'S INC. V. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5:20CV02506JGBSP— (CITY) D5. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12467 BASELINE ROAD IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBERS 1090331030000, 1090331040000, 1089581040000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND JOSEPH FILIPPI, JOSEPH FILIPPI WINERY AND VINEYARDS; CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT Page 2 "Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive." REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. - (CITY) D6. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 REGARDING THE FOLLOWING REAL PROPERTY: (1) REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THM ENTERPRISES, LLC AND LOCATED AT 12449 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229 031 41 . NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAY NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SET FORTH ABOVE. - (CITY) D7. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 REGARDING THE FOLLOWING REAL PROPERTY-(1) REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY WALMART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST AND LOCATED AT 12549 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 022903238 & 44. NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAY NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SET FORTH ABOVE. - (CITY) D8. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT: 7089 ETIWANDA AVE. (APN 0227- 12156); HAVEN AVE. (APN:020833147); HAVEN AVE. (APN:020833140); 8340 UTICA AVE. (APN:020835306); 9612 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD (APN:0208 1 31 83); 9547 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD (APN:020815107); 9561 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD (APN: 0208 151- 17); NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER AND LORI SASSOON, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; AND VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF LOS ANGELES (VOALA), REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. -(CITY/FIRE) D9. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION EDUCATION PROJECT V. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; CASE NO. CIVRS 1603632.- (CITY) E. RECESS — Closed Session to Recess to the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT Page 3 "Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive." REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott, and Spagnolo A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA B. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONS C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority. This is the time and place for the general public to address the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Mayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak.All communications are to be addressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. CONSENT CALENDARS: The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Council Member for discussion. Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority. Council is acting in all capacities with respect to its actions on the Consent Calendars. D. CONSENT CALENDAR - D1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meetings of April 7, 2021. D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT Page 4 "Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive." $1,708,408.16 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers(Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of$2,208,670.47 Dated April 12, 2021 Through April 25, 2021 and City and Fire District Electronic Debit Registers for the Month of March, 2021 in the Total Amount of$1,125,870.89. (CITY/FIRE) D3. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $2,407.80 Dated April 12, 2021 Through April 25, 2021. (CITY/FIRE) D4. Consideration to Approve Amended Fiscal Year 2020/21 Appropriations. (CITY/FIRE) D5. Consideration to Accept the Public Safety Facility Construction Project as Complete, Approve a Final Contract Amount of $13,575,862.40, File a Notice of Completion, and Release Bonds Accordingly. (FIRE/CITY) D6. Consideration of a Resolution Approving the Annual Local Responsibility Area Wildland Protection Agreement with the California Department of Forestry and Fire in the Amount of $198,090 for FY 2021-22. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2021-006) (FIRE) D7. Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding Between the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Fire Support Services Association Employee Group. (RESOLUTION NO. FD2021-007) (FIRE) D8. Consideration of an Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 20042, Located on the East Side of Carnelian Street and North of Hillside Road, Related to Case No. SUBTT20042, Submitted by New Weaver Lane, LLC. (CITY) D9. Consideration of Amendment No. 9 to Contract Number CO 15-103 with Siemens Mobility, Inc. for Citywide Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting Maintenance Services in the Amount of $1,161,150. (CITY) D10.Consideration of Final Payment for General City Master Plan Drainage Improvements Under Drainage Reimbursement Agreement No. DRA-40 for Tract 17382 and Authorization of an Additional Appropriation of$256,141. (CITY). D11.Consideration to Continue the Existing Local Emergency Due to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. (CITY) D12.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Examination of Sales and Use Tax Records. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-035) (CITY) D13.Report in Conformance with California Government Code Section 65858(D) on Measures Taken to Alleviate the Need for Interim Ordinance No. 980, Establishing a Moratorium on the Approval of Applications for Building Permits or Other Entitlements for New Service Station Uses or the Expansion of Existing Service Station Uses in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. (CITY) CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT Page 5 "Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive." E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) - SECOND READING/ADOPTION F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) F1. Consideration of Adoption of Resolutions of Necessity for the Acquisition by Eminent Domain of Certain Real Property Interests for Public Purposes in Connection with the Yellowwood Place Connection to Foothill Marketplace Project. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-033) (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-034) (CITY) G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1. Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244 and Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 — Paul Bardos, Applicant. A Request for Site Plan and Architectural Review of a Proposed 4,118 Square Foot Two-Story, Single-Family Residence with an Attached 771 Square Foot Garage and a Request to Construct Retaining Walls up to 4-Feet and 6-Inches High on a 15,430 Square Foot Lot within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District at 8035 Camino Predera - APN: 0207-631-03. A Minor Exception was also Requested to Exceed the Maximum Height Limit for Retaining Walls in the Zone. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-037 AND RESOLUTION NO. 2021-038) (CITY) G2. Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision (DRC2021-00104) to Approve Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016 — Saurabh Patel — An Appeal of a Planning Commission Approval of a Request to Construct a 3,300 Square Foot Single-Family Residence with Two Separate Attached 2-Car Garages Totaling 1 ,063 Square Feet on a Vacant Property of 15,601 Square Feet (0.36-Acre) within the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District Located at 8005 Camino Predera — APN: 0207-631-06. The Project Qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-036) (CITY) G3. Public Hearing for Consideration of the Draft 2021-2022 Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant CDBG Program. (CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS 11. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) 12. INTERAGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT Page 6 "Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive." J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS: K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least Seventy-Two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California and on the City's website. LINDA A. TROYAN, MMC CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909)477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT Page 7 "Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive." April 7, 2021 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS MINUTES The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a closed session on Wednesday, April 7, 2021, in the Tri-Communities Conference Room at the Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tern Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; James L. Markman, City Attorney; Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services; Elisa Cox, Deputy City Manager/Cultural & Civic Services and Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development. A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) No public communications were made. C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS None. D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION D1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (RCCEA), RANCHO CUCAMONGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION AND FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES — CITY D2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: HIMNEL USA, INC. d/b/a ST. MARY'S MONTESSORI SCHOOL AND GLOBAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC VS. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, SBSC CASE NO.: CIVDS 2014554. —CITY D3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. DR LANDMARK, INC.; POWER MEDIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 5 INCLUSIVE, SBSC CASE NO.: CIVDS 1904713 — CITY D4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: PEPE'S INC. V. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5:20CV02506JGBSP— CITY April 7, 2021 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 1 of 9 Page 8 D5. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12467 BASELINE ROAD IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBERS 1090331030000, 1090331040000, 1089581040000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND JOSEPH FILIPPI, JOSEPH FILIPPI WINERY AND VINEYARDS; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. - CITY D6. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 REGARDING THE FOLLOWING REAL PROPERTY: (1) REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THM ENTERPRISES, LLC AND LOCATED AT 12449 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229 031 41. NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAY NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SET FORTH ABOVE. -CITY D7. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 REGARDING THE FOLLOWING REAL PROPERTY:(1) REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY WALMART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST AND LOCATED AT 12549 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 022903238 & 44. NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAY NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SET FORTH ABOVE. -CITY D8. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 8583 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 022914113. NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND KELLY DEWITT, OVERLAND, PACIFIC AND CUTLER, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAY NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SET FORTH ABOVE. -CITY D9. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT: 7089 ETIWANDA AVE. (APN 0227- 121-56); HAVEN AVE. (APN:0208-331-47); HAVEN AVE. (APN:0208-331-40); 8340 UTICA AVE. (APN:0208-353-06); 9612 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD (APN:0208-131-83); 9547 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD (APN:0208-151-07); 9561 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD (APN: 0208-151-17); NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER AND LORI SASSOON, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; AND VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF LOS ANGELES (VOALA), REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. -(CITY/FIRE) E. RECESS The closed session recessed at 6:30 p.m. April 7, 2021 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 2 of 9 Page 9 REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER- COUNCIL CHAMBERS The regular meetings of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council were held on April 7, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tern Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; James L. Markman, City Attorney and Linda A. Troyan, MMC, Director of City Clerk Services. Council Member Spagnolo led the Pledge of Allegiance. Responding to the spread of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) and social distancing requirements, City Manager Gillison announced that due to recent changes in the Governor's Executive Orders, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health requirements, and to ensure the health and safety of Rancho Cucamonga residents by limiting contact that could spread the COVID-19 virus, there will be no members of the public in attendance at the City Council/Fire District Meetings and in place of in-person attendance, members of the public are encouraged to watch from the safety of their homes live from the City's website or on RCTV-3. He stated members of the public wishing to speak during public communication or on a public hearing item will need to dial in to(909)774-2751 to be added to the queue for comment. Additional information on the Coronavirus pandemic and City resources and updates can be found at www.cityofrc.us/coronavirus. A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA None. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of American Rescue Plan and Community Project Funding by United States Representative Pete Aguilar, California 31st Congressional District. Mayor Michael announced that due to COVID-19 and social distancing requirements, the presentation would be presented via teleconference by United States Representative Pete Aguilar, California 31st Congressional District. Representative Aguilar informed the community about the American Rescue Plan and shared details on Community Project Funding. B2. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring the Month of April 2021 as "Donate Life Month". Mayor Michael announced that due to COVID-19 and social distancing requirements, the recognition would be presented virtually to Cheryl Machan, One Legacy Ambassador, who was watching the presentation from the safety of her home via RCTV-3. Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council presented the Proclamation to Cheryl Machan, One Legacy Ambassador, declaring the month of April 2021 as "Donate Life Month". April 7, 2021 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 3 of 9 Page 10 C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Michael announced,due to COVID-19 and social distancing requirements,the Public Communications portion of the meeting will be conducted telephonically. Via phone call, Janet Walton offered a prayer. Via phone call, Jim Wood spoke on the history of the Old Spanish Trail and shared his support for the placement of signs to mark the Location of the Old Spanish Trail, a National Historic Trail. Via phone call, Michael Kelly, Auto Metrics, spoke on a claim submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Code Enforcement Zone Laws and business advertising restrictions. Via phone call, Cheryl Machan thanked the City for proclaiming the month of April as as "Donate Life Month". She encouraged the community to register to be a donor at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or online at www.donatelifecalifornia.org. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meetings of March 17, 2021. D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of$3,225,761.49 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $7,183,986.49 Dated March 08, 2021 Through March 28, 2021. (CITY/FIRE) D3. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $670,538.26 Dated March 08, 2021 Through March 28, 2021. (CITY/FIRE) D4. Consideration of Resolutions Adopting Revised Records Retention Schedules, Authorizing Destruction And Rescinding Previous Records Retention Schedules. (RESOLUTION NO. FD2021-005) (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-020) (FIRE/CITY) D5. Consideration to Award a Contract to Robert Clapper Construction Services, Inc. in the Amount of$83,204, plus a 10% Contingency in the Amount of$8,320, for the RCFPD Training Center Facility Gas Leak Project. (FIRE) D6. Consideration of the Purchase of Thirty-Eight (38) Streetlight Poles and Five (5)Aluminum Pole Arms from Ameron Pole Products, LLC in the Amount of$72,350. (CITY) D7. Consideration to Approve the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 10-Year Energy Efficiency Targets. (CITY) D8. Consideration to Accept as Complete,the 4th Street Pavement Resurfacing Project Between Haven Avenue and Ontario Mills Drive. (CITY) D9. Consideration of a License Agreement for Improvements Adjacent to the Railroad Spur Track on 8th Street West of Haven Avenue with BNSF Railway Company Related to Development of 8978 Haven Avenue(Case No. DRC2018-00546). (CITY) April 7, 2021 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 4 of 9 Page 11 D10. Consideration to Approve Amendment No. 01 to a Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Jones Family Trust of 2010, Robert Bruce Stanford, Jr., William R. Rushing, and Bernell Hydraulics, Inc. for Purchase of the Fee Simple Interest, Business Goodwill and Relocation Assistance Benefits in the Real Property Located at 8810 Etiwanda Avenue and further identified as APN 0229-131-07 in Connection with the Construction of the Etiwanda Grade Separation Project. (CITY) D11. Consideration of a Determination that the Etiwanda East Side Widening Project is Categorically Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Authorize the Filing of a Notice of Exemption. (CITY) D12. Consideration of Receipt of Reimbursement from the American Rescue Plan for Costs Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic. (CITY) D13. Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Side Letter Agreement Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Executive Management Employee Group. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-019) (CITY) D14. Consideration to Adopt Resolution Supporting the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Submittal to Congress Member Pete Aguilar for Consideration under the Community Project Funding Initiative. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-021) (CITY) MOTION: Moved by Council Member Hutchison, seconded by Council Member Spagnolo, to approve Consent Calendar Items D1 through D14 with Council Member Scott abstaining on item D3, due to her employment with Southern California Gas Company. Motion carried, 5-0. E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) - SECOND READING/ADOPTION No items. F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) F1. Consideration of a Resolution of Necessity for the Acquisition by Eminent Domain of Certain Real Property Interests Located at 8583 Etiwanda Avenue (APN 0229-141-13) for Public Purposes in Connection with the Etiwanda East Side Widening Project. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-018) (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Curt Billings, Associate Engineer and Regina Danner, Attorney at Richards Watson and Gershon Law, who presented the staff report for Item F1. Associate Engineer Billings and Attorney Danner detailed the Etiwanda Avenue East Side Project, existing project conditions, proposed improvements, right-of-way needs and public interest of the Etiwanda East Side Widening Project. Mayor Michael opened the Administrative Hearing. No public communications were made. Mayor Michael closed the Administrative Hearing. Mayor Michael asked if negotiations could continue after approval of the Resolution of Necessity. Associate Engineer Billings answered, yes. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Hutchison, seconded by Council Member Scott, adopt Resolution No. 2021-018 and staff's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. April 7, 2021 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 5 of 9 Page 12 G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1. Consideration of Resolution No. 2021-016 Adopting the Central Park Master Plan and Resolution No. 2021-017 Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Master Plan. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-016 & RESOLUTION NO. 2021-017)(CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Jeff Benson, Acting Parks Superintendent and David Eoff, Senior Planner, who presented a PowerPoint for Item G1. Acting Parks Superintendent Benson shared the history and process of the certification of the Central Park Environmental Impact Report and Master Plan Adoption. The City's Environmental Consultant, Paula Fell, Senior Environmental Planner from Tetra Tech Inc.,shared the project segment plan and detailed the Environmental Impact Report process and Study Level list for project elements. Mr. Benson recommended approval of Resolution Nos. 2021-016 and 2021-017, adopting the Central Park Master Plan and Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Master Plan. Correspondence was received via email by the California Native Plant Society regarding the Final Central Park Master Plan Update revision Final Program (EIR)and was provided to the City Council on April 7, 20201. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing. No public communications were made. Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing. Discussion ensued regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) applying to the Central Park Master Plan project phases. City Attorney Markman noted that the City received a late filing letter from California Native Plant Society regarding Scale Broom Scrub species. Mr. Markman stated that the City's environmental consultants from ELMT Consulting and Tetra Tech Inc. went through the CEQA process and have taken the position that those plants don't present a significant environmental impact by the build out of the park and are not a native occurrence. City Attorney Markman noted that in regard to the disagreement amongst environmental experts and from a legal point of view the conclusion reached by the experts is substantial and significant to rely on. The City's Environmental Consultant,Tom McGill, Project Biologist from ELMT Consulting responded to the letter submitted by the California Native Plant Society and reported that the Scale Broom Scrub plant is not an endangered species,that there is no scour effect in the project area, that a grass habitat is not present, and there is no long term viability for conservation in that area. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Spagnolo, seconded by Council Member Scott, to adopt Resolution No. 2021-016, approving the Central Park Master Plan and Resolution No. 2021-017 certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Master Plan. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. April 7, 2021 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 6 of 9 Page 13 H. CITY MANAGERS STAFF REPORT(S) H1. Sports Fields and Parks Inclement Weather Policy Report. (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Jeff Benson, Acting Parks Superintendent, and Jenny Hanlon, Community Services Supervisor who presented a PowerPoint for Item H1. Community Services Supervisor Hanlon informed that the current Sports Fields and Park Inclement Weather Policy was first established in 1989 and that the purpose of updating the policy is to ensure safe playing conditions for sport field users during and/or after inclement weather conditions and to outline a formal process for closing City parks and fields to prevent damage. Acting Parks Superintendent Benson informed on current practices to evaluate field conditions, various methods used to identify characteristics of over saturation in sport fields and the effects of playing on an over saturated sports field. Staff reviewed the next steps: Community Services Department staff and Public Works staff will work together to address updates needed to the policy, updates will be made to the policy to better serve Rancho Cucamonga's Sports Advisory Committee members and park users and revisions to the policy will be recommended to City Council at the May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting. Discussion ensued regarding the use of various methods/tools used to evaluate over saturation in sports fields, placement of signs, communication/outreach efforts, staffing, collaboration with the Sports Advisory Committee, weather variations within the City, Air Quality Management, development of an equitable and consistent policy, avoiding a "One Size Fits All" policy and maintaining transparency with all sport field users. City Manager Gillison ensured that staff would work together with the Sports Advisory Committee to develop a consistent and cohesive Sports Fields and Parks Inclement Weather Policy. City Council received and filed the report. H2. Consideration to Approve the Installation of Signs to Mark the Location of the Old Spanish Trail,a National Historic Trail. (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Ian Tai,Assistant Engineer, who presented a PowerPoint for Item H2.Assistant Engineer Tai spoke on the historic value of the Old Spanish Trail and proposed that three (3) signs be installed to help mark and preserve the Old Spanish Trail, a National Historic Trail. He proposed the following three (3) locations for sign installation: East Avenue, South of Banyan; Base Line and Spruce(near Central Park)and near Foothill and the Pacific Electric Trail, near Red Hill. In response to Council questions,Assistant Engineer Tai stated that existing City poles would be utilized and that the signs would be installed and reinforced by the Public Works Department at a height of over 7ft and the signs will contain anti-graffiti coating to evade vandalism. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Scott, seconded by Council Member Spagnolo, to approve the installation of signs to mark the location of the Old Spanish Trail, a National Historic Trail. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. April 7, 2021 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 7 of 9 Page 14 I. COUNCIL BUSINESS 11. Consideration to Adopt the 2021 City Council Goals. (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced the item reporting City Council goals were discussed at the annual goal setting session. Deputy City Manager Elisa Cox who summarized City Council 2020 completed goals, current goals and four new goals. The four new goals are: 1. By the end of October 2021 and the California legislative session, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will actively participate in State-level discussions and develop specific internal proposals to support future legislative action for an equitable distribution of e-commerce revenue to all cities in California. 2. By the fourth quarter of 2021, the Police Department will move in and be fully operational at the West Side Public Safety Facility, and the Fire District will submit to the Council a contract for consideration for the design-build of Station 8 as next steps in expanding the City's public safety footprint and improving response times. 3. By the second quarter of 2022, staff will provide a phased multi-year plan for the City Council's consideration that analyzes and provides recommendations for the transformation of Haven Avenue, focusing on key vacant properties and right of way improvements. This plan will also support development opportunities related to the station for the Ontario Airport Loop and high-speed rail, along with the ongoing development of The Resort project, all of which are located between Haven and Milliken Avenue. 4. By the third quarter of 2022, City staff will provide a report for the City Council's consideration that will include analysis on costs and timeframes to develop an Economic Development Strategic Reserve to be used for acquisition and development of key properties in the city. Mayor Michael noted that he is enthused with the City's Economic Development Strategy of supporting local businesses and attracting new companies to locate in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Spagnolo, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, to Adopt the 2021 City Council Goals. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 12. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS None. 13. INTER-AGENCY UPDATES Mayor Michael reported on his attendance at a San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Board of Directors(SBCTA)meeting in which the SBCTA Board announced that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is allocating $86.75 million in funding to the West Valley Connector project that will link Ontario International Airport,two Metrolink lines and multiple activity centers from Pomona to Rancho Cucamonga. City Manager Gillison noted that the West Valley Connector project would tie together key destinations and bring new opportunities to the region. April 7, 2021 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 8 of 9 Page 15 J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS None. K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Michael adjourned the City Council Meeting at 8:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda A. Troyan, MMC City Clerk Services Director Approved: April 7, 2021 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 9 of 9 Page 16 ti NONRR � a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA m �l DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Boards of Directors FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Tamara L. Oatman, Finance Director Veronica Lopez, Accounts Payable Supervisor SUBJECT: Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $1,708,408.16 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers(Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $2,208,670.47 Dated April 12, 2021 Through April 25, 2021 and City and Fire District Electronic Debit Registers for the Month of March, 2021 in the Total Amount of $1,125,870.89. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment of demands as presented. Bi-weekly payroll is $971,309.03 and $737,099.13 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. Weekly check register amounts are $1,995,448.77 and $213,221.70 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. Electronic Debit Register amounts are $532,115.21 and $593,755.68 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALYSIS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 —Weekly Check Register Attachment 2 — Electronic Debit Register Page 17 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 4/12/2021 through 4/25/2021 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Cu Fire Amount AP 00012307 04/14/2021 ABSOLUTE SECURITY INTERNATIONAL INC 15,595.59 0.00 15,595.59 AP 00012308 04/14/2021 CALPINE ENERGY SERVICES LP 114,750.00 0.00 114,750.00 AP 00012309 04/14/2021 FEHR&PEERS 5,480.00 0.00 5,480.00 AP 00012310 04/14/2021 GEOGRAPHICS 1,228.48 0.00 1,228.48 AP 00012311 04/14/2021 RC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC 0.00 57,128.13 57,128.13 AP 00012312 04/14/2021 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 530.00 0.00 530.00 AP 00012313 04/14/2021 SARGENT TOWN PLANNING INC 35,875.00 0.00 35,875.00 AP 00012314 04/14/2021 SHELL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA 226,418.70 0.00 226,418.70 AP 00012315 04/14/2021 U S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10,023.33 0.00 10,023.33 AP 00012316 04/15/2021 ABC LOCKSMITHS INC 1,900.07 0.00 1,900.07 AP 00012317 04/15/2021 BSN SPORTS LLC 2,178.83 0.00 2,178.83 AP 00012318 04/15/2021 CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC 559.47 0.00 559.47 AP 00012319 04/15/2021 CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC 514.59 0.00 514.59 AP 00012320 04/15/2021 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 1,284.82 0.00 1,284.82 AP 00012321 04/15/2021 EMCOR SERVICES 21,481.41 425.00 21,906.41 *** AP 00012322 04/15/2021 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 562.46 0.00 562.46 AP 00012323 04/15/2021 KME FIRE APPARATUS 0.00 181.61 181.61 AP 00012324 04/15/2021 MCFADDEN DALE HARDWARE 394.38 0.00 394.38 AP 00012325 04/15/2021 MINUTEMAN PRESS 374.22 0.00 374.22 AP 00012326 04/15/2021 OFFICE DEPOT 5,081.45 461.46 5,542.91 *** AP 00012327 04/15/2021 PSA PRINT GROUP 342.65 0.00 342.65 AP 00012328 04/15/2021 SIEMENS MOBILITY INC 7,300.00 0.00 7,300.00 AP 00012329 04/15/2021 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 1,762.56 0.00 1,762.56 AP 00012330 04/15/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NEWS GROUP 384.00 0.00 384.00 AP 00012331 04/15/2021 SUNRISE FORD 819.89 0.00 819.89 AP 00012332 04/21/2021 2U GETSMARTER(US)LLC 3,800.00 0.00 3,800.00 AP 00012333 04/21/2021 CALIF GOVERNMENT VEBA/RANCHO CUCAMONGA 24,194.62 0.00 24,194.62 AP 00012334 04/21/2021 ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC INC 145,264.50 0.00 145,264.50 AP 00012335 04/21/2021 PROMOTIONS TEES&MORE 892.23 0.00 892.23 AP 00012336 04/21/2021 RC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC 32,997.35 0.00 32,997.35 AP 00012337 04/21/2021 RCCEA 1,554.75 0.00 1,554.75 AP 00012338 04/21/2021 RCPFA 12,827.29 0.00 12,827.29 AP 00012339 04/21/2021 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 53,926.27 6,442.40 60,368.67 *** AP 00012340 04/22/2021 AIRGAS USA LLC 0.00 455.20 455.20 AP 00012341 04/22/2021 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 1,034.05 0.00 1,034.05 AP 00012342 04/22/2021 EMCOR SERVICES 5,352.86 376.00 5,728.86 *** AP 00012343 04/22/2021 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 1,687.38 0.00 1,687.38 AP 00012344 04/22/2021 HOSE MAN INC 138.38 0.00 138.38 AP 00012345 04/22/2021 LN CURTIS AND SONS 0.00 8,381.83 8,381.83 AP 00012346 04/22/2021 OFFICE DEPOT 40.91 0.00 40.91 AP 00012347 04/22/2021 PSA PRINT GROUP 0.00 38.79 38.79 AP 00012348 04/22/2021 SIEMENS MOBILITY INC 1,241.00 0.00 1,241.00 AP 00416944 04/12/2021 CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 3,495.25 0.00 3,495.25 AP 00416945 04/12/2021 SRGMF II DAY CREEK RANCHO LLC 1,915.00 0.00 1,915.00 AP 00416946 04/14/2021 10-8 RETROFIT INC 10,440.13 0.00 10,440.13 AP 00416947 04/14/2021 ADES,KIMBERLY 64.40 0.00 64.40 AP 00416948 04/14/2021 ADOBE ANIMAL HOSPITAL 50.00 0.00 50.00 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 1 Current Date: 04/26/2021 Report:CK_AGENDA REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page flne: 09:03:24 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 4/12/2021 through 4/25/2021 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00416949 04/14/2021 ALTUM GROUP,THE 18,486.75 0.00 18,486.75 AP 00416950 04/14/2021 AQUABIO ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES INC 1,450.00 0.00 1,450.00 AP 00416951 04/14/2021 ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL INC 7,800.00 0.00 7,800.00 AP 00416952 04/14/2021 AUERBACH POLLOCK FRIEDLANDER 3,250.00 0.00 3,250.00 AP 00416953 04/14/2021 AUTO&RV SPECIALISTS INC 296.00 0.00 296.00 AP 00416954 04/14/2021 BEE REMOVERS 0.00 145.00 145.00 AP 00416955 04/14/2021 BOOT BARN INC 170.63 0.00 170.63 AP 00416956 04/14/2021 BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC 21,741.27 0.00 21,741.27 AP 00416957 04/14/2021 C V W D 692.90 0.00 692.90 AP 00416958 04/14/2021 C V W D 2,850.74 643.15 3,493.89 *** AP 00416959 04/14/2021 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION 2,299.50 0.00 2,299.50 AP 00416960 04/14/2021 CALIFORNIA CONSULTING INC 5,250.00 0.00 5,250.00 AP 00416961 04/14/2021 CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TAX&FEE ADMINISTRATION 4,770.00 0.00 4,770.00 AP 00416962 04/14/2021 CALIFORNIA LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 1,250.00 0.00 1,250.00 AP 00416963 04/14/2021 CAMBRIDGE SEVEN ASSOCIATES INC 18,747.75 0.00 18,747.75 AP 00416964 04/14/2021 CAMERON-DANIEL PC 4,453.00 0.00 4,453.00 AP 00416965 04/14/2021 CHAMPION FIRE SYSTEMS INC 0.00 498.00 498.00 AP 00416966 04/14/2021 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 4,656.22 6,437.38 11,093.60 *** AP 00416967 04/14/2021 CHINO MOWER&ENGINE SERVICE 17.17 0.00 17.17 AP 00416968 04/14/2021 CIRCLEPOINT 7,092.50 0.00 7,092.50 AP 00416969 04/14/2021 CITY CLERKS ASSOCIATION OF CALIF 70.00 0.00 70.00 AP 00416970 04/14/2021 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 15,300.00 0.00 15,300.00 AP 00416971 04/14/2021 CORODATA MEDIA STORAGE INC 62.55 0.00 62.55 AP 00416972 04/14/2021 COVETRUS NORTH AMERICA 1,068.96 0.00 1,068.96 AP 00416973 04/14/2021 CREATIVE BRAIN LEARNING LLC 41.30 0.00 41.30 AP 00416974 04/14/2021 CRIME SCENE STERI-CLEAN LLC 540.00 0.00 540.00 AP 00416975 04/14/2021 CROWN CASTLE 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 AP 00416976 04/14/2021 CUMMINS SALES&SERVICE 0.00 58.91 58.91 AP 00416977 04/14/2021 D&K CONCRETE COMPANY 1,363.58 0.00 1,363.58 AP 00416978 04/14/2021 DIG SAFE BOARD 66.22 0.00 66.22 AP 00416979 04/14/2021 DIRECTV 179.99 0.00 179.99 AP 00416980 04/14/2021 DIRECTV 74.99 0.00 74.99 AP 00416981 04/14/2021 DIRECTV 88.99 0.00 88.99 AP 00416982 04/14/2021 DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT 1,229.20 0.00 1,229.20 AP 00416983 04/14/2021 DP SOLUTIONS INC 8,370.00 8,370.00 16,740.00 *** AP 00416984 04/14/2021 ELITE CUSTOMS CONSTRUCTION 675.00 0.00 675.00 AP 00416985 04/14/2021 EXPERIAN 52.00 0.00 52.00 AP 00416986 04/14/2021 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS 0.00 571.53 571.53 AP 00416987 04/14/2021 FIRSTCARBON SOLUTIONS 17,910.40 0.00 17,910.40 AP 00416988 04/14/2021 FLEETPRIDE 0.00 189.04 189.04 AP 00416990 04/14/2021 FRONTIER COMM 2,719.81 905.34 3,625.15 *** AP 00416991 04/14/2021 G&M BUSINESS INTERIORS 0.00 43.81 43.81 AP 00416992 04/14/2021 GAIL MATERIALS 2,986.48 0.00 2,986.48 AP 00416993 04/14/2021 GENTRY BROTHERS INC 16,800.00 0.00 16,800.00 AP 00416994 04/14/2021 GOLDEN OAKS VET HOSPITAL 100.00 0.00 100.00 AP 00416995 04/14/2021 GORKA,CRISTINA 185.00 0.00 185.00 AP 00416996 04/14/2021 GRAINGER 824.35 0.00 824.35 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 2 Current Date: 04/26/2021 Report:CK_AGENDA REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Wme: 09:03:24 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 4/12/2021 through 4/25/2021 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00416997 04/14/2021 HENRY SCHEIN INC 0.00 2,392.96 2,392.96 AP 00416998 04/14/2021 HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INC 329.30 0.00 329.30 AP 00416999 04/14/2021 HLP INC 3,840.00 0.00 3,840.00 AP 00417000 04/14/2021 HODGE,CHERYL 44.37 0.00 44.37 AP 00417001 04/14/2021 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1,981.49 0.00 1,981.49 AP 00417002 04/14/2021 HOYT LUMBER CO,S M 0.00 3.05 3.05 AP 00417003 04/14/2021 HUMANE SOCIETY OF SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY 100.00 0.00 100.00 AP 00417004 04/14/2021 ICMA 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00417005 04/14/2021 IDEXX DISTRIBUTION INC 2,214.31 0.00 2,214.31 AP 00417006 04/14/2021 INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY 555.00 0.00 555.00 AP 00417007 04/14/2021 JCL TRAFFIC SERVICES 916.41 0.00 916.41 AP 00417008 04/14/2021 KRONOS INC 0.00 313.64 313.64 AP 00417009 04/14/2021 KVAC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC 845.15 0.00 845.15 AP 00417010 04/14/2021 LEISURE COACHWORKS 6,911.79 0.00 6,911.79 AP 00417011 04/14/2021 LICERA-BROWN,CHARLENE 10.60 0.00 10.60 AP 00417012 04/14/2021 MAIN STREET SIGNS 527.60 0.00 527.60 AP 00417013 04/14/2021 MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC 27,682.76 2,428.71 30,111.47 *** AP 00417014 04/14/2021 MARLINK SA INC 0.00 162.00 162.00 AP 00417015 04/14/2021 MARY MCGRATH ARCHITECTS 0.00 55,293.40 55,293.40 AP 00417016 04/14/2021 MCI 73.02 0.00 73.02 AP 00417017 04/14/2021 MDG ASSOCIATES INC 29,952.13 0.00 29,952.13 AP 00417018 04/14/2021 MIDWEST TAPE 3,238.39 0.00 3,238.39 AP 00417019 04/14/2021 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY 451.00 186.00 637.00 *** AP 00417020 04/14/2021 MIP BROS 66.90 0.00 66.90 AP 00417021 04/14/2021 MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS INC 5,230.65 0.00 5,230.65 AP 00417022 04/14/2021 MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 0.00 196.76 196.76 AP 00417023 04/14/2021 MUTUAL PROPANE 0.00 20.00 20.00 AP 00417024 04/14/2021 NAPA AUTO PARTS 7.52 332.49 340.01 *** AP 00417025 04/14/2021 NATIONAL TRAINING CONCEPTS INC 1,536.00 0.00 1,536.00 AP 00417026 04/14/2021 NINYO&MOORE 0.00 2,782.50 2,782.50 AP 00417027 04/14/2021 NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS 1,672.82 0.00 1,672.82 AP 00417028 04/14/2021 ONTARIO SPAY AND NEUTER INC 550.00 0.00 550.00 AP 00417029 04/14/2021 ONWARD ENGINEERING 3,080.00 1,320.00 4,400.00 *** AP 00417030 04/14/2021 ORTEGA,JOSEFINA 250.00 0.00 250.00 AP 00417031 04/14/2021 PATTON SALES CORP 405.14 0.00 405.14 AP 00417032 04/14/2021 PRAYTOR,GREG 4,083.00 0.00 4,083.00 AP 00417033 04/14/2021 PROHEALTH PARTNERS A MEDICAL GROUP INC 0.00 5,255.00 5,255.00 AP 00417034 04/14/2021 QI,LIN 20.00 0.00 20.00 AP 00417035 04/14/2021 ROJO,GENEVIEVE 21.00 0.00 21.00 AP 00417036 04/14/2021 SAFE-ENTRY TECHNICAL INC 0.00 1,202.24 1,202.24 AP 00417037 04/14/2021 SAM'S CLUB/SYNCHRONY BANK 184.86 0.00 184.86 AP 00417038 04/14/2021 SAN MARINO ROOF CO INC 57,411.00 0.00 57,411.00 AP 00417039 04/14/2021 SANZ,JULIAN 45.17 0.00 45.17 AP 00417040 04/14/2021 SCAMARDO,PAM 335.62 0.00 335.62 AP 00417041 04/14/2021 SCOTT MCLEOD PLUMBING INC 0.00 1,299.50 1,299.50 AP 00417042 04/14/2021 SHEPHERD,ROSS 77.19 0.00 77.19 AP 00417043 04/14/2021 SHRED PROS 336.00 0.00 336.00 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 3 Current Date: 04/26/2021 Report:CK_AGENDA REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Wine: 09:03:24 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 4/12/2021 through 4/25/2021 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00417044 04/14/2021 SNAWDER,DOUG 0.00 70.00 70.00 AP 00417045 04/14/2021 SOCAL OFFICE TECHNOLOGIES 4,360.24 905.04 5,265.28 *** AP 00417046 04/14/2021 SOCAL PPE 0.00 1,115.24 1,115.24 AP 00417047 04/14/2021 SOCIAL IMPACT ARTISTS-TSIA,THE 1,920.00 0.00 1,920.00 AP 00417048 04/14/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 5,532.13 0.00 5,532.13 AP 00417049 04/14/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 81,652.20 0.00 81,652.20 AP 00417050 04/14/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 411.59 0.00 411.59 AP 00417051 04/14/2021 STANLEY PEST CONTROL 220.00 0.00 220.00 AP 00417052 04/14/2021 STERLING COFFEE SERVICE 486.70 0.00 486.70 AP 00417053 04/14/2021 TARMAN,MALISSA 92.26 0.00 92.26 AP 00417054 04/14/2021 TELEFLEX LLC 0.00 3,879.00 3,879.00 AP 00417055 04/14/2021 TETRA TECH INC 6,801.50 0.00 6,801.50 AP 00417056 04/14/2021 TIANA SANCHEZ INTERNATIONAL LLC 1,550.00 0.00 1,550.00 AP 00417057 04/14/2021 TINKER GLASS CONTRACTORS INC 8,150.00 0.00 8,150.00 AP 00417058 04/14/2021 U.S.BANK PARS ACCT#6746022500 1,097.80 0.00 1,097.80 AP 00417059 04/14/2021 U.S.BANK PARS ACCT#6746022500 20,920.67 0.00 20,920.67 AP 00417060 04/14/2021 ULINE 503.20 0.00 503.20 AP 00417061 04/14/2021 UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL 113.95 0.00 113.95 AP 00417062 04/14/2021 UNITY COURIER SERVICE INC 1,143.00 0.00 1,143.00 AP 00417063 04/14/2021 UNIVERSAL FLEET SUPPLY 0.00 282.34 282.34 AP 00417064 04/14/2021 UTILIQUEST 720.00 0.00 720.00 AP 00417065 04/14/2021 VERIZON 22.97 0.00 22.97 AP 00417066 04/14/2021 VERIZON WIRELESS-LA 66.00 0.00 66.00 AP 00417067 04/14/2021 VERIZON WIRELESS-LA 430.27 0.00 430.27 AP 00417068 04/14/2021 VERIZON WIRELESS-LA 5,658.19 0.00 5,658.19 AP 00417069 04/14/2021 VERONICA TAM AND ASSOCIATES 13,434.00 0.00 13,434.00 AP 00417070 04/14/2021 VERONICA TAM AND ASSOCIATES 22,514.00 0.00 22,514.00 AP 00417071 04/14/2021 VETS CHOICE RADIOLOGY 260.00 0.00 260.00 AP 00417072 04/14/2021 VICTOR MEDICAL COMPANY 7,528.24 0.00 7,528.24 AP 00417073 04/14/2021 VIRTUAL PROJECT MANAGER LLC 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00417074 04/14/2021 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY 76.23 0.00 76.23 AP 00417075 04/14/2021 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 477.66 154.03 631.69 *** AP 00417076 04/14/2021 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 5,059.56 0.00 5,059.56 AP 00417077 04/14/2021 WELLS,JUDITH 23.08 0.00 23.08 AP 00417078 04/14/2021 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 9,809.00 0.00 9,809.00 AP 00417079 04/14/2021 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 13,446.00 0.00 13,446.00 AP 00417080 04/14/2021 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 20,168.00 0.00 20,168.00 AP 00417081 04/14/2021 WHITE CAP CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY 249.65 0.00 249.65 AP 00417082 04/14/2021 WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY 1,330.29 0.00 1,330.29 AP 00417083 04/14/2021 WILLDAN ENGINEERING 18,640.00 0.00 18,640.00 AP 00417084 04/14/2021 WILLDAN ENGINEERING 17,930.50 0.00 17,930.50 AP 00417085 04/14/2021 ZOETIS US LLC 108.05 0.00 108.05 AP 00417086 04/21/2021 33 STONES PERMANENT COSMETICS 714.04 0.00 714.04 AP 00417087 04/21/2021 ABLE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 5,024.35 0.00 5,024.35 AP 00417088 04/21/2021 AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE 24.58 0.00 24.58 AP 00417089 04/21/2021 AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE 4,311.14 0.00 4,311.14 AP 00417090 04/21/2021 AIR&HOSE SOURCE INC 1,274.50 0.00 1,274.50 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 4 Current Date: 04/26/2021 Report:CK_AGENDA REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page ilme: 09:03:24 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 4/12/2021 through 4/25/2021 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00417091 04/21/2021 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT 73,721.21 0.00 73,721.21 AP 00417092 04/21/2021 ANGELES CONTRACTORS INC 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 AP 00417093 04/21/2021 ARROW TRAILER SUPPLIES INC 224.87 0.00 224.87 AP 00417094 04/21/2021 ASSI SECURITY 760.00 0.00 760.00 AP 00417095 04/21/2021 AYALA,MARY ANN 19.79 0.00 19.79 AP 00417096 04/21/2021 BEDAZZLE NAIL SPA 543.67 0.00 543.67 AP 00417097 04/21/2021 BELLA,MICHELLE 30.28 0.00 30.28 AP 00417098 04/21/2021 BERLITZ LANGUAGES INC 65.00 0.00 65.00 AP 00417099 04/21/2021 BERNELL HYDRAULICS INC 621.53 0.00 621.53 AP 00417100 04/21/2021 BILL&WAGS INC 281.25 0.00 281.25 AP 00417101 04/21/2021 C T&T CONCRETE PAVING INC 80,149.74 0.00 80,149.74 AP 00417104 04/21/2021 C V W D 14,386.02 0.00 14,386.02 AP 00417105 04/21/2021 CAL PERS LONG-TERM CARE PROGRAM 164.48 0.00 164.48 AP 00417106 04/21/2021 CALIF DEPT OF TAX&FEE ADMINISTRATION 1,036.68 383.88 1,420.56 *** AP 00417107 04/21/2021 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 127.52 0.00 127.52 AP 00417108 04/21/2021 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 314.11 0.00 314.11 AP 00417109 04/21/2021 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 342.73 0.00 342.73 AP 00417110 04/21/2021 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 32.26 0.00 32.26 AP 00417111 04/21/2021 CHAMPION FIRE SYSTEMS INC 1,538.16 0.00 1,538.16 AP 00417112 04/21/2021 CHANGELAB SOLUTIONS 4,150.00 0.00 4,150.00 AP 00417113 04/21/2021 CINTAS CORPORATION #150 2,545.37 0.00 2,545.37 AP 00417114 04/21/2021 COAST RECREATION INC 1,108.65 0.00 1,108.65 AP 00417115 04/21/2021 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 497.00 0.00 497.00 AP 00417116 04/21/2021 FAILSAFE TESTING LLC 0.00 5,627.80 5,627.80 AP 00417117 04/21/2021 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES LLC#1350 10.08 0.00 10.08 AP 00417118 04/21/2021 FMB TRUCK OUTFITTERS 134.63 0.00 134.63 AP 00417119 04/21/2021 FORTIN LAW GROUP 4,718.00 0.00 4,718.00 AP 00417120 04/21/2021 FRONTIER COMM 614.22 434.05 1,048.27 *** AP 00417121 04/21/2021 FRONTIER COMM 3,446.15 0.00 3,446.15 AP 00417122 04/21/2021 FUEL SERV 3,221.86 0.00 3,221.86 AP 00417123 04/21/2021 GOLDEN STATE RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 94,751.00 1,232.00 95,983.00 *** AP 00417124 04/21/2021 GONSALVES&SON,JOE A 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 AP 00417125 04/21/2021 GRAINGER 407.24 0.00 407.24 AP 00417126 04/21/2021 GRAPHICS FACTORY PRINTING INC 46.33 0.00 46.33 AP 00417127 04/21/2021 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY INC 971.37 0.00 971.37 AP 00417128 04/21/2021 GUERRERO,LUIS O 10,075.00 0.00 10,075.00 AP 00417129 04/21/2021 GUERRERO,RAMON MISAEL 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00417130 04/21/2021 HAAKER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 184.72 0.00 184.72 AP 00417131 04/21/2021 HAULAWAY STORAGE CONTAINERS INC 119.84 0.00 119.84 AP 00417132 04/21/2021 HENKELS&MCCOY INC 38,949.00 0.00 38,949.00 AP 00417133 04/21/2021 HLP INC 244.65 0.00 244.65 AP 00417134 04/21/2021 HMC ARCHITECTS 0.00 243.75 243.75 AP 00417135 04/21/2021 HOYT LUMBER CO,S M 0.00 49.62 49.62 AP 00417136 04/21/2021 INLAND PRESORT&MAILING SERVICES 356.49 0.00 356.49 AP 00417137 04/21/2021 KEITH,JORRY 63.00 0.00 63.00 AP 00417138 04/21/2021 LANCE SOLL AND LUNGHARD 530.00 0.00 530.00 AP 00417139 04/21/2021 LEAL,MICHAEL 0.00 106.89 106.89 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 5 Current Date: 04/26/2021 Report:CK_AGENDA REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Wme: 09:03:24 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 4/12/2021 through 4/25/2021 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00417140 04/21/2021 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC 5,482.10 0.00 5,482.10 AP 00417141 04/21/2021 LISA WISE CONSULTING 18,472.50 0.00 18,472.50 AP 00417142 04/21/2021 LIU,ZHONGQIANG 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 AP 00417143 04/21/2021 LOZANO SMITH LLP 4,347.95 0.00 4,347.95 AP 00417144 04/21/2021 MASON,DAVID 88.50 0.00 88.50 AP 00417145 04/21/2021 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 1,473.44 0.00 1,473.44 AP 00417146 04/21/2021 MIDWEST TAPE 353.53 0.00 353.53 AP 00417147 04/21/2021 MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 180.73 0.00 180.73 AP 00417148 04/21/2021 MUHEIDAT,FADI 51.43 0.00 51.43 AP 00417149 04/21/2021 NAPA AUTO PARTS 198.63 0.00 198.63 AP 00417150 04/21/2021 NARTRON 0.00 6,434.54 6,434.54 AP 00417151 04/21/2021 NATIONAL CNG&FLEET SERVICE 2,012.84 0.00 2,012.84 AP 00417152 04/21/2021 NINGBO USA HOME LINK 1,284.92 0.00 1,284.92 AP 00417153 04/21/2021 NV51NC 11,358.20 0.00 11,358.20 AP 00417154 04/21/2021 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA 1,222.00 856.50 2,078.50 *** AP 00417155 04/21/2021 ONTARIO WINNELSON CO 783.80 0.00 783.80 AP 00417156 04/21/2021 ONTRAC 143.55 0.00 143.55 AP 00417157 04/21/2021 PACIFIC UTILITY INSTALLATION INC 2,910.00 0.00 2,910.00 AP 00417158 04/21/2021 PACIFIC WESTERN BANK 1,736.70 0.00 1,736.70 AP 00417159 04/21/2021 PARKHOUSE TIRE INC 966.30 0.00 966.30 AP 00417160 04/21/2021 PEP BOYS 137.87 0.00 137.87 AP 00417161 04/21/2021 PINNACLE PETROLEUM INC 26,052.19 0.00 26,052.19 AP 00417162 04/21/2021 PIRTLE WELDING 350.00 0.00 350.00 AP 00417163 04/21/2021 PLACEWORKS 42,660.14 0.00 42,660.14 AP 00417164 04/21/2021 POSTAL PERFECT 210.00 0.00 210.00 AP 00417165 04/21/2021 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 60.17 0.00 60.17 AP 00417166 04/21/2021 PROHEALTH PARTNERS A MEDICAL GROUP INC 0.00 150.00 150.00 AP 00417167 04/21/2021 R.S.&M CONSTRUCTION 99.90 0.00 99.90 AP 00417168 04/21/2021 RANCHO SMOG CENTER 269.70 0.00 269.70 AP 00417169 04/21/2021 RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY 829.24 0.00 829.24 AP 00417170 04/21/2021 RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 46.00 0.00 46.00 AP 00417171 04/21/2021 RODRIGUEZ,EUGENIO 77.45 0.00 77.45 AP 00417172 04/21/2021 SAN ANTONIO REGIONAL HOSPITAL 0.00 130.00 130.00 AP 00417173 04/21/2021 SAN BERNARDINO CO AUDITOR CONT 10,814.65 0.00 10,814.65 AP 00417174 04/21/2021 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS 37,441.00 0.00 37,441.00 AP 00417175 04/21/2021 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT 2.00 0.00 2.00 AP 00417176 04/21/2021 SAN BERNARDINO CTY FIRE 0.00 60.00 60.00 AP 00417177 04/21/2021 SBPEA 2,467.67 0.00 2,467.67 AP 00417178 04/21/2021 SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 100.00 0.00 100.00 AP 00417179 04/21/2021 SHOETERIA INC 355.00 0.00 355.00 AP 00417180 04/21/2021 SHRED PROS 58.00 0.00 58.00 AP 00417181 04/21/2021 SIDHOM,MAGED 80.17 0.00 80.17 AP 00417182 04/21/2021 SKECHERS#341 826.67 0.00 826.67 AP 00417184 04/21/2021 SOCAL OFFICE TECHNOLOGIES 1,470.62 301.68 1,772.30 *** AP 00417185 04/21/2021 SOCAL PPE 0.00 40.95 40.95 AP 00417191 04/21/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11,513.39 698.04 12,211.43 *** AP 00417192 04/21/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 432.77 1,091.38 1,524.15 *** User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 6 Current Date: 04/26/2021 Report:CK_AGENDA REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page fine: 09:03:24 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 4/12/2021 through 4/25/2021 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00417193 04/21/2021 STOTZ EQUIPMENT 91.23 0.00 91.23 AP 00417194 04/21/2021 STRATEGIC ECONOMICS INC 8,245.00 0.00 8,245.00 AP 00417195 04/21/2021 THE COUNSELING TEAM INTERNATIONAL 0.00 975.00 975.00 AP 00417196 04/21/2021 TINT CITY WINDOW TINTING 350.00 0.00 350.00 AP 00417197 04/21/2021 TIREHUB LLC 1,130.98 869.89 2,000.87 *** AP 00417198 04/21/2021 UNITED WAY 45.00 0.00 45.00 AP 00417199 04/21/2021 UPS 84.82 0.00 84.82 AP 00417200 04/21/2021 UTILIQUEST 1,052.62 0.00 1,052.62 AP 00417201 04/21/2021 VAN SCOYOC ASSOCIATES INC 8,000.00 0.00 8,000.00 AP 00417202 04/21/2021 VELOCITY TRUCK CENTERS 16.26 0.00 16.26 AP 00417203 04/21/2021 VERIZON WIRELESS-LA 5,605.90 0.00 5,605.90 AP 00417204 04/21/2021 VISION SERVICE PLAN CA 10,501.68 0.00 10,501.68 AP 00417205 04/21/2021 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY 229.41 0.00 229.41 AP 00417206 04/21/2021 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 303.74 0.00 303.74 AP 00417207 04/21/2021 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 6,745.92 0.00 6,745.92 AP 00417208 04/21/2021 WEBB FAMILY ENTERPISES 2,277.18 0.00 2,277.18 AP 00417209 04/21/2021 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 14,834.00 0.00 14,834.00 AP 00417210 04/21/2021 WILSON&BELL AUTO SERVICE 466.31 0.00 466.31 AP 00417211 04/21/2021 WT.COX INFORMATION SERVICES 7,968.34 0.00 7,968.34 AP 00417212 04/21/2021 YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP INC 0.00 22,189.25 22,189.25 AP 00417213 04/21/2021 ZEP SALES AND SERVICE 191.51 0.00 191.51 Total City: $1,995,448.77 Total Fire: $213,221.70 Grand Total: Note: *** Check Number includes both City and Fire District expenditures User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 7 Current Date: 04/26/2021 Report:CK_AGENDA REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Wine: 09:03:24 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Electronic Debit Register March 1,2021 to March 31,2021 DATE DESCRIPTION CITY FIRE AMOUNT 3/1 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 1,883.77 1,883.77 3/2 Bank Fee 84.55 84.55 3/2 WIRE PAYMENT-RCMU CAISO 1,087.50 1,087.50 3/2 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 440.14 440.14 3/3 U.S.BANK-Purchasing Card Payment 8,139.07 3,400.41 11,539.48 3/3 U.S.BANK-Corporate Card Payment 54,270.97 6,235.56 60,506.53 3/3 U.S.BANK-Costco Card Payment 59.00 990.25 1,049.25 313 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 75.00 75.00 313 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 828.54 828.54 3/4 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 24.00 24.00 3/5 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 1,382.85 1,382.85 3/5 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 1,670.55 1,670.55 3/8 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 412.42 412.42 3/9 CALPERS-City-Retirement Account Deposit 54,327.25 54,327.25 3/9 CALPERS-City-Retirement Account Deposit 109,604.07 109,604.07 3/9 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 210.37 210.37 3/9 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 286.66 286.66 3110 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 3,240.66 3,240.66 3110 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 3,717.40 3,717.40 3110 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 5,137.97 5,137.97 3110 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 11,422.59 11,422.59 3110 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 25,081.09 25,081.09 3110 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 115,082.57 115,082.57 3110 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 749.27 749.27 3110 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 175.25 175.25 3111 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT-Child Support Payments 3,535.00 3,535.00 3/11 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT-Child Support Payments 1,732.50 1,732.50 3/11 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 5,467.99 5,467.99 3111 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 6,444.64 6,444.64 3112 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 244.12 244.12 3112 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 551.95 551.95 3115 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 158.66 158.66 3116 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 634.48 634.48 3116 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 321.87 321.87 3117 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 325.04 325.04 3117 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 3,558.45 3,558.45 3118 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 17.50 17.50 3118 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 1,272.66 1,272.66 3119 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 204.78 204.78 3122 WIRE PAYMENT-RCMU CAISO 58,412.03 58,412.03 3122 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 1,315.40 1,315.40 3122 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 932.85 932.85 3/23 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 467.16 467.16 3/24 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 182,876.08 182,876.08 3/24 CALPERS-City-Retirement Account Deposit 52,256.88 52,256.88 3/24 CALPERS-City-Retirement Account Deposit 109,879.69 109,879.69 3124 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 3,240.66 3,240.66 3124 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 3,339.74 3,339.74 3124 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 4,879.03 4,879.03 3124 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 10,852.36 10,852.36 3124 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 25,081.09 25,081.09 3124 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 114,575.46 114,575.46 3124 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 1,335.39 1,335.39 3124 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 837.79 837.79 3/25 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT-Child Support Payments 3,534.45 3,534.45 3/25 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT-Child Support Payments 1,732.50 1,732.50 3/25 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 380.00 380.00 3/25 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 159.55 159.55 3/26 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 137.80 137.80 3/26 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 403.02 403.02 3129 WIRE PAYMENT-RCMU CAISO 250.54 250.54 3/29 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 287.20 287.20 3/31 U.S.BANK-Purchasing Card Payment 15,688.17 13,942.49 29,630.66 3/31 U.S.BANK-Corporate Card Payment 48,591.66 30,768.70 79,360.36 3/31 U.S.BANK-Costco Card Payment 97.43 97.43 3131 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 3,000.37 3,000.37 3131 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 2,126.03 2,126.03 TOTAL CITY 532,115.21 TOTAL FIRE 593,755.68 GRAND TOTAL 1,125,870.89 Page 25 1 ti NONRR � a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA m �l DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Boards of Directors FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Tamara L. Oatman, Finance Director Veronica Lopez, Accounts Payable Supervisor SUBJECT: Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $2,407.80 Dated April 12, 2021 Through April 25, 2021. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment of demands as presented. Weekly check register amounts are $14.30 and $2,393.50 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALYSIS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Weekly Check Register Page 26 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT So Calif Gas Company Only. Agenda Check Register 4/12/2021 through 4/25/2021 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Citv Fire Amount AP 00417183 04/21/2021 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 14.30 2,393.50 2,407.80 *** Total City: $14.30 Total Fire: $2,393.50 Grand Total: $2,4U7.79U Note: *** Check Number includes both City and Fire District expenditures User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: I Current Date: 04/26/2021 Report:CK_AGENDA REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Wine: 09:10:30 ti HONOR a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA m DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Boards of Directors FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Tamara L. Oatman, Finance Director SUBJECT: Consideration to Approve Amended Fiscal Year 2020/21 Appropriations. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council/Board of Directors approve the attached Fiscal Year 2020/21 budgetary adjustments for all City/Fire District funds. BACKGROUND: When the budget development process begins, staff projects estimated appropriations fourteen to sixteen months ahead of anticipated needs. Historically, staff proposes an Amended Budget in May of each year based on year-to-date actuals and projected revenues and expenditures for the remainder of the fiscal year. ANALYSIS: In general, the attached schedules adjust estimated expenditures to reflect a more current snapshot in all funds. Funding for items included in the Adopted Budget are increased or decreased to reflect more recent experience. Adjustments have been made for the reallocation of resources when a particular line item has not been fully expended and is utilized for another area of operations within a department's budget. Also included in the adjusted figures are the following additional items: 1) Funding for the prepayment of a portion of the Fire District's Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL)with CalPERS in accordance with the Fire Board's five-year plan proactively to pay down the UAL for the Fire District (FIRE); 2) Funding for purchase orders that were originally budgeted but were carried over from Fiscal Year 2019/20 (CITY/FIRE); and 3) Funding for various expenditures approved by the City Council/Fire Board during the course of the current fiscal year (CITY/FIRE). Prepayment of Unfunded Accrued Liability (Fire District). On October 21, 2020, Finance staff presented an overview to the City Council regarding the Fire District's proposed prepayment of its Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) with CalPERS for its Safety Plan. Changes to the UAL can occur each year in the form of an investment gain or loss, a non-investment gain or loss, and/or an actuarial/assumption change. Annual changes become a fixed dollar amount owed (or credited) for that year and are paid back (or credited) over time. It is these annual changes (amortization bases) that are being targeted for prepayment. Page 28 The prefunding was proposed to take place over a period of five years with the ultimate goal of attaining an 85% to 95% funded status. An actuarial study was completed to identify the amount of the contributions needed each year to attain this goal. The contributions are in addition to our required annual contributions. The plan for prepayment consist of two components: 1) target amortization bases with the longest remaining amortization period (saves more interest overtime) and pay from the current operating budget; and 2) consider utilizing interest earnings on the District's Section 115 Trust to pay off smaller bases over time (much like using interest on an endowment fund) to make additional progress on the prepayment. The FY 2020/21 Amended Budget includes the first annual payment under the five-year plan in the amount of $3,531,000 as well as an additional payment in the amount of$1,200,000 funded by the Section 115 Trust interest earnings for the current fiscal year. By this action, the Fire District will be on track to meet its goal of achieving 85-95% funding status. Carryover Purchase Orders. At the end of each fiscal year, there are a varying number of financial commitments outstanding, due primarily to timing issues,which are recorded in the City's financial records as purchase orders. Although the initial budget appropriation for these purchase orders was approved in the prior fiscal year, the outstanding commitment carries over into the current fiscal year and must be funded in the current year's Amended Budget out of reserves. Generally, these outstanding commitments are for capital projects or contract services that are completed subsequent to the fiscal year in which they were approved. Total carryover purchase orders for the City's General Fund amounted to approximately $552,480. City Council Approved Changes. During the course of any fiscal year, the City Council approves appropriation changes for items not anticipated during the budget preparation process, including emergency repairs. Capital improvement programs, as they are addressed, are approved as separate Council items throughout the year. Staff recommends approval of the Fiscal Year 2020/21 Amended Budget to reflect the adjustments noted above. Due to better than anticipated growth in certain key revenues, the General Fund will not require the use of reserves for Fiscal Year 2020/21 as was anticipated in the Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Budget. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the continued impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, revenues remain in a constant state of flux and are more difficult than usual to estimate. Continued caution will be exercised in monitoring revenues and containing expenditures for the remainder of the current fiscal year as well as into next fiscal year. FISCAL IMPACT: The attached schedules submitted for your review include the Fiscal Year 2019/20 Adopted Budget amounts, the Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Budget amounts and the Fiscal Year 2020/21 Amended Budget amounts for revenues and expenditures by account/object number. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The adoption of the Amended Budget supports the City Council's core value of providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all by demonstrating the active, prudent fiscal management of the City's financial resources in order to support the various services the City provides to all Rancho Cucamonga stakeholders. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — City of Rancho Cucamonga Amended Fiscal Year 2020/21 Budget Attachment 2 — Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Amended Fiscal Year 2020/21 Budget Page 2 Page 29 City of Rancho Cucamonga r � Amended Fiscal Year 2020/21 Budget nrrn�m�Mr 1 Page 31 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES SUMMARY BY ENTITY,FUND 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Fund/Description Budget Budget Budget 001 GENERAL FUND 88,290,270 90,104,500 88,515,730 003 REIMB ST/COUNTY PARKING CIT 162,480 111,330 108,310 006 CVWD REIMBURSEMENTS 614,110 583,890 633,470 008 CNTY OF S.B.REIMBURSEMENTS 0 0 34,000 016 COMM DEV TECHNICAL SRVCS FUND 561,100 364,080 2,370,710 017 LAW ENFORCEMENT RESERVE 649,720 478,500 4,236,690 018 TRAFFIC SAFETY 409,260 112,000 96,700 020 CITY TECHNOLOGY FEE FUND 311,880 298,590 335,110 022 MOBILE HOME PARK PROGRAM 36,510 42,750 34,940 023 SB1186 CERT ACCESS SPEC PROG 19,940 42,650 42,120 025 CAPITAL RESERVE 6,235,270 5,650,060 14,963,470 073 BENEFITS CONTINGENCY 906,760 1,079,220 917,830 100 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS ADMIN 1,071,230 1,019,440 1,335,700 101 AD 93-1 MASI COMMERCE CENTER 210 3,260 180 105 AB2766 AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 990,990 320,400 983,520 106 MSRC AIR POLLUTION REDUCT GRNT 0 30,000 30,000 109 PUBLIC ART TRUST FUND 0 2,760 448,640 110 BEAUTIFICATION 410,440 14,750 31,570 III PARK LAND ACQUISITION 285,980 770,940 1,554,420 112 DRAINAGE FAC/GENERAL 159,490 173,000 3,361,100 113 COMMUNITY/REC CENTER DEVELPMNT 326,170 337,300 539,430 114 DRAINAGE-ETIWANDA/SAN SEVAINE 7,950 5,280 3,090 115 HENDERSON/WARDMAN DRAINAGE 260 360 360 116 ETIWANDA DRAINAGE 139,600 135,630 31,120 118 UPPER ETIWANDA DRAINAGE 10,700 11,860 7,030 119 PARK IMPROVEMENT 220,200 236,330 828,700 120 PARK DEVELOPMENT 768,720 423,860 452,130 122 SOUTH ETIWANDA DRAINAGE 16,160 21,650 12,840 123 LIBRARY IMPACT FEE 117,800 122,630 226,170 124 TRANSPORTATION 8,396,830 3,853,270 6,435,140 125 ANIMAL CENTER IMPACT FEE 25,320 26,150 47,230 126 LOWER ETIWANDA DRAINAGE 11,370 12,600 8,150 127 POLICE IMPACT FEE 110,570 113,930 165,240 128 ETIWANDA NO.EQUESTRIAN FACIL. 12,690 14,060 8,320 129 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES 288,180 309,590 231,020 130 LMD#1 GENERAL CITY 1,848,730 1,366,550 1,523,330 131 LMD#2 VICTORIA 4,849,910 4,146,040 4,890,020 132 LMD#3A HYSSOP 11,000 10,700 35,350 133 LMD#3B MEDIANS 1,399,800 1,095,590 937,880 134 LMD#4R TERRA VISTA 3,416,550 2,986,970 3,172,960 135 LMD#5 ANDOVER 9,670 7,490 6,680 136 LMD#6R CARYN COMMUNITY 629,190 601,460 764,860 137 LMD#7 NORTH ETIWANDA 1,252,200 1,178,370 1,225,600 138 LMD#8 SOUTH ETIWANDA 39,960 39,880 61,900 139 LMD#9 LOWER ETIWANDA 1,204,850 964,560 963,790 140 LMD#10 RANCHO ETIWANDA 740,340 751,670 683,230 141 LMD 1 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND 93,890 96,810 95,190 150 GENERAL CITY STREET LIGHTS 351,620 354,830 384,540 Page 32 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES SUMMARY BY ENTITY,FUND 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Fund/Description Budget Budget Budget 151 SLD#1 ARTERIAL 1,005,760 1,013,220 1,058,340 152 SLD#2 RESIDENTIAL 661,180 695,660 721,860 153 SLD#3 VICTORIA 385,090 410,230 398,610 154 SLD#4 TERRA VISTA 184,270 181,510 177,900 155 SLD#5 CARYN COMMUNITY 77,210 77,820 91,470 156 SLD#6 INDUSTRIAL AREA 141,430 144,220 140,570 157 SLD#7 NORTH ETIWANDA 216,730 222,760 220,020 158 SLD#8 SOUTH ETIWANDA 109,060 112,400 96,000 174 STATE GAS TAX 4,903,310 4,381,350 4,270,590 176 MEASURE I 1990-2010 200,210 5,520 162,940 177 MEASURE I 2010-2040 3,784,510 2,901,890 4,275,370 179 ROAD MAINT&REHAB ACCT 2,918,340 3,140,730 3,251,690 181 SB 1 -TCEP 52,150,000 11,000,650 9,000,650 182 AB 2928 TRAFFIC CONGEST RELIEF 80 0 0 188 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT 1,535,580 1,869,350 1,798,140 194 PROPOSITION 1B STATE FUNDING 4,540 5,030 2,990 195 STATE ASSET SEIZURE 40,180 40,440 16,200 196 CA ASSET SEIZURE 15% 6,010 130 70 198 CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPRV 1,693,550 1,360,200 1,255,330 204 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLK GRNT 1,440,010 1,440,010 2,941,670 209 FEDERAL SAFETEA-LU 310 1,070 2,140 211 PROP I-SLPP 0 70 30 214 PEDESTRIAN GRANT/ART 3 451,000 401,200 86,420 218 PUBLIC RESRCE GRNTS/HEALTHY RC 19,600 24,600 16,520 225 CA RECYC/LITTER REDUCTION GRNT 59,390 59,860 70,620 227 USED OIL RECYCLING PROGRAM 49,800 49,810 50,200 234 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM 118,900 90,800 0 250 RECREATION SERVICES 3,245,220 0 0 255 VG CULTURAL CENTER 1,615,300 0 0 272 FREEDOM COURTYARD RSRC GRANTS 2,150 50 0 274 STATE GRANTS FUND 0 2,686,760 223,240 275 FEDERAL GRANTS FUND 0 0 18,739,740 290 LIBRARY FUND 6,068,790 5,991,700 5,687,620 291 CA STATE LIBRARY 21,130 20,530 52,300 292 STAFF INNOVATION FD(CA ST LB) 7,530 5,900 3,020 301 THE BIG READ LIBRARY GRANT 50 0 0 302 LIBRARY SERVICES&TECH.ACT 0 20 37,070 329 LIBRARY CAPITAL FUND 578,120 925,300 1,845,780 340 DRUG ABATEMENT ACT 0 0 340 354 COP'S PROGRAM GRANT-STATE 352,130 306,020 432,070 361 JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT(JAG) 0 0 59,690 380 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT-FIRE 0 0 27,130 381 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT-POLICE 68,480 66,360 38,220 383 EMERGENCY MGMT PERFORMNCE GRNT 26,730 26,840 26,730 396 HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY 662,210 3,995,700 4,108,980 600 AD 82-1 6TH ST INDUSTRIAL 250 280 170 602 AD 84-1 DAY CREEK/MELLO 21,020 23,300 13,790 612 CFD 2001-01 53,950 59,790 35,360 Page 33 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES SUMMARY BY ENTITY,FUND 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Fund/Description Budget Budget Budget 614 CFD 2003-01 PROJECT FUND 0 1,760 60 615 CFD 2003-01 CULTURAL CENTER 0 1,920 30 617 CFD 2004-01 RANCHO ETIWANDA ES 100 560 70 680 CFD 2006-01 VINTNER'S GROVE 40 40 30 681 CFD 2006-02 AMADOR ON ROUTE 66 120 130 60 700 SPORTS COMPLEX 2,805,300 1,817,990 1,689,790 702 REGIS CONNECT 51,310 0 0 705 MUNICIPAL UTILITY 15,179,330 13,866,510 14,371,460 706 UTILITY PUBLIC BENEFIT FUND 693,250 591,530 559,200 708 RCMU CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND 100,570 111,560 66,000 709 RCMU CAP AND TRADE FUND 0 0 2,583,940 711 FIBER OPTIC NETWORK 1,788,630 1,421,210 10,519,570 712 EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 922,830 913,770 1,152,590 714 COMP EQUIP/TECH REPLCMENT FUND 1,268,280 1,176,780 1,582,440 800 AD 82-1R REDEMPTION FUND 0 0 10 801 AD 82-1R RESERVE FUND 0 0 50 807 AD 84-2 REDEMPTION FUND 0 0 10 808 AD 84-2 SPECIAL RESERVE 0 0 50 812 CFD 88-2 ETIWANDA/HIGHLND DEBT 17,070 19,010 11,240 813 CFD 88-2 ETIWANDA/HIGHLND IMPR 50,510 600,740 331,510 815 CFD 88-2 POLICE 240 270 13,450 820 CFD 2004-01 REDEMPTION 2,693,420 2,705,110 2,698,250 821 CFD 2004-01 RESERVE 0 12,070 130 838 AD 91-2 REDEMPTION-DAY CANYON 34,640 34,760 34,370 841 AD 93-1 MASI COMMERCE CENTER 256,120 259,540 253,840 842 CFD 93-3 FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE 0 0 4,040 847 PD 85 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND 165,670 125,260 128,850 848 PD 85 REDEMPTION FUND 1,560,030 1,419,530 1,399,860 850 PD 85 RESERVE FUND 110 130 6,180 852 CFD 2000-01 SO ETIWANDA RDMPTN 77,290 77,980 79,010 853 CFD 2000-01 SO ETIWANDA RSRV 0 240 10 854 AD 1999-1 REFUNDING REDEMPTION 5,660 6,320 323,010 856 CFD 2000-02 RC CORP PARK RDMP 544,440 552,470 553,580 857 CFD 2000-02 RC CORP PARK RSRV 0 2,140 40 858 CFD 2000-03 RANCHO SUMMIT RDMP 572,020 571,720 570,140 859 CFD 2000-03 RANCHO SUMMIT RSRV 0 2,660 30 860 CFD 2001-01 SERIES A REDMPTION 679,240 679,500 680,500 861 CFD 2001-01 SERIES A RESERVE 70 3,160 90 862 CFD 2001-01 SERIES B REDMPTION 61,500 61,480 61,480 863 CFD 2001-01 SERIES B RESERVE 0 310 10 864 CFD 2003-01 SERIES A REDEMPTN 1,160,040 1,184,780 1,184,320 865 CFD 2003-01 SERIES A RESERVE 0 14,410 150 866 CFD 2003-01 SERIES B REDEMPTN 203,320 209,160 209,220 867 CFD 2003-01 SERIES B RESERVE 0 1,360 20 868 CFD 2000-03 PARK MAINTENANCE 665,670 657,570 571,470 869 CFD 2006-01 REDEMPTION 294,510 293,100 292,950 870 CFD 2006-01 RESERVE 0 1,340 30 871 CFD 2006-02 REDEMPTION 197,710 187,220 186,180 Page 34 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES SUMMARY BY ENTITY,FUND 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Fund/Description Budget Budget Budget 872 CFD 2006-02 RESERVE 0 800 20 875 CFD 2017-01 NO.ETIWANDA 0 3,020 3,020 876 CFD 2018-01 EMPIRE LAKES 0 123,180 351,370 877 CFD 2018-01 CAPITAL RESERVE 0 80,180 75,510 Total for CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: 244,344,020 193,960,900 247,762,340 Page 35 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget GENERAL FUND(001) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 4,838,990 5,190,970 5,176,790 4102-Property Taxes-CY Unsecured 171,880 0 0 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 96,810 94,790 74,850 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 67,200 55,960 48,510 4105-Property Taxes-Supplemental 144,240 165,520 129,830 4106-Property Taxes-Unitary 863,570 875,930 923,350 4107-Property Transfer Tax 1,168,640 1,155,040 1,165,720 4111 -Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF 20,193,480 21,079,930 21,176,840 4113 -Property Tax-Post RDA Res Blc 2,321,430 2,543,990 2,590,090 4120- Sales and Use Tax 31,965,020 28,190,420 29,249,120 4121 -Prop 172-Half Cent Sales Tax 587,460 554,160 629,530 4125-Transient Occupancy Tax 4,613,410 1,835,530 2,459,490 4126-Admissions Tax 5,170 5,320 1,330 4130-Franchise Fee-Gas&Electric 2,530,760 2,571,250 2,533,240 4131 -Franchise Fee-Resid.Refuse 921,260 1,226,790 1,264,290 4132-Franchise Fee-Comm.Refuse 1,749,060 2,098,990 2,045,270 4133 -Franchise Fee-Cable 1,450,990 1,548,040 1,602,090 4201 -Business Licenses 2,670,440 2,670,440 2,670,440 4207-Building Permits 1,200,000 1,500,000 1,950,000 4208-Bldg Pmt-Strong Motion Fees 9,110 0 0 4209-Mobile Home Permit 4,120 5,950 4,360 4210-Bldg Permits-SB 1473(90%to CA) 1,760 840 840 4215-Animal Licenses 351,740 351,740 220,000 4216-Parking Permits 710 400 1,610 4220-Other Licenses&Permits 990 1,960 330 4231 -Business Licenses-P/Y 11,560 11,560 4,040 4232-Business Licenses-Penalties 97,690 97,690 24,230 4301 -Vehicle Code Fines 0 0 91,230 4302-Parking Citations 563,790 459,470 444,540 4306-Vehicle Release Fees 266,700 135,010 135,010 4307-Citation Proof of Corr Fees 6,840 4,990 4,260 4308-General Ordinance Fines 227,890 214,950 175,440 4309-False Alarm Fees 81,770 63,330 63,330 4313 -Other Fines&Forfeitures 102,430 147,570 78,730 4401 -Interest Earnings 332,400 304,650 221,520 4419-Other Rental/Lease Income 27,860 28,810 28,880 4431 -Special Event Rental-ActiveNet 0 13,000 0 4439-Other Rental/Lease Inc.-ANet 0 1,413,120 88,100 4440-Sale of Fixed Assets 50,070 50,070 25,990 4501 -Plan Check Fees 1,030,000 1,287,500 850,000 4508-Planning Fees 750,000 825,000 825,000 4509-Planning-Special Services Fee 220,000 220,000 220,000 4510-Engineering Fees 1,200,000 1,280,000 1,280,000 4511 -Engineering-Special Services 0 0 22,000 4523 -Web Sales Fees 0 87,080 200 4556- Sports Lighting Fees 300 0 0 4560-Fingerprint Fees 9,220 10,530 1,420 4564-Returned Item Charge 860 770 1,050 4570-Sale of Printed Material 9,060 11,380 8,850 4581 -Ticket Sales 0 862,040 3,500 Page 36 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 4591 -Recreation Fees-ActiveNet 0 1,882,470 57,550 4592-Sale of Tax Items-ActiveNet 0 25,350 0 4596-Advertising Revenue-ActiveNet 0 3,750 0 4630-Animal Adoption Fees 130,000 130,000 70,000 4631 -Animal Spay/Neuter Fees 17,000 17,000 7,000 4633 -Animal Boarding Fees 9,000 7,000 7,000 4634-Animal Impound Fees 21,000 18,000 13,000 4636-Owner Surrender Fees 15,000 15,000 8,000 4638-Microchipping Fee 7,500 7,500 5,000 4640-Vaccination Services 6,500 6,500 6,500 4680-Towing Services Agreement Fees 360,000 360,000 343,000 4701 -Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees 85,840 143,760 128,740 4710-Homeowners Property Tax Relief 73,240 72,370 68,210 4901 -Other Revenue 908,230 949,060 1,106,390 4903 -Animal Center Contributions 0 65,000 20,000 4905-Contributions/Fundraising 125,160 44,000 8,100 4911 -Reimbursement from Other Funds 964,640 1,066,890 1,020,270 4913 -State Mandate Reimbursement 42,710 74,900 59,870 4914-Non-Abated Reimbursements 366,090 376,090 315,320 4915-Bad Debt Recovery 810 0 0 4917-RDASA Admin Allowance 250,000 250,000 327,990 4918-Housing SA Admin Allowance 200,000 200,000 200,000 4923 -Misc.Other Financing Sources 0 0 284,970 4941 -Other Revenue-ActiveNet 0 226,940 5,500 4945-Contrib/Fundraising-ActiveNet 0 258,890 22,570 4946-Processing Fee-ActiveNet 0 124,000 5,400 8006-Transfer In-Fund 006 64,720 90,510 90,510 8008-Transfer In-Fund 008 0 0 34,000 8132-Transfer In Fund 132 0 0 33,900 8188-Transfer In-Fund 188 218,390 218,390 218,390 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 2,206,830 8705-Transfer In-Municipal Utility 1,507,760 1,508,650 1,322,320 8800-Transfer In-AD 82-1R Redmption 0 0 10 8801 -Transfer In-82-1R Reserve 0 0 50 8807-Transfer In-AD 84-2 Redemption 0 0 10 8808-Transfer In-AD 84-2 Spec Rsry 0 0 50 8842-Transfer In-CFD 93-3 0 0 4,040 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 710,000 0 Total For Fund 001: 88,290,270 90,104,500 88,515,730 REIMB ST/COUNTY PARKING CIT(003) 4303 -Parking Cit Surcharge-State 12,020 5,090 7,300 4304-Parking Cit Surchrge-County 9,100 5,130 5,480 4305-Parking Cit Surcharge-Cnty Crt 36,560 13,930 21,890 4901 -Other Revenue 104,800 87,180 73,640 Total For Fund 003: 162,480 111,330 108,310 CVWD REIMBURSEMENTS(006) 4745-Other Intergov'd Reimbursemnt 463,500 443,900 633,470 Page 37 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 150,610 139,990 0 Total For Fund 006: 614,110 583,890 633,470 CNTY OF S.B.REIMBURSEMENTS(008) 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 34,000 Total For Fund 008: 0 0 34,000 COMM DEV TECHNICAL SRVCS FUND(016) 4401 -Interest Earnings 47,630 100,220 54,720 4518-General Plan Update Fee 53,790 263,860 333,110 4911 -Reimbursement from Other Funds 0 0 116,240 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 50,000 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 459,680 0 1,816,640 Total For Fund 016: 561,100 364,080 2,370,710 LAW ENFORCEMENT RESERVE(017) 4401 -Interest Earnings 150,930 186,530 68,850 8001 -Transfer In-General Fund 0 0 2,511,240 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 237,000 8815-Transfer In-AD 88-2 Police 0 0 13,450 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 498,790 291,970 1,406,150 Total For Fund 017: 649,720 478,500 4,236,690 TRAFFIC SAFETY(018) 4301 -Vehicle Code Fines 188,580 101,730 0 4911 -Reimbursement from Other Funds 0 0 53,730 4914-Non-Abated Reimbursements 0 0 42,970 8001 -Transfer In-General Fund 220,160 10,270 0 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 520 0 0 Total For Fund 018: 409,260 112,000 96,700 CITY TECHNOLOGY FEE FUND(020) 4401 -Interest Earnings 24,700 33,190 21,190 4517-Technology Fee-Permit 287,180 265,400 313,920 Total For Fund 020: 311,880 298,590 335,110 MOBILE HOME PARK PROGRAM(022) 4218-Mobile Home Lot Fees-City 14,910 14,910 14,910 4219-Mobile Home Lot Fees-State 3,150 16,710 16,710 4401 -Interest Earnings 2,780 3,380 2,200 4901 -Other Revenue 1,120 1,120 1,120 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 14,550 6,630 0 Page 38 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 022: 36,510 42,750 34,940 SB1186 CERT ACCESS SPEC PROG(023) 4401 -Interest Earnings 1,390 2,260 1,730 4650- SB1186 Cert Access Spec Prog 18,550 40,390 40,390 Total For Fund 023: 19,940 42,650 42,120 CAPITAL RESERVE(025) 4401 -Interest Earnings 1,023,970 1,155,040 786,340 4901 -Other Revenue 0 50,210 50,210 4911 -Reimbursement from Other Funds 0 75,000 0 8001 -Transfer In-General Fund 1,175,000 725,000 725,000 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 13,079,160 8854-Transfer In From 854 0 0 322,760 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 4,036,300 3,644,810 0 Total For Fund 025: 6,235,270 5,650,060 14,963,470 BENEFITS CONTINGENCY(073) 4401 -Interest Earnings 60,210 50,080 39,130 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 846,550 1,029,140 878,700 Total For Fund 073: 906,760 1,079,220 917,830 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS ADMIN(100) 4401 -Interest Earnings 12,130 9,920 8,220 4901 -Other Revenue 1,007,120 1,009,520 1,009,520 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 51,980 0 317,960 Total For Fund 100: 1,071,230 1,019,440 1,335,700 AD 93-1 MASI COMMERCE CENTER(101) 4401 -Interest Earnings 210 3,260 180 Total For Fund 101: 210 3,260 180 AB2766 AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT(105) 4401 -Interest Earnings 16,610 15,790 7,570 4740-Grant Income-Other 541,600 238,130 535,190 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 432,780 66,480 440,760 Total For Fund 105: 990,990 320,400 983,520 MSRC AIR POLLUTION REDUCT GRNT(106) 4740-Grant Income-Other 0 30,000 30,000 Page 39 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 106: 0 30,000 30,000 PUBLIC ART TRUST FUND(109) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 2,760 4,690 4809-In Lieu Fees 0 0 443,950 Total For Fund 109: 0 2,760 448,640 BEAUTIFICATION(110) 4401 -Interest Earnings 16,560 14,750 7,060 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 393,880 0 24,510 Total For Fund 110: 410,440 14,750 31,570 PARK LAND ACQUISITION(111) 4401 -Interest Earnings 35,980 70,940 54,420 4818-Park Land Acq Impact Fee 250,000 700,000 1,500,000 Total For Fund 111: 285,980 770,940 1,554,420 DRAINAGE FAC/GENERAL(112) 4401 -Interest Earnings 59,490 73,000 33,050 4806- Storm Drain Fees 100,000 100,000 500,000 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 2,828,050 Total For Fund 112: 159,490 173,000 3,361,100 COMMUNITY/REC CENTER DEVELPMNT(113) 4401 -Interest Earnings 15,440 26,570 19,430 4822-Community/Rec Ctr Impact Fee 310,730 310,730 520,000 Total For Fund 113: 326,170 337,300 539,430 DRAINAGE-ETIWANDA/SAN SEVAINE(114) 4401 -Interest Earnings 7,950 5,280 3,090 Total For Fund 114: 7,950 5,280 3,090 HENDERSON/WARDMAN DRAINAGE(115) 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 260 360 360 Total For Fund 115: 260 360 360 ETIWANDA DRAINAGE(116) 4401 -Interest Earnings 37,250 39,510 23,880 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 102,350 96,120 7,240 Page 40 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 116: 139,600 135,630 31,120 UPPER ETIWANDA DRAINAGE(118) 4401 -Interest Earnings 10,700 11,860 7,030 Total For Fund 118: 10,700 11,860 7,030 PARK IMPROVEMENT(119) 4401 -Interest Earnings 20,200 36,330 28,700 4819-Park Improvement Impact Fee 200,000 200,000 800,000 Total For Fund 119: 220,200 236,330 828,700 PARK DEVELOPMENT(120) 4401 -Interest Earnings 145,780 160,580 92,700 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 82,500 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 622,940 263,280 276,930 Total For Fund 120: 768,720 423,860 452,130 SOUTH ETIWANDA DRAINAGE(122) 4401 -Interest Earnings 16,160 21,650 12,840 Total For Fund 122: 16,160 21,650 12,840 LIBRARY IMPACT FEE(123) 4401 -Interest Earnings 10,720 15,550 10,630 4814-Library Impact Fee 107,080 107,080 215,540 Total For Fund 123: 117,800 122,630 226,170 TRANSPORTATION (124) 4401 -Interest Earnings 492,590 603,270 453,220 4745-Other Intergov'd Reimbursemnt 0 0 38,730 4820-Regional Transportation Fee 1,250,000 1,250,000 2,500,000 4821 -Local Transportation Fee 2,000,000 2,000,000 3,300,000 4901 -Other Revenue 0 0 126,190 8198-Transfer In-Fund 198 0 0 17,000 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 4,654,240 0 0 Total For Fund 124: 8,396,830 3,853,270 6,435,140 ANIMAL CENTER IMPACT FEE(125) 4401 -Interest Earnings 2,220 3,050 2,100 4815-Animal Center Impact Fee 23,100 23,100 45,130 Total For Fund 125: 25,320 26,150 47,230 Page 41 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget LOWER ETIWANDA DRAINAGE(126) 4401 -Interest Earnings 11,370 12,600 8,150 Total For Fund 126: 11,370 12,600 8,150 POLICE IMPACT FEE(127) 4401 -Interest Earnings 8,570 11,930 7,980 4816-Police Impact Fee 102,000 102,000 157,260 Total For Fund 127: 110,570 113,930 165,240 ETIWANDA NO.EQUESTRIAN FACIL.(128) 4401 -Interest Earnings 12,690 14,060 8,320 Total For Fund 128: 12,690 14,060 8,320 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES(129) 4401 -Interest Earnings 198,180 219,590 131,020 4813 -Underground Utilities Fee 90,000 90,000 100,000 Total For Fund 129: 288,180 309,590 231,020 LMD#1 GENERAL CITY(130) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 1,232,960 1,235,240 1,235,240 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 11,900 10,200 10,200 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 2,000 2,870 2,870 4401 -Interest Earnings 21,330 29,550 15,180 4419-Other Rental/Lease Income 24,910 27,070 29,750 4554-Park Maintenance Fees 4,450 4,500 2,250 4555-Sports Field User Grp Rentals 1,000 280 0 4556-Sports Lighting Fees 22,290 10,500 10,500 4901 -Other Revenue 100 100 10,100 8001 -Transfer In-General Fund 135,830 36,300 36,610 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 30 8876-Transfer In-CFD Empire Lakes 0 2,710 2,710 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 391,960 7,230 167,890 Total For Fund 130: 1,848,730 1,366,550 1,523,330 LMD#2 VICTORIA(131) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 3,522,770 3,695,760 3,695,760 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 29,730 19,520 28,600 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 5,000 5,000 7,000 4401 -Interest Earnings 52,770 71,600 47,960 4554-Park Maintenance Fees 2,000 1,800 900 8001 -Transfer In-General Fund 324,860 314,280 312,190 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 8,750 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 912,780 38,080 788,860 Page 42 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 131: 4,849,910 4,146,040 4,890,020 LMD#3A HYSSOP(132) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 3,690 3,690 0 4401 -Interest Earnings 590 630 370 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 6,720 6,380 34,980 Total For Fund 132: 11,000 10,700 35,350 LMD#311 MEDIANS(133) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 805,860 807,690 807,690 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 9,730 10,420 9,000 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 970 1,210 1,800 4216-Parking Permits 240,000 220,000 60,000 4401 -Interest Earnings 36,580 44,140 26,700 4901 -Other Revenue 340 340 340 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 520 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 306,320 11,790 31,830 Total For Fund 133: 1,399,800 1,095,590 937,880 LMD#4R TERRA VISTA(134) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 2,779,600 2,779,590 2,779,590 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 12,500 8,630 8,630 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 1,250 2,110 2,110 4401 -Interest Earnings 93,040 121,820 79,250 4554-Park Maintenance Fees 2,080 770 770 4555- Sports Field User Grp Rentals 500 150 150 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 5,140 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 527,580 73,900 297,320 Total For Fund 134: 3,416,550 2,986,970 3,172,960 LMD#5 ANDOVER(135) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 2,470 2,470 2,500 4401 -Interest Earnings 550 550 340 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 6,650 4,470 3,840 Total For Fund 135: 9,670 7,490 6,680 LMD#6R CARYN COMMUNITY(136) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 519,920 535,960 535,960 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 3,500 3,970 3,970 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 350 1,600 1,600 4401 -Interest Earnings 9,430 12,820 8,690 8001 -Transfer In-General Fund 41,090 39,010 50,220 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 54,900 8,100 164,420 Page 43 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 136: 629,190 601,460 764,860 LMD#7 NORTH ETIWANDA(137) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 937,780 937,780 937,780 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 9,610 10,300 9,000 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 2,250 2,640 1,600 4401 -Interest Earnings 18,500 23,360 14,600 4419-Other Rental/Lease Income 25,660 48,630 55,000 4554-Park Maintenance Fees 540 1,500 1,000 4556- Sports Lighting Fees 51590 3,300 3,300 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 380 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 252,270 150,860 202,940 Total For Fund 137: 1,252,200 1,178,370 1,225,600 LMD#8 SOUTH ETIWANDA(138) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 33,920 33,920 33,920 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 350 310 310 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 30 20 20 4401 -Interest Earnings 1,220 1,450 810 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 4,440 4,180 26,840 Total For Fund 138: 39,960 39,880 61,900 LMD#9 LOWER ETIWANDA(139) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 668,730 939,690 939,690 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 1,000 860 4,000 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 380 320 600 4401 -Interest Earnings 16,940 20,640 16,060 4554-Park Maintenance Fees 2,000 2,900 2,000 4555- Sports Field User Grp Rentals 500 150 150 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 1,290 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 515,300 0 0 Total For Fund 139: 1,204,850 964,560 963,790 LMD#10 RANCHO ETIWANDA(140) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 573,200 590,390 590,390 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 5,500 5,000 5,000 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 1,250 2,070 1,500 4401 -Interest Earnings 19,870 23,320 15,280 4419-Other Rental/Lease Income 7,500 25,050 28,000 4554-Park Maintenance Fees 4,740 230 300 4555- Sports Field User Grp Rentals 2,000 250 250 4556- Sports Lighting Fees 7,030 3,900 3,900 4901 -Other Revenue 3,500 3,500 0 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 970 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 115,750 97,960 37,640 Page 44 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 140: 740,340 751,670 683,230 LMD 1 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND(141) 4401 -Interest Earnings 3,890 6,000 4,380 8130-Transfer In-Fund 130 90,000 90,000 90,000 8876-Transfer In-CFD Empire Lakes 0 810 810 Total For Fund 141: 93,890 96,810 95,190 GENERAL CITY STREET LIGHTS(150) 4401 -Interest Earnings 30 0 0 8151 -Transfer In-Fund 151 112,200 113,200 122,670 8152-Transfer In-Fund 152 109,840 110,860 120,140 8153 -Transfer In-Fund 153 43,550 43,960 47,640 8154-Transfer In-Fund 154 20,220 20,410 22,110 8155-Transfer In-Fund 155 9,600 9,690 10,510 8156-Transfer In-Fund 156 15,030 15,170 16,450 8157-Transfer In-Fund 157 30,430 30,720 33,290 8158-Transfer In-Fund 158 10,720 10,820 11,730 Total For Fund 150: 351,620 354,830 384,540 SLD#1 ARTERIAL(151) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 811,300 820,470 820,470 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 5,500 5,710 5,710 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 1,250 1,550 1,550 4401 -Interest Earnings 11,530 13,240 7,200 4808-Developer Energizing Fee 1,000 0 0 8876-Transfer In-CFD Empire Lakes 0 0 680 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 175,180 172,250 222,730 Total For Fund 151: 1,005,760 1,013,220 1,058,340 SLD#2 RESIDENTIAL(152) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 371,420 372,410 372,410 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 3,480 3,050 3,050 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 550 970 970 4808-Developer Energizing Fee 1,000 0 0 8001 -Transfer In-General Fund 284,250 317,330 343,530 8876-Transfer In-CFD Empire Lakes 0 1,900 1,900 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 480 0 0 Total For Fund 152: 661,180 695,660 721,860 SLD#3 VICTORIA(153) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 355,500 377,600 377,600 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 3,510 2,040 2,040 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 350 530 530 4401 -Interest Earnings 25,730 30,060 18,440 Page 45 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 153: 385,090 410,230 398,610 SLD#4 TERRA VISTA(154) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 164,740 164,740 164,740 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 1,600 570 570 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 160 150 150 4401 -Interest Earnings 17,770 12,360 6,350 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 3,690 6,090 Total For Fund 154: 184,270 181,510 177,900 SLD#5 CARYN COMMUNITY(155) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 43,710 43,710 43,710 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 440 370 370 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 70 160 160 8001 -Transfer In-General Fund 0 0 47,230 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 32,990 33,580 0 Total For Fund 155: 77,210 77,820 91,470 SLD#6 INDUSTRIAL AREA(156) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 132,530 133,100 133,100 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 750 1,600 1,600 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 130 370 370 4401 -Interest Earnings 8,020 9,150 5,500 Total For Fund 156: 141,430 144,220 140,570 SLD#7 NORTH ETIWANDA(157) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 128,590 128,590 128,590 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 1,300 1,890 1,890 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 400 410 410 4401 -Interest Earnings 2,380 2,770 2,070 8001 -Transfer In-General Fund 83,920 89,100 87,060 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 140 0 0 Total For Fund 157: 216,730 222,760 220,020 SLD#8 SOUTH ETIWANDA(158) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 70,490 70,490 70,490 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 700 550 550 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 100 190 190 4401 -Interest Earnings 37,340 41,170 24,320 4808-Developer Energizing Fee 430 0 0 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 450 Total For Fund 158: 109,060 112,400 96,000 STATE GAS TAX(174) Page 46 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 4401 -Interest Earnings 151,370 172,600 122,970 4720-Gas Tax 2105-Prop 111 981,180 950,990 957,000 4721 -State Gas Tax-2106 608,380 587,830 576,420 4722-State Gas Tax-2107 1,281,500 1,144,040 1,214,720 4723 -State Gas Tax-2107.5 10,000 10,000 10,000 4725-Gas Tax R&T7360 1,521,640 1,515,890 1,388,430 4727-State GF Loan Repmt-HUTA 199,240 0 0 8006-Transfer In-Fund 006 150,000 0 0 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 1,050 Total For Fund 174: 4,903,310 4,381,350 4,270,590 MEASURE I 1990-2010(176) 4401 -Interest Earnings 5,650 5,520 1,420 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 194,560 0 161,520 Total For Fund 176: 200,210 5,520 162,940 MEASURE I 2010-2040(177) 4401 -Interest Earnings 44,720 42,660 36,920 4715-Measure I Local St Allotment 3,016,420 2,617,900 3,470,230 4901 -Other Revenue 0 0 120,000 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 723,370 241,330 648,220 Total For Fund 177: 3,784,510 2,901,890 4,275,370 ROAD MAINT&REHAB ACCT(179) 4401 -Interest Earnings 14,770 57,240 49,900 4726-Road Maint&Rehab Acct Rev 2,903,570 3,083,490 3,201,790 Total For Fund 179: 2,918,340 3,140,730 3,251,690 SB 1 -TCEP(181) 4740-Grant Income-Other 52,150,000 0 0 4760-Grant Income-State 0 11,000,650 9,000,650 Total For Fund 181: 52,150,000 11,000,650 9,000,650 AB 2928 TRAFFIC CONGEST RELIEF(182) 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 80 0 0 Total For Fund 182: 80 0 0 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT(188) 4134-Integrated Waste Mgmt Fee 1,335,170 1,662,890 1,654,780 4220-Other Licenses&Permits 700 700 700 4401 -Interest Earnings 59,710 65,760 42,660 4590-Administrative Fee-C&D Program 40,000 40,000 50,000 4901 -Other Revenue 100,000 100,000 50,000 Page 47 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 188: 1,535,580 1,869,350 1,798,140 PROPOSITION 1B STATE FUNDING(194) 4401 -Interest Earnings 4,540 5,030 2,990 Total For Fund 194: 4,540 5,030 2,990 STATE ASSET SEIZURE(195) 4401 -Interest Earnings 1,320 950 880 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 38,860 39,490 15,320 Total For Fund 195: 40,180 40,440 16,200 CA ASSET SEIZURE 15% (196) 4401 -Interest Earnings 60 130 30 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 5,950 0 40 Total For Fund 196: 6,010 130 70 CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPRV(198) 4401 -Interest Earnings 441,550 458,200 298,890 4745-Other Intergov'tl Reimbursemnt 1,250,000 900,000 900,000 4823 -Traffic Mitigation Fee 2,000 2,000 2,000 4901 -Other Revenue 0 0 2,340 4935-Contributed Capital 0 0 52,100 Total For Fund 198: 1,693,550 1,360,200 1,255,330 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLK GRNT(204) 4740-Grant Income-Other 1,290,010 1,290,010 0 4741 -Program Income 150,000 150,000 150,000 4750-Grant Income-Federal 0 0 2,781,870 8001 -Transfer In-General Fund 0 0 9,800 Total For Fund 204: 1,440,010 1,440,010 2,941,670 FEDERAL SAFETEA-LU(209) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 1,070 2,140 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 310 0 0 Total For Fund 209: 310 1,070 2,140 PROP 1B-SLPP(211) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 70 30 Total For Fund 211: 0 70 30 PEDESTRIAN GRANT/ART 3 (214) Page 48 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 4740-Grant Income-Other 451,000 401,200 86,420 Total For Fund 214: 451,000 401,200 86,420 PUBLIC RESRCE GRNTS/HEALTHY RC(218) 4740-Grant Income-Other 9,730 14,730 0 4905-Contributions/Fundraising 9,510 9,510 0 4914-Non-Abated Reimbursements 360 360 0 8001 -Transfer In-General Fund 0 0 16,520 Total For Fund 218: 19,600 24,600 16,520 CA RECYC/LITTER REDUCTION GRNT(225) 4740-Grant Income-Other 59,390 59,860 44,100 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 26,520 Total For Fund 225: 59,390 59,860 70,620 USED OIL RECYCLING PROGRAM(227) 4401 -Interest Earnings 600 560 440 4740-Grant Income-Other 48,830 48,830 48,200 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 370 420 1,560 Total For Fund 227: 49,800 49,810 50,200 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM(234) 4740-Grant Income-Other 118,900 90,800 0 Total For Fund 234: 118,900 90,800 0 RECREATION SERVICES(250) 4401 -Interest Earnings 37,600 0 0 4419-Other Rental/Lease Income 725,370 0 0 4520-Recreation Fees 1,816,400 0 0 4571 - Sale of Taxable Items 28,000 0 0 4581 -Ticket Sales 44,550 0 0 4901 -Other Revenue 183,060 0 0 4905-Contributions/Fundraising 130,880 0 0 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 279,360 0 0 Total For Fund 250: 3,245,220 0 0 VG CULTURAL CENTER(255) 4401 -Interest Earnings 13,960 0 0 4419-Other Rental/Lease Income 464,050 0 0 4520-Recreation Fees 41,550 0 0 4522-Processing Fees 85,000 0 0 4571 -Sale of Taxable Items 650 0 0 4581 -Ticket Sales 835,890 0 0 4586-Advertising Revenue 5,000 0 0 Page 49 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 4901 -Other Revenue 42,500 0 0 4905-Contributions/Fundraising 126,700 0 0 Total For Fund 255: 1,615,300 0 0 FREEDOM COURTYARD RSRC GRANTS(272) 4401 -Interest Earnings 40 50 0 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 2,110 0 0 Total For Fund 272: 2,150 50 0 STATE GRANTS FUND(274) 4760-Grant Income-State 0 2,686,760 223,240 Total For Fund 274: 0 2,686,760 223,240 FEDERAL GRANTS FUND(275) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 0 15,620 4750-Grant Income-Federal 0 0 18,724,120 Total For Fund 275: 0 0 18,739,740 LIBRARY FUND(290) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 4,540,760 4,529,110 4,648,200 4102-Property Taxes-CY Unsecured 98,730 102,420 101,560 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 55,610 52,040 41,090 4105-Property Taxes-Supplemental 82,860 90,860 71,270 4113 -Property Tax-Post RDA Res Blc 140,340 140,340 140,340 4401 -Interest Earnings 92,740 109,440 76,360 4419-Other Rental/Lease Income 10,000 5,000 0 4512-Library Card&Merchndse Sales 5,000 5,000 300 4515-Interlibrary Loan(ILL) 100 0 0 4565-Passport Processing Fees 120,000 120,000 10,100 4567-Passport Photo Fees 20,000 20,000 0 4570- Sale of Printed Material 24,000 24,000 3,000 4575-Exhibit Sales 15,000 6,500 6,500 4591 -Recreation Fees-ActiveNet 6,600 300 110 4690-Contract Classes-Library 10,000 5,000 3,770 4691 -Program Revenue-Library 1,500 2,800 0 4740-Grant Income-Other 10,000 0 26,010 4901 -Other Revenue 125,940 50,420 60,170 4907-Private Contributions Library 140,000 130,000 25,000 4909-RC Library Foundation Support 554,610 574,610 210,000 4914-Non-Abated Reimbursements 15,000 15,000 5,000 4941 -Other Revenue-ActiveNet 0 460 0 4946-Processing Fee-ActiveNet 0 8,400 540 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 221,250 8302-Transfer In-Fund 302 0 0 37,050 Page 50 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 290: 6,068,790 5,991,700 5,687,620 CA STATE LIBRARY(291) 4740-Grant Income-Other 21,130 20,000 52,300 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 530 0 Total For Fund 291: 21,130 20,530 52,300 STAFF INNOVATION FD(CA ST LB)(292) 4401 -Interest Earnings 4,610 5,080 3,020 4740-Grant Income-Other 2,920 0 0 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 820 0 Total For Fund 292: 7,530 5,900 3,020 THE BIG READ LIBRARY GRANT(301) 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 50 0 0 Total For Fund 301: 50 0 0 LIBRARY SERVICES&TECH.ACT(302) 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 20 37,070 Total For Fund 302: 0 20 37,070 LIBRARY CAPITAL FUND(329) 4401 -Interest Earnings 14,180 17,420 16,840 8290-Transfer In-Library Fund 500,000 500,000 1,100,000 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 63,940 407,880 728,940 Total For Fund 329: 578,120 925,300 1,845,780 DRUG ABATEMENT ACT(340) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 0 340 Total For Fund 340: 0 0 340 COP'S PROGRAM GRANT-STATE(354) 4740-Grant Income-Other 271,820 271,820 432,070 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 80,310 34,200 0 Total For Fund 354: 352,130 306,020 432,070 JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT(JAG)(361) 4750-Grant Income-Federal 0 0 59,690 Total For Fund 361: 0 0 59,690 Page 51 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget OTS-"DRINK,DRIVE,LOSE" GRANT(370) COPS SECURE OUR SCHOOLS GRANT(373) HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT-FIRE(380) 4740-Grant Income-Other 0 0 27,130 Total For Fund 380: 0 0 27,130 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT-POLICE(381) 4740-Grant Income-Other 68,290 66,360 38,220 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 190 0 0 Total For Fund 381: 68,480 66,360 38,220 EMERGENCY MGMT PERFORMNCE GRNT(383) 4740-Grant Income-Other 26,730 26,840 26,730 Total For Fund 383: 26,730 26,840 26,730 HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY(396) 4401 -Interest Earnings 154,560 46,000 22,820 4901 -Other Revenue 12,000 12,000 12,000 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 495,650 3,937,700 4,074,160 Total For Fund 396: 662,210 3,995,700 4,108,980 AD 82-1 6TH ST INDUSTRIAL(600) 4401 -Interest Earnings 250 280 170 Total For Fund 600: 250 280 170 AD 84-1 DAY CREEK/MELLO(602) 4401 -Interest Earnings 21,020 23,300 13,790 Total For Fund 602: 21,020 23,300 13,790 CFD 2001-01 (612) 4401 -Interest Earnings 53,950 59,790 35,360 Total For Fund 612: 53,950 59,790 35,360 CFD 2003-01 PROJECT FUND(614) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 1,760 20 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 40 Total For Fund 614: 0 1,760 60 CFD 2003-01 CULTURAL CENTER(615) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 1,920 30 Page 52 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 615: 0 1,920 30 CFD 2004-01 RANCHO ETIWANDA ES(617) 4401 -Interest Earnings 100 560 70 Total For Fund 617: 100 560 70 CFD 2006-01 VINTNER'S GROVE(680) 4401 -Interest Earnings 40 40 30 Total For Fund 680: 40 40 30 CFD 2006-02 AMADOR ON ROUTE 66(681) 4401 -Interest Earnings 120 130 60 Total For Fund 681: 120 130 60 SPORTS COMPLEX(700) 4126-Admissions Tax 105,000 90,000 25,000 4411 - Special Event Rental 13,000 0 0 4419-Other Rental/Lease Income 183,400 0 0 4426- Stadium Lease-Minimum Rent 110,000 115,000 72,000 4439-Other Rental/Lease Inc.-ANet 42,500 133,090 94,090 4520-Recreation Fees 85,800 0 0 4554-Park Maintenance Fees 4,410 4,410 0 4556- Sports Lighting Fees 3,220 0 0 4562-Maintenance Fees 6,250 6,250 0 4580- Stadium Security Reimbursement 34,150 34,150 6,830 4583 -Baseball Security Reimb. 47,320 30,320 30,320 4901 -Other Revenue 3,500 0 55,040 4941 -Other Revenue-ActiveNet 0 3,000 0 8001 -Transfer In-General Fund 2,166,750 1,401,770 1,386,510 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 20,000 Total For Fund 700: 2,805,300 1,817,990 1,689,790 REGIS CONNECT(702) 4401 -Interest Earnings 1,310 0 0 4670-REGIS Connect Service Fees 50,000 0 0 Total For Fund 702: 51,310 0 0 MUNICIPAL UTILITY(705) 4401 -Interest Earnings 314,010 351,190 170,010 4601 -Monthly Srvc Fee-Electric Util 600,000 650,000 698,000 4602-Commodity Fee-Electric Util. 12,500,000 11,000,000 10,650,000 4603 -New Srvc Activation Fee-Util. 15,000 15,000 15,000 4604-Dist Line Ext Fee-Elec Utility 500,000 500,000 530,000 4605-Wholesale Energy Sales&Cntrt 800,000 600,000 600,000 Page 53 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 4608- Standby Demand Fee 91,320 91,320 91,320 4610-Late Fee-Electric Utility 14,000 14,000 14,000 4735-ARB-Cap and Trade Revenue 325,000 425,000 0 4802-Developer Participation 20,000 220,000 220,000 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 1,383,130 Total For Fund 705: 15,179,330 13,866,510 14,371,460 UTILITY PUBLIC BENEFIT FUND(706) 4401 -Interest Earnings 8,290 5,310 4,040 4609-Public Benefit Fund-Elec Util 300,000 300,000 300,000 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 384,960 286,220 255,160 Total For Fund 706: 693,250 591,530 559,200 RCMU CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND(708) 4401 -Interest Earnings 100,570 111,560 66,000 Total For Fund 708: 100,570 111,560 66,000 RCMU CAP AND TRADE FUND(709) 4735-ARB-Cap and Trade Revenue 0 0 330,000 8705-Transfer In-Municipal Utility 0 0 2,253,940 Total For Fund 709: 0 0 2,583,940 FIBER OPTIC NETWORK(711) 4401 -Interest Earnings 141,570 97,980 -8,000) 4419-Other Rental/Lease Income 75,000 75,000 75,000 4446-Fiber License Revenue 275,000 75,000 54,760 4802-Developer Participation 0 0 7,740 4911 -Reimbursement from Other Funds 4,950 4,950 4,950 8025-Transfer In-Capital Rsry Fund 960,360 934,840 934,840 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 331,750 233,440 9,450,280 Total For Fund 711: 1,788,630 1,421,210 10,519,570 EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT(712) 4401 -Interest Earnings 28,210 22,490 17,010 4540-Intragovernmental User Fees 530,000 530,000 530,000 8006-Transfer In-Fund 006 150,000 300,000 300,000 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 214,620 61,280 305,580 Total For Fund 712: 922,830 913,770 1,152,590 COMP EQUIP/TECH REPLCMENT FUND(714) 4401 -Interest Earnings 21,050 53,050 28,390 4540-Intragovernmental User Fees 584,190 584,190 584,190 8025-Transfer In-Capital Rsry Fund 429,660 421,870 421,870 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 371,840 Page 54 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 8288-Transfer In-Fund 288 107,420 117,670 113,350 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 125,960 0 62,800 Total For Fund 714: 1,268,280 1,176,780 1,582,440 AD 82-111 REDEMPTION FUND(800) 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 10 Total For Fund 800: 0 0 10 AD 82-1R RESERVE FUND(801) 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 50 Total For Fund 801: 0 0 50 AD 84-2 REDEMPTION FUND(807) 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 10 Total For Fund 807: 0 0 10 AD 84-2 SPECIAL RESERVE(808) 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 50 Total For Fund 808: 0 0 50 CFD 88-2 ETIWANDA/HIGHLND DEBT(812) 4401 -Interest Earnings 17,070 19,010 11,240 Total For Fund 812: 17,070 19,010 11,240 CFD 88-2 ETIWANDA/HIGHLND IMPR(813) 4401 -Interest Earnings 35,560 39,240 23,470 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 14,950 561,500 308,040 Total For Fund 813: 50,510 600,740 331,510 CFD 88-2 POLICE(815) 4401 -Interest Earnings 240 270 170 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 13,280 Total For Fund 815: 240 270 13,450 CFD 2004-01 REDEMPTION(820) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 2,646,840 2,646,840 2,646,840 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 20,000 22,570 26,500 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 3,500 3,500 4,000 4401 -Interest Earnings 23,080 32,200 20,910 Page 55 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 820: 2,693,420 2,705,110 2,698,250 CFD 2004-01 RESERVE(821) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 12,070 130 Total For Fund 821: 0 12,070 130 AD 91-2 REDEMPTION-DAY CANYON(838) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 33,130 33,130 33,130 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 500 360 360 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 150 170 170 4401 -Interest Earnings 860 1,100 710 Total For Fund 838: 34,640 34,760 34,370 AD 93-1 MASI COMMERCE CENTER(841) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 248,630 248,630 248,630 4401 -Interest Earnings 7,490 10,910 5,210 Total For Fund 841: 256,120 259,540 253,840 CFD 93-3 FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE(842) 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 4,040 Total For Fund 842: 0 0 4,040 PD 85 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND(847) 4401 -Interest Earnings 3,760 7,510 4,920 8848-Transfer In-Fund 848 116,800 116,800 116,800 8850-Transfer In-PD 85 Reserve Fund 0 0 6,180 8876-Transfer In-CFD Empire Lakes 0 950 950 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 45,110 0 0 Total For Fund 847: 165,670 125,260 128,850 PD 85 REDEMPTION FUND(848) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 1,147,500 1,147,930 1,147,930 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 11,500 10,860 10,860 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 2,500 3,710 3,710 4401 -Interest Earnings 30,680 38,000 27,070 4419-Other Rental/Lease Income 107,450 122,790 122,790 4554-Park Maintenance Fees 6,500 4,800 4,800 4555- Sports Field User Grp Rentals 650 150 150 4556- Sports Lighting Fees 39,220 17,400 17,400 4901 -Other Revenue 500 500 500 8001 -Transfer In-General Fund 213,530 72,170 56,360 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 7,070 8876-Transfer In-CFD Empire Lakes 0 1,220 1,220 Page 56 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 848: 1,560,030 1,419,530 1,399,860 PD 85 RESERVE FUND(850) 4401 -Interest Earnings 110 130 60 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 6,120 Total For Fund 850: 110 130 6,180 CFD 2000-01 SO ETIWANDA RDMPTN(852) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 73,540 73,540 73,540 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 1,200 510 510 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 150 180 180 4401 -Interest Earnings 910 1,110 620 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 1,490 2,640 4,160 Total For Fund 852: 77,290 77,980 79,010 CFD 2000-01 SO ETIWANDA RSRV(853) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 240 10 Total For Fund 853: 0 240 10 AD 1999-1 REFUNDING REDEMPTION(854) 4401 -Interest Earnings 5,660 6,320 3,730 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 319,280 Total For Fund 854: 5,660 6,320 323,010 CFD 2000-02 RC CORP PARK RDMP(856) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 517,190 517,190 517,190 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 15,000 0 1,000 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 4,000 0 150 4401 -Interest Earnings 4,270 4,630 2,620 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 3,980 30,650 32,620 Total For Fund 856: 544,440 552,470 553,580 CFD 2000-02 RC CORP PARK RSRV(857) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 2,140 40 Total For Fund 857: 0 2,140 40 CFD 2000-03 RANCHO SUMMIT RDMP(858) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 560,590 560,590 560,590 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 7,500 5,070 5,070 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 750 1,690 1,690 4401 -Interest Earnings 3,180 4,370 2,790 Page 57 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 858: 572,020 571,720 570,140 CFD 2000-03 RANCHO SUMMIT RSRV(859) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 2,660 30 Total For Fund 859: 0 2,660 30 CFD 2001-01 SERIES A REDMPTION(860) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 666,460 666,460 666,460 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 1,500 4,690 6,500 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 300 1,020 1,020 4401 -Interest Earnings 180 10 10 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 10,800 7,320 6,510 Total For Fund 860: 679,240 679,500 680,500 CFD 2001-01 SERIES A RESERVE(861) 4401 -Interest Earnings 70 3,160 90 Total For Fund 861: 70 3,160 90 CFD 2001-01 SERIES B REDMPTION(862) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 61,470 61,470 61,470 4401 -Interest Earnings 30 10 10 Total For Fund 862: 61,500 61,480 61,480 CFD 2001-01 SERIES B RESERVE(863) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 310 10 Total For Fund 863: 0 310 10 CFD 2003-01 SERIES A REDEMPTN(864) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 1,154,140 1,177,770 1,177,770 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 400 560 1,400 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 50 100 250 4401 -Interest Earnings 5,450 6,350 4,900 Total For Fund 864: 1,160,040 1,184,780 1,184,320 CFD 2003-01 SERIES A RESERVE(865) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 14,410 150 Total For Fund 865: 0 14,410 150 CFD 2003-01 SERIES B REDEMPTN(866) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 201,050 201,050 201,050 4401 -Interest Earnings 2,270 2,360 1,470 Page 58 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 5,750 6,700 Total For Fund 866: 203,320 209,160 209,220 CFD 2003-01 SERIES B RESERVE(867) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 1,360 20 Total For Fund 867: 0 1,360 20 CFD 2000-03 PARK MAINTENANCE(868) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 494,600 524,270 524,270 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 3,600 3,950 3,950 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 1,250 1,200 1,200 4401 -Interest Earnings 5,710 7,530 3,940 4554-Park Maintenance Fees 0 0 500 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 200 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 160,510 120,620 37,410 Total For Fund 868: 665,670 657,570 571,470 CFD 2006-01 REDEMPTION(869) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 288,960 288,960 288,960 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 2,000 280 1,400 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 500 0 200 4401 -Interest Earnings 3,050 3,860 2,390 Total For Fund 869: 294,510 293,100 292,950 CFD 2006-01 RESERVE(870) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 1,340 30 Total For Fund 870: 0 1,340 30 CFD 2006-02 REDEMPTION(871) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 183,160 183,160 183,160 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 9,000 1,290 1,290 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 3,500 200 200 4401 -Interest Earnings 2,050 2,570 1,530 Total For Fund 871: 197,710 187,220 186,180 CFD 2006-02 RESERVE(872) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 800 20 Total For Fund 872: 0 800 20 CFD 2017-01 NO.ETIWANDA(875) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 0 3,020 3,020 Page 59 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 875: 0 3,020 3,020 CFD 2018-01 EMPIRE LAKES(876) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 0 123,180 123,180 4901 -Other Revenue 0 0 100 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 228,090 Total For Fund 876: 0 123,180 351,370 CFD 2018-01 CAPITAL RESERVE(877) 4401 -Interest Earnings 0 790 910 8876-Transfer In-CFD Empire Lakes 0 79,390 74,600 Total For Fund 877: 0 80,180 75,510 Total for CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: 244,344,020 193,960,900 247,762,340 Page 60 Page 61 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES SUMMARY BY ENTITY,FUND,DIVISION 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Fund/Description Adopted Adopted Amended Division/Description Budget Budget Budget GENERAL FUND(001) 001 NON-DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL 6,047,620 4,531,930 7,399,280 002 NON-DEPARTMENTAL PERSONNEL 129,310 182,240 434,710 101 CITY COUNCIL 118,110 132,470 119,280 102 CITY MANAGEMENT 991,920 1,016,030 948,150 103 CITY CLERK 1,960 1,940 2,010 104 ANIMAL CARE AND SERVICES 3,416,210 3,161,730 2,604,200 106 RECORDS MANAGEMENT 505,450 1,279,650 553,850 107 HEALTHY RC PROGRAM 628,910 633,230 573,090 108 COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 236,420 528,120 474,570 201 ADMIN SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 277,430 186,530 186,560 204 BUSINESS LICENSING 369,680 369,880 368,580 205 CITY FACILITIES 1,062,520 1,021,620 876,870 206 FINANCE 1,507,700 1,520,910 1,440,850 209 INNOVATION&TECHNOLOGY SRVCS 3,855,130 3,524,740 3,633,310 210 HUMAN RESOURCES 735,110 651,090 569,260 211 PROCUREMENT 274,510 247,010 256,720 212 RISK MANAGEMENT 282,440 249,480 312,060 213 TREASURY MANAGEMENT 12,420 12,300 10,630 217 CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS 212,560 259,430 236,530 301 ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DVLPMNT 805,350 802,270 747,030 302 BUILDING AND SAFETY 1,916,950 1,766,050 1,729,700 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 433,040 301,100 531,820 305 ENGINEERING-DEVELOPMENT MGT 1,106,870 963,370 944,310 306 ENGINEERING-NPDES 381,340 303,650 246,730 307 ENGINEERING-PROJECT MGT 603,800 529,590 542,280 308 ENGINEERING-TRAFFIC MGT 255,720 255,590 186,140 311 FIRE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 356,160 456,970 324,780 312 CITY FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 3,997,670 3,610,070 3,378,680 314 PLANNING 1,793,550 1,618,600 1,827,250 315 PLANNING COMMISSION 17,280 15,170 15,190 317 VEHICLE AND EQUIP.MAINT. 1,127,540 1,068,040 1,039,870 318 STREET MAINTENANCE 2,889,140 2,404,740 2,487,690 319 PARK MAINTENANCE 3,291,770 2,728,470 2,844,320 322 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 759,570 782,010 711,060 401 COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 5,562,050 1,579,750 1,221,720 402 CSD-CENTRAL PARK OPERATIONS 0 1,383,370 545,150 403 CSD-LIONS CENTER 0 885,410 330,200 404 CSD-RC FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER 0 175,810 155,520 405 CSD-RC SPORTS CENTER 0 663,220 306,840 406 CSD-SPECIAL EVENTS 0 246,780 172,630 407 CSD-VICTORIA GARDENS CULT CTR 0 2,404,260 667,610 408 CSD-CONTRACT CLASSES 0 592,420 183,600 409 CSD-PARK SERVICES 0 188,390 149,210 701 POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 42,327,060 44,869,070 44,660,920 TOTAL FOR GENERAL FUND: 88,290,270 90,104,500 86,950,760 Page 62 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES SUMMARY BY ENTITY,FUND,DIVISION 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Fund/Description Adopted Adopted Amended Division/Description Budget Budget Budget REIMB ST/COUNTY PARKING CIT(003) 701 POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 162,480 111,330 108,310 CVWD REIMBURSEMENTS(006) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 614,110 583,890 607,210 CNTY OF S.B.REIMBURSEMENTS(008) 316 STREET AND PARK MAINT. 0 0 34,000 COMM DEV TECHNICAL SRVCS FUND(016) 301 ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DVLPMNT 561,100 6,500 2,370,710 LAW ENFORCEMENT RESERVE(017) 701 POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 649,720 478,500 4,236,690 TRAFFIC SAFETY(018) 701 POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 409,260 112,000 96,700 CITY TECHNOLOGY FEE FUND(020) 301 ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DVLPMNT 97,560 145,380 145,910 MOBILE HOME PARK PROGRAM(022) 302 BUILDING AND SAFETY 36,510 42,750 27,320 SB1186 CERT ACCESS SPEC PROG(023) 302 BUILDING AND SAFETY 5,730 5,730 5,770 CAPITAL RESERVE(025) 001 NON-DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL 6,235,270 5,650,060 6,729,020 BENEFITS CONTINGENCY(073) 002 NON-DEPARTMENTAL PERSONNEL 906,760 1,079,220 917,830 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS ADMIN(100) 202 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ADMIN 1,071,230 1,014,630 1,335,700 AD 93-1 MASI COMMERCE CENTER(101) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 210 180 180 AB2766 AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT(105) 208 GRANT MANAGEMENT 990,990 320,400 983,520 MSRC AIR POLLUTION REDUCT GRNT(106) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 0 30,000 30,000 PUBLIC ART TRUST FUND(109) 301 ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DVLPMNT 0 0 30,540 BEAUTIFICATION(110) 316 STREET AND PARK MAINT. 410,440 450 31,570 PARK LAND ACQUISITION(111) 401 COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 30,710 1,370 18,970 DRAINAGE FAC/GENERAL(112) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 147,670 149,870 3,361,100 COMMUNITY/REC CENTER DEVELPMNT(113) 401 COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 10,140 500 54,680 DRAINAGE-ETIWANDA/SAN SEVAINE(114) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 370 120 250 HENDERSON/WARDMAN DRAINAGE(115) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 260 360 360 ETIWANDA DRAINAGE(116) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 139,600 135,630 31,120 UPPER ETIWANDA DRAINAGE(118) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 390 220 450 PARK IMPROVEMENT(119) 401 COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 14,660 150 8,720 Page 63 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES SUMMARY BY ENTITY,FUND,DIVISION 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Fund/Description Adopted Adopted Amended Division/Description Budget Budget Budget PARK DEVELOPMENT(120) 401 COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 768,720 423,860 452,130 SOUTH ETIWANDA DRAINAGE(122) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 240 410 800 LIBRARY IMPACT FEE(123) 601 LIBRARY-ADMINISTRATION 3,330 0 2,080 TRANSPORTATION(124) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 8,396,830 2,063,960 5,199,270 ANIMAL CENTER IMPACT FEE(125) 104 ANIMAL CARE AND SERVICES 720 0 460 LOWER ETIWANDA DRAINAGE(126) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 400 230 480 POLICE IMPACT FEE(127) 701 POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 960 0 730 ETIWANDA NO.EQUESTRIAN FACIL.(128) 314 PLANNING 180 260 540 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES(129) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 80,210 44,060 54,910 LMD#1 GENERAL CITY(130) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 1,848,730 1,366,550 1,523,330 LMD#2 VICTORIA(131) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 4,849,910 4,528,540 4,890,020 LMD#3A HYSSOP(132) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 11,000 10,700 35,350 LMD#3B MEDIANS(133) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 1,399,800 723,670 599,320 320 METROLINK STATION MAINTENANCE 0 371,920 338,560 TOTAL FOR LMD#3B MEDIANS: 1,399,800 1,095,590 937,880 LMD#4R TERRA VISTA(134) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 3,416,550 2,986,970 3,172,960 LMD#5 ANDOVER(135) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 9,670 7,490 6,680 LMD#6R CARYN COMMUNITY(136) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 629,190 601,460 764,860 LMD#7 NORTH ETIWANDA(137) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 1,252,200 1,178,370 1,225,600 LMD#8 SOUTH ETIWANDA(138) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 39,960 39,880 61,900 LMD#9 LOWER ETIWANDA(139) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 1,204,850 824,450 756,960 LMD#10 RANCHO ETIWANDA(140) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 740,340 751,670 683,230 LMD 1 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND(141) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 40,620 40,550 40,650 GENERAL CITY STREET LIGHTS(150) 202 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ADMIN 351,620 354,830 384,540 SLD#1 ARTERIAL(151) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 1,005,760 1,013,220 1,058,340 Page 64 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES SUMMARY BY ENTITY,FUND,DIVISION 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Fund/Description Adopted Adopted Amended Division/Description Budget Budget Budget SLD#2 RESIDENTIAL(152) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 661,180 693,760 721,860 SLD#3 VICTORIA(153) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 328,780 329,480 333,470 SLD#4 TERRA VISTA(154) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 178,260 181,510 177,900 SLD#5 CARYN COMMUNITY(155) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 77,210 77,820 78,470 SLD#6 INDUSTRIAL AREA(156) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 137,630 143,850 138,870 SLD#7 NORTH ETIWANDA(157) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 216,730 222,760 218,870 SLD#8 SOUTH ETIWANDA(158) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 98,120 100,750 95,100 STATE GAS TAX(174) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 3,156,470 3,793,370 3,651,510 MEASURE I 1990-2010(176) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 200,210 300 162,940 MEASURE I 2010-2040(177) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 3,784,510 2,901,890 4,275,370 ROAD MAINT&REHAB ACCT(179) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 1,866,000 2,400,000 3,176,760 SB 1-TCEP(181) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 52,150,000 11,000,650 9,000,650 All 2928 TRAFFIC CONGEST RELIEF(182) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 80 0 0 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT(188) 313 INTEGRATED WASTE MGMT. 1,521,010 1,566,520 1,529,930 PROPOSITION 1B STATE FUNDING(194) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 70 100 200 STATE ASSET SEIZURE(195) 701 POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 40,180 40,440 16,200 CA ASSET SEIZURE 15%(196) 701 POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 6,010 70 70 CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPRV(198) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 349,030 299,740 541,170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLK GRNT(204) 314 PLANNING 1,290,010 1,266,530 2,931,250 FEDERAL SAFETEA-LU(209) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 310 0 0 PEDESTRIAN GRANT/ART 3(214) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 451,000 401,200 86,420 PUBLIC RESRCE GRNTS/HEALTHY RC(218) 102 CITY MANAGEMENT 0 10 10 107 HEALTHY RC PROGRAM 9,730 9,730 10,940 TOTAL FOR PUBLIC RESRCE 9,730 9,740 10,950 GRNTS/HEALTHY RC: CA RECYC/LITTER REDUCTION GRNT(225) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 59,390 59,620 70,620 Page 65 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES SUMMARY BY ENTITY,FUND,DIVISION 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Fund/Description Adopted Adopted Amended Division/Description Budget Budget Budget USED OIL RECYCLING PROGRAM(227) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 49,800 49,810 50,200 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM(234) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 118,900 90,800 0 RECREATION SERVICES(250) 401 COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 3,245,220 0 0 VG CULTURAL CENTER(255) 401 COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 1,525,940 0 0 FREEDOM COURTYARD RSRC GRANTS(272) 401 COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 2,150 0 0 STATE GRANTS FUND(274) 208 GRANT MANAGEMENT 0 0 223,240 401 COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 0 2,686,760 0 TOTAL FOR STATE GRANTS FUND: 0 2,686,760 223,240 FEDERAL GRANTS FUND(275) 208 GRANT MANAGEMENT 0 0 18,724,120 LIBRARY FUND(290) 601 LIBRARY-ADMINISTRATION 1,852,910 2,711,060 2,003,110 603 LITERACY SERVICES 107,710 104,740 102,320 604 BOOKMOBILE SERVICES 121,570 5,100 30,960 605 LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES 2,080 2,180 1,130 606 ARCHIBALD LIBRARY 1,195,230 1,070,520 979,520 607 PAUL A.BIANE LIBRARY 1,544,150 1,157,470 983,380 608 VIRTUAL LIBRARY 295,130 0 0 610 SECOND STORY 652,670 698,590 1,259,120 TOTAL FOR LIBRARY FUND: 5,771,450 5,749,660 5,359,540 CA STATE LIBRARY(291) 602 GRANT MANAGEMENT 21,130 20,530 43,680 STAFF INNOVATION FD(CA ST LB)(292) 602 GRANT MANAGEMENT 5,830 5,900 250 THE BIG READ LIBRARY GRANT(301) 602 GRANT MANAGEMENT 50 0 0 LIBRARY SERVICES&TECH.ACT(302) 601 LIBRARY-ADMINISTRATION 0 20 37,070 LIBRARY CAPITAL FUND(329) 601 LIBRARY-ADMINISTRATION 578,120 925,300 400,710 COP'S PROGRAM GRANT-STATE(354) 701 POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 352,130 306,020 306,020 JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT(JAG)(361) 701 POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 0 0 59,690 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT-FIRE(380) 501 FIRE ADMINISTRATION 0 0 27,130 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT-POLICE(381) 701 POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 68,480 66,140 38,220 EMERGENCY MGMT PERFORMNCE GRNT(383) 501 FIRE ADMINISTRATION 26,730 26,840 26,730 HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY(396) Page 66 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES SUMMARY BY ENTITY,FUND,DIVISION 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Fund/Description Adopted Adopted Amended Division/Description Budget Budget Budget 301 ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DVLPMNT 662,210 3,995,700 4,108,980 AD 82-1 6TH ST INDUSTRIAL(600) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 0 10 10 AD 84-1 DAY CREEK/MELLO(602) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 300 430 890 CFD 2001-01(612) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 910 1,090 2,020 CFD 2003-01 PROJECT FUND(614) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 0 60 60 SPORTS COMPLEX(700) 312 CITY FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 2,557,400 1,817,990 1,689,790 401 COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 247,900 0 0 TOTAL FOR SPORTS COMPLEX: 2,805,300 1,817,990 1,689,790 REGIS CONNECT(702) 207 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS 26,410 0 0 MUNICIPAL UTILITY(705) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 11,115,610 12,127,360 14,371,460 UTILITY PUBLIC BENEFIT FUND(706) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 693,250 591,530 559,200 RCMU CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND(708) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 1,410 2,020 4,130 RCMU CAP AND TRADE FUND(709) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 0 0 150,250 FIBER OPTIC NETWORK(711) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 1,788,630 1,421,210 10,519,570 EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT(712) 001 NON-DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL 922,830 913,770 1,152,590 COMP EQUIP/TECH REPLCMENT FUND(714) 001 NON-DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL 1,268,280 751,960 1,582,440 AD 82-1R REDEMPTION FUND(800) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 0 0 10 AD 82-1R RESERVE FUND(801) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 0 0 50 AD 84-2 REDEMPTION FUND(807) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 0 0 10 AD 84-2 SPECIAL RESERVE(808) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 0 0 50 CFD 88-2 ETIWANDA/HIGHLND DEBT(812) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 240 360 730 CFD 88-2 ETIWANDA/HIGHLND IMPR(813) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 50,510 600,740 331,510 CFD 88-2 POLICE(815) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 0 0 13,450 CFD 2004-01 REDEMPTION(820) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 2,380,980 2,379,690 2,380,290 AD 91-2 REDEMPTION-DAY CANYON(838) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 25,110 25,850 21,160 AD 93-1 MASI COMMERCE CENTER(841) Page 67 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES SUMMARY BY ENTITY,FUND,DIVISION 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Fund/Description Adopted Adopted Amended Division/Description Budget Budget Budget 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 238,820 236,690 236,860 CFD 93-3 FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE(842) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 0 0 4,040 PD 85 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND(847) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 165,670 40,600 94,050 PD 85 REDEMPTION FUND(848) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 1,402,940 1,242,350 1,169,170 321 RED HILL LAKE MAINTENANCE 117,130 80,700 33,830 TOTAL FOR PD 85 REDEMPTION FUND: 1,520,070 1,323,050 1,203,000 PD 85 RESERVE FUND(850) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 0 0 6,180 CFD 2000-01 SO ETIWANDA RDMPTN(852) 303 ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 77,290 77,980 79,010 AD 1999-1 REFUNDING REDEMPTION(854) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 80 120 323,010 CFD 2000-02 RC CORD PARK RDMP(856) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 544,440 552,470 553,580 CFD 2000-03 RANCHO SUMMIT RDMP(858) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 546,120 542,350 542,440 CFD 2001-01 SERIES A REDMPTION(860) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 679,240 679,500 680,500 CFD 2001-01 SERIES B REDMPTION(862) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 58,730 58,390 59,390 CFD 2003-01 SERIES A REDEMPTN(864) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 1,096,720 1,118,660 1,118,810 CFD 2003-01 SERIES B REDEMPTN(866) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 203,150 209,160 209,220 CFD 2000-03 PARK MAINTENANCE(868) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 665,670 657,570 571,470 CFD 2006-01 REDEMPTION(869) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 275,400 278,370 279,450 CFD 2006-02 REDEMPTION(871) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 176,090 176,760 177,810 CFD 2017-01 NO.ETIWANDA(875) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 0 1,220 1,220 CFD 2018-01 EMPIRE LAKES(876) 203 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 0 123,180 351,370 TOTAL FOR CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: 233,174,550 183,430,510 225,266,330 Page 68 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget GENERAL FUND(001) 001 -NON-DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL 5005-Overtime Salaries 5,000 2,000 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 0 30 0 5100-Travel and Meetings 60,550 57,250 11,040 5102-Training 43,200 32,200 7,200 5105 -Mileage 300 300 50 5152-Computer Software 4,000 5,800 0 5160-Membership Dues 99,820 116,460 117,480 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 2,400 2,400 1,200 5200-Operations&Maintenance 151,620 145,500 101,880 5220-Cellular Technology 5,370 0 0 5300-Contract Services 776,980 750,450 944,430 5312-Legal Services 656,250 576,250 640,230 5410-Property Insurance 270,110 316,110 388,510 5510-Property Tax Admin.Fee 101,360 89,160 94,990 5700-Interest Expense 11,980 8,200 8,200 5701 -Principal Repayments 94,470 98,250 98,250 5725-Other Expenditures 0 0 162,370 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (661,020) (663,390) (758,820) 9017-Transfer Out-Fund 017 0 0 2,511,240 9025-Transfer Out-Capital Reserve 1,175,000 725,000 725,000 9130-Transfer Out-LMD1 135,830 36,300 36,610 9131 -Transfer Out-LMD2 324,860 314,280 312,190 9136-Transfer Out-LMD6R 41,090 39,010 50,220 9152-Transfer Out-SLD2 284,250 317,330 343,530 9155-Transfer Out-SLD5 0 0 47,230 9157-Transfer Out-SLD7 83,920 89,100 87,060 9204-Transfer Out-Fund 204 0 0 9,800 9218-Transfer Out-Fund 218 0 0 16,520 9700-Transfer Out-Sports Complex 2,166,750 1,401,770 1,386,510 9848-Transfer Out-Fund 848 213,530 72,170 56,360 Total Division: 001 6,047,620 4,531,930 7,399,280 002-NON-DEPARTMENTAL PERSONNEL 5031 -Medical Insurance 0 86,830 0 5051 -Unemployment Insurance 0 0 341,570 5059-Deferred Health Reimb.Acct. 0 0 17,200 5060-Tuition Reimbursement 26,000 26,000 30,600 5061 -Employee Development 98,540 84,040 59,970 5065-Coffee Fund 5,000 5,000 5,000 5070-Executive Reimbursement 10,000 18,000 18,000 5285-Safety Gear&Equipment 46,000 46,000 46,000 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (56,230) (83,630) (83,630) Total Division: 002 129,310 182,240 434,710 101 -CITY COUNCIL 5000-Regular Salaries 103,980 106,450 108,950 5030-Fringe Benefits 40,690 41,880 45,840 5100-Travel and Meetings 16,500 19,400 1,250 Page 69 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 5,000 3,300 3,300 5200-Operations&Maintenance 3,300 3,000 1,500 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (51,360) (41,560) (41,560) Total Division: 101 118,110 132,470 119,280 102-CITY MANAGEMENT 5000-Regular Salaries 908,360 955,810 920,330 5005-Overtime Salaries 3,200 3,200 800 5010-Part Time Salaries 11,700 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 432,890 453,070 467,570 5100-Travel and Meetings 33,200 33,200 5,840 5105-Mileage 200 200 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 5,000 5,000 4,000 5160-Membership Dues 5,330 6,320 6,320 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 390 520 780 5200-Operations&Maintenance 5,500 4,250 3,050 5220-Cellular Technology 1,200 0 0 5300-Contract Services 15,000 15,000 0 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (430,050) (460,540) (460,540) Total Division: 102 991,920 1,016,030 948,150 103 -CITY CLERK 5000-Regular Salaries 1,900 1,910 1,910 5030-Fringe Benefits 910 920 990 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (850) (890) (890) Total Division: 103 1,960 1,940 2,010 104-ANIMAL CARE AND SERVICES 5000-Regular Salaries 1,449,970 1,300,880 1,126,350 5005-Overtime Salaries 78,980 56,000 56,000 5010-Part Time Salaries 635,010 576,750 386,840 5030-Fringe Benefits 806,900 751,320 654,670 5100-Travel and Meetings 3,600 2,100 2,100 5102-Training 6,000 6,000 7,000 5105-Mileage 1,500 1,000 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 9,600 7,700 7,700 5160-Membership Dues 3,260 3,260 2,900 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 100 0 0 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 3,200 0 0 5220-Cellular Technology 4,160 0 0 5260-O&M/Animal Care 116,630 117,630 85,000 5262-O&M/Community&Info Programs 4,000 2,000 2,000 5263 -O&M/Field Services 5,000 4,000 5,580 5264-O&M/Veterinarian Services 139,000 139,000 105,000 5265-O&M/Kitten Nursery 20,090 10,000 5,000 5360-Contract Serv/Animal Care 14,820 43,660 43,660 5362-Contract Serv/Comm&Info Prgm 2,490 1,030 0 5363 -Contract Serv/Field Services 15,500 15,500 15,500 5364-Contract ServNet Services 56,400 66,400 66,400 5365-Cont Srv-Spay/Neuter Program 40,000 47,500 32,500 5603 -Capital Outlay-Equipment 0 10,000 0 Page 70 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total Division: 104 3,416,210 3,161,730 2,604,200 106-RECORDS MANAGEMENT 5000-Regular Salaries 396,280 408,930 429,870 5005-Overtime Salaries 1,000 1,000 2,500 5010-Part Time Salaries 17,530 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 187,600 193,430 218,210 5100-Travel and Meetings 17,700 11,200 2,200 5102-Training 5,200 4,150 4,750 5105 -Mileage 400 400 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 4,000 4,000 4,000 5152-Computer Software 180 180 180 5160-Membership Dues 1,610 1,660 1,960 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 50 50 80 5200-Operations&Maintenance 48,000 48,000 38,000 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 3,000 0 0 5300-Contract Services 42,700 827,700 73,150 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (219,800) (221,050) (221,050) Total Division: 106 505,450 1,279,650 553,850 107-HEALTHY RC PROGRAM 5000-Regular Salaries 343,100 345,990 313,090 5030-Fringe Benefits 164,690 166,080 161,250 5100-Travel and Meetings 11,500 11,500 3,250 5102-Training 3,000 3,000 2,620 5160-Membership Dues 140 180 180 5200-Operations&Maintenance 40,880 40,880 31,380 5300-Contract Services 65,600 65,600 61,320 Total Division: 107 628,910 633,230 573,090 108-COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 5000-Regular Salaries 158,020 356,290 354,680 5005-Overtime Salaries 0 0 100 5030-Fringe Benefits 75,850 171,020 182,680 5100-Travel and Meetings 7,850 8,750 250 5160-Membership Dues 1,250 1,250 1,250 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 7,060 6,300 1,300 5200-Operations&Maintenance 10,000 30,000 25,900 5300-Contract Services 79,200 65,360 19,260 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (102,810) (110,850) (110,850) Total Division: 108 236,420 528,120 474,570 201 -ADMIN SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 262,090 205,830 206,280 5030-Fringe Benefits 122,930 95,920 103,030 5061 -Employee Development 2,500 2,500 1,000 5100-Travel and Meetings 7,050 7,800 1,900 5105 -Mileage 130 130 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 1,490 1,490 1,490 5160-Membership Dues 1,600 1,650 1,640 5200-Operations&Maintenance 280 280 290 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (120,640) (129,070) (129,070) Page 71 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total Division:201 277,430 186,530 186,560 204-BUSINESS LICENSING 5000-Regular Salaries 220,880 231,340 240,260 5010-Part Time Salaries 33,140 13,290 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 108,120 114,330 123,740 5100-Travel and Meetings 380 3,330 150 5102-Training 0 0 270 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 4,250 4,250 2,500 5160-Membership Dues 100 100 130 5200-Operations&Maintenance 1,860 2,010 1,530 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 0 1,230 0 5220-Cellular Technology 950 0 0 Total Division:204 369,680 369,880 368,580 205 -CITY FACILITIES 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 42,640 42,640 15,000 5151 -Postage 98,410 98,440 98,440 5200-Operations&Maintenance 32,680 32,680 9,500 5300-Contract Services 105,730 99,860 106,280 5401 -Gas Utilities 112,330 148,090 148,090 5402-Water Utilities 54,320 54,320 54,320 5403 -Electric Utilities 1,078,470 1,014,350 914,000 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (462,060) (468,760) (468,760) Total Division:205 1,062,520 1,021,620 876,870 206-FINANCE 5000-Regular Salaries 1,350,900 1,469,700 1,380,480 5005-Overtime Salaries 0 0 300 5010-Part Time Salaries 90,510 0 12,100 5030-Fringe Benefits 667,410 702,580 707,730 5100-Travel and Meetings 9,790 9,370 2,100 5102-Training 2,300 3,310 3,040 5105-Mileage 200 100 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 10,000 10,000 10,000 5160-Membership Dues 2,030 2,120 2,170 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 570 320 490 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 700 580 700 5200-Operations&Maintenance 6,580 7,000 7,230 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 0 300 660 5220-Cellular Technology 460 0 0 5300-Contract Services 21,900 23,580 21,900 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (655,650) (708,050) (708,050) Total Division:206 1,507,700 1,520,910 1,440,850 209-INNOVATION&TECHNOLOGY SRVCS 5000-Regular Salaries 2,000,630 1,911,530 1,879,270 5005-Overtime Salaries 19,000 19,000 16,500 5030-Fringe Benefits 957,430 914,930 961,950 5100-Travel and Meetings 80,240 27,000 0 5102-Training 47,060 20,500 37,500 5105-Mileage 2,000 1,500 0 Page 72 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 3,000 1,200 2,700 5152-Computer Software 4,800 4,800 0 5160-Membership Dues 1,380 4,700 4,680 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 60 0 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 55,200 55,200 69,410 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 15,000 10,000 37,500 5220-Cellular Technology 8,500 0 0 5283 -Depreciation-Computer Equip 584,190 584,190 584,190 5300-Contract Services 1,753,140 1,749,590 1,819,010 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (1,676,500) (1,779,400) (1,779,400) Total Division:209 3,855,130 3,524,740 3,633,310 210-HUMAN RESOURCES 5000-Regular Salaries 522,200 503,920 495,910 5010-Part Time Salaries 17,830 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 252,940 240,150 251,350 5100-Travel and Meetings 31,500 31,500 11,410 5102-Training 3,300 3,300 3,300 5105-Mileage 250 250 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 3,000 3,000 2,000 5160-Membership Dues 4,760 4,660 4,710 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 600 600 600 5200-Operations&Maintenance 63,000 58,000 39,780 5220-Cellular Technology 1,500 0 0 5300-Contract Services 153,910 127,210 81,700 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (319,680) (321,500) (321,500) Total Division:210 735,110 651,090 569,260 211 -PROCUREMENT 5000-Regular Salaries 216,000 210,900 216,210 5010-Part Time Salaries 51,650 28,910 32,290 5030-Fringe Benefits 115,290 108,380 117,400 5100-Travel and Meetings 4,500 4,500 600 5102-Training 1,230 3,000 1,500 5105-Mileage 300 300 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 2,000 2,000 500 5160-Membership Dues 1,550 1,620 1,620 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 60 60 60 5200-Operations&Maintenance 1,200 1,200 400 5220-Cellular Technology 100 0 0 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (119,370) (113,860) (113,860) Total Division:211 274,510 247,010 256,720 212-RISK MANAGEMENT 5000-Regular Salaries 207,540 191,210 217,220 5030-Fringe Benefits 98,460 90,630 110,390 5100-Travel and Meetings 17,400 13,400 4,000 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 1,740 1,740 1,740 5160-Membership Dues 1,700 1,700 1,700 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 4,240 4,240 4,240 5200-Operations&Maintenance 47,930 47,930 40,000 Page 73 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 0 0 3,000 5300-Contract Services 26,250 26,250 57,390 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (122,820) (127,620) (127,620) Total Division:212 282,440 249,480 312,060 213 -TREASURY MANAGEMENT 5000-Regular Salaries 1,900 1,910 1,910 5030-Fringe Benefits 910 920 990 5100-Travel and Meetings 1,350 1,150 380 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 420 420 420 5160-Membership Dues 60 100 100 5200-Operations&Maintenance 1,750 1,840 690 5300-Contract Services 11,430 11,610 11,790 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (5,400) (5,650) (5,650) Total Division:213 12,420 12,300 10,630 217-CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS 5220-Cellular Technology 0 80,000 80,000 5300-Contract Services 45,000 45,000 45,000 5400-Telephone Utilities 130,000 130,000 130,000 5405-Internet Services 130,000 117,940 95,040 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (92,440) (113,510) (113,510) Total Division:217 212,560 259,430 236,530 301 -ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DVLPMNT 5000-Regular Salaries 272,510 289,810 255,970 5030-Fringe Benefits 128,500 136,800 129,260 5100-Travel and Meetings 27,460 23,690 1,380 5105-Mileage 200 200 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 1,000 1,000 600 5160-Membership Dues 26,850 12,310 12,310 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 1,000 1,000 800 5200-Operations&Maintenance 143,220 143,220 143,220 5300-Contract Services 204,610 194,240 203,490 Total Division: 301 805,350 802,270 747,030 302-BUILDING AND SAFETY 5000-Regular Salaries 1,182,230 1,106,470 1,084,120 5005 -Overtime Salaries 6,000 6,000 3,500 5010-Part Time Salaries 33,170 19,070 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 574,940 531,480 558,190 5093 -Other Funds-Salary Reimbursmnt 0 (7,110) (7,110) 5100-Travel and Meetings 4,550 4,700 0 5102-Training 13,930 13,500 5,000 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 8,000 7,000 3,000 5160-Membership Dues 3,520 3,040 2,900 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 2,110 1,800 500 5200-Operations&Maintenance 3,000 3,100 2,600 5220-Cellular Technology 11,000 0 0 5300-Contract Services 74,500 77,000 77,000 Total Division: 302 1,916,950 1,766,050 1,729,700 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION Page 74 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5000-Regular Salaries 279,680 192,990 211,760 5030-Fringe Benefits 133,240 91,630 107,160 5100-Travel and Meetings 2,920 2,800 2,000 5105-Mileage 50 50 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 8,170 8,170 5,670 5160-Membership Dues 1,180 960 960 5200-Operations&Maintenance 1,630 1,630 1,240 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 0 1,200 1,200 5220-Cellular Technology 3,400 0 0 5300-Contract Services 2,770 1,670 201,830 Total Division: 303 433,040 301,100 531,820 305-ENGINEERING-DEVELOPMENT MGT 5000-Regular Salaries 715,700 632,020 615,260 5030-Fringe Benefits 343,540 303,370 312,070 5100-Travel and Meetings 1,550 1,550 800 5102-Training 390 890 890 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 1,100 600 300 5160-Membership Dues 990 990 990 5200-Operations&Maintenance 2,100 2,100 2,100 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 0 350 400 5300-Contract Services 41,500 21,500 11,500 Total Division: 305 1,106,870 963,370 944,310 306-ENGINEERING-NPDES 5000-Regular Salaries 122,390 126,650 91,840 5030-Fringe Benefits 58,750 60,800 47,300 5100-Travel and Meetings 3,200 3,200 0 5102-Training 3,100 3,100 1,000 5160-Membership Dues 1,200 1,200 1,500 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 185,000 106,000 103,390 5200-Operations&Maintenance 6,500 1,500 500 5300-Contract Services 1,200 1,200 1,200 Total Division: 306 381,340 303,650 246,730 307-ENGINEERING-PROJECT MGT 5000-Regular Salaries 389,780 334,340 323,460 5005-Overtime Salaries 500 500 500 5010-Part Time Salaries 35,250 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 187,610 160,500 164,780 5093 -Other Funds-Salary Reimbursmnt (52,620) 0 0 5100-Travel and Meetings 300 450 240 5102-Training 8,000 4,500 4,500 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 2,600 2,600 2,600 5160-Membership Dues 730 480 480 5200-Operations&Maintenance 2,120 2,120 2,120 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 2,300 3,600 3,600 5220-Cellular Technology 2,730 0 0 5300-Contract Services 24,500 20,500 18,000 5303 -Contract Serv/Reimbursable 0 0 22,000 Total Division: 307 603,800 529,590 542,280 Page 75 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 308-ENGINEERING-TRAFFIC MGT 5000-Regular Salaries 169,050 169,300 120,040 5030-Fringe Benefits 81,150 81,270 61,830 5100-Travel and Meetings 3,360 2,770 2,170 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 1,000 850 850 5160-Membership Dues 760 600 600 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 100 500 500 5200-Operations&Maintenance 150 150 150 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 150 150 0 Total Division: 308 255,720 255,590 186,140 311 -FIRE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 5000-Regular Salaries 202,830 297,370 196,350 5005-Overtime Salaries 15,000 15,000 15,000 5010-Part Time Salaries 34,140 1,380 9,770 5030-Fringe Benefits 104,190 143,220 103,660 Total Division: 311 356,160 456,970 324,780 312-CITY FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 5000-Regular Salaries 1,330,980 1,152,250 1,139,420 5005-Overtime Salaries 77,080 77,080 45,000 5010-Part Time Salaries 271,320 172,400 153,780 5030-Fringe Benefits 693,140 596,740 623,490 5100-Travel and Meetings 100 100 0 5102-Training 4,500 4,500 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 2,500 2,500 2,500 5160-Membership Dues 600 600 400 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 6,600 11,500 11,500 5204-O&M/Facilities 468,000 448,880 353,280 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 0 0 4,000 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rntl 9,500 9,500 7,000 5304-Contract Serv/Facilities 1,840,080 1,873,500 1,777,790 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (706,730) (739,480) (739,480) Total Division: 312 3,997,670 3,610,070 3,378,680 314-PLANNING 5000-Regular Salaries 1,002,860 897,510 906,130 5030-Fringe Benefits 478,780 428,210 463,770 5100-Travel and Meetings 5,800 7,230 3,310 5102-Training 8,150 8,150 7,550 5105-Mileage 200 200 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 3,580 3,580 3,580 5160-Membership Dues 1,150 1,870 1,920 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 850 850 850 5200-Operations&Maintenance 29,700 34,000 37,500 5220-Cellular Technology 480 0 0 5300-Contract Services 42,000 17,000 76,210 5303 -Contract Serv/Reimbursable 220,000 220,000 326,430 Total Division: 314 1,793,550 1,618,600 1,827,250 315-PLANNING COMMISSION 5000-Regular Salaries 9,000 9,000 9,000 Page 76 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5030-Fringe Benefits 130 140 140 5100-Travel and Meetings 6,800 4,680 5,470 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 200 200 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 1,150 1,150 580 Total Division: 315 17,280 15,170 15,190 317-VEHICLE AND EQUIP.MAINT. 5000-Regular Salaries 299,690 301,610 300,800 5005-Overtime Salaries 19,300 19,300 19,300 5010-Part Time Salaries 37,600 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 151,380 145,060 155,000 5102-Training 0 3,300 1,800 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 500 500 500 5160-Membership Dues 780 780 780 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 1,620 6,620 5,820 5200-Operations&Maintenance 73,220 73,220 48,220 5250-Vehicle Operations&Maint. 129,350 204,380 229,380 5251 -Depreciation-Vehicles 214,000 214,000 214,000 5255-Gasoline 260,000 254,610 200,910 5256-Diesel Fuel 15,000 12,470 20,470 5257-CNG Fuel 13,400 10,870 16,570 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 6,830 7,040 7,040 5281 -Depreciation-Equipment 30,600 30,600 30,600 5300-Contract Services 143,700 59,940 64,940 5990-Cost Allocation Plan Offset (269,430) (276,260) (276,260) Total Division: 317 1,127,540 1,068,040 1,039,870 318- STREET MAINTENANCE 5000-Regular Salaries 881,910 823,840 806,380 5005-Overtime Salaries 79,100 99,100 99,100 5010-Part Time Salaries 24,000 16,980 20,040 5030-Fringe Benefits 427,250 400,300 419,970 5100-Travel and Meetings 5,000 3,500 80 5102-Training 76,770 59,270 40,460 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 5,350 5,350 5,850 5160-Membership Dues 6,010 1,800 1,730 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 3,280 3,280 3,280 5200-Operations&Maintenance 430,500 368,000 282,000 5220-Cellular Technology 30,460 0 0 5251 -Depreciation-Vehicles 105,960 105,960 105,960 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rntl 21,500 21,500 31,500 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 20,000 20,000 20,000 5281 -Depreciation-Equipment 25,950 25,950 25,950 5300-Contract Services 246,780 225,590 176,820 5320-Hazardous Waste Removal 24,320 24,320 18,570 5650-Capital Project 475,000 200,000 430,000 Total Division: 318 2,889,140 2,404,740 2,487,690 319-PARK MAINTENANCE 5000-Regular Salaries 531,410 542,630 528,910 5005-Overtime Salaries 45,000 45,000 65,000 Page 77 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5010-Part Time Salaries 67,760 18,340 31,050 5030-Fringe Benefits 268,630 265,660 278,550 5102-Training 10,580 10,580 7,000 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 5,350 5,350 5,350 5160-Membership Dues 4,820 4,820 4,220 5200-Operations&Maintenance 185,000 160,000 140,950 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 0 0 450 5220-Cellular Technology 500 0 0 5251 -Depreciation-Vehicles 123,300 123,300 123,300 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rntl 6,000 6,000 6,000 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 3,500 3,500 3,500 5281 -Depreciation-Equipment 30,190 30,190 30,190 5300-Contract Services 983,340 902,420 828,670 5310-Tree Maintenance 575,000 200,000 336,000 5400-Telephone Utilities 2,260 2,260 2,880 5402-Water Utilities 416,300 380,510 420,790 5403 -Electric Utilities 32,830 27,910 31,510 Total Division: 319 3,291,770 2,728,470 2,844,320 322-COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 5000-Regular Salaries 372,510 392,100 329,290 5005-Overtime Salaries 3,000 3,000 900 5010-Part Time Salaries 0 0 11,860 5030-Fringe Benefits 178,810 188,260 169,790 5100-Travel and Meetings 3,000 3,000 0 5102-Training 1,500 1,500 1,000 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 3,000 3,000 2,000 5160-Membership Dues 500 500 770 5200-Operations&Maintenance 3,450 3,450 4,300 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 0 0 3,950 5220-Cellular Technology 5,000 0 0 5300-Contract Services 188,800 187,200 187,200 Total Division: 322 759,570 782,010 711,060 401 -COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 2,475,680 726,730 658,950 5005-Overtime Salaries 1,000 1,500 0 5010-Part Time Salaries 966,630 38,880 58,810 5030-Fringe Benefits 1,294,840 355,580 341,170 5100-Travel and Meetings 20,000 20,700 7,600 5102-Training 14,680 7,530 3,000 5105-Mileage 2,000 2,000 4,000 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 36,770 28,890 10,000 5160-Membership Dues 6,490 2,310 2,310 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 480 0 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 227,830 108,730 33,280 5207-O&M/Capital Supplies 0 15,000 0 5220-Cellular Technology 3,500 0 0 5300-Contract Services 512,150 271,900 102,600 Total Division:401 5,562,050 1,579,750 1,221,720 Page 78 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 402-CSD-CENTRAL PARK OPERATIONS 5000-Regular Salaries 0 326,730 331,400 5010-Part Time Salaries 0 563,900 16,700 5030-Fringe Benefits 0 213,880 170,940 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 0 3,000 5,000 5160-Membership Dues 0 160 160 5200-Operations&Maintenance 0 62,360 10,950 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 0 12,750 0 5300-Contract Services 0 200,590 10,000 Total Division:402 0 1,383,370 545,150 403 -CSD-LIONS CENTER 5000-Regular Salaries 0 198,030 198,450 5010-Part Time Salaries 0 492,670 19,000 5030-Fringe Benefits 0 123,480 102,500 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 0 1,250 0 5160-Membership Dues 0 150 150 5200-Operations&Maintenance 0 50,380 6,100 5300-Contract Services 0 19,450 4,000 Total Division:403 0 885,410 330,200 404-CSD-RC FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER 5000-Regular Salaries 0 101,100 101,320 5010-Part Time Salaries 0 11,690 1,000 5030-Fringe Benefits 0 48,700 52,200 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 0 500 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 0 12,700 1,000 5300-Contract Services 0 1,120 0 Total Division:404 0 175,810 155,520 405-CSD-RC SPORTS CENTER 5000-Regular Salaries 0 188,470 200,880 5010-Part Time Salaries 0 175,710 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 0 127,400 103,460 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 0 1,150 0 5160-Membership Dues 0 500 500 5200-Operations&Maintenance 0 69,940 0 5300-Contract Services 0 100,050 2,000 Total Division:405 0 663,220 306,840 406-CSD-SPECIAL EVENTS 5000-Regular Salaries 0 95,700 78,480 5010-Part Time Salaries 0 11,050 5,000 5030-Fringe Benefits 0 48,670 40,500 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 0 880 0 5160-Membership Dues 0 150 150 5200-Operations&Maintenance 0 18,060 3,500 5300-Contract Services 0 72,270 45,000 Total Division:406 0 246,780 172,630 407-CSD-VICTORIA GARDENS CULT CTR 5000-Regular Salaries 0 362,790 363,080 5005-Overtime Salaries 0 1,000 0 Page 79 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5010-Part Time Salaries 0 541,160 8,100 5030-Fringe Benefits 0 227,540 187,120 5100-Travel and Meetings 0 4,150 0 5102-Training 0 6,500 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 0 4,400 400 5160-Membership Dues 0 3,150 1,720 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 0 480 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 0 196,080 4,540 5207-O&M/Capital Supplies 0 9,000 0 5300-Contract Services 0 1,048,010 102,650 Total Division:407 0 2,404,260 667,610 408-CSD-CONTRACT CLASSES 5000-Regular Salaries 0 107,740 113,800 5010-Part Time Salaries 0 39,150 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 0 61,390 58,610 5102-Training 0 750 0 5160-Membership Dues 0 400 400 5200-Operations&Maintenance 0 12,750 100 5300-Contract Services 0 370,240 10,690 Total Division:408 0 592,420 183,600 409-CSD-PARK SERVICES 5000-Regular Salaries 0 34,570 38,980 5010-Part Time Salaries 0 101,310 63,290 5030-Fringe Benefits 0 34,670 30,300 5102-Training 0 1,100 1,100 5200-Operations&Maintenance 0 5,500 4,300 5300-Contract Services 0 11,240 11,240 Total Division:409 0 188,390 149,210 701 -POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 5100-Travel and Meetings 27,850 10,000 3,000 5102-Training 70,000 61,500 35,500 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 55,000 55,000 55,000 5160-Membership Dues 1,700 2,990 2,990 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 1,160 0 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 101,600 85,600 75,600 5201 -O&M/Volunteer Program 20,000 20,000 20,000 5210-O&M/Crime Prevention 29,000 29,000 8,000 5217-Technical Investigative Costs 200,780 168,580 150,580 5220-Cellular Technology 67,700 73,310 75,900 5250-Vehicle Operations&Maint. 320,000 320,000 220,000 5253 -Vehicle Collision Repair 100,000 100,000 100,000 5255-Gasoline 286,000 286,000 286,000 5300-Contract Services 40,804,990 43,626,370 43,620,440 5303 -Contract Serv/Reimbursable 20,450 20,450 1,420 5400-Telephone Utilities 670 0 1,210 5401 -Gas Utilities 0 0 640 5402-Water Utilities 0 0 750 5403 -Electric Utilities 0 0 3,890 Page 80 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 9018-Transfer Out-Traffic Safety 220,160 10,270 0 Total Division: 701 42,327,060 44,869,070 44,660,920 Total For Fund 001: 88,290,270 90,104,500 86,950,760 REIMB ST/COUNTY PARKING CIT(003) 701 -POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 5200-Operations&Maintenance 162,480 111,330 108,310 Total Division: 701 162,480 111,330 108,310 Total For Fund 003: 162,480 111,330 108,310 CVWD REIMBURSEMENTS(006) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 102,290 65,370 65,810 5005-Overtime Salaries 0 0 80 5030-Fringe Benefits 49,100 31,380 33,780 5200-Operations&Maintenance 86,500 62,500 82,900 5250-Vehicle Operations&Maint. 10,000 22,180 22,180 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rntl 1,000 1,000 1,000 5255-Gasoline 0 5,390 5,390 5256-Diesel Fuel 0 2,530 2,530 5257-CNG Fuel 0 2,530 2,530 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 500 500 500 9001 -Transfer Out-General Fund 64,720 90,510 90,510 9174-Transfer Out-Fund 174 150,000 0 0 9712-T/O Equipment/Vehicle Replacem 150,000 300,000 300,000 Total Division: 303 614,110 583,890 607,210 Total For Fund 006: 614,110 583,890 607,210 CNTY OF S.B.REIMBURSEMENTS(008) 316- STREET AND PARK MAINT. 9001 -Transfer Out-General Fund 0 0 34,000 Total Division: 316 0 0 34,000 Total For Fund 008: 0 0 34,000 COMM DEV TECHNICAL SRVCS FUND(016) 301 -ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DVLPMNT 5100-Travel and Meetings 1,400 0 0 5102-Training 500 500 500 5200-Operations&Maintenance 5,200 3,000 0 5300-Contract Services 554,000 3,000 2,270,210 5603 -Capital Outlay-Equipment 0 0 100,000 Total Division: 301 561,100 6,500 2,370,710 Page 81 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 016: 561,100 6,500 2,370,710 LAW ENFORCEMENT RESERVE(017) 701 -POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 5200-Operations&Maintenance 1,300 1,300 1,300 5207-O&M/Capital Supplies 33,000 30,000 75,000 5300-Contract Services 198,000 78,000 78,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 2,420 10,200 13,350 5603 -Capital Outlay-Equipment 415,000 359,000 344,000 5605-Capital Outlay-Computer Equip 0 0 410,690 5650-Capital Project 0 0 3,314,350 Total Division: 701 649,720 478,500 4,236,690 Total For Fund 017: 649,720 478,500 4,236,690 TRAFFIC SAFETY(018) 701 -POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 5300-Contract Services 405,000 112,000 92,450 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 4,260 0 4,250 Total Division: 701 409,260 112,000 96,700 Total For Fund 018: 409,260 112,000 96,700 INFO TECHNOLOGY-DEVELOPMENT(019) CITY TECHNOLOGY FEE FUND(020) 301 -ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DVLPMNT 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 97,560 145,380 145,910 Total Division: 301 97,560 145,380 145,910 Total For Fund 020: 97,560 145,380 145,910 MOBILE HOME PARK PROGRAM(022) 302-BUILDING AND SAFETY 5200-Operations&Maintenance 3,150 16,710 16,710 5300-Contract Services 31,000 15,500 0 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 2,360 3,430 3,500 5720-Misc Contributions to City 0 7,110 7,110 Total Division: 302 36,510 42,750 27,320 Total For Fund 022: 36,510 42,750 27,320 SB1186 CERT ACCESS SPEC PROG(023) 302-BUILDING AND SAFETY 5102-Training 780 700 700 5160-Membership Dues 0 80 80 5200-Operations&Maintenance 3,600 3,600 3,600 Page 82 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,350 1,350 1,390 Total Division: 302 5,730 5,730 5,770 Total For Fund 023: 5,730 5,730 5,770 CAPITAL RESERVE(025) 001 -NON-DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL 5005 -Overtime Salaries 5,000 0 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 74,000 0 24,940 5207-O&M/Capital Supplies 150,400 172,150 129,000 5300-Contract Services 416,900 367,400 362,830 5304-Contract Serv/Facilities 70,000 0 0 5320-Hazardous Waste Removal 20,000 20,000 20,000 5411 -Other Insurance 34,910 33,220 37,130 5416-General Liability Insurance 424,690 675,270 671,900 5417-General Liability Claims 500,000 500,000 550,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 67,350 8,310 28,460 5600-Capital Outlay-Land 0 0 1,851,420 5602-Capital Outlay-Bldg&Imprvmnt 922,000 557,000 447,420 5603 -Capital Outlay-Equipment 0 220,000 525,750 5607-Cap Outlay-Impry Oth Than Bldg 5,000 0 0 5650-Capital Project 2,155,000 1,740,000 723,460 9711 -Transfer Out-Fund 711 960,360 934,840 934,840 9714-Transfer Out-Comptr Eq Rplc 429,660 421,870 421,870 Total Division: 001 6,235,270 5,650,060 6,729,020 Total For Fund 025: 6,235,270 5,650,060 6,729,020 BENEFITS CONTINGENCY(073) 002-NON-DEPARTMENTAL PERSONNEL 5000-Regular Salaries 897,300 1,069,080 906,480 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 9,460 10,140 11,350 Total Division: 002 906,760 1,079,220 917,830 Total For Fund 073: 906,760 1,079,220 917,830 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS ADMIN(100) 202-ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ADMIN 5000-Regular Salaries 159,430 182,570 159,980 5010-Part Time Salaries 0 0 9,180 5030-Fringe Benefits 75,950 87,060 84,020 5100-Travel and Meetings 7,350 6,280 1,250 5102-Training 3,000 1,000 0 5105-Mileage 300 300 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 1,500 500 500 5151 -Postage 10,000 0 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 29,240 29,240 30,080 5300-Contract Services 178,660 263,260 605,980 Page 83 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 605,800 444,420 444,710 Total Division:202 1,071,230 1,014,630 1,335,700 Total For Fund 100: 1,071,230 1,014,630 1,335,700 AD 93-1 MASI COMMERCE CENTER(101) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 210 180 180 Total Division:203 210 180 180 Total For Fund 101: 210 180 180 AB2766 AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT(105) 208-GRANT MANAGEMENT 5200-Operations&Maintenance 15,560 13,650 9,120 5300-Contract Services 1,410 1,580 3,130 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 840 5,170 5,520 5604-Capital Outlay-Vehicles 0 84,000 73,680 5607-Cap Outlay-Impry Oth Than Bldg 160,000 0 0 5650-Capital Project 813,180 216,000 892,070 Total Division:208 990,990 320,400 983,520 Total For Fund 105: 990,990 320,400 983,520 MSRC AIR POLLUTION REDUCT GRNT(106) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5604-Capital Outlay-Vehicles 0 30,000 30,000 Total Division: 303 0 30,000 30,000 Total For Fund 106: 0 30,000 30,000 PUBLIC ART TRUST FUND(109) 301 -ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DVLPMNT 5200-Operations&Maintenance 0 0 10,000 5300-Contract Services 0 0 20,500 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 0 0 40 Total Division: 301 0 0 30,540 Total For Fund 109: 0 0 30,540 BEAUTIFICATION(110) 316- STREET AND PARK MAINT. 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 440 450 790 5650-Capital Project 410,000 0 30,780 Total Division: 316 410,440 450 31,570 Total For Fund 110: 410,440 450 31,570 Page 84 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget PARK LAND ACQUISITION(111) 401 -COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 5300-Contract Services 30,350 0 16,490 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 360 1,370 2,480 Total Division:401 30,710 1,370 18,970 Total For Fund 111: 30,710 1,370 18,970 DRAINAGE FAC/GENERAL(112) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 27,670 29,030 29,180 5030-Fringe Benefits 13,290 13,940 15,030 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 6,710 6,900 8,200 5650-Capital Project 100,000 100,000 3,308,690 Total Division: 303 147,670 149,870 3,361,100 Total For Fund 112: 147,670 149,870 3,361,100 COMMUNITY/REC CENTER DEVELPMNT(113) 401 -COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 5300-Contract Services 10,000 0 5,430 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 140 500 910 5650-Capital Project 0 0 48,340 Total Division:401 10,140 500 54,680 Total For Fund 113: 10,140 500 54,680 DRAINAGE-ETIWANDA/SAN SEVAINE(114) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 370 120 250 Total Division: 303 370 120 250 Total For Fund 114: 370 120 250 HENDERSON/WARDMAN DRAINAGE(115) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 260 360 360 Total Division: 303 260 360 360 Total For Fund 115: 260 360 360 ETIWANDA DRAINAGE(116) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 23,930 22,000 17,980 5030-Fringe Benefits 11,490 10,560 9,260 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 4,180 3,070 3,880 5650-Capital Project 100,000 100,000 0 Page 85 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total Division: 303 139,600 135,630 31,120 Total For Fund 116: 139,600 135,630 31,120 UPPER ETIWANDA DRAINAGE(118) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 390 220 450 Total Division: 303 390 220 450 Total For Fund 118: 390 220 450 PARK IMPROVEMENT(119) 401 -COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 5300-Contract Services 14,660 0 7,970 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 0 150 750 Total Division:401 14,660 150 8,720 Total For Fund 119: 14,660 150 8,720 PARK DEVELOPMENT(120) 401 -COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 67,540 70,640 55,080 5030-Fringe Benefits 32,420 33,910 28,370 5100-Travel and Meetings 2,300 2,500 400 5102-Training 500 500 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 200 200 200 5160-Membership Dues 240 240 150 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 0 150 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 500 500 500 5300-Contract Services 50,000 50,000 62,100 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 15,020 15,220 18,690 5607-Cap Outlay-Impry Oth Than Bldg 150,000 0 162,870 5650-Capital Project 450,000 250,000 123,770 Total Division:401 768,720 423,860 452,130 Total For Fund 120: 768,720 423,860 452,130 SOUTH ETIWANDA DRAINAGE(122) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 240 410 800 Total Division: 303 240 410 800 Total For Fund 122: 240 410 800 LIBRARY IMPACT FEE(123) 601 -LIBRARY-ADMINISTRATION 5300-Contract Services 3,330 0 1,820 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 0 0 260 Page 86 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total Division: 601 3,330 0 2,080 Total For Fund 123: 3,330 0 2,080 TRANSPORTATION(124) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 396,400 379,230 330,990 5030-Fringe Benefits 190,280 182,040 170,270 5050-Medicare 0 0 3,060 5300-Contract Services 0 0 27,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 62,650 62,040 74,310 5650-Capital Project 7,747,500 1,440,650 4,593,640 Total Division: 303 8,396,830 2,063,960 5,199,270 Total For Fund 124: 8,396,830 2,063,960 5,199,270 ANIMAL CENTER IMPACT FEE(125) 104-ANIMAL CARE AND SERVICES 5300-Contract Services 720 0 400 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 0 0 60 Total Division: 104 720 0 460 Total For Fund 125: 720 0 460 LOWER ETIWANDA DRAINAGE(126) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 400 230 480 Total Division: 303 400 230 480 Total For Fund 126: 400 230 480 POLICE IMPACT FEE(127) 701 -POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 5300-Contract Services 0 0 530 5309-Contract Srvc/Electric Utility 960 0 0 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 0 0 200 Total Division: 701 960 0 730 Total For Fund 127: 960 0 730 ETIWANDA NO.EQUESTRIAN FACIL.(128) 314-PLANNING 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 180 260 540 Total Division: 314 180 260 540 Total For Fund 128: 180 260 540 Page 87 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget UNDERGROUND UTILITIES(129) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5300-Contract Services 0 0 6,580 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 3,210 4,060 8,330 5650-Capital Project 77,000 40,000 40,000 Total Division: 303 80,210 44,060 54,910 Total For Fund 129: 80,210 44,060 54,910 LMD#1 GENERAL CITY(130) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 17,820 17,820 17,890 5010-Part Time Salaries 5,000 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 9,560 8,560 9,200 5200-Operations&Maintenance 70,100 70,100 63,470 5204-O&M/Facilities 2,300 2,300 2,300 5250-Vehicle Operations&Maint. 2,000 2,000 2,000 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rntl 5,800 5,800 5,800 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 2,000 2,000 2,000 5300-Contract Services 649,360 550,850 529,580 5304-Contract Serv/Facilities 7,630 7,410 10,410 5310-Tree Maintenance 52,500 52,500 166,200 5400-Telephone Utilities 2,000 2,000 1,890 5402-Water Utilities 342,760 342,760 372,700 5403 -Electric Utilities 65,980 52,790 37,450 5500-Assessment Administration 62,850 62,850 62,850 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 47,410 56,150 56,690 5607-Cap Outlay-Impry Oth Than Bldg 363,000 40,000 5,760 5650-Capital Project 50,000 0 86,480 5720-Misc Contributions to City 660 660 660 9141 -Transfer Out-Fund 141 90,000 90,000 90,000 Total Division: 303 1,848,730 1,366,550 1,523,330 Total For Fund 130: 1,848,730 1,366,550 1,523,330 LMD#2 VICTORIA(131) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 555,760 573,110 546,460 5005-Overtime Salaries 1,090 1,090 1,090 5010-Part Time Salaries 90,220 46,320 45,060 5030-Fringe Benefits 284,810 286,550 292,390 5200-Operations&Maintenance 86,150 86,150 75,300 5220-Cellular Technology 0 690 0 5250-Vehicle Operations&Maint. 5,000 5,000 5,000 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rntl 200 200 200 5300-Contract Services 1,627,240 1,533,420 1,479,850 5310-Tree Maintenance 163,340 163,340 261,090 5402-Water Utilities 801,940 801,940 867,530 Page 88 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5403 -Electric Utilities 72,420 61,790 47,700 5500-Assessment Administration 35,080 35,080 35,080 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 289,680 322,630 324,160 5504-Interfund Allocation 80,430 86,230 86,230 5607-Cap Outlay-Impry Oth Than Bldg 114,000 100,000 77,000 5650-Capital Project 642,550 425,000 745,880 Total Division: 303 4,849,910 4,528,540 4,890,020 Total For Fund 131: 4,849,910 4,528,540 4,890,020 LMD#3A HYSSOP(132) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5200-Operations&Maintenance 1,250 1,250 0 5300-Contract Services 5,260 5,560 430 5310-Tree Maintenance 900 900 0 5402-Water Utilities 1,320 1,320 210 5403 -Electric Utilities 900 900 20 5500-Assessment Administration 50 50 50 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,320 720 740 9001 -Transfer Out-General Fund 0 0 33,900 Total Division: 303 11,000 10,700 35,350 Total For Fund 132: 11,000 10,700 35,350 LMD#311 MEDIANS(133) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 76,640 52,850 53,620 5010-Part Time Salaries 21,600 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 41,110 25,370 27,490 5152-Computer Software 500 0 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 16,450 16,050 16,050 5204-O&M/Facilities 11,500 0 0 5300-Contract Services 694,300 432,020 298,740 5304-Contract Serv/Facilities 210,480 0 0 5310-Tree Maintenance 26,210 21,210 21,210 5402-Water Utilities 120,470 103,960 115,900 5403 -Electric Utilities 44,480 22,750 16,000 5500-Assessment Administration 6,240 6,240 6,240 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 39,820 43,220 44,070 5650-Capital Project 90,000 0 0 Total Division: 303 1,399,800 723,670 599,320 320-METROLINK STATION MAINTENANCE 5000-Regular Salaries 0 25,170 25,380 5010-Part Time Salaries 0 11,010 9,350 5030-Fringe Benefits 0 14,810 15,390 5152-Computer Software 0 500 500 5200-Operations&Maintenance 0 1,000 1,000 5204-O&M/Facilities 0 11,500 11,500 Page 89 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5300-Contract Services 0 95,930 62,620 5304-Contract Serv/Facilities 0 168,760 169,580 5310-Tree Maintenance 0 5,000 5,000 5402-Water Utilities 0 16,510 16,510 5403 -Electric Utilities 0 21,730 21,730 Total Division: 320 0 371,920 338,560 Total For Fund 133: 1,399,800 1,095,590 937,880 LMD#411 TERRA VISTA(134) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 678,970 683,180 617,780 5005-Overtime Salaries 1,050 1,050 1,050 5010-Part Time Salaries 47,280 26,140 24,960 5030-Fringe Benefits 335,370 334,400 323,720 5200-Operations&Maintenance 99,750 99,750 80,810 5220-Cellular Technology 0 690 0 5250-Vehicle Operations&Maint. 6,000 6,000 6,000 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rntl 1,700 1,700 1,700 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 3,750 3,750 3,750 5300-Contract Services 664,110 680,320 644,150 5310-Tree Maintenance 74,970 74,970 74,970 5402-Water Utilities 382,810 371,420 423,390 5403 -Electric Utilities 33,940 27,160 19,820 5500-Assessment Administration 20,980 20,980 20,980 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 235,870 255,460 257,850 5607-Cap Outlay-Impry Oth Than Bldg 430,000 0 210,780 5650-Capital Project 400,000 400,000 461,250 Total Division: 303 3,416,550 2,986,970 3,172,960 Total For Fund 134: 3,416,550 2,986,970 3,172,960 LMD#5 ANDOVER(135) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 1,910 1,530 1,150 5010-Part Time Salaries 840 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 1,090 740 600 5200-Operations&Maintenance 1,300 1,300 1,300 5250-Vehicle Operations&Maint. 70 70 70 5300-Contract Services 1,580 1,640 1,480 5402-Water Utilities 800 650 790 5403 -Electric Utilities 490 490 200 5500-Assessment Administration 240 240 240 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,350 830 850 Total Division: 303 9,670 7,490 6,680 Total For Fund 135: 9,670 7,490 6,680 Page 90 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget LMD#6R CARYN COMMUNITY(136) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 13,230 12,310 12,320 5030-Fringe Benefits 6,360 5,910 6,350 5200-Operations&Maintenance 11,900 11,900 7,440 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rntl 200 200 200 5300-Contract Services 330,830 325,980 393,850 5310-Tree Maintenance 34,850 34,850 99,990 5402-Water Utilities 182,300 155,760 193,120 5403 -Electric Utilities 7,330 7,330 4,120 5500-Assessment Administration 6,680 6,680 6,680 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 35,510 40,540 40,790 Total Division: 303 629,190 601,460 764,860 Total For Fund 136: 629,190 601,460 764,860 LMD#7 NORTH ETIWANDA(137) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 130,280 135,720 133,670 5010-Part Time Salaries 13,160 6,420 3,800 5030-Fringe Benefits 65,170 66,740 69,630 5200-Operations&Maintenance 39,800 39,800 28,080 5204-O&M/Facilities 1,500 1,500 1,500 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rntl 2,200 3,200 5,700 5300-Contract Services 464,690 479,830 446,710 5304-Contract Serv/Facilities 11,300 2,750 2,750 5310-Tree Maintenance 25,090 25,090 58,860 5402-Water Utilities 364,960 272,800 336,990 5403 -Electric Utilities 23,280 23,280 16,170 5500-Assessment Administration 16,130 16,130 16,130 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 93,960 104,430 104,930 5720-Misc Contributions to City 680 680 680 Total Division: 303 1,252,200 1,178,370 1,225,600 Total For Fund 137: 1,252,200 1,178,370 1,225,600 LMD#8 SOUTH ETIWANDA(138) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 3,980 3,550 3,550 5030-Fringe Benefits 1,920 1,710 1,830 5200-Operations&Maintenance 2,250 2,250 1,500 5300-Contract Services 10,600 11,370 11,970 5310-Tree Maintenance 3,720 3,720 22,120 5402-Water Utilities 6,390 5,780 9,950 5403 -Electric Utilities 1,160 1,160 610 5500-Assessment Administration 1,060 1,060 1,060 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 8,880 9,280 9,310 Total Division: 303 39,960 39,880 61,900 Page 91 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 138: 39,960 39,880 61,900 LMD#9 LOWER ETIWANDA(139) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 207,890 213,970 210,670 5010-Part Time Salaries 21,200 11,470 7,680 5030-Fringe Benefits 104,030 105,540 110,190 5200-Operations&Maintenance 30,510 30,510 17,800 5220-Cellular Technology 2,740 690 0 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rut] 1,200 1,200 1,200 5300-Contract Services 167,230 249,870 208,610 5310-Tree Maintenance 33,930 33,930 46,460 5402-Water Utilities 62,780 62,780 62,780 5403 -Electric Utilities 7,680 7,680 4,240 5500-Assessment Administration 7,700 7,700 7,700 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 57,960 59,110 59,630 5650-Capital Project 500,000 40,000 20,000 Total Division: 303 1,204,850 824,450 756,960 Total For Fund 139: 1,204,850 824,450 756,960 LMD#10 RANCHO ETIWANDA(140) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 162,200 166,340 149,520 5005-Overtime Salaries 1,050 1,050 1,050 5010-Part Time Salaries 31,110 16,510 12,410 5030-Fringe Benefits 84,080 83,950 79,900 5200-Operations&Maintenance 21,400 21,400 15,820 5204-O&M/Facilities 1,500 1,500 1,500 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rntl 2,000 3,300 5,800 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 500 500 500 5300-Contract Services 206,910 163,020 120,810 5304-Contract Serv/Facilities 12,540 3,770 3,770 5310-Tree Maintenance 11,800 11,800 14,290 5402-Water Utilities 109,590 109,590 113,510 5403 -Electric Utilities 17,560 17,560 12,470 5500-Assessment Administration 4,120 4,120 4,120 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 73,330 81,610 82,110 5607-Cap Outlay-Impry Oth Than Bldg 0 65,000 65,000 5720-Misc Contributions to City 650 650 650 Total Division: 303 740,340 751,670 683,230 Total For Fund 140: 740,340 751,670 683,230 LMD 1 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND(141) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5200-Operations&Maintenance 10,000 10,000 10,000 Page 92 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5300-Contract Services 30,000 30,000 30,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 620 550 650 Total Division: 303 40,620 40,550 40,650 Total For Fund 141: 40,620 40,550 40,650 GENERAL CITY STREET LIGHTS(150) 202-ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ADMIN 5200-Operations&Maintenance 100,000 100,000 100,000 5300-Contract Services 250,000 250,000 279,710 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,620 4,830 4,830 Total Division: 202 351,620 354,830 384,540 Total For Fund 150: 351,620 354,830 384,540 SLD#1 ARTERIAL(151) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 14,560 15,360 6,930 5030-Fringe Benefits 6,990 7,380 3,570 5102-Training 180 180 0 5160-Membership Dues 50 50 50 5200-Operations&Maintenance 7,990 7,990 7,990 5220-Cellular Technology 2,000 2,000 2,000 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 500 500 500 5300-Contract Services 47,750 47,750 47,750 5400-Telephone Utilities 1,500 1,500 1,500 5403 -Electric Utilities 358,160 358,160 406,000 5500-Assessment Administration 152,990 152,990 152,990 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 51,220 58,710 58,940 5700-Interest Expense 37,540 35,320 35,320 5701 -PrincipalRepayments 212,130 212,130 212,130 9150-Transfer Out-Fund 150 112,200 113,200 122,670 Total Division: 303 1,005,760 1,013,220 1,058,340 Total For Fund 151: 1,005,760 1,013,220 1,058,340 SLD#2 RESIDENTIAL(152) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5300-Contract Services 20,980 20,980 21,540 5403 -Electric Utilities 235,930 269,740 288,000 5500-Assessment Administration 38,080 38,080 38,080 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,900 1,920 1,920 5700-Interest Expense 38,260 35,990 35,990 5701 -Principal Repayments 216,190 216,190 216,190 9150-Transfer Out-Fund 150 109,840 110,860 120,140 Total Division: 303 661,180 693,760 721,860 Page 93 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 152: 661,180 693,760 721,860 SLD#3 VICTORIA(153) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 19,640 21,270 12,910 5030-Fringe Benefits 9,430 10,210 6,650 5102-Training 180 180 0 5160-Membership Dues 50 50 50 5200-Operations&Maintenance 9,940 9,940 9,940 5300-Contract Services 8,050 8,050 8,050 5403 -Electric Utilities 100,150 100,150 112,000 5500-Assessment Administration 34,240 34,240 34,240 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 8,010 6,740 7,300 5700-Interest Expense 14,370 13,520 13,520 5701 -Principal Repayments 81,170 81,170 81,170 9150-Transfer Out-Fund 150 43,550 43,960 47,640 Total Division: 303 328,780 329,480 333,470 Total For Fund 153: 328,780 329,480 333,470 SLD#4 TERRA VISTA(154) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 19,640 21,270 12,910 5005-Overtime Salaries 600 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 9,430 10,210 6,650 5102-Training 190 190 0 5160-Membership Dues 50 50 50 5200-Operations&Maintenance 4,940 4,940 4,940 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 1,000 1,000 2,290 5300-Contract Services 3,730 3,730 3,730 5403 -Electric Utilities 43,280 45,730 51,000 5500-Assessment Administration 20,950 20,950 20,950 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 6,020 5,250 5,490 5700-Interest Expense 7,250 6,820 6,820 5701 -Principal Repayments 40,960 40,960 40,960 9150-Transfer Out-Fund 150 20,220 20,410 22,110 Total Division: 303 178,260 181,510 177,900 Total For Fund 154: 178,260 181,510 177,900 SLD#5 CARYN COMMUNITY(155) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 4,590 4,840 2,310 5030-Fringe Benefits 2,210 2,330 1,190 5102-Training 180 180 0 5160-Membership Dues 50 50 50 5200-Operations&Maintenance 8,990 8,990 8,990 Page 94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5300-Contract Services 1,770 1,770 1,770 5403 -Electric Utilities 19,400 20,320 24,000 5500-Assessment Administration 6,670 6,670 6,670 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 2,090 1,510 1,510 5700-Interest Expense 3,260 3,070 3,070 5701 -Principal Repayments 18,400 18,400 18,400 9150-Transfer Out-Fund 150 9,600 9,690 10,510 Total Division: 303 77,210 77,820 78,470 Total For Fund 155: 77,210 77,820 78,470 SLD#6 INDUSTRIAL AREA(156) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 19,640 21,270 12,910 5030-Fringe Benefits 9,430 10,210 6,650 5102-Training 180 180 0 5160-Membership Dues 50 50 50 5200-Operations&Maintenance 6,940 6,940 6,940 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 800 800 2,290 5300-Contract Services 2,780 2,780 2,780 5403 -Electric Utilities 36,090 40,830 45,000 5500-Assessment Administration 5,610 5,610 5,610 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 6,090 5,330 5,510 5700-Interest Expense 5,260 4,950 4,950 5701 -Principal Repayments 29,730 29,730 29,730 9150-Transfer Out-Fund 150 15,030 15,170 16,450 Total Division: 303 137,630 143,850 138,870 Total For Fund 156: 137,630 143,850 138,870 SLD#7 NORTH ETIWANDA(157) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 14,560 15,360 6,930 5030-Fringe Benefits 6,990 7,380 3,570 5102-Training 180 180 0 5160-Membership Dues 50 50 50 5200-Operations&Maintenance 4,940 4,940 4,940 5300-Contract Services 5,630 5,630 5,630 5403 -Electric Utilities 60,780 66,090 72,000 5500-Assessment Administration 20,370 20,370 20,370 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 3,920 3,770 3,820 5700-Interest Expense 10,360 9,750 9,750 5701 -Principal Repayments 58,520 58,520 58,520 9150-Transfer Out-Fund 150 30,430 30,720 33,290 Total Division: 303 216,730 222,760 218,870 Total For Fund 157: 216,730 222,760 218,870 Page 95 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget SLD#8 SOUTH ETIWANDA(158) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 18,110 19,660 12,140 5030-Fringe Benefits 8,700 9,440 6,260 5102-Training 180 180 0 5160-Membership Dues 40 40 40 5200-Operations&Maintenance 4,940 4,940 4,940 5300-Contract Services 1,980 1,980 1,980 5403 -Electric Utilities 21,660 22,490 26,000 5500-Assessment Administration 8,290 8,290 8,290 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 5,350 4,920 5,730 5700-Interest Expense 2,730 2,570 2,570 5701 -Principal Repayments 15,420 15,420 15,420 9150-Transfer Out-Fund 150 10,720 10,820 11,730 Total Division: 303 98,120 100,750 95,100 Total For Fund 158: 98,120 100,750 95,100 STATE GAS TAX(174) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 1,195,000 1,120,900 1,073,440 5005-Overtime Salaries 12,000 12,000 12,000 5010-Part Time Salaries 88,340 36,680 22,650 5030-Fringe Benefits 590,110 546,120 554,260 5102-Training 2,780 2,780 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 620 620 620 5250-Vehicle Operations&Maint. 6,110 6,110 6,110 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 1,200 1,200 1,200 5300-Contract Services 292,860 277,290 274,360 5403 -Electric Utilities 168,000 95,000 168,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 230,510 239,410 242,890 5650-Capital Project 560,000 1,455,260 1,295,980 5720-Misc Contributions to City 8,940 0 0 Total Division: 303 3,156,470 3,793,370 3,651,510 Total For Fund 174: 3,156,470 3,793,370 3,651,510 MEASURE 11990-2010(176) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 210 300 440 5650-Capital Project 200,000 0 162,500 Total Division: 303 200,210 300 162,940 Total For Fund 176: 200,210 300 162,940 MEASURE I 2010-2040(177) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 260,160 267,070 267,680 Page 96 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5005-Overtime Salaries 14,300 14,300 14,300 5030-Fringe Benefits 124,440 127,970 137,490 5300-Contract Services 1,194,780 1,152,380 1,152,380 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 45,780 50,170 51,510 5650-Capital Project 2,125,000 1,290,000 2,652,010 5720-Misc Contributions to City 20,050 0 0 Total Division: 303 3,784,510 2,901,890 4,275,370 Total For Fund 177: 3,784,510 2,901,890 4,275,370 ROAD MAINT&REHAB ACCT(179) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 0 0 910 5650-Capital Project 1,866,000 2,400,000 3,175,850 Total Division: 303 1,866,000 2,400,000 3,176,760 Total For Fund 179: 1,866,000 2,400,000 3,176,760 SB 1-TCEP(181) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 0 650 650 5650-Capital Project 52,150,000 11,000,000 9,000,000 Total Division: 303 52,150,000 11,000,650 9,000,650 Total For Fund 181: 52,150,000 11,000,650 9,000,650 AB 2928 TRAFFIC CONGEST RELIEF(182) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 80 0 0 Total Division: 303 80 0 0 Total For Fund 182: 80 0 0 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT(188) 313 -INTEGRATED WASTE MGMT. 5000-Regular Salaries 676,010 671,520 669,950 5005-Overtime Salaries 50,000 50,000 50,000 5030-Fringe Benefits 322,760 321,320 341,230 5100-Travel and Meetings 1,500 1,500 0 5102-Training 500 500 500 5105-Mileage 100 100 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 1,000 1,000 1,000 5160-Membership Dues 920 890 890 5200-Operations&Maintenance 25,500 25,500 25,500 5204-O&M/Facilities 500 500 500 5220-Cellular Technology 1,940 0 0 5300-Contract Services 93,300 148,300 93,600 5304-Contract Serv/Facilities 2,000 3,480 3,480 Page 97 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 126,590 123,520 124,890 9001 -Transfer Out-General Fund 218,390 218,390 218,390 Total Division: 313 1,521,010 1,566,520 1,529,930 Total For Fund 188: 1,521,010 1,566,520 1,529,930 PROPOSITION 1B STATE FUNDING(194) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 70 100 200 Total Division: 303 70 100 200 Total For Fund 194: 70 100 200 STATE ASSET SEIZURE(195) 701 -POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 5207-O&M/Capital Supplies 0 0 15,730 5300-Contract Services 40,000 40,000 0 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 180 440 470 Total Division: 701 40,180 40,440 16,200 Total For Fund 195: 40,180 40,440 16,200 CA ASSET SEIZURE 15% (196) 701 -POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 5300-Contract Services 6,000 0 0 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 10 70 70 Total Division: 701 6,010 70 70 Total For Fund 196: 6,010 70 70 CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPRV(198) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 14,170 14,000 15,630 5030-Fringe Benefits 6,810 6,720 8,030 5300-Contract Services 0 0 10,000 5312-Legal Services 0 0 30,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 13,530 12,130 21,740 5650-Capital Project 290,890 266,890 438,770 5720-Misc Contributions to City 23,630 0 0 9124-Transfer Out-Transportation 0 0 17,000 Total Division: 303 349,030 299,740 541,170 Total For Fund 198: 349,030 299,740 541,170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLK GRNT(204) 314-PLANNING 5000-Regular Salaries 184,640 181,970 169,710 5005-Overtime Salaries 0 0 7,640 Page 98 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5010-Part Time Salaries 39,140 0 12,810 5030-Fringe Benefits 98,650 87,060 87,350 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 50,940 35,290 35,290 5650-Capital Project 916,640 962,210 2,618,450 Total Division: 314 1,290,010 1,266,530 2,931,250 Total For Fund 204: 1,290,010 1,266,530 2,931,250 FEDERAL SAFETEA-LU(209) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 310 0 0 Total Division: 303 310 0 0 Total For Fund 209: 310 0 0 PROP 1B-SLPP(211) PEDESTRIAN GRANT/ART 3(214) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5650-Capital Project 451,000 401,200 86,420 Total Division: 303 451,000 401,200 86,420 Total For Fund 214: 451,000 401,200 86,420 PUBLIC RESRCE GRNTS/HEALTHY RC(218) 102-CITY MANAGEMENT 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 0 10 10 Total Division: 102 0 10 10 107-HEALTHY RC PROGRAM 5200-Operations&Maintenance 9,730 9,730 5,640 5725-Other Expenditures 0 0 5,300 Total Division: 107 9,730 9,730 10,940 Total For Fund 218: 9,730 9,740 10,950 CA RECYC/LITTER REDUCTION GRNT(225) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5005-Overtime Salaries 4,600 4,600 0 5100-Travel and Meetings 1,600 2,000 0 5102-Training 1,350 1,350 600 5200-Operations&Maintenance 37,660 37,660 56,010 5300-Contract Services 13,000 13,000 13,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,180 1,010 1,010 Total Division: 303 59,390 59,620 70,620 Total For Fund 225: 59,390 59,620 70,620 USED OIL RECYCLING PROGRAM(227) Page 99 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5005-Overtime Salaries 25,000 25,000 25,000 5030-Fringe Benefits 0 0 370 5100-Travel and Meetings 150 150 150 5200-Operations&Maintenance 24,000 24,000 24,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 650 660 680 Total Division: 303 49,800 49,810 50,200 Total For Fund 227: 49,800 49,810 50,200 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM(234) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5010-Part Time Salaries 11,700 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 2,630 0 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 7,500 0 0 5300-Contract Services 6,270 0 0 5650-Capital Project 90,800 90,800 0 Total Division: 303 118,900 90,800 0 Total For Fund 234: 118,900 90,800 0 RECREATION SERVICES(250) 401 -COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 552,010 0 0 5005-Overtime Salaries 1,000 0 0 5010-Part Time Salaries 1,357,650 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 373,480 0 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 2,900 0 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 259,820 0 0 5207-O&M/Capital Supplies 15,000 0 0 5300-Contract Services 642,350 0 0 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 41,010 0 0 Total Division:401 3,245,220 0 0 Total For Fund 250: 3,245,220 0 0 VG CULTURAL CENTER(255) 401 -COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 127,720 0 0 5005-Overtime Salaries 1,000 0 0 5010-Part Time Salaries 321,800 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 78,930 0 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 119,420 0 0 5300-Contract Services 869,430 0 0 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 7,640 0 0 Total Division:401 1,525,940 0 0 Page 100 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 255: 1,525,940 0 0 FREEDOM COURTYARD RSRC GRANTS(272) 401 -COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 5204-O&M/Facilities 2,150 0 0 Total Division:401 2,150 0 0 Total For Fund 272: 2,150 0 0 STATE GRANTS FUND(274) 208-GRANT MANAGEMENT 5650-Capital Project 0 0 223,240 Total Division:208 0 0 223,240 401 -COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 5650-Capital Project 0 2,686,760 0 Total Division:401 0 2,686,760 0 Total For Fund 274: 0 2,686,760 223,240 FEDERAL GRANTS FUND(275) 208-GRANT MANAGEMENT 5200-Operations&Maintenance 0 0 2,009,040 9001 -Transfer Out-General Fund 0 0 2,206,830 9016-Transfer Out-CD Tech Svcs Fund 0 0 50,000 9017-Transfer Out-Fund 017 0 0 237,000 9025-Transfer Out-Capital Reserve 0 0 13,079,160 9120-Transfer Out-Fund 120 0 0 82,500 9130-Transfer Out-LMD1 0 0 30 9131 -Transfer Out-LMD2 0 0 8,750 9133 -Transfer Out-Fund 133 0 0 520 9134-Transfer Out-Fund 134 0 0 5,140 9137-Transfer Out-Fund 137 0 0 380 9139-Transfer Out-Fund 139 0 0 1,290 9140-Transfer Out-Fund 140 0 0 970 9174-Transfer Out-Fund 174 0 0 1,050 9281 -Transfer Out-Fire Fund 0 0 219,630 9288-Transfer Out-Fire Capital Fund 0 0 201,470 9290-Transfer Out-Library Fund 0 0 221,250 9700-Transfer Out-Sports Complex 0 0 20,000 9714-Transfer Out-Comptr Eq Rplc 0 0 371,840 9848-Transfer Out-Fund 848 0 0 7,070 9868-Transfer Out-Fund 868 0 0 200 Total Division: 208 0 0 18,724,120 Total For Fund 275: 0 0 18,724,120 LIBRARY FUND(290) Page 101 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 601 -LIBRARY-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 314,720 354,670 260,460 5010-Part Time Salaries 928,810 985,220 301,620 5030-Fringe Benefits 247,210 251,090 183,960 5100-Travel and Meetings 15,410 11,200 4,350 5105-Mileage 300 300 300 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 2,000 19,000 12,040 5160-Membership Dues 4,880 5,160 5,160 5200-Operations&Maintenance 9,250 660,150 647,560 5300-Contract Services 145,920 233,110 188,150 5400-Telephone Utilities 10,500 2,650 1,650 5402-Water Utilities 5,040 6,010 6,010 5403 -Electric Utilities 65,000 68,250 68,250 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 103,870 114,250 116,600 5603 -Capital Outlay-Equipment 0 0 207,000 Total Division: 601 1,852,910 2,711,060 2,003,110 603 -LITERACY SERVICES 5000-Regular Salaries 67,460 66,700 66,840 5030-Fringe Benefits 32,390 32,020 34,430 5100-Travel and Meetings 750 400 50 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 1,000 0 0 5160-Membership Dues 310 270 150 5200-Operations&Maintenance 5,300 4,300 850 5300-Contract Services 500 1,050 0 Total Division: 603 107,710 104,740 102,320 604-BOOKMOBILE SERVICES 5000-Regular Salaries 66,700 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 32,020 0 0 5102-Training 0 2,500 0 5105-Mileage 100 100 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 250 0 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 20,000 0 0 5220-Cellular Technology 500 0 500 5300-Contract Services 2,000 2,500 0 5604-Capital Outlay-Vehicles 0 0 30,460 Total Division: 604 121,570 5,100 30,960 605-LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES 5100-Travel and Meetings 1,580 1,680 1,000 5160-Membership Dues 500 500 130 Total Division: 605 2,080 2,180 1,130 606-ARCHIBALD LIBRARY 5000-Regular Salaries 546,110 629,500 549,350 5030-Fringe Benefits 262,140 302,160 282,920 5100-Travel and Meetings 7,000 6,250 3,500 5105 -Mileage 200 100 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 7,500 0 0 5152-Computer Software 700 0 0 5160-Membership Dues 450 200 0 Page 102 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5200-Operations&Maintenance 258,000 30,000 33,600 5207-O&M/Capital Supplies 20,000 20,000 40,210 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 3,740 47,200 2,580 5300-Contract Services 74,600 17,770 11,480 5405-Internet Services 14,790 17,340 17,340 5603 -Capital Outlay-Equipment 0 0 38,540 Total Division: 606 1,195,230 1,070,520 979,520 607-PAUL A.BIANE LIBRARY 5000-Regular Salaries 729,430 652,450 516,210 5030-Fringe Benefits 350,130 313,180 265,850 5100-Travel and Meetings 5,000 4,750 3,500 5105-Mileage 300 300 150 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 10,000 0 0 5152-Computer Software 700 0 0 5160-Membership Dues 950 200 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 289,000 59,000 32,710 5207-O&M/Capital Supplies 20,000 20,000 46,570 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 16,500 30,000 2,800 5300-Contract Services 82,000 37,450 17,500 5405-Internet Services 40,140 40,140 40,140 5603 -Capital Outlay-Equipment 0 0 57,950 Total Division: 607 1,544,150 1,157,470 983,380 608-VIRTUAL LIBRARY 5000-Regular Salaries 55,250 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 26,520 0 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 191,550 0 0 5300-Contract Services 21,810 0 0 Total Division: 608 295,130 0 0 610- SECOND STORY 5000-Regular Salaries 62,750 63,820 52,730 5030-Fringe Benefits 30,120 30,640 27,160 5100-Travel and Meetings 2,000 2,000 800 5105-Mileage 100 100 50 5160-Membership Dues 100 0 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 26,600 16,500 9,500 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 0 1,130 0 5300-Contract Services 26,000 21,000 4,500 5606-Capital Outlay-Furn/Fixtures 5,000 5,000 5,980 5725-Other Expenditures 0 58,400 58,400 9329-Transfer Out-Library Cap Fund 500,000 500,000 1,100,000 Total Division: 610 652,670 698,590 1,259,120 Total For Fund 290: 5,771,450 5,749,660 5,359,540 CA STATE LIBRARY(291) 602-GRANT MANAGEMENT 5200-Operations&Maintenance 20,600 20,000 1,000 5300-Contract Services 0 0 42,150 Page103 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 530 530 530 Total Division: 602 21,130 20,530 43,680 Total For Fund 291: 21,130 20,530 43,680 STAFF INNOVATION FD(CA ST LB)(292) 602-GRANT MANAGEMENT 5100-Travel and Meetings 5,750 5,750 0 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 80 150 250 Total Division: 602 5,830 5,900 250 Total For Fund 292: 5,830 5,900 250 LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT FUND(299) THE BIG READ LIBRARY GRANT(301) 602-GRANT MANAGEMENT 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 50 0 0 Total Division: 602 50 0 0 Total For Fund 301: 50 0 0 LIBRARY SERVICES&TECH.ACT(302) 601 -LIBRARY-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 0 20 20 9290-Transfer Out-Library Fund 0 0 37,050 Total Division: 601 0 20 37,070 Total For Fund 302: 0 20 37,070 LIBRARY CAPITAL FUND(329) 601 -LIBRARY-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 3,120 300 710 5650-Capital Project 575,000 925,000 400,000 Total Division: 601 578,120 925,300 400,710 Total For Fund 329: 578,120 925,300 400,710 DRUG ABATEMENT ACT(340) COP'S PROGRAM GRANT-STATE(354) 701 -POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 5100-Travel and Meetings 9,200 2,500 2,500 5300-Contract Services 300,000 300,000 300,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 4,930 3,520 3,520 5603 -Capital Outlay-Equipment 38,000 0 0 Total Division: 701 352,130 306,020 306,020 Page 104 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 354: 352,130 306,020 306,020 JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT(JAG)(361) 701 -POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 5207-O&M/Capital Supplies 0 0 29,370 5603 -Capital Outlay-Equipment 0 0 11,200 5605-Capital Outlay-Computer Equip 0 0 19,120 Total Division: 701 0 0 59,690 Total For Fund 361: 0 0 59,690 OTS-"DRINK,DRIVE,LOSE" GRANT(370) COPS SECURE OUR SCHOOLS GRANT(373) HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT-FIRE(380) 501 -FIRE ADMINISTRATION 5207-O&M/Capital Supplies 0 0 27,130 Total Division: 501 0 0 27,130 Total For Fund 380: 0 0 27,130 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT-POLICE(381) 701 -POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 5207-O&M/Capital Supplies 0 0 12,620 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 220 0 0 5603 -Capital Outlay-Equipment 68,260 66,140 25,600 Total Division: 701 68,480 66,140 38,220 Total For Fund 381: 68,480 66,140 38,220 EMERGENCY MGMT PERFORMNCE GRNT(383) 501 -FIRE ADMINISTRATION 5723 -Misc Contributions to Fire 26,730 26,840 26,730 Total Division: 501 26,730 26,840 26,730 Total For Fund 383: 26,730 26,840 26,730 HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY(396) 301 -ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DVLPMNT 5245-Subsidies To Low/Mod Housing 48,000 40,500 38,850 5300-Contract Services 214,210 250,000 250,000 5620-Project Improvement Costs 200,000 3,505,200 3,505,200 5720-Misc Contributions to City 200,000 200,000 200,000 5725-Other Expenditures 0 0 114,930 Total Division: 301 662,210 3,995,700 4,108,980 Page105 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 396: 662,210 3,995,700 4,108,980 AD 82-1 6TH ST INDUSTRIAL(600) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 0 10 10 Total Division: 303 0 10 10 Total For Fund 600: 0 10 10 AD 84-1 DAY CREEK/MELLO(602) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 300 430 890 Total Division:203 300 430 890 Total For Fund 602: 300 430 890 CFD 2001-01 (612) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 910 1,090 2,020 Total Division: 303 910 1,090 2,020 Total For Fund 612: 910 1,090 2,020 CFD 2003-01 PROJECT FUND(614) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 0 60 60 Total Division: 303 0 60 60 Total For Fund 614: 0 60 60 CFD 2006-01 VINTNER'S GROVE(680) SPORTS COMPLEX(700) 312-CITY FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 5000-Regular Salaries 807,320 710,890 612,380 5005-Overtime Salaries 37,280 14,280 14,280 5010-Part Time Salaries 180,840 18,340 74,900 5030-Fringe Benefits 423,690 345,970 333,600 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 0 250 250 5200-Operations&Maintenance 98,200 59,200 64,700 5204-O&M/Facilities 52,760 29,300 25,160 5250-Vehicle Operations&Maint. 1,500 1,500 1,500 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rntl 17,000 4,500 4,500 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 16,000 8,000 8,000 5300-Contract Services 124,920 78,170 69,520 5304-Contract Serv/Facilities 270,670 138,110 131,190 5400-Telephone Utilities 3,000 1,500 1,230 Page 106 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5401 -Gas Utilities 7,200 7,200 7,200 5402-Water Utilities 127,130 88,210 88,210 5403 -Electric Utilities 212,320 150,000 90,600 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 20,000 20,000 20,000 5602-Capital Outlay-Bldg&Imprvmnt 15,000 0 0 5700-Interest Expense 19,200 17,910 17,910 5701 -Principal Repayments 123,370 124,660 124,660 Total Division: 312 2,557,400 1,817,990 1,689,790 401 -COMMUNITY SRVCS-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 106,560 0 0 5010-Part Time Salaries 70,700 0 0 5030-Fringe Benefits 61,940 0 0 5206-O&M/Recreation Programs 200 0 0 5305-Contract Serv/Recreation Prgs 3,500 0 0 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 5,000 0 0 Total Division:401 247,900 0 0 Total For Fund 700: 2,805,300 1,817,990 1,689,790 REGIS CONNECT(702) 207-GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS 5300-Contract Services 1,140 0 0 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 270 0 0 5720-Misc Contributions to City 25,000 0 0 Total Division: 207 26,410 0 0 Total For Fund 702: 26,410 0 0 MUNICIPAL UTILITY(705) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 346,290 343,790 354,200 5010-Part Time Salaries 48,080 50,320 49,570 5030-Fringe Benefits 172,860 173,730 187,100 5100-Travel and Meetings 7,250 5,250 0 5102-Training 42,000 41,000 29,500 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 1,000 2,500 2,500 5152-Computer Software 4,000 14,000 51,700 5160-Membership Dues 19,450 20,140 20,140 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 1,620 1,680 2,130 5209-O&M/Electric Utility 6,675,800 8,195,370 7,532,450 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 5,070 1,200 3,330 5216-Solar Net Metering 0 0 1,000 5220-Cellular Technology 73,300 81,300 81,300 5309-Contract Srvc/Electric Utility 864,360 891,350 818,850 5312-Legal Services 30,000 230,000 230,000 5400-Telephone Utilities 7,500 7,500 540 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 239,270 195,080 200,950 5603 -Capital Outlay-Equipment 70,000 100,000 100,000 Page 107 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5650-Capital Project 1,000,000 259,500 1,124,940 5720-Misc Contributions to City 0 5,000 5,000 9001 -Transfer Out-General Fund 1,507,760 1,508,650 1,322,320 9709-Transfer Out-Cap and Trade Fun 0 0 2,253,940 Total Division: 303 11,115,610 12,127,360 14,371,460 Total For Fund 705: 11,115,610 12,127,360 14,371,460 UTILITY PUBLIC BENEFIT FUND(706) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 137,250 136,640 138,840 5030-Fringe Benefits 65,590 65,300 70,550 5160-Membership Dues 2,210 2,220 1,220 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 200 200 200 5209-O&M/Electric Utility 460,000 342,000 318,000 5300-Contract Services 10,000 25,000 10,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 18,000 20,170 20,390 Total Division: 303 693,250 591,530 559,200 Total For Fund 706: 693,250 591,530 559,200 RCMU CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND(708) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,410 2,020 4,130 Total Division: 303 1,410 2,020 4,130 Total For Fund 708: 1,410 2,020 4,130 RCMU CAP AND TRADE FUND(709) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5209-O&M/Electric Utility 0 0 150,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 0 0 250 Total Division: 303 0 0 150,250 Total For Fund 709: 0 0 150,250 FIBER OPTIC NETWORK(711) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5100-Travel and Meetings 1,000 0 0 5102-Training 1,000 0 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 1,000 0 0 5160-Membership Dues 0 550 550 5200-Operations&Maintenance 126,200 126,200 133,400 5300-Contract Services 270,000 292,510 275,310 5330-Payment to Trustee 0 5,500 5,500 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 4,820 14,310 14,310 5650-Capital Project 445,000 47,300 9,155,660 5700-Interest Expense 629,610 509,840 509,840 Page 108 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5701 -Principal Repayments 310,000 425,000 425,000 Total Division: 303 1,788,630 1,421,210 10,519,570 Total For Fund 711: 1,788,630 1,421,210 10,519,570 EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT(712) 001 -NON-DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL 5200-Operations&Maintenance 165,350 265,350 255,560 5300-Contract Services 13,500 13,500 13,500 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 28,980 21,920 22,590 5603 -Capital Outlay-Equipment 336,000 252,000 347,220 5604-Capital Outlay-Vehicles 169,000 131,000 213,720 5605-Capital Outlay-Computer Equip 60,000 80,000 0 5650-Capital Project 150,000 150,000 300,000 Total Division: 001 922,830 913,770 1,152,590 Total For Fund 712: 922,830 913,770 1,152,590 COMP EQUIP/TECH REPLCMENT FUND(714) 001 -NON-DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL 5005 -Overtime Salaries 52,000 0 0 5152-Computer Software 4,000 0 0 5200-Operations&Maintenance 11,500 5,000 0 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 342,300 43,800 40,480 5300-Contract Services 27,530 47,530 591,760 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 8,520 12,290 13,040 5605-Capital Outlay-Computer Equip 285,350 116,000 409,820 5703 -Capital Lease Payment 537,080 527,340 527,340 Total Division: 001 1,268,280 751,960 1,582,440 Total For Fund 714: 1,268,280 751,960 1,582,440 AD 82-1R REDEMPTION FUND(800) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 9001 -Transfer Out-General Fund 0 0 10 Total Division:203 0 0 10 Total For Fund 800: 0 0 10 AD 82-1R RESERVE FUND(801) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 9001 -Transfer Out-General Fund 0 0 50 Total Division:203 0 0 50 Total For Fund 801: 0 0 50 AD 84-2 REDEMPTION FUND(807) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS Page 109 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 9001 -Transfer Out-General Fund 0 0 10 Total Division:203 0 0 10 Total For Fund 807: 0 0 10 AD 84-2 SPECIAL RESERVE(808) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 9001 -Transfer Out-General Fund 0 0 50 Total Division:203 0 0 50 Total For Fund 808: 0 0 50 CFD 88-2 ETIWANDA/HIGHLND DEBT(812) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 240 360 730 Total Division:203 240 360 730 Total For Fund 812: 240 360 730 CFD 88-2 ETIWANDA/HIGHLND IMPR(813) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 510 740 1,510 5650-Capital Project 50,000 600,000 330,000 Total Division:203 50,510 600,740 331,510 Total For Fund 813: 50,510 600,740 331,510 CFD 88-2 POLICE(815) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 9017-Transfer Out-Fund 017 0 0 13,450 Total Division:203 0 0 13,450 Total For Fund 815: 0 0 13,450 CFD 2004-01 REDEMPTION(820) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5330-Payment to Trustee 2,000 2,000 2,000 5500-Assessment Administration 28,300 28,300 28,300 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 720 1,090 1,690 5700-Interest Expense 1,214,960 1,166,300 1,166,300 5701 -Principal Repayments 1,135,000 1,182,000 1,182,000 Total Division:203 2,380,980 2,379,690 2,380,290 Total For Fund 820: 2,380,980 2,379,690 2,380,290 AD 91-2 REDEMPTION-DAY CANYON(838) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS Page 110 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5000-Regular Salaries 14,060 14,450 11,000 5030-Fringe Benefits 6,750 6,940 5,670 5500-Assessment Administration 1,900 1,900 1,900 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 2,400 2,560 2,590 Total Division: 203 25,110 25,850 21,160 Total For Fund 838: 25,110 25,850 21,160 AD 93-1 MASI COMMERCE CENTER(841) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5300-Contract Services 1,500 1,500 1,500 5330-Payment to Trustee 1,000 1,000 1,000 5500-Assessment Administration 140 140 140 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 240 300 470 5700-Interest Expense 45,940 33,750 33,750 5701 -Principal Repayments 190,000 200,000 200,000 Total Division:203 238,820 236,690 236,860 Total For Fund 841: 238,820 236,690 236,860 CFD 93-3 FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE(842) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 9001 -Transfer Out-General Fund 0 0 4,040 Total Division:203 0 0 4,040 Total For Fund 842: 0 0 4,040 PD 85 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND(847) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5200-Operations&Maintenance 15,000 15,000 15,000 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rntl 2,000 2,000 2,000 5300-Contract Services 23,000 23,000 23,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 670 600 720 5607-Cap Outlay-Impry Oth Than Bldg 125,000 0 53,330 Total Division: 303 165,670 40,600 94,050 Total For Fund 847: 165,670 40,600 94,050 PD 85 REDEMPTION FUND(848) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 115,900 120,400 94,640 5005-Overtime Salaries 3,680 3,680 2,500 5030-Fringe Benefits 55,640 57,860 48,470 5200-Operations&Maintenance 73,910 28,410 28,410 5204-O&M/Facilities 2,500 2,500 2,500 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rntl 6,500 6,500 6,500 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 4,500 1,000 1,000 5300-Contract Services 263,480 242,130 230,950 Page 111 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5304-Contract Serv/Facilities 12,870 13,000 25,250 5310-Tree Maintenance 19,120 26,210 28,210 5400-Telephone Utilities 6,700 4,500 3,940 5402-Water Utilities 194,140 184,050 184,050 5403 -Electric Utilities 117,370 133,700 94,340 5500-Assessment Administration 144,590 144,590 144,590 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 51,980 54,060 54,060 5607-Cap Outlay-Impry Oth Than Bldg 210,300 0 0 5650-Capital Project 0 100,000 100,000 5720-Misc Contributions to City 2,960 2,960 2,960 9847-Transfer Out-Fund 847 116,800 116,800 116,800 Total Division: 303 1,402,940 1,242,350 1,169,170 321 -RED HILL LAKE MAINTENANCE 5000-Regular Salaries 26,250 27,310 1,950 5030-Fringe Benefits 12,600 13,110 1,010 5200-Operations&Maintenance 30,000 8,000 1,300 5300-Contract Services 43,310 27,310 24,600 5402-Water Utilities 2,020 2,020 2,020 5403 -Electric Utilities 2,950 2,950 2,950 Total Division: 321 117,130 80,700 33,830 Total For Fund 848: 1,520,070 1,323,050 1,203,000 PD 85 RESERVE FUND(850) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 9847-Transfer Out-Fund 847 0 0 6,180 Total Division: 303 0 0 6,180 Total For Fund 850: 0 0 6,180 CFD 2000-01 SO ETIWANDA RDMPTN(852) 303 -ENGINEERING-ADMINISTRATION 5330-Payment to Trustee 1,000 1,000 2,000 5500-Assessment Administration 23,750 23,750 23,750 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 130 160 190 5700-Interest Expense 9,410 8,070 8,070 5701 -Principal Repayments 43,000 45,000 45,000 Total Division: 303 77,290 77,980 79,010 Total For Fund 852: 77,290 77,980 79,010 AD 1999-1 REFUNDING REDEMPTION(854) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 80 120 250 9025-Transfer Out-Capital Reserve 0 0 322,760 Total Division:203 80 120 323,010 Page 112 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 854: 80 120 323,010 CFD 2000-02 RC CORP PARK RDMP(856) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5330-Payment to Trustee 1,000 1,000 2,000 5500-Assessment Administration 68,400 68,400 68,400 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 230 310 420 5700-Interest Expense 89,810 77,760 77,760 5701 -Principal Repayments 385,000 405,000 405,000 Total Division:203 544,440 552,470 553,580 Total For Fund 856: 544,440 552,470 553,580 CFD 2000-03 RANCHO SUMMIT RDMP(858) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5330-Payment to Trustee 2,000 2,000 2,000 5500-Assessment Administration 29,030 29,030 29,030 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 220 310 400 5700-Interest Expense 239,870 229,010 229,010 5701 -Principal Repayments 275,000 282,000 282,000 Total Division:203 546,120 542,350 542,440 Total For Fund 858: 546,120 542,350 542,440 CFD 2001-01 SERIES A REDMPTION(860) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5330-Payment to Trustee 1,000 1,000 2,000 5500-Assessment Administration 81,700 81,700 81,700 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 270 370 370 5700-Interest Expense 213,270 199,430 199,430 5701 -Principal Repayments 383,000 397,000 397,000 Total Division:203 679,240 679,500 680,500 Total For Fund 860: 679,240 679,500 680,500 CFD 2001-01 SERIES B REDMPTION(862) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5330-Payment to Trustee 1,000 1,000 2,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 80 70 70 5700-Interest Expense 20,650 19,320 19,320 5701 -Principal Repayments 37,000 38,000 38,000 Total Division:203 58,730 58,390 59,390 Total For Fund 862: 58,730 58,390 59,390 CFD 2003-01 SERIES A REDEMPTN(864) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS Page 113 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5330-Payment to Trustee 2,000 2,000 2,000 5500-Assessment Administration 36,050 36,050 36,050 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 310 450 600 5700-Interest Expense 623,360 605,160 605,160 5701 -Principal Repayments 435,000 475,000 475,000 Total Division: 203 1,096,720 1,118,660 1,118,810 Total For Fund 864: 1,096,720 1,118,660 1,118,810 CFD 2003-01 SERIES B REDEMPTN(866) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5330-Payment to Trustee 2,500 2,500 2,500 5500-Assessment Administration 8,980 8,980 8,980 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 140 160 220 5700-Interest Expense 103,530 99,520 99,520 5701 -Principal Repayments 88,000 98,000 98,000 Total Division:203 203,150 209,160 209,220 Total For Fund 866: 203,150 209,160 209,220 CFD 2000-03 PARK MAINTENANCE(868) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5000-Regular Salaries 136,770 137,030 122,960 5010-Part Time Salaries 8,890 12,390 11,460 5030-Fringe Benefits 67,430 68,840 66,010 5200-Operations&Maintenance 25,000 25,000 24,420 5204-O&M/Facilities 1,000 1,000 0 5220-Cellular Technology 0 690 0 5300-Contract Services 98,800 81,610 66,570 5310-Tree Maintenance 5,000 5,000 5,000 5402-Water Utilities 103,720 103,720 120,020 5403 -Electric Utilities 3,920 3,920 3,120 5500-Assessment Administration 1,890 1,890 1,890 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 63,250 68,480 68,660 5607-Cap Outlay-Impry Oth Than Bldg 150,000 148,000 81,360 Total Division:203 665,670 657,570 571,470 Total For Fund 868: 665,670 657,570 571,470 CFD 2006-01 REDEMPTION(869) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5330-Payment to Trustee 1,000 1,000 2,000 5500-Assessment Administration 18,240 18,240 18,240 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 170 230 310 5700-Interest Expense 129,990 124,900 124,900 5701 -Principal Repayments 126,000 134,000 134,000 Total Division:203 275,400 278,370 279,450 Page 114 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total For Fund 869: 275,400 278,370 279,450 CFD 2006-02 REDEMPTION(871) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5330-Payment to Trustee 1,000 1,000 2,000 5500-Assessment Administration 18,250 18,250 18,250 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 360 200 250 5700-Interest Expense 77,480 74,310 74,310 5701 -Principal Repayments 79,000 83,000 83,000 Total Division:203 176,090 176,760 177,810 Total For Fund 871: 176,090 176,760 177,810 CFD 2017-01 NO.ETIWANDA(875) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5500-Assessment Administration 0 1,200 1,200 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 0 20 20 Total Division: 203 0 1,220 1,220 Total For Fund 875: 0 1,220 1,220 CFD 2018-01 EMPIRE LAKES(876) 203 -ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CFDS 5300-Contract Services 0 30,000 50,250 5403 -Electric Utilities 0 5,000 6,000 5500-Assessment Administration 0 1,200 1,200 5603 -Capital Outlay-Equipment 0 0 211,050 9130-Transfer Out-LMD1 0 2,710 2,710 9141 -Transfer Out-Fund 141 0 810 810 9151 -Transfer Out-Fund 151 0 0 680 9152-Transfer Out-SLD2 0 1,900 1,900 9847-Transfer Out-Fund 847 0 950 950 9848-Transfer Out-Fund 848 0 1,220 1,220 9877-Transfers Out-CFD Emp Lak 0 79,390 74,600 Total Division:203 0 123,180 351,370 Total For Fund 876: 0 123,180 351,370 Total for CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: 233,174,550 183,430,510 225,266,330 Page 115 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Amended Fiscal Year 2020/21 Budget ATTACHMENT age 116 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES SUMMARY BY ENTITY,FUND 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Fund/Description Budget Budget Budget 281 FIRE FUND 28,640,860 32,721,970 37,252,350 282 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DIST 85-1 6,108,490 6,738,900 6,563,830 283 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DIST 88-1 2,394,810 2,468,020 2,388,240 285 FIRE TECHNOLOGY FEE FUND 900 960 230 288 FIRE PROTECTION CAPITAL FUND 10,313,710 8,030,970 11,889,360 Total for RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT: 47,458,770 49,960,820 58,094,010 Page 117 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES SUMMARY BY ENTITY,FUND,DIVISION 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Fund/Description Adopted Adopted Amended Division/Description Budget Budget Budget FIRE FUND(281) 501 FIRE ADMINISTRATION 8,056,930 8,916,870 14,024,000 502 COMMUNICATIONS 528,670 534,210 533,020 503 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 293,370 309,120 281,920 504 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 541,750 601,870 595,410 506 FIRE PREVENTION 1,219,020 1,351,970 1,426,600 508 FIRE SUPPRESSION 14,705,870 17,566,900 17,057,790 510 PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT 856,510 881,580 848,400 511 AMETHYST STATION 23,650 24,840 27,060 512 SAN BERNARDINO STATION 27,580 21,350 31,730 515 BANYAN STATION 38,670 58,300 43,400 517 HELLMAN STATION 29,090 31,130 31,120 520 ALL-RISK TRAINING FACILITY 51,200 50,950 35,610 525 COMMUNITY RELATIONS 166,430 154,750 149,080 527 VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1,207,900 1,217,320 1,213,170 528 SPECIAL OPERATIONS 84,310 86,930 89,430 529 FIRE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 809,910 913,880 864,610 TOTAL FOR FIRE FUND: 28,640,860 32,721,970 37,252,350 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DIST 85-1(282) 502 COMMUNICATIONS 368,200 361,110 356,950 508 FIRE SUPPRESSION 5,632,910 6,261,960 6,087,270 513 DAY CREEK STATION 46,860 43,400 44,770 514 JERSEY STATION 60,520 72,430 74,840 TOTAL FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DIST 6,108,490 6,738,900 6,563,830 85-1: COMMUNITY FACILITIES DIST 88-1(283) 502 COMMUNICATIONS 92,150 90,440 89,400 508 FIRE SUPPRESSION 2,269,320 2,330,750 2,263,460 516 EAST AVENUE STATION 33,340 46,830 35,380 TOTAL FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DIST 2,394,810 2,468,020 2,388,240 88-1: FIRE TECHNOLOGY FEE FUND(285) 501 FIRE ADMINISTRATION 200 210 210 FIRE PROTECTION CAPITAL FUND(288) 501 FIRE ADMINISTRATION 4,597,300 6,052,920 11,889,360 TOTAL FOR R.C.FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT: 41,741,660 47,982,020 58,093,990 Page 118 FUND 281 FIRE FUND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget FIRE FUND(281) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 18,305,650 18,925,460 19,794,030 4102-Property Taxes-CY Unsecured 650,210 705,560 0 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 366,430 366,590 291,400 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 144,340 114,070 86,800 4105-Property Taxes-Supplemental 529,260 619,180 485,180 4106-Property Taxes-Unitary 623,710 666,640 758,030 4110-Homeowners Exemption 168,280 165,690 158,950 4112-Property Tax-Post RDA 5,650,700 8,905,710 11,013,970 4211 -Fire Permits 16,500 16,500 1,000 4309-False Alarm Fees 20,000 20,000 5,000 4313 -Other Fines&Forfeitures 8,000 8,000 19,880 4316-Weed Abatement 90,000 90,000 138,480 4401 -Interest Earnings 382,940 444,870 158,360 4403 -Restricted-Interest Earnings 0 0 1,299,140 4419-Other Rental/Lease Income 107,460 105,770 106,770 4440-Sale of Fixed Assets 0 0 4,500 4501 -Plan Check Fees 1,000 100 0 4546-FSD Fees 140 0 0 4548-D.U.I.Recovery 280 100 100 4549-Hazmat Recovery 900 100 100 4553 -Fire Maintenance Fees 3,000 1,500 2,000 4760-Grant Income-State 0 0 25,000 4901 -Other Revenue 10,600 8,800 74,480 4914-Non-Abated Reimbursements 706,800 570,000 1,324,000 4916-Reimbursement from OPEB Trust 851,260 981,290 1,285,200 4941 -Other Revenue-ActiveNet 3,400 6,040 350 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 219,630 Total For Fund 281: 28,640,860 32,721,970 37,252,350 Page 120 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget FIRE FUND(281) 501 -FIRE ADMINISTRATION 5000-Regular Salaries 1,009,360 1,104,900 1,271,220 5005-Overtime Salaries 2,970 3,250 1,500 5030-Fringe Benefits 639,340 764,070 766,850 5032-Medical Insurance-Retired 870,230 948,640 933,970 5051 -Unemployment Insurance 5,000 5,000 10,530 5057-PEMHCA-Retiree 120,390 133,570 133,950 5060-Tuition Reimbursement 10,000 10,000 5,000 5100-Travel and Meetings 5,200 5,200 1,800 5102-Training 25,000 25,000 0 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 30,000 30,000 30,000 5151 -Postage 300 300 300 5160-Membership Dues 6,170 5,530 5,440 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 10,250 5,570 3,320 5200-Operations&Maintenance 105,900 99,340 111,150 5240-Operation of Acquired Property 0 10,500 2,800 5300-Contract Services 399,120 391,310 486,340 5312-Legal Services 50,000 50,000 200,000 5400-Telephone Utilities 6,740 2,910 2,910 5401 -Gas Utilities 520 550 550 5402-Water Utilities 1,560 1,560 1,560 5403 -Electric Utilities 4,050 4,250 4,250 5410-Property Insurance 95,250 123,090 135,290 5411 -Other Insurance 5,500 5,580 5,420 5416-General Liability Insurance 295,560 402,850 406,880 5500-Assessment Administration 97,570 97,570 97,570 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,770,750 2,093,400 2,093,400 5510-Property Tax Admin.Fee 123,600 156,010 166,700 5700-Interest Expense 63,200 47,560 47,560 5701 -Principal Repayments 336,790 352,430 352,430 5720-Misc Contributions to City 0 0 53,730 5725-Other Expenditures 0 0 4,721,000 9283 -Transfer Out-CFD 88-1 1,966,610 2,036,930 1,970,580 Total Division: 501 8,056,930 8,916,870 14,024,000 502-COMMUNICATIONS 5220-Cellular Technology 53,200 67,620 67,620 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 13,000 13,000 13,000 5300-Contract Services 457,620 448,000 446,810 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 4,850 5,590 5,590 Total Division: 502 528,670 534,210 533,020 503 -EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 5000-Regular Salaries 192,470 192,470 192,470 5030-Fringe Benefits 48,340 50,520 46,690 5093 -Other Funds-Salary Reimbursmnt (26,730) (26,840) (26,730) 5100-Travel and Meetings 7,500 7,500 0 5102-Training 6,000 7,000 0 5152-Computer Software 640 0 0 Page 121 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5160-Membership Dues 500 430 450 5200-Operations&Maintenance 21,850 31,350 22,350 5300-Contract Services 20,800 24,000 24,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 22,000 22,690 22,690 Total Division: 503 293,370 309,120 281,920 504-EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 5000-Regular Salaries 186,800 194,980 194,980 5005-Overtime Salaries 670 690 690 5010-Part Time Salaries 78,010 81,910 81,910 5030-Fringe Benefits 60,080 71,640 59,450 5100-Travel and Meetings 2,000 2,500 700 5102-Training 15,080 19,040 7,560 5160-Membership Dues 600 600 460 5200-Operations&Maintenance 131,910 131,070 140,160 5285-Safety Gear&Equipment 15,000 20,000 30,000 5300-Contract Services 23,900 50,140 50,200 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 27,700 29,300 29,300 Total Division: 504 541,750 601,870 595,410 506-FIRE PREVENTION 5000-Regular Salaries 667,500 711,480 711,480 5005-Overtime Salaries 19,880 21,480 25,840 5010-Part Time Salaries 75,150 51,920 51,920 5030-Fringe Benefits 265,800 370,080 410,230 5100-Travel and Meetings 850 3,350 2,820 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 1,550 1,500 1,500 5160-Membership Dues 2,110 2,380 2,330 5285-Safety Gear&Equipment 800 500 1,200 5291 -Equipment Supplies&Repairs 6,400 6,400 6,400 5300-Contract Services 92,000 92,000 122,000 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 86,980 90,880 90,880 Total Division: 506 1,219,020 1,351,970 1,426,600 508-FIRE SUPPRESSION 5000-Regular Salaries 10,756,430 11,935,140 11,935,140 5005-Overtime Salaries 3,864,930 4,175,360 3,675,360 5010-Part Time Salaries 23,290 25,960 25,960 5030-Fringe Benefits 6,718,230 8,522,700 8,276,940 5082-Reimb Personnel from CFD 85-1 (5,387,530) (5,978,580) (5,803,890) 5083 -Reimb Personnel from CFD 88-1 (2,164,860) (2,223,100) (2,155,810) 5100-Travel and Meetings 300 300 300 5150-Office Supplies&Equipment 1,000 500 500 5200-Operations&Maintenance 500 500 500 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 0 3,830 3,830 5285-Safety Gear&Equipment 94,890 94,890 85,740 5290-Specialized Tools&Equipment 22,200 29,020 29,020 5291 -Equipment Supplies&Repairs 32,200 28,500 30,320 5300-Contract Services 66,590 218,500 218,500 5321 -Fire Incident Costs 3,500 3,500 5,500 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 674,200 729,880 729,880 Page 122 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget Total Division: 508 14,705,870 17,566,900 17,057,790 510-PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT 5000-Regular Salaries 397,980 410,030 410,030 5005-Overtime Salaries 41,630 41,600 38,270 5030-Fringe Benefits 222,340 245,710 240,300 5100-Travel and Meetings 6,750 0 0 5102-Training 109,590 103,090 73,650 5160-Membership Dues 360 360 360 5200-Operations&Maintenance 17,860 20,860 21,860 5291 -Equipment Supplies&Repairs 10,000 8,000 12,000 5300-Contract Services 13,850 13,850 13,850 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 36,150 38,080 38,080 Total Division: 510 856,510 881,580 848,400 511 -AMETHYST STATION 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 1,450 1,490 1,480 5200-Operations&Maintenance 4,000 4,000 4,000 5300-Contract Services 2,050 2,120 2,120 5400-Telephone Utilities 1,090 820 820 5401 -Gas Utilities 1,330 1,650 2,300 5402-Water Utilities 1,520 1,520 1,520 5403 -Electric Utilities 11,000 11,550 13,130 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,210 1,690 1,690 Total Division: 511 23,650 24,840 27,060 512- SAN BERNARDINO STATION 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 1,180 550 1,660 5200-Operations&Maintenance 4,000 4,000 1,950 5300-Contract Services 2,100 2,170 2,500 5400-Telephone Utilities 710 830 2,630 5401 -Gas Utilities 2,830 2,460 3,180 5402-Water Utilities 1,490 1,140 2,750 5403 -Electric Utilities 14,130 8,550 15,410 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,140 1,650 1,650 Total Division: 512 27,580 21,350 31,730 515-BANYAN STATION 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 1,560 1,480 1,470 5200-Operations&Maintenance 6,000 6,000 6,000 5300-Contract Services 5,780 5,950 5,950 5400-Telephone Utilities 1,950 17,250 2,110 5401 -Gas Utilities 1,750 1,470 1,470 5402-Water Utilities 6,120 7,850 8,100 5403 -Electric Utilities 13,850 16,480 16,480 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,660 1,820 1,820 Total Division: 515 38,670 58,300 43,400 517-HELLMAN STATION 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 1,330 1,490 1,480 5200-Operations&Maintenance 4,000 4,000 4,000 5300-Contract Services 2,320 2,380 2,380 5400-Telephone Utilities 2,420 1,520 1,520 Page123 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5401 -Gas Utilities 1,560 1,640 1,640 5402-Water Utilities 4,580 6,220 6,220 5403 -Electric Utilities 11,490 12,060 12,060 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,390 1,820 1,820 Total Division: 517 29,090 31,130 31,120 520-ALL-RISK TRAINING FACILITY 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 410 860 860 5200-Operations&Maintenance 5,000 5,000 2,780 5258-Propane 19,000 19,000 5,000 5300-Contract Services 830 970 970 5400-Telephone Utilities 5,000 4,360 4,360 5401 -Gas Utilities 1,860 1,450 1,980 5402-Water Utilities 1,900 1,990 2,100 5403 -Electric Utilities 16,820 15,750 15,990 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 380 1,570 1,570 Total Division: 520 51,200 50,950 35,610 525-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 5000-Regular Salaries 86,520 78,880 78,880 5030-Fringe Benefits 31,240 37,640 36,470 5155-Public Relations/Educ Material 36,750 25,750 21,250 5160-Membership Dues 230 470 470 5300-Contract Services 500 500 500 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 11,190 11,510 11,510 Total Division: 525 166,430 154,750 149,080 527-VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 5000-Regular Salaries 423,570 412,160 412,160 5005-Overtime Salaries 49,430 48,810 48,810 5030-Fringe Benefits 143,940 183,980 177,160 5100-Travel and Meetings 4,360 4,000 4,000 5160-Membership Dues 250 250 0 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 3,700 3,700 3,700 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 3,100 2,870 2,840 5200-Operations&Maintenance 18,400 16,400 16,400 5250-Vehicle Operations&Maint. 209,930 210,600 210,600 5255-Gasoline 54,520 41,200 39,840 5256-Diesel Fuel 132,420 136,400 136,400 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 14,000 7,850 7,850 5290-Specialized Tools&Equipment 9,400 8,310 8,310 5300-Contract Services 36,800 45,050 48,480 5401 -Gas Utilities 2,230 1,450 1,980 5402-Water Utilities 2,470 1,990 2,100 5403 -Electric Utilities 23,670 15,750 15,990 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 75,710 76,550 76,550 Total Division: 527 1,207,900 1,217,320 1,213,170 528- SPECIAL OPERATIONS 5100-Travel and Meetings 200 200 200 5160-Membership Dues 310 310 310 5161 -Publications&Subscriptions 100 0 0 Page 124 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 13,500 13,500 13,500 5285-Safety Gear&Equipment 6,500 6,500 6,500 5290-Specialized Tools&Equipment 15,600 15,600 18,100 5291 -Equipment Supplies&Repairs 500 500 500 5300-Contract Services 44,000 46,500 46,500 5320-Hazardous Waste Removal 2,500 2,500 2,500 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,100 1,320 1,320 Total Division: 528 84,310 86,930 89,430 529-FIRE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 5200-Operations&Maintenance 20,000 20,000 30,000 5204-O&M/Facilities 98,000 70,000 82,100 5252-Emergency Equipment&Veh Rntl 1,500 1,500 1,500 5300-Contract Services 48,350 52,220 48,880 5304-Contract Serv/Facilities 277,200 302,570 366,730 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 8,700 10,620 10,620 5720-Misc Contributions to City 356,160 456,970 324,780 Total Division: 529 809,910 913,880 864,610 Total For Fund 281: 28,640,860 32,721,970 37,252,350 Page125 FUND 282 COMMUNITY FACI LITI ES DISTRICT 85ml RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget COMMUNITY FACILITIES DIST 85-1 (282) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 5,959,650 6,181,280 6,153,000 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 7,550 6,700 29,970 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 20,000 4,440 7,710 4401 -Interest Earnings 43,570 69,900 26,070 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 77,720 476,580 347,080 Total For Fund 282: 6,108,490 6,738,900 6,563,830 Page 127 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget COMMUNITY FACILITIES DIST 85-1 (282) 502-COMMUNICATIONS 5300-Contract Services 364,890 357,200 353,040 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 3,310 3,910 3,910 Total Division: 502 368,200 361,110 356,950 508-FIRE SUPPRESSION 5081 -Reimb Personnel to Fire Fund 5,387,530 5,978,580 5,803,890 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 245,380 283,380 283,380 Total Division: 508 5,632,910 6,261,960 6,087,270 513 -DAY CREEK STATION 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 1,760 1,620 1,620 5200-Operations&Maintenance 4,000 4,000 4,000 5300-Contract Services 7,550 7,770 7,780 5400-Telephone Utilities 2,300 2,420 2,420 5401 -Gas Utilities 3,290 2,990 3,030 5402-Water Utilities 5,210 7,280 7,280 5403 -Electric Utilities 20,900 14,930 16,250 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,850 2,390 2,390 Total Division: 513 46,860 43,400 44,770 514-JERSEY STATION 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 1,440 1,490 1,480 5200-Operations&Maintenance 6,000 6,000 6,000 5300-Contract Services 2,890 2,890 2,890 5400-Telephone Utilities 1,970 2,070 2,110 5401 -Gas Utilities 2,640 4,370 5,700 5402-Water Utilities 8,500 5,960 6,290 5403 -Electric Utilities 35,340 47,250 47,970 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,740 2,400 2,400 Total Division: 514 60,520 72,430 74,840 Total For Fund 282: 6,108,490 6,738,900 6,563,830 Page 128 FUND 283 COMMUNITY FACI LITI ES DISTRICT 88ml RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget COMMUNITY FACILITIES DIST 88-1 (283) 4101 -Property Taxes-CY Sec/Unsec 410,150 410,700 409,710 4103 -Property Taxes-PY Sec&Unsec 13,420 16,050 5,680 4104-Property Taxes-Penalties/Int. 4,630 4,340 1,710 4552-CFD Annexation Fees 0 0 560 8281 -Transfer In-Fire Fund 1,966,610 2,036,930 1,970,580 Total For Fund 283: 2,394,810 2,468,020 2,388,240 Page 130 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget COMMUNITY FACILITIES DIST 88-1 (283) 502-COMMUNICATIONS 5300-Contract Services 91,210 89,300 88,260 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 940 1,140 1,140 Total Division: 502 92,150 90,440 89,400 508-FIRE SUPPRESSION 5081 -Reimb Personnel to Fire Fund 2,164,860 2,223,100 2,155,810 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 104,460 107,650 107,650 Total Division: 508 2,269,320 2,330,750 2,263,460 516-EAST AVENUE STATION 5165-Licenses,Permits&Fees 1,410 1,490 1,480 5200-Operations&Maintenance 4,000 4,000 4,000 5300-Contract Services 2,210 2,280 2,280 5400-Telephone Utilities 1,600 15,160 1,860 5401 -Gas Utilities 2,070 2,170 2,170 5402-Water Utilities 5,240 5,240 5,240 5403 -Electric Utilities 15,180 14,520 16,380 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 1,630 1,970 1,970 Total Division: 516 33,340 46,830 35,380 Total For Fund 283: 2,394,810 2,468,020 2,388,240 Page 131 FUND 285 FIRE TECHNOLOGY FEE FUND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget FIRE TECHNOLOGY FEE FUND(285) 4401 -Interest Earnings 400 460 170 4517-Technology Fee-Permit 500 500 60 Total For Fund 285: 900 960 230 Page133 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget FIRE TECHNOLOGY FEE FUND(285) 501 -FIRE ADMINISTRATION 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 200 210 210 Total Division: 501 200 210 210 Total For Fund 285: 200 210 210 Page 134 FUND 288 FIRE PROTECTION CAPITAL FUND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED REVENUES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget FIRE PROTECTION CAPITAL FUND(288) 4112-Property Tax-Post RDA 9,758,450 7,345,180 5,055,170 4113 -Property Tax-Post RDA Res Blc 0 0 6,325,550 4401 -Interest Earnings 538,260 668,790 223,320 4901 -Other Revenue 17,000 17,000 0 4923 -Misc.Other Financing Sources 0 0 9,130 8275-Trsf In-Fd 275 0 0 201,470 8999-Transfer In From Fund Balance 0 0 74,720 Total For Fund 288: 10,313,710 8,030,970 11,889,360 Page 136 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 AMENDED BUDGET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Adopted Amended Object Budget Budget Budget FIRE PROTECTION CAPITAL FUND(288) 501 -FIRE ADMINISTRATION 5200-Operations&Maintenance 110,000 180,000 285,400 5207-O&M/Capital Supplies 63,000 165,000 275,380 5215-O&M/Computer Equipment 78,920 2,000 29,740 5240-Operation of Acquired Property 1,000 0 0 5250-Vehicle Operations&Maint. 50,000 50,000 50,000 5280-Equip Operations&Maint 3,000 3,000 3,000 5290-Specialized Tools&Equipment 38,000 3,000 3,000 5291 -Equipment Supplies&Repairs 1,300 0 0 5300-Contract Services 135,000 276,000 358,590 5501 -Admin./General Overhead 49,160 51,700 51,700 5600-Capital Outlay-Land 0 0 717,190 5602-Capital Outlay-Bldg&Imprvmnt 0 300,000 0 5603 -Capital Outlay-Equipment 44,500 26,000 111,310 5604-Capital Outlay-Vehicles 1,826,000 1,365,000 1,894,470 5605-Capital Outlay-Computer Equip 0 0 190,000 5606-Capital Outlay-Furn/Fixtures 500,000 0 419,840 5607-Cap Outlay-Impry Oth Than Bldg 1,140,000 0 0 5650-Capital Project 450,000 3,513,550 7,270,150 5720-Misc Contributions to City 0 0 116,240 9714-Transfer Out-Comptr Eq Rplc 107,420 117,670 113,350 Total Division: 501 4,597,300 6,052,920 11,889,360 Total For Fund 288: 4,597,300 6,052,920 11,889,360 Page 137 ti NONRR � a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA m �l DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Boards of Directors FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Ivan Rojer, Fire Chief Mike McCliman, Deputy Fire Chief Darci Vogel, Business Manager SUBJECT: Consideration to Accept the Public Safety Facility Construction Project as Complete, Approve a Final Contract Amount of $13,575,862.40, File a Notice of Completion, and Release Bonds Accordingly. (FIRE/CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council / Fire Board: 1. Accept the Public Safety Facility construction project at 8870 San Bernardino Road, Contract CO FD 19-010, as complete; 2. Approve the final contract amount of$13,575,862.40; 3. Authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond six months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received; 4. Authorize the Fire Chief to file a Notice of Completion and release the retention in the amount of$678,793.12, 35 days after acceptance; and 5. Authorize the Fire Chief to approve the release of the Faithful Performance Bond one year following the filing of the Notice of Completion if the improvements remain free from defects in material and workmanship. BACKGROUND: A long-time Fire Board strategic plan goal has been to replace the original Cucamonga Fire Department Station (172), built in 1954, with a new state-of-the-art station on the west side of the city. The original plan was to relocate the San Bernardino Road Station (172), which included a small substation for the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. During initial pre-design meetings with stakeholders from across City departments, it was determined that the original vision for the project had to expand in-order to meet the current and future needs of our Sherriff partners. This expansion provided a fully functioning community- based facility on the west side of the city. On August 7, 2019, Robert Clapper Construction Services, Inc. was awarded a contract in the amount of $13,533,000, which included a base bid of $11,749,000 (plus a $525,000 allowance) and alternate bid package No. 01 in the amount of $1,259,000. An additional contingency of $649,900 (total 10% contingency) was also approved by the Fire Board. Page 138 Construction of the Public Safety Facility began in September 2019 with an estimated completion date of January 2021. Fire District personnel moved into the facility on February 19, 2021, followed by the Sheriff's Department on March 15, 2021. ANALYSIS: The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, as well as to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. At the end of the one-year maintenance period, if the improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship, the City Clerk is authorized to release the Faithful Performance Bond upon approval of the Fire Chief. FISCAL IMPACT: The final amount for Robert Clapper Construction Services, Inc. Contract CO FD 19-010 is $13,575,862.40. Adequate funds are budgeted for the project in the Fire Capital Fund (3288501- 5650/1733288-6314) and Law Enforcement Reserve Fund (1017701-5650/1733017-0). Unused project funds will return to fund balance. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The completion of the Public Safety Facility will promote a safe and healthy community for all by enhancing the delivery of vital life safety services and ensuring efficient response times to residents, visitors, and businesses. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Notice of Completion Page 2 Page 139 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA On Behalf Of: Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Exempt from recording fees pursuant to Govt. Cod. Sec. 27383 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The undersigned is an owner of an interest or estate in the hereinafter described real property, the nature of which interest or estate is: All public rights-of-way within the boundaries of Contract No. CO FD 19-010 2. The full name and address of the undersigned owner is: RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, P. O. BOX 807, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730. 3. On May 5, 2021, there was completed in the hereinafter described real property the work of improvement set forth in the contract documents for: Contract No. CO FD 19-010 Public Safety Facility 4. The name of the original contractor for the work of improvement as a whole was: Robert Clapper Construction Services, Inc. 5. The real property referred to herein is situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California, and is described as follows: 8870 San Bernardino Road, Public Safety Facility RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, a Special District, Owner I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. DATE L. Dennis Michael Executed in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, President, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District California Page 140 NONgq I � DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: President and Members of the Boards of Directors FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Ivan Rojer, Fire Chief Augie Barreda, Deputy Fire Chief Michelle Cowles, Management Analyst II SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Approving the Annual Local Responsibility Area Wildland Protection Agreement with the California Department of Forestry and Fire in the Amount of $198,090 for FY 2021-22. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2021-006) (FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Fire Board of Directors adopt a Resolution approving the annual renewal of Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Wildland Protection Agreement No. 3CA05221 with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) for $198,090. BACKGROUND: On October 1, 2015, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (District) contracted with CAL FIRE to provide supplemental wildland fire protection of 1206.60 acres of wildland within the District. The Fire Board approves the renewal of the CAL FIRE agreement annually. Additionally, the City of Rancho Cucamonga annexed 4,104 acres of State Responsibility Area (SRA), known as the Etiwanda Heights Plan, into the City limits. The approval of the annexation required additional supplemental wildland fire protection from CAL Fire. The total acreage of the wildland contract for FY 2021-22 would be 5,271 Acres. The wildland/urban interface area of Rancho Cucamonga is prone to wildfire. As witnessed in the October 2003 Grand Prix Fire and the April 2014 Etiwanda Fire, the magnitude of these wildfires, in terms of suppression efforts and response, far exceeds the capabilities of the District on-duty fire crews. Local city fire departments and districts routinely rely on mutual aid to assist each other in large-scale incidents. Mutual aid is a like-for-like provision of resources without cost to the receiving agency. The suppression of massive wildfires is enhanced by utilizing water and retardant dropping aircraft, hand crews, dozers, and various overhead management positions. These specialized resources are critical for the initial suppression of a wildland fire. The District does not have these dedicated resources or enough overhead to fill all the needed positions on a complex local mutual threat zone wildfire. The State of California realizes that fires in the Rancho Cucamonga wildland/urban interface are a mutual threat to State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and formulates available agreements with local agencies on a per-acre fee. ANALYSIS: Through this Agreement, CAL FIRE would assume the primary financial responsibility for suppressing wildland fires in the contract area. Our LRA, City incorporated land, would be Page 141 supported with resources and a level of service provided on the adjacent SRA land without the significant unfunded liability burden. In the event of a significant wildfire in the contract area, fire suppression costs would likely exceed the proposed contract amount. If the Fire Board chooses not to renew the LRA Wildland Protection Agreement, the actual cost of retardant dropping aircraft, hand crews, dozers, and various overhead management positions utilized to suppress wildland fires in our LRA will be the responsibility of the Fire District. Annual amendments to the Agreement are required to reflect any changes in CAL FIRE's costs for providing this service. FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 2021-22 LRA Wildland Protection Agreement rate is $37.58 per acre. The total cost is $198,090, which includes a 12.01% administrative fee. In anticipation of this Agreement, the District budgeted funds in account 3281508-5300 (Fire Suppression / Contract Services). COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item brings together portions of the Council's vision and core value by providing a sustainable City and promoting a safe and healthy community for all. This is accomplished by ensuring our City responders have the specialized resources necessary to effectively contain and suppress wildland fires. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Resolution No. FD 2021-006 Page 2 Page142 RESOLUTION NO. FD 21-xxx A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA WILDLAND PROTECTION AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION (CAL FIRE) FOR SERVICES FROM JULY 1, 2021 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2022 WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) is a public agency and California fire protection district located in the County of San Bernardino, State of California; and WHEREAS, the wildland/urban interface area of the RCFPD and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is prone to wildfire and the magnitude of these wildfires, in terms of suppression efforts and response, far exceeds the capabilities of RCFPD on-duty crews; and WHEREAS, the suppression of large-scale wildfires is enhanced by utilizing water and retardant dropping aircraft, hand crews, dozers, and various overhead management positions; and WHEREAS, RCFPD does not have the capacity to provide firefighting aircraft, hand crews, dozers, and enough overhead management to respond to large wildland fires on a mutual aid basis; therefore, RCFPD must contract for these services; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 4142, et seq., the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) may, with the approval of the Department of General Services, enter into a cooperative agreement upon such terms and under such conditions, it deems wise, for preventing and suppressing forest fires or other fires in any lands within any county, city, or district which makes an appropriation for such purpose; and WHEREAS, the purpose of an operating plan is to increase and/or enhance the fire ground operations within the CAL FIRE San Bernardino -- Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Wildland Contract Area, including mutual threat zones. This plan would allow responding agencies to pre-designate the Unified Ordering point, VHF Radio Frequencies, the establishment of a Unified Command structure for wildland fires in the contract area; and WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 cost for 5,271 acres is $37.58 per acre for a total cost of $198.080.78, which includes a 12.01% administrative fee. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT HEREBY RESOLVES, as follows: 1. The facts set forth in the Recitals above are true and correct. 2. The Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District hereby approves the Local Responsibility Area Wildland Protection Agreement with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) dated May 5, 2021, in the total amount of $198,080.78. This agreement provides Wildland services during the State fiscal year 2021/2022. 3. The Secretary of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the President of said Board is hereby authorized to sign and Resolution No. FD 21-XXX -Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Page143 execute the said agreement on behalf of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5t" day of May 2021. Resolution No. FD 21-XXX -Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Page144 NONgq I � RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRIC DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Robert Neiuber, Human Resources Director Jenifer Phillips, Deputy Director of Human Resources SUBJECT: Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding Between the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Fire Support Services Association Employee Group. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-039) (FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Board adopt the attached resolution approving a four-year memorandum of understanding between the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Fire Support Services Association Employee Group. BACKGROUND: The Board previously approved a two-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Fire Support Services Association, effective July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021. ANALYSIS: In February and March of 2021, the District and representatives of the Fire Support Services Association met and conferred in good faith. The parties negotiated a four-year MOU and agreed to automatic enrollment of direct deposit for new employees, an increase in on-call pay from $275 to $400 for each 7-day period, an increase from 2% to 3% of monthly unadjusted base salary in deferred compensation for exempt positions, an increase from $25 match per pay period to 2% of monthly unadjusted base salary in deferred compensation for non-exempt positions, and automatic enrollment in deferred compensation for new members with an opt-out provision. In addition, the parties agreed to an adjustment to health benefit opt-out amounts including an increase from$200 to$350 for single employee and an increase from $300 to$500 for employees with one or more dependents, a District contribution of 2% of base salary per pay period to voluntary employees' benefit association (VEBA) plan, a prorated uniform allowance for classifications that receive one set of uniforms upon hire, and the addition of a non-cumulative education incentive providing for 3% of monthly base salary for a BA/BS degree and 5% of monthly base salary for a MA/MS degree. The parties also agreed that during the term of the MOU, there will be no cost of living (COLA) or other salary adjustments. The Fire Support Services Association voted to approve the negotiated terms. Staff recommends the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Board adopt the attached resolution approving a four-year Memorandum of Understanding between the District and Fire Support Services Association. Upon approval of this agreement by the Fire Board, the MOU term would be July 1, 2021 until June 30, 2025. Page 145 FISCAL IMPACT: The negotiated four-year MOU has a year one cost of$104,290, with an additional $1,980 in year two ($106,270), $1,900 in year three ($108,170), and $1,000 in year four ($109,170). COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the District's goal to ensure cooperative and respectful work relations with its employee groups to preserve and nurture a sound and inclusive atmosphere for all stakeholders and to further attract and retain an exceptional workforce. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Resolution No. 2021-039 Attachment 2 — Memorandum of Understanding Page 2 Page 146 RESOLUTION NO. 21- RESOLUTION OF THE FIRE BOARD OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THE FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES ASSOCIATION EMPLOYEE GROUP. WHEREAS, representatives of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (District) and the Fire Support Services Association (FSSA) have met and conferred pursuant to the provisions of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (California Government Code §3500, et seq.) with regard to terms and conditions of employment; and WHEREAS, representatives of the District and the Fire Support Services Association have agreed upon and presented to this Fire District Board, a Memorandum of Understanding effective July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2025. NOW, THEREFORE, THE FIRE BOARD OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT HEREBY RESOLVES that said Memorandum of Understanding between the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Fire Support Services Association is hereby approved and the City Manager is hereby authorized to sign said Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2021. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 147 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES ASSOCIATION 2021-2025 1 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page ACHMENT 2 f�� TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE.......................................................................................................................... 5 ARTICLE I RECOGNITION .................................................................................................. 5 ARTICLE II COMPENSATION..............................................................................................5 §1 Salary Ranges.........................................................................................................5 A. Survey Cities ......................................................................................................5 §2 Salary Plan..............................................................................................................5 A. Ranges..............................................................................................................5 B. On-Call Pay...................................................................................................... 8 C. Bilingual Pay .....................................................................................................9 D. Education Incentive..............................................................................9 §3 Work Periods and Overtime ....................................................................................9 A. Work Periods.....................................................................................................9 B. Work Shifts........................................................................................................9 C. Flex Time ..........................................................................................................9 D. Overtime Pay.................................................................................................... 10 E. Call Back ...........................................................................................10 F. 4/10 Schedule .................................................................................................. .11 G. Compensatory Time ......................................................................................... .11 H. Uniform Allowance ...............................................................................11 I. Direct Deposit for New Employees...........................................................12 ARTICLE III BENEFITS §4 Employee Group Insurance.................................................................................... 12 A. Health Insurance ...............................................................................................12 B. Dental Insurance .............................................................................................. 13 C. Vision Insurance ............................................................................................... 13 D. Life Insurance................................................................................................... 13 E. Long-term Disability.......................................................................................... 13 §5 Retirement Plan .......................................................................................................13 A. Benefits............................................................................................................. 13 §6 IRS 125 Plan ........................................................................................................ ..15 §7 Voluntary Employee Benefit Association..................................................................15 §8 Deferred Compensation.............................................................................15 §9 Carpooling ...............................................................................................................15 ARTICLE IV LEAVES...............................................................................................................16 §1. Holidays ..................................................................................................................16 §2. Holiday Facility Closure...........................................................................................17 §3.Vacation Leave........................................................................................17 §4. Hours of Vacation Buy-Back...................................................................................18 2 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 149 §5. Sick Leave ............................................................................................................ ..18 A. Full-time Employees......................................................................... ..18 §6. Personal Leave ..................................................................................................... ..20 §7. Bereavement Leave................................................................................................20 §8. Military Leave..........................................................................................................20 §9. Jury Duty.................................................................................................................21 §10. Civil Subpoena/Criminal Subpoena............................................................22 §11. Leaves of Absence without Pay .............................................................................22 §12. Natal and Adoption Leaves ....................................................................................23 A. Natal and Adoption Leave without Pay........................................................23 B. Natal and Adoption Leave with Pay .......................................................... .23 §13. Management Leave ............................................................................................. .23 ARTICLE IV GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE...........................................................................23 §1 Purpose................................................................................................................. 23 §2 Objectives............................................................................................................. 23 §3 General Provisions................................................................................................ 24 §4 Informal Grievance Procedure .............................................................................. 25 §5 Formal Grievance Procedure................................................................................ 25 A. Step I .............................................................................................................. 25 B. Step II ............................................................................................................. 25 C. Step III............................................................................................................. 25 D. Step IV............................................................................................................ 26 ARTICLE V DISCIPLINARY APPEAL .................................................................................28 §1 Purpose................................................................................................................. 28 §2 General Provisions................................................................................................ 28 §3 Pre-Disciplinary Notice .......................................................................................... 29 §4 Hearing Officer Appeal .......................................................................................... 30 §5 CEO Decision........................................................................................................ 32 ARTICLE VI SAFETY......................................................................................................... 32 §1 Compliance ...........................................................................................................32 §2 No Discrimination ..................................................................................................32 §3 Safety Equipment..................................................................................................32 §4 Employee Responsibility....................................................................................... 33 §5 Smoking Policy..................................................................................................... 33 WorkRelated Injuries..................................................................................................33 ARTICLE VII MANAGEMENT RIGHTS .............................................................................. 33 3 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 150 §1 Scope of Rights .................................................................................................... 33 §2 Emergency Conditions.......................................................................................... 34 ARTICLE VIII EMPLOYEE RIGHTS ................................................................................... 34 §1 Scope of Rights .................................................................................................... 34 §2 New Employee Orientation ................................................................................... 35 ARTICLE IX MAINTENANCE OF BENEFITS..................................................................... 35 ARTICLE X APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.............................................. 35 ARTICLE XI PROVISIONS OF LAW................................................................................... 35 ARTICLE XII TERM ............................................................................................................ 35 ARTICLE XIII NEGOTIATION OF SUCCESSOR MOU ...................................................... 36 THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 151 PREAMBLE This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU" hereinafter) is made and entered into by and between the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District ("District" hereinafter), and the Fire Support Services Association ("Association" hereinafter). The terms and conditions contained in this MOU are applicable to all full-time employees within this unit and contain the complete results of negotiations concerning wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment for said employees represented herein. ARTICLE I RECOGNITION Pursuant to the provisions of existing rules and regulations and applicable State law, District hereby acknowledges Association as the exclusive recognized employee organization for the representation unit, which includes all employees of District specified in Exhibit A attached hereto, who are employed on a full-time basis. ARTICLE II COMPENSATION §1. Salary Ranges A. Survey Cities (1) Association and District agree the survey cities shall be Pasadena, West Covina, Corona, Ontario, Riverside, and Chino Valley Fire. In the year prior to MOU expiration, a survey of the identified labor market cities will be completed, reviewed by the Association and District, and used as the comparison basis for any negotiations regarding market equity adjustment. The Association and District will work together to identify which benchmark classifications will be surveyed, recognizing that not all Association classifications will be surveyed. §2. Salary Plan A. Ranges The base salary ranges for all classes in the bargaining unit shall consist of ranges having six (6) steps, labeled A through F, with approximately five percent (5%) between each step. Advancement between steps requires a satisfactory or higher annual performance evaluation. However, no employee shall receive more than one step increase in a 12-month period unless granted for outstanding achievement pursuant to Section 2(G) below. Placement within the range shall be in accordance with the following: (1) Salary on Appointment New employees shall be compensated at Step "A" of the salary range to which their class is allocated. If unusual recruitment difficulties are encountered or a candidate is exceptionally well qualified, appointment at a higher step in the salary range may be authorized by the Fire Chief. (2) Merit Salary Adjustment Advancement within a salary range shall not be automatic but shall be based upon job performance and granted only on the recommendation of the employee's supervisor and approval of the Fire Chief. Employees shall be considered for merit salary increases in accordance with the following: a. Employees who are placed at Step A upon original employment, reinstatement, or promotion are eligible for a merit salary review after six (6) months of service. Subsequent consideration for merit salary adjustments shall be on a 12-month consecutive basis from the date of last merit salary adjustment. 5 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 152 b. Employees who are placed at Step B or above upon original employment, reinstatement, or promotion shall be eligible for a merit salary review after six (6) months of service. Subsequent consideration for merit salary adjustments shall be on a 12-month consecutive basis from the date of last merit salary adjustment. c. The granting of an official leave of absence of more than thirty (30) continuous calendar days, other than military leave, shall cause the employee's merit salary review date to be extended the number of calendar days he or she was on leave. d. If, in the supervisor's judgment, the employee's performance does not justify a salary increase on the review date, the employee shall be reevaluated before the expiration of six (6) months dating from the employee's review date. If the period of postponement exceeds three (3) months and the employee receives a salary increase, the employee shall be assigned a new review date based on the date the increase was granted. e. Authorized salary step increases shall become effective at the beginning of the pay period nearest the employee's review date. f. Should an employee's review date be overlooked, and upon discovery of the error, the employee is recommended for a salary increase, the employee shall receive a supplemental payment compensating him or her for the additional salary he or she would have received had the increase been granted at the appropriate time. g. The normal merit salary increase shall be one (1) step granted in accordance with the preceding. However, to reward outstanding achievement and performance, the Fire Chief may grant one (1)additional step increase not to exceed one (1) step in any six (6) month period. h. In order to address a situation wherein application of this section would result in the inequitable treatment of employees and upon the recommendation of the Fire Chief and approval of the Board, an employee may be placed at any step in the salary range for his or her class. (3) Salary on Promotion An employee, who is promoted to a position in a class with a higher salary range than the class in which he or she formerly occupied a position, shall receive the nearest higher monthly salary in the higher salary range that would constitute a minimum five percent (5%) salary increase over his or her base salary rate, provided that no employee may receive a rate in excess of Step F of the promotional class. If the promotion occurs within sixty (60) days of a scheduled merit salary review date, the employee shall receive the merit increase (if otherwise entitled to it)and the promotional increase concurrently. The employee shall be given a new merit salary review date for purposes of future salary step advancement. The new date shall be based upon the 6 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 153 effective date of the promotion. (4) Salary on Demotion An employee who is demoted to a position in a class with a lower salary range shall receive a new merit salary review date based upon the effective date of the demotion and receive a salary in accordance with the following: a. Disciplinary demotion - any designated salary step in the lower salary range which will result in the employee's receiving at least a five percent (5%) reduction in pay. b. Non-disciplinary demotion - that salary step he or she would have received in the lower class if his or her services had been continuous in said lower class. (5) Salary on Transfer An employee who is transferred from one position to -another in the same class or to another position in a similar class having the same salary range shall receive the same step in the salary range previously received and the merit salary review date shall not change. (6) Salary on Position Reclassification When an employee's position is reclassified and the employee is appointed to the position, salary shall be determined as follows: a. If the position is reclassified to a class with a higher salary range than the former class, salary and merit salary review date shall be set in the same manner as if he or she had been promoted. b. If the salary of the employee is the same or less than the maximum of the salary range of the new class and the salary range of the new class is the same as the previous class, the salary and merit salary review date shall not change. c. If the salary of the employee is greater than the maximum of the range of the new class, the salary of the employee shall be designated as a Y-rate and shall not change during continuous regular service until the maximum of the salary range to which the class is assigned exceeds the salary of the employee. (7) Salary on Re-employment An employee recalled after a layoff shall receive the same salary step in the range of the class which he or she was receiving upon layoff. (8) Salary on Rehire Upon rehire, an employee shall be placed at such salary step as may be recommended by the supervisor and approved by the Fire Chief. The employee's merit salary review date shall be based on the date of rehire. 7 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 154 (9) Acting Pay Acting pay shall be one (1) step, approximately five percent (5%), above the affected employee's base salary rate. When the work schedule or assigned duties are extremely different, the Fire Chief may approve acting pay which is greater than 5%. To receive acting pay the employee must: a. Be formally assigned duties appropriate to the higher class. b. Work in the higher class at least fifteen (15) consecutive work days, five (5) shifts for employees working twenty-four (24) hour shifts. Acting pay will be paid beginning with the sixteenth (16th) consecutive day worked in an acting capacity, sixth (6th) shift for employees working twenty-four(24) hour shifts. c. In any instance where it is reasonably anticipated at the commencement of the acting assignment that the assignment is likely to extend beyond fifteen (15) consecutive work days or five (5) shifts, the described five percent (5%) acting pay shall commence being earned from the first day/shift of the acting assignment. (10) Salary on Change in Range Assignment When a class is reassigned to either a higher or lower salary range by the Board, the salary of each incumbent in such class on the date the reassignment is effective shall be adjusted to the step he or she was receiving in the former range. B. On-Call Pay Subject to the rotation provisions below, the Fire Equipment Mechanic and Fire Shop Supervisor shall, unless relieved of such duty by a supervisor, be in an 'on- call' status whenever not performing duties during scheduled hours. 'On-call' means that Fire Equipment Mechanics and Fire Shop Supervisor shall be required to respond to their designated work site(s) within one (1) hour of being advised by telephone, pager, or other means, that their services are required. The parties agree and acknowledge that the restrictions placed upon employee(s) placed into an on-call status are not unduly restrictive and therefore, do not constitute hours worked for the purposes of FLSA or District-defined overtime computations. In order to provide flexibility to the affected employees in order that an individual employee can conduct personal business other than during scheduled hours of work, the District shall at its expense, provide each affected employee with a cell phone, pager, and/or other means of communication whereby the necessity to respond to the work site(s) can be communicated to the affected employee. Each affected employee shall be required to maintain such communication device in a functioning status and shall carry such device in such manner that District-initiated communications shall be received when transmitted. It is the goal of the District to provide for an on-call rotation among affected employees, resulting in a requirement that each affected employee be in an on-call 8 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 155 status for not more than seven (7) consecutive calendar days without relief of such status for at least seven (7) consecutive calendar days. However, the parties recognize that needs of the District, injury, illness or other events may result in a District requirement that any given affected employee be maintained in an on-call status for greater than a seven (7) consecutive calendar day period of time. Each affected employee in a designated on-call status for seven (7) consecutive calendar days, shall receive additional compensation in the amount of four hundred ($400) dollars for each seven (7) calendar day period of time in an on-call mode. C. Bilingual Pay Employees who qualify for bi-lingual pay will be provided said pay at $50 per month. Eligibility exams will be provided and administered by the Human Resources Department. Bi-lingual pay applies to the top 5 recognized languages from the most recent Census. D. Education Incentive The District shall provide to employees an educational incentive equal to the following: Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of Science = 3% of Base Pay per month Master of Arts/Master of Science = 5% of Base Pay per month Eligibility for the above mentioned education incentive requires proof of graduation and receipt of degree from a college or university that is accredited by a nationally- recognized accrediting agency approved by the States Secretary of Education and found on the United States Department of Education Website. The above mentioned education incentives shall be non-cumuative, meaning that an employee who meets the highest recognized education incentive, which would be the Master of Arts/Master of Science, shall receive only one incentive pay regardless of whether they have also met the lower recognized education incentive also. §3.Work Periods and Overtime A. Work Periods The work period for forty(40) hour personnel is seven (7) days with overtime being time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in the work period. B. Work Shift (1) Ten (10) hour work shifts begin at 0700 and end at 1800. C. Flex Time (1) The work schedules of employees assigned to other than fire suppression are subject to change depending on needs of the service or desires of the concerned employee(s) (see item 3). (2) The District shall not change work schedules when the sole purpose of the change is to avoid payment of time and one-half (1.5) for overtime. This however, is not to be interpreted as preventing a schedule change upon the 9 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 156 mutual agreement of the District and affected employee. (3) Employees may request schedule changes to address personal interests. Whenever possible such requests will be accommodated, provided however, that needs of the service as determined by the District will take precedence over employee preferences. (4) The District will not affect schedule changes but for good and sufficient cause. D. Overtime Pay (1) The rate of pay for overtime hours worked shall be at the rate of time and one- half (1.5) the regular rate of pay, for those employees eligible for overtime. (2) For purposes of computing overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, military leave shall be the only leave of absence not considered hours worked. (3) For the purpose of this section, work time shall not include traveling to or from the normal work site. (4) All non-exempt full-time employees who are called back to work from off-duty as a result of an emergency, shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half for any hours worked, with a minimum of two (2) hours pay for each emergency recall. Employees required to work more than fifteen (15) minutes shall be compensated for a minimum of one (1) hour; any time worked over one (1) hour will be paid in one-half hour increments. Fifteen (15) minutes work shall constitute one-half hour. For purposes of this section, work time shall not include time spent in traveling to and from the work site. (5) Employees required (held over)to work more than fifteen (15) minutes overtime shall be compensated for a minimum of one (1) hour. Any overtime worked in excess of one (1) hour will be paid in half hour increments. Provisions shall be made for an equitable distribution of overtime, consistent with efficient operations of the District. E. Call Back A "call back" occurs when following the employee having left the work site for at least one (1) hour after conclusion of the employee's scheduled hours of work, the employee is then advised by District management that he/she shall return to the work site. In such case of a 'call back', the affected employee (including those who are formally on on-call such as Fire Equipment Mechanic) shall be compensated in an amount not less than two (2) hours at 1.5 times the employee's unadjusted base rate of pay, or the actual number of hours for which services are performed (also at the rate of 1.5 times the employee's unadjusted base rate of pay), whichever amount is greater. Computation of premium hours worked shall commence upon the employee commencing travel to the work site and shall conclude upon termination of the call back assignment. 10 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 157 F. 4/10 Schedule With the 4/10 implementation, employees who experience hardship due to childcare issues, may request alteration of their schedule by taking a one-half hour lunch and arriving at work one-half hour late or leaving work one-half hour early. G. Compensatory Time FLSA exempt Management employees may earn compensatory time on a basis of one (1) hour worked equals one (1) hour of compensatory time. Compensatory time will not be granted for attendance at any regularly scheduled meetings of the Board of Directors, or any District Committee nor will compensatory time be granted for additional working time beyond the normal working day necessary for efficient and effective department operations, or to maintain good public relations. Any such time shall be considered a part of the normal duties of the position. Compensatory time may be earned for required attendance at special meetings of the Board of Directors and District Committees, except when such meetings are held in lieu of a regularly scheduled meeting or when such meetings are called and/or scheduled as part of the annual budget preparation process and annual audit. Compensatory time may also be earned for special and/or unusual work situation not provided for in the preceding paragraphs. The earning and accrual of compensatory time requires the approval of the employee's supervisor. H. Uniform Allowance The District shall provide four (4) sets of work uniforms for each employee who is required to wear a uniform prior to his or her starting date. Uniformed members must buy their own formal or semi-formal uniforms, as specified in District policy, at the completion of probation. The value of these initial uniforms provided hall be reported to CalPERS as compensation in accordance with applicable CalPERS requirements. The District will provide for the purchase of uniform articles as specified in the District's rules and regulations, to a maximum of $1,302 per eligible employee per year. Uniform allowance shall be paid out on the first full pay period of the fiscal year. The classifications that are eligible for this benefit are as follows: Fire Equipment Mechanic, Fire Equipment Lead Mechanic, Fire Equipment Apprectice Mechanic, Fire Shop Supervisor, Fire Prevention Specialist I, Fire Prevention Specialist II, Fire Prevention Supervisor and Community Affairs Senior Coordinator. The District will provide a prorated amount of 25% of the $1,302 uniform benefit for classifications that receive one uniform at the date of hire. The classifications that are eligible for the prorated amount are as follows: Emergency Management Coordinator, Management Anayst I (EOC), EMS Administrator and Fire Business Manager. 11 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 158 I. Direct Deposit Only for New Employees Checking or debit card option. Vacation buy back and compensatory time payouts can be by paper check. ARTICLE III BENEFITS §4. Employee Group Insurance District agrees to provide group insurance plans in accordance with the following: A. Health Insurance (1) District will provide medical insurance through the State of California Public Employee's Medical and Hospital Care Program. (2) District provides fully paid employee and family health insurance for all full time continuous and retired employees who were hired before November 17, 1994. (3) District will provide fully paid employee and family health insurance for all full- time continuous employees hired after November 17, 1994, at the amount equal to the average eligible Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Program medical plan rates covering San Bernardino County. The monthly contribution amount averages will be calculated annually during the open enrollment period, with changes going into effect when the new rates go into effect. As of March 5, 2014, the parties understand that PEMHCA is addressing the implications of the Affordable Care Act, and as a result may begin to offer a low-cost health insurance plan with reduced benefits to enrollees. The parties agree to reopen this provision of the MOU for discussion if in any given year PEMHCA's rate for its lowest cost, fully paid insurance plan has a premium that is at least 15% less than the lowest cost plan offered in the prior calendar year. A failure to agree upon the resolution of this issue shall not be subject to resolution by fact finding or any other impasse resolution procedure. (4) All full-time continuous employees hired after November 17, 1994, shall be responsible for paying their premiums for medical insurance through the State of California, Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Program, upon their retirement. (5) Cash compensation in lieu of medical benefits in the amount of $350.00 for single employees or $500.00 for employees' dependents, may be provided to those employees that can verify that their spouse and/or family can provide full health insurance. Selection of compensation shall be at the employee's discretion. The employee may reenter the District s health plan at any time. (6) Affordable Care Act (ACA) Reopener. The District may reopen negotiations on the issue of health insurance benefits to address changes to or the elimination of the ACA and in order to avoid penalties or taxes under the ACA or other statutory scheme that may result from an interpretation of the ACA or other statutory scheme by the Internal Revenue Service or other federal agency (including, but not limited to, a revenue ruling, regulation or other guidance) or state agency, or a ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction. These 12 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 159 negotiations will not result in a reduction in the amount the District provides for employee health coverage. B. Dental Insurance District shall continue to provide fully paid employee and family dental insurance plan for all full-time continuous employees. C. Vision Insurance District shall continue to provide fully paid employee and family vision insurance plan for all full-time continuous employees. D. Life Insurance Full-time unit employees shall be provided a term life insurance policy of$50,000, paid by the District. E. Long Term Disability District agrees to provide to unit members a long-term disability insurance plan provided by the same carrier utilized by the City of Rancho Cucamonga for its employees. §5. Retirement Plan A. Benefits District is enrolled in the State of California Public Employee's Retirement System. Benefits are summarized below: (1) Tier 1 - Employees hired prior to July 9, 2011: § 21354.4 2.5% at 55 Full Formula § 21574 4th Level 1959 Survivor § 20042 1 Year Final Compensation The District has adopted a resolution providing that all employee CalPERS contributions to the employer share pursuant to this section shall be deducted on a pre-tax basis. Additional benefits for affected employees include the following: • Sec. 20691 Employer Payment of Member Contributions (based on hire date) • Sec. 20636 (c) (4) Reporting of Employer-Paid Member Contribution as Special Compensation • Sec. 20965 Credit for Unused Sick Leave (2) Tier 2 - Employees hired on or after July 9, 2011 and through December 31, 2012, and Classic PERS members, as defined by PERS. who are hired on or after January 1, 2013: § 21354 2% at 55 Full Formula § 21574 4th Level 1959 Survivor § 20037 3 Year Final Compensation The District will adopt a resolution to reflect changes as described above, 13 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 160 prior to the effective date. The District will adopt a resolution providing that all employee CalPERS contributions to the employer share pursuant to this section shall be deducted on a pre-tax basis. Additional benefits for affected employees include the following: • Sec. 20691 Employer Payment of Member Contributions (based on hire date) • Sec. 20636(c)(4) Reporting of Employer-Paid Member Contribution (EPMC) as Special Compensation • Sec. 20965 Credit for Unused Sick Leave (3) Employees who are New PERS Members, as defined by PERS, who are hired on or after January 1, 2013: Employees are classified as New Members of PERS when they meet the definition of a "new member" for purposes of retirement pension benefits pursuant to the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013. Generally, this includes employees that were hired into a regular position on or after January 1, 2013 or former PERS members who have more than a six-month break in service. CalPERS ultimately determines who is a new member in compliance with the law. Employees who are classified as New Members shall be eligible for the 2% at 62 Formula, 3-year final compensation average. The employee contribution for new members shall be one-half the normal cost, as determined by CalPERS. The CalPERS required employee contribution for new will be adjusted periodically by CalPERS, and the District employee contribution adjusted accordingly per state statute. The District has adopted a resolution providing that all employee CalPERS contributions shall be deducted on a pre-tax basis per IRC 414(h)(2). (4) PARS The Supplemental Benefit through PARS Phase II Retirement System is provided to all employees hired by December 31, 2012. In addition, the Fire District has adopted the PARS Retirement Enhancement Plan generally described as 0.5% (one-half percent) at 55 or at 60, depending upon the employee's hire date, for all miscellaneous employees hired on or prior to December 31, 2012. To be eligible, employees must be at least age 56, have ten (10) years of full-time continuous service and retire from the District. This benefit will be paid to qualified retirees in addition to any CalPERS benefits to which they are entitled. 14 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 161 §6. IRS 125 PLAN The District has established a Section 125 flexible spending account plan managed by a third-party administrator that is open to voluntary participation of members in the bargaining unit. The District agrees to pick up all administrative fees associated with maintaining this program for bargaining unit members (including but not limited to debit card fees). §7.Voluntary Employee Benefit Association The District has established a Voluntary Employee Benefit Association (VEBA) through the California Government Voluntary Employee Benefit Association to assist employees with planning for future health care expenses. Employees are allowed a one-time election to opt into the plan. Represented employees shall be eligible to participate in the plan according to the schedule to be established as an addendum to the MOU. Contributions to the Plan shall be made as District contributions through a salary reduction arrangement. All contributions made on behalf of employees through such salary reduction arrangement are made on a pre-tax basis in accordance with IRS provisions. The District shall contribute 2% of base salary per pay period. At the discretion of the Fire Support Services Association, employee contributions may be amended once per year provided that such amendment is permitted by IRS regulations and in conformity with the Plan Document. §8. Deferred Compensation A. Exempt classifications shall receive three (3) percent of monthly unadjusted base salary as a deferred compensation contribution to be paid by the District. B. Non-exempt classifications shall receive two (2) percent of monthly unadjusted base salary as a deferred compensation contribution to be paid by the District. §9. Carpooling Those employees participating in a carpool going to and coming from their residence and work site shall not be in receipt of a reduced workday. Rather, those employees participating in a "carpool" shall be afforded the following benefit: Eligible carpool employees shall be regular, full-time employees who voluntarily participate in and file a "ride share application agreement." Eligibility for ride share-related benefits is conditioned upon: (1) Each affected regular, full time employee shall ride share with another person(s) in a car or vanpool. (2) In the alternative, each affected regular, full time employee shall drive to and from work other than in an automobile. For example, such transportation may include a bicycle, public transportation, walking. (3) Eligibility for ride share benefits shall be conditioned upon 1.) the regular, full time employee so participating 60% of the total work days during a given month, 2.) ride sharing for at least 60% of the commute distance, and 3.) ride sharing between the hours of 6 and 10 a.m., Monday through Thursday. 15 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 162 Individuals meeting the above qualifications shall earn $2.60 for every day that the employee ride shares, paid at the end of each quarter. ARTICLE III LEAVES §1. Holidays A. Holidays are those days which District designates as observed holidays. Holiday leave is a right, earned as a condition of employment, to a leave of absence with pay. The holidays designated by District are as follows: 40 Hour Personnel July 4 Independence Day September Labor Day (1st Monday) November 11 Veterans Day November Thanksgiving (4th Thursday) November The day following Thanksgiving December 24 The day preceding Christmas December 25 Christmas January 1 New Years Day January Martin Luther King's Birthday (3rd Monday) February President's Day (3rd Monday) May Memorial Day (last Monday) Three (3) discretionary (floating) days may be taken by an employee at his or her convenience, subject to approval by the supervisor. The thirty (30) hours for the three (3) floating holidays shall be credited to the employee at the start of pay period No. 1 of each fiscal year. Whenever a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed as a holiday. Whenever a holiday falls on a Friday or Saturday, the preceding Thursday shall be observed as the holiday. B. Employees shall accrue holiday time as follows: Type of Per Maximum Accrual Holiday Annually Personnel 40 Hour Personnel 10 Hours 140 Hours 180 Hours C. No District employee will be allowed to exceed the maximum accrual at any time. As excess holiday time is earned, it must either be taken as time off or be paid for by District. D. Effective pay period No.1of each fiscal year, holiday time shall be accrued by the employees within the pay period in which it occurs. (1) District will buy back all or part of accrued holiday time at the then current hourly rate, if a request is made (in writing) by November 30th specifying holiday balance and exercising the option to sell back. 16 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 163 (2) Holidays may be used as scheduled time off with the approval of the supervisor. E. District employees will be advised, in writing, within the pay period prior to the time that maximum holiday accrual is reached or that they are approaching their maximum accrual. F. Any employee who is on vacation or sick leave when a holiday occurs will not have that holiday charged against his or her vacation or sick leave. G. Employees who are assigned to work on a holiday are eligible for pay at time and one-half for working that day. This time and one-half may be taken as compensation or put in a compensatory time bank. Compensation shall be determined by adding the employee's normal work schedule hours times the base rate of pay compensation for the holiday, plus compensation at time and one-half for hours actually worked. Payment at time and one-half abrogates the employee's right to that holiday. Exempt employees shall only be permitted to bank the holiday at time and one-half. §2. Holiday Facility Closure During the term of this MOU, there will be Holiday facility closures, and certain City and District facilities may close in conjunction with the Christmas and New Year's holidays. Closure dates for City and some Fire District facilities shall be determined by the City in order to balance the impact on public services. During a holiday closure, affected represented employees may take paid leave from holiday, management leave, and compensatory time or vacation accruals or they may be reassigned to a facility that will remain open during the closure. §3.Vacation Leave A. Vacation leave is a right to a leave of absence with pay. It is earned as a condition of employment. B. All full-time employees shall, with continuous service, accrue working days of vacation monthly according to the following schedule: 40-hour Personnel Years of Annual Maximum Pay Period Completed Service Accrual Accrual Accrual Rates 30 days-3 years 85.72 hours 192 3.297 4-7 years 128.57 hours 272 4.945 8-10 years 171.43 hours 400 6.593 11-14 years 188.58 hours 400 7.253 15-19 years 205.72 hours 400 7.912 20-24 years 222.86 hours 400 8.572 25+ years 240.00 hours 400 9.231 C. An employee who, as of July 1st of any given year, has completed 10, 15, 20 or 25 years of service shall receive a onetime credit of 10 hours, if a 40-hour employee. The employee shall, beginning the 11 th, 16th, 21 st and 25th year, accrue vacation at the appropriate pay period accrual rate. 17 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 164 D. The District will notify employees, in writing, within the pay period prior to the time that maximum vacation accrual will be reached that the accrual is approaching that maximum. The employee will then be required to 1)schedule time off; or, 2) receive pay in lieu of time off so as to not exceed the maximum accrual. E. Any full-time employee who is about to terminate employment and has earned vacation time to his or her credit, shall be paid for such vacation time on the effective date of such termination. When separation is caused by death of an employee, payment shall be made to the estate of such employee. §4. Hours of Vacation Buy Back Each fiscal year, at the employee's written request, the District will "buy back" the total cash value of up to 100 hours of previous earned vacation leave. This buy back shall occur twice annually in a fiscal year, in November and April. Employees must maintain a minimum of 40 hours of accrued vacation subsequent to any payment of vacation buy back time. §5.Sick Leave Sick leave shall be used in case of a bona fide illness of the employee upon approval and for necessary medical appointments. Sick leave may also be used for sickness, disability, pregnancy, childbirth, serious illness or emergency of his or her child, parent, spouse, or registered domestic partner, grandparent, grandchild and sibling, or any other member of the employee's immediate family as defined in the District Personnel Rules, who is incapacitated, and/or requires the service of a physician, and when the presence of the employee is required. At the conclusion of the need for time off to care for a family member, said employee shall return to work as soon as possible. The employee must give the immediate supervisor or Fire Chief reasonable advance written or oral notice. If the need for sick leave is not foreseeable, the employee shall provide written or oral notice of the need for the leave as soon as practicable. If the employee is required to be absent on sick leave for more than one day, the employee must keep the immediate supervisor informed each day as to the date the employee expects to return to work and the purpose of the leave. Failure to request sick leave as required by this provision without good reason, may result in the employee being treated as absent without leave. The maximum number of hours that may be used for sickness, disability, serious illness or emergency of his or her child, parent, spouse, or registered domestic partner, grandparent, grandchild, and sibling is equal to the employee's annual accrual. A. Full-time Employ District is enrolled in the State of California Public Employee's Retirement System. Benefits are summarized below: (1) Sick leave is that amount of leave designated by District. (2) All employees shall be entitled to sick leave as follows: 18 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 165 Personnel Monthly Annual Accrual Max. Accrual 40 hr Personnel 10 hours 120 hours No limit B. No employee shall be entitled to sick leave with pay while absent from duty for the following causes: (1) Disability arising from sickness or injury purposely self-inflicted or caused by his or her own willful misconduct. (2) Sickness or disability sustained while on leave of absence. C. Sick leave shall not be used in lieu of or in addition to vacation. D. Employees must provide a physician's certification for any sick leave absence that occurs after the employee has used 40 hours, or four days, whichever is greater, that involves the illness of the employee or family member. This requirement does not pertain to Personal Leave. E. The Fire Chief may require medical certification that the employee is capable of and released to return to the performance of all duties of his/her position. F. In case of voluntary or involuntary termination of an employee's continuous service, except by reason of retirement or lay-off for lack of work or funds shall result in abrogation of all sick leave and no payment will be made by the District for sick leave accrued to the time of such termination regardless of whether or not such employee subsequently reenters District service. G. Any employee incurring a serious injury or illness while on paid vacation leave may have those days of illness changed to sick leave with pay and vacation days restored accordingly, provided the employee has sufficient sick leave accrued and the period of illness is certified by a written doctor's statement. H. Employees with ten (10) or more years of service shall be eligible to convert unused sick leave to vacation in accordance with the following: (1) Employees who, in the preceding calendar year, accrued 90 to 120 unused hours of sick leave earned in that preceding calendar year, may exercise the option of having one-half (1/2) of that unused sick leave accrued in the preceding year converted to vacation leave and the remainder carried over as accrued sick leave. (2) Employees who accrued sixty (60) to ninety (90) unused hours of sick leave earned in the preceding calendar year may exercise the option of having one- fourth (1/4) of the unused sick leave accrued in the preceding calendar year converted to vacation leave and the remainder carried over as accrued sick leave. (3) Any employee who qualifies to convert sick leave to vacation leave must submit a written request to the District on or before January 15th of the year in which the conversion is to be made. 19 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 166 I. Upon the retirement of an employee, the employee may elect from one or more of the following options: • Sell back up to fifty percent (50%)of his/her accumulated unused sick leave at the employee's regular hourly rate of pay at retirement. • Designate accumulated unused sick leave for CalPERS service credit per Government Code Section 20965. • Apply the cash value of up to one hundred percent (100%) of accumulated unused sick leave to the employee's VEBA account (if enrolled), at the employee's regular hourly rate of pay, as permitted by the VEBA plan. §6. Personal Leave A. The employee shall be granted one (1) day paid personal leave to attend the funeral of a close relative not in the employee's immediate family. B. An employee required to appear before a court for other than subpoenas due to actions as a District employee or jury duty will receive the necessary time as paid personal leave, providing: (1) He or she notifies his or her supervisor or Duty Chief in advance, with adequate time remaining so that a relief may be obtained. (2) The employee must return to duty within a reasonable time after the appearance. C. Personal leave will be charged against any time the employee has accrued, such as sick leave, vacation, and compensatory time, at the employee's option. D. Employees can use up to twenty (20) hours of accrued sick leave as personal leave. This twenty (20) hours can be used incrementally (i.e., 1 hour, 2 hour) throughout the fiscal year. Use of this time is for emergency situations requiring the employee's attention and needs to be cleared with their supervisor when using this time. §7. Bereavement Leave A. 40-hour Personnel In the event of a death in the employee's immediate family, the employee shall be granted five (5) days paid bereavement leave. Immediate family is defined as: Spouse, registered domestic partner, parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, brother, sister, stepparents, stepchildren, step grandchildren, and the employee's mother-in law, father-in-law, grandparents-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, or a blood relative residing with the employee. §8. Military Leave A. Every employee who is a member of a state or federal reserve military unit shall be entitled to be absent from service with Districtwhile engaged in the performance of ordered military duty and while going to or returning from such duty in accordance with the laws of the State of California or federal government. 20 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 167 B. Employees are entitled to thirty (30) days paid military leave in any one fiscal year, provided they have been employed by the District for one (1) year prior to this leave. Any employee with less than one (1) year of service must use accrued annual leave or compensatory time if he or she wishes to receive normal pay. C. Employees who are called or volunteer for service with the armed forces of the United States shall be entitled to reinstatement to their former positions. Upon application for reinstatement, the individual must display a certificate showing service was other than dishonorable. However, any individual possessing right of reinstatement automatically forfeits these rights upon voluntary enlistment for a second term. D. Any employee returning from service with the armed forces shall be entitled to such length of service seniority as would have been credited to them had they remained for that period of time with the District. E. An employee who was in a probationary period at the time of military leave shall, upon return, complete the remaining portion of the probationary period according to the then present rules. F. An employee promoted to fill a vacancy created by a person serving in the armed forces shall hold such position subject to the return of the veteran. The employee affected by the return shall be restored to his or her former position or one of a similar nature while the returning employee resumes the position he or she previously held. §9.Juty Duty A. Any member of District who is called or required to serve as a trial juror may be absent from duty with District during the period of such service or while necessarily being present in court as a result of such call. Such member on jury duty will continue to receive normal pay, provided he or she: (1) Notifies his or her supervisor, in advance, with adequate time remaining so that a relief may be obtained. (2) Returned to duty within a reasonable time after being released with a signed certificate of service from the court stipulating the hours of service and release time. This certificate may be obtained by asking the court secretary or bailiff. The employee then forwards it to his or her supervisor. (3) Pay received for service while absent from District must be turned over to District; however, pay received while off duty may be kept by the employee. (4) All personnel called for jury duty must abide by all of the above rules and must return to work if dismissed before the end of their regular work shift. 21 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 168 §10. Civil Subpoena/Criminal Subpoena A. Civil Subpoena When members of District have been served a civil subpoena to appear in court as a witness due to actions as a District employee, the following procedure shall be followed: (1) Personnel will be paid at their regular hourly rate while they are in court. (2) District transportation will be provided when available. If the employee uses his or her own transportation, he or she will be reimbursed by District at the prevailing mileage rate. (3) If the employee is required to appear in a court that is outside the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and this appearance requires the employee to buy a meal and/or lodging, he or she will be reimbursed. If an extended appearance in court is necessary where lodging and meals would be required, authorization shall be obtained from the Fire Chief. B. Criminal Subpoena (1) Pursuant to California Penal Code 1326 et. seq., if an employee is served with a criminal subpoena, the employee will be paid at the regular hourly rate while in court. (2) District transportation will be provided when available. If the employee uses their own transportation, they will be reimbursed by District at the prevailing mileage rate. (3) If the employee is required to appear in court outside the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and this appearance requires the employee to buy a meal, he or she will be reimbursed. If an extended appearance in court is necessary where lodging and meals would be required, authorization shall be obtained from the Fire Chief. (4) A criminal subpoena need not have a court stamp affixed. §11. Leaves of Absence Without Pay A. Upon the written request of the employee, a leave of absence may be granted for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days by the Fire Chief, or a period not to exceed one (1) year by the Board of Directors. B. Failure of the employee to return to his or her employment upon the termination of an authorized leave of absence shall constitute a separation from service of that employee. C. Leave of absence without pay granted by the Board shall not be construed as a break in service or employment. During these periods, vacation, holiday, or sick leave credits shall not accrue. An employee reinstated after a leave of absence without pay shall receive the same step in the salary range received when he or she began the leave of absence. Time spent on such leave without pay shall not 22 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 169 count toward service for increases within the salary range. For purposes of this section, the employee's merit increase eligibility date shall be adjusted to the date of reinstatement. D. An employee on an approved leave of absence without pay, may continue medical insurance coverage by paying the full cost to District, in advance, for each month, or portion thereof, of which he or she is absent. §12. Natal and Adoption Leave A. Natal and Adoption Leave without Pay The District shall provide employees up to four months natal and adoption leave for the birth or adoption of a child; such leave shall be pursuant to the provisions of the California Pregnancy Disability Act ("PDA"; California Government Code section 12945), if applicable. The District's PDA policy is incorporated herein by reference. Employees on this leave of absence without pay beyond the four-month period will be responsible for the payment of medical, dental, and optical premiums to keep the coverage in force during the leave of absence. B. Natal and Adoption Leave with Pay Employees are granted up to two (2) days natal and adoption leave with pay for the birth or adoption of a child. Any paid time required beyond this initial two (2) days must be charged to sick leave, vacation, compensatory or floating holiday time. §13. Management Leave Exempt classifications shall be provided management leave in the amount of sixty (60) hours per fiscal year, which shall be credited to the employee at the start of pay period No. 1 of each fiscal year. Unused management leave in an amount not to exceed forty (40) hours, may be converted to cash at the employees then existing hourly rate, during the last payroll period commencing in June of each fiscal year. Management leave not utilized nor cashed out, shall not be carried over to any subsequent fiscal years. ARTICLE IV GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE §1. Purpose This article is intended to provide a fair and orderly procedure for the resolution of employee grievances. A grievance is a claimed violation, misinterpretation, misapplication, or noncompliance with existing District codes, resolutions, written rules, policies, procedures, orders, and regulations, or this document. This grievance procedure shall not apply to disciplinary matters or to reviews of performance evaluation reports or to discharge of probationary employees. Disciplinary matters include all warnings, written reprimands, suspensions, reductions in pay which are not the result of transfer or reassignment, demotions, dismissal or any other action which consists of a taking of property as said term is defined by the courts in the disciplinary context. (Reassignments and/or transfers that result in a loss of compensation shall not be deemed to be disciplinary actions). §2. Obiectives The grievance procedure is established to accomplish the following objectives: 23 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 170 A. To settle disagreements at the employee-supervisor level, informally if possible. B. To provide an orderly procedure to handle grievances. C. To resolve grievances as quickly as possible. D. To correct, if possible, the cause of grievances to prevent future similar complaints. E. To provide for a two-way system of communication by making it possible for levels of supervision to address problems, complaints, and questions raised by employees. F. To reduce the number of grievances by allowing them to be expressed and thereby adjusted and eliminated. G. To promote harmonious relations generally among employees, their supervisors, and the administrative staff. H. To assure fair and equitable treatment of all employees. §3. General Provisions A. Preparation of a grievance will be accomplished in such a manner and at a time that will not interfere with normally required work procedures. B. The Board of Directors or its individual members shall not be approached by employees or their representatives at any time that the grievance is being processed. C. Failure of the grievant to comply with time limitations specified in the grievance procedure shall constitute a withdrawal of the grievance, except upon a showing of good cause for such failure. Failure of District supervisory or administrative staff to comply with specified time limitations shall permit the grievant to proceed to the next step in the procedure. EXCEPTION: Notwithstanding the above, an extension of time is permitted with the mutual consent of both parties. D. In the event a grievant elects to represent himself or herself or is represented by counsel other than that provided by the employee organization, the employee organization shall be apprised of the nature and resolution of the grievance if the issues involved are within the scope of said organization's representation rights. E. If an individual named in a dispute is unavailable within the time period specified in these procedures, time limitations can be extended by mutual agreement of the representatives of the respective parties. F. Any period of time specified in this rule for the giving of notice or taking of any action exclude weekends and holidays. G. Unless otherwise specifically provided for herein, the term "days" shall mean business days of the District's Administrative offices. 24 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 171 H. An arbitrator shall not have authority to determine if a matter is within the definition of a "grievance" and/or is timely filed or otherwise administratively prosecuted on a timely basis. §4. Informal Grievance Procedure Most problems or complaints can be settled if the employee will promptly, informally and amicably discuss them with his or her immediate supervisor. Such an initial discussion shall precede any use of the formal grievance procedure. If the immediate supervisor fails to reply to the employee within ten (10) days, or the employee is not satisfied with the decision, the employee may utilize the Formal Grievance Procedure. Although invocation of the Informal Grievance Procedure does not mandate submission of the grievance in writing, the immediate supervisor shall document the substance of the informal grievance meeting. Failure by the employee to advise the immediate supervisor of the grievable problem or complaint within seven (7) days of the date that the employee knew or should reasonably have known of the existence of the problem or complaint, shall constitute a waiver by the employee of the ability to utilize the grievance procedure. §5. Formal Grievance Procedure A. Step I The employee and/or representative shall present the grievance, in writing and signed, to his or her immediate supervisor within fifteen (15) days of the date that the employee knew or reasonably should have known of the events giving rise to the grievance. An official grievance form must be used stating names, dates, times, place, and nature of grievance, explaining how the grievance fits within the definition of"grievance" as set forth in § 1, above. The employee's supervisor shall attempt to resolve the grievance with the employee and shall submit his or her decision in writing to the employee within ten (10) days after receipt of the grievance. The employee shall have the right to appeal the decision of the supervisor to the Fire Chief. B. Step II (1) If the grievance is not resolved to the satisfaction of the employee, the grievant has seven (7) days following receipt of the written response from his or her supervisor to file a written appeal to the Fire Chief or designated representative. (2) Written appeal to the Fire Chief or designated representative shall consist of the statement of the grievance and shall include a statement by the grievant's representative setting forth the reasons why the response of the employee's supervisor did not satisfactorily resolve the grievance and an indication of the action desired by the grievant. The written appeal shall explain why the grievance fits within the definition of "grievance" as set forth in §1, above. (3) After submission of the written appeal, the Fire Chief or designee shall reply within three (3) days, in writing, to the grievant regarding the grievance. In event of rejection, reasons for so doing will be included in the response. C. Step III (1) If the grievance is not resolved to the satisfaction of the employee, the grievant has seven (7) days following receipt of the written response from the Fire Chief 25 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page172 or designee to file a written appeal to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the District. The CEO may designate a representative to act in his or her stead. (2) Written appeal to the CEO or designated representative shall consist of the statement of the grievance and shall include a statement by the grievant's representative setting forth the reasons why the response of the Fire Chief or designee did not satisfactorily resolve the grievance, and an indication of the action desired by the grievant. The written appeal shall explain why the grievance fits within the definition of"grievance" as set forth in §1 above. (3) After submission of the written appeal, the CEO or designee shall reply in writing within fifteen (15) days, to the grievant regarding the grievance. The reasons for the decision will be included in the response. (4) Section 1 - PURPOSE defines a grievance as a claimed violation, misinterpretation, misapplication or noncompliance with existing District codes, resolutions, written rules, policies, procedures, orders and regulations, or this document. The decision by the CEO or designee shall address whether or not the complaint of the employee is grievable pursuant to the grievance definition set forth in § 1 above and/or is timely filed or otherwise administratively prosecuted in a timely basis. In the event that the CEO or designee determines that the employee's complaint is not defined by§ 1 above as a grievance and/or is not timely filed or otherwise administratively prosecuted in a timely basis, the CEO or designee shall advise the employee that the complaint is not grievable and the grievance shall proceed no further unless or until on application by the employee, a judgment is entered at the trial court level, indicative of the complaint being jurisdictionally grievable pursuant to the definitions set forth in § 1 above and/or pursuant to requirements of timeliness. D. Step IV (1) If a grievance is not resolved by the CEO or designee and is deemed "grievable" pursuant to these rules and regulations, (a defined grievance and/or timely) then within seven (7) days of service by the CEO or designee of a grievance decision, the employee may further appeal the matter by filing with the office of the CEO or his/her designee a written appeal to binding arbitration. Said appeal shall be timely only if it is received in the office of the CEO or designee not later than seven (7) days after service of the grievable decision by the CEO or designee. (2) The employee's appeal shall state with specificity the identification of the District Codes, resolutions, written rules or regulations or sections of this document which is claimed to have been violated. The appeal shall additionally state with specificity all allegations of facts upon which the grievance is based, and the specific relief sought. (3) Within ten (10) days after receipt of a valid appeal, the CEO or his/her designee shall request of the California State Conciliation and Mediation Service, that it submit a list of seven (7) arbitrators for hearing of the grievance. The CEO or designee shall direct that a copy of the list of arbitrators be sent to the employee and to the CEO or designee, as well. 26 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 173 (4) Absent mutual selection of an arbitrator from either the submitted list or otherwise, the arbitrator shall be chosen by an initial flip of the coin, with the prevailing employee or CEO/designee having the option of making the first strike or directing that the opposing party make the first strike. Following alternate striking, the one remaining arbitration candidate shall be deemed the appointed arbitrator. (5) The arbitrator shall conduct the hearing at a time and place mutually agreed upon by the parties. (6) The hearing shall be memorialized by use of a certified shorthand reporter. The shorthand reporter shall be selected by the employee. (7) All fees and expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the parties. (8) All fees and expenses related to the securing of a representative and/or legal counsel, the preparation of transcripts, witness fees and other expenses attendant to the presentation of evidence, shall be borne by the party at whose direction said expense is incurred. (9) The per diem fee of the shorthand reporter shall be borne equally by the parties. The cost of transcription shall be borne by the party ordering the transcript. (10) Neither the Federal nor California State Rules of Evidence shall be binding upon evidentiary issues at the hearing. However, such authorities may be considered by the arbitrator in rendering evidentiary rulings. Further, the California Administrative Procedure Act shall specifically be of no application to the hearing process. (11) Although the Rules of Evidence shall not be strictly adhered to, hearsay that would be inadmissible in a civil or criminal proceeding cannot in and of itself support a finding by the arbitrator without corroboration. In general, the arbitrator shall admit evidence which is of such reliability that reasonable persons rely upon it in the conduct of serious matters such as the hearing. (12) The burdens of proof and production of evidence shall be borne by the employee and shall be by a preponderance of the evidence. (13) Not later than ten (10) days prior to the date of commencement of the hearing, the parties shall exchange lists of witnesses each intends to call at the hearing, and a list of documents it intends to introduce at the hearing. Said documents shall be attached to the notifications provided for herein, and the notifications shall actually be in receipt of the opposing party on or before the tenth (10th) day prior to commencement of the hearing. Failure to comply with said requirements shall result in exclusion of witness testimony and/or rejection of exhibits not designated in the submissions. (14) The arbitrator shall be empowered to issue subpoenas for the production of persons and documents. The arbitrator shall designate the subpoena form to 27 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page174 be utilized in such case. The California Code of Civil Procedure, the Evidence Code and other applicable statutes shall apply to the validity and processing of subpoenas and to the method of service of the same. (15) Not later than thirty (30) days after closure of the record, the arbitrator shall render a binding opinion regarding the issues at dispute, and shall submit the binding opinion to the employee, Fire Chief, and the Chief Executive Officer of the District. (16) The conduct of the arbitration proceedings shall be governed by this MOU, and not by CCP § 1280 et seq. ARTICLE V DISCIPLINARY APPEAL §1. Purpose This article is intended to provide a fair, orderly, and due process compliant procedure whereby employees can seek review of disciplinary actions. Disciplinary actions shall be defined as: 1) oral warning, 2) written reprimand, 3) suspension without pay, 4) reduction in pay which is not the result of transfer or reassignment, 5) demotion, 6) dismissal. Transfers or reassignments resulting in a reduction in bonus or related compensation shall not be considered disciplinary action and shall not be subject to review pursuant to either this MOU or any other District rules, policies and regulations. Further, oral warnings and written reprimands shall not be subject to appeal beyond the level of the Fire Chief or designee as set forth below. Performance evaluation reports and/or the discharge of probationary employees shall not be subject to review pursuant to this Article. §2. General Provisions A. Preparation of an appeal will be accomplished in such a manner and at a time that will not interfere with normally required work procedures. B. The Board of Directors or its individual members shall not be approached by employees or their representatives at any time that the appeal is being processed. C. Failure of the appellant to comply with time limitations specified in the appeal procedure shall constitute a withdrawal of the appeal, except upon a showing of good cause for such failure. Failure of District supervisory or administrative staff to comply with specified time limitations shall permit the appellant to proceed to the next step in the procedure. EXCEPTION: Notwithstanding the above, an extension of time is permitted with the mutual consent of both parties. D. Any period of time specified in this rule for the giving of notice or taking of any action excludes weekends and holidays. E. Unless otherwise specifically provided for herein, the term "days" shall mean business days of the District's Administrative offices. F. Neither a hearing officer nor the CEO shall have authority to determine if a matter is within the definition of a disciplinable appeal and/or is timely filed or otherwise 28 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 175 administratively prosecuted in a timely manner. §3. Pre-Disciplinary Notice A. Unless In those instances where a supervisor intends that a disciplinary action consisting of the loss of property (suspension, reduction, demotion or dismissal), the supervisor intending to issue said recommendation shall provide the affected employee with a written notice prior to imposition of any such disciplinary action. Said written notice shall at a minimum, consist of the following: (1) A statement of the disciplinary action that is being proposed. (2) The proposed date of imposition of said action. (3) A statement of the basis for said proposed action. (4) The Notice shall include as attachments, the materials upon which the proposed action is based (with the exception of the employee's personnel file, which need not be attached to the Notice). (5) A statement of the method for participating in a pre-disciplinary review of the proposed action. B. At the discretion of the Fire Chief, a Notice of Intended Disciplinary Action can be issued by the Fire Chief or his or her designee. C. Not later than five (5) days after being served with the Notice of Intended Disciplinary Action, the employee shall serve the Fire Chief or designee with a written request to convene such a meeting. The pre-disciplinary review meeting shall be conducted not later than five (5) days thereafter. The employee has the option of waiving participation in a pre-disciplinary review meeting, and instead may respond to the Notice of Intended Disciplinary Action in writing. If the employee so elects, the employee's substantive written response to the Notice of Intended Disciplinary Action shall be served upon the Fire Chief or designee within five (5) days of service of the Notice of Intended Disciplinary Action. D. The pre-disciplinary review meeting shall be a non-evidentiary, informal meeting conducted pursuant to the principles in Skelly v. State Personnel Board. There shall be no subpoena power as regards said pre-disciplinary review meeting and there shall be no examination of witnesses. Rather, the purpose of the meeting is for the subject employee to provide the Fire Chief or designee with an informal rebuttal to the findings and conclusions set forth by the Fire Chief or designee. E. If the employee does not elect to participate in a pre-disciplinary review meeting, then the Fire Chief or designee shall issue a Notice of Disciplinary Determination based upon a review of the Notice of Intended Disciplinary Action and the materials incorporated therein. F. Regardless of whether or not the Notice Intended Disciplinary Action is issued by 29 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 176 the Chief or a designee, the Chief shall preside over any timely requested pre disciplinary review proceeding and shall issue a determination either rejecting, modifying or sustaining the nature of the proposed action. However, the pre- disciplinary review proceeding shall not result in an increase in the severity of the proposed action without an amended Notice of Intended Action being first drafted and served and which so reflects the Fire Chief's recommendation. G. The Fire Chief shall cause the Notice of his/her post-review determination to be served upon the employee and/or the employee's representative. H. The decision by the Fire Chief or designee shall address whether or not the appeal of the employee is appealable pursuant to the definition set forth in § 1 above and/or is timely filed or otherwise administratively prosecuted in a timely manner. In the event that the Fire Chief or designee determines that the employee's appeal is not defined as such by § 1 above and/or is not timely filed or otherwise administratively prosecuted in a timely manner, the Fire Chief or designee shall advise the employee that the matter is not appealable and the appeal shall proceed no further unless or until on application by the employee, a judgment is entered at the trial court level, indicative of the matter being jurisdictionally appealable pursuant to the definitions set forth in § 1 above and/or pursuant to requirements of timeliness. §4. Hearing Officer Appeal A. The following steps shall only be applicable to an appeal of disciplinary actions consisting of a deprivation of property (suspension, reduction, demotion, or dismissal). B. If an appeal is not resolved by the Fire Chief following a pre-disciplinary review meeting, the employee may further appeal the matter by filing with the office of the Fire Chief or his/her designee a written appeal to an advisory hearing officer. Said appeal shall be timely only if it is received in the office of the Fire Chief or designee not later than seven (7) days after service of the appealable decision by the Fire Chief or designee. C. The employee's appeal shall state with specificity all allegations of facts and law upon which the appeal is based, and the specific relief sought. D. Within ten (10) days after receipt of a valid appeal, the Fire Chief or his/her designee shall request of the California State Conciliation and Mediation Service, that it submit a list of seven (7) hearing officers for hearing of the appeal. The Fire Chief or designee shall direct that a copy of the list of hearing officers be sent to the employee and to the Fire Chief or designee, as well. E. Absent mutual selection of a hearing officer from either the submitted list or otherwise, the hearing officer shall be chosen by an initial flip of the coin, with the prevailing employee or Fire Chief/designee having the option of making the first strike or directing that the opposing party make the first strike. Following alternate striking, the one remaining hearing officer candidate shall be deemed the appointed hearing officer. 30 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 177 F. The hearing officer shall conduct the hearing at a time and place mutually agreed upon by the parties. G. The hearing shall be memorialized by use of a certified shorthand reporter. The shorthand reporter shall be selected by the employee. H. All fees and expenses of the hearing officer shall be borne equally by the parties. I. All fees and expenses related to the securing of a representative and/or legal counsel, the preparation of transcripts, witness fees and other expenses attendant to the presentation of evidence, shall be borne by the party at whose direction said expense is incurred. J. The per diem fee of the shorthand reporter shall be borne equally by the parties. The cost of transcription shall be borne by the party ordering the transcript. K. Neither the Federal nor California State Rules of Evidence shall be binding upon evidentiary issues at the hearing. However, such authorities may be considered by the hearing officer in rendering evidentiary rulings. Further, the California Administrative Procedure Act shall specifically be of no application to the hearing process. Additionally, the Fire Chief or designee shall be specifically authorized to call the employee or any other individual as a witness during the case in chief or otherwise as the Fire Chief or designee may deem appropriate. L. Although the Rules of Evidence shall not be strictly adhered to, hearsay that would be inadmissible in a civil or criminal proceeding cannot in and of itself support a finding by the hearing officer without corroboration. In general, the hearing officer shall admit evidence which is of such reliability that reasonable persons rely upon it in the conduct of serious matters such as the hearing. M. The burdens of proof and production of evidence shall be borne by the Fire Chief. The standard of proof shall be by a preponderance of the evidence. N. Not later than ten (10) days prior to the date of commencement of the hearing, the parties shall exchange lists of witnesses each intends to call at the hearing, and a list of documents it intends to introduce at the hearing. Said documents shall be attached to the notifications provided for herein, and the notifications shall actually be in receipt of the opposing party on or before the tenth (10th) day prior to commencement of the hearing. Failure to comply with said requirements shall result in exclusion of witness testimony and/or rejection of exhibits not designated in the submissions. O. The hearing officer shall be empowered to issue subpoenas for the production of persons and documents. The hearing officer shall designate the subpoena form to be utilized in such case. The California Code of Civil Procedure, the Evidence Code and other applicable statutes shall apply to the validity and processing of subpoenas and to the method of service of the same. P. Not later than thirty (30) days after closure of the record, the hearing officer shall render a written advisory opinion regarding the issues at dispute, and shall submit 31 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 178 the advisory opinion to the employee, to the Fire Chief and to the Chief Executive Officer of the District. §5. CEO Decision A. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the hearing officer's decision, the Chief Executive Officer shall advise the parties in writing pursuant to paragraph 4, below, of whether or not the hearing officer's recommendation is adopted. If adopted, the Chief Executive Officer need not review transcripts of the proceedings. If the Chief Executive Officer adopts the hearing officer's recommendation, then it shall be considered a final determination. B. In the event that the Chief Executive Officer determines that the hearing officer's recommendation may be subject to rejection or modification, the Chief Executive Officer shall within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal so notify the parties and shall order a transcript of the proceedings before the hearing officer with copies to the employee and the Fire Chief. In such case, the cost of producing the transcript of the proceedings shall be borne equally by the parties. Within thirty (30) days of service of the transcript, the employee and the Fire Chief may submit to the Chief Executive Officer, a written memorandum of points and authorities in support of their respective positions. C. Within thirty(30)days of receipt of the legal briefs, the Chief Executive Officer shall render a final determination either sustaining, modifying, or rejecting the hearing officer's recommendation. The Chief Executive Officer's decision shall be submitted to the parties in writing and shall be final upon service being made by mail. D. Allowable judicial review of the Chief Executive Officer's decision shall be sought within the time constraints of CCP § 1094.6 (mandating that a petition for peremptory writ of mandate shall be filed not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which the Chief Executive Officer's decision is mailed by first-class mail, postage pre paid, including a copy of the affidavit or certificate of mailing). ARTICLE VI SAFETY §1. Compliance District and employees in Association shall conform to and comply with all health, safety, and sanitation requirements imposed by District, state or federal law or regulations adopted under state or federal law. §2. No Discrimination No employee shall be in any way discriminated against as a result of reporting any condition believed to be a violation of 1 of this Article V. §3.Safety Equipment Should the employment duties of an employee in the unit, in the estimation of OSHA, require use of any equipment or gear to ensure the safety of the employee or others, District agrees to furnish such equipment or gear. 32 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 179 §4. Employee Responsibility In the course of performing their normally assigned work, employees will be alert to observe unsafe practices, equipment, and conditions; as well as environmental conditions in their immediate area which represent health hazards and will report such conditions to their immediate supervisor. All employees shall make certain that all power machinery is equipped with safety devices properly installed and in working condition and that co- workers use utmost care in the handling of tools and equipment. Employees shall report all accidents immediately to their immediate supervisors. Reports shall be submitted on forms provided by District. §5. Smoking Policy Members of Association agree to accept and comply with the District's Smoking Policy as written and approved by the Fire Chief. §6.Work Related Injuries Any employee within the bargaining unit covered herein who is receiving disability payments under the "Workers Compensation Act of California" for on-the-job injuries sustained while engaged in the performance of duties of any such District position, shall receive from the District during the first three months of such disability absence, payments in an amount equal to the difference between the disability payments received under Workers Compensation Act and the employee's full salary. Such payments by the District should be made without any deduction from accrued sick leave benefits. The District's obligation for such payments shall commence on the first (1st) day of such disability absence. In the event the employee's disability absence should exceed three months, an employee shall be allowed to supplement the Workers Compensation benefit received under State law with available accrued sick leave, accrued vacation leave, accrued compensatory time. The total number of leave hours, along with the Workers Compensation benefit, shall not exceed the employee's base pay for each day of the leave. For this purpose, accrued leave hours can only be used in one-hour increments. ARTICLE VII MANAGEMENT RIGHTS §1.Scope of Rights It is understood and agreed that District possesses the sole right and authority to operate and direct the employees of District in all aspects, except as modified in this Memorandum of Understanding. These rights include, but are not limited to: A. The right to determine its mission, policies, and standards of service to be provided to the public; B. To plan, direct, control, and determine the operations or services to be conducted by employees of District,- C. To determine the methods, means, and number of personnel needed to carry out District's mission; D. To direct the working forces; 33 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 180 E. To hire, assign, or transfer employees within District,- F. To promote, suspend, discipline, or discharge employees; G. To layoff or relieve employees due to lack of work or funds or for other legitimate reasons, (Any provision within this MOU, City rules or regulations or any other policy or procedure promulgated by the City or any Department of the City which prohibits the imposition of layoffs, is deemed null and void); H. To make, publish, and enforce rules and regulations; I. To introduce new or improved methods, equipment, or facilities; J. To contract out for goods and services; K. To take any and all actions as may be necessary to carry out the mission of District in situations of civil emergency as may be declared by the Board of Directors or Fire Chief; L. To schedule and assign work; and, M. To establish work and productivity standards. §2. Emergency Conditions If in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors or Fire Chief it is determined that extreme civil emergency conditions exist, including, but not limited to, riots, civil disorders, earthquakes, floods, or other similar catastrophes, the provisions of this MOU may be suspended during the time of the declared emergency, provided that wage rates and monetary fringe benefits shall not be suspended. ARTICLE VIII EMPLOYEE RIGHTS §1. Scope of Rights All employees shall have the following rights which may be exercised in accordance with State Law, applicable ordinances, rules and regulations: A. To The right to form,join and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer- employee relations. B. The right to be free from interference, intimidation, restraint, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal on the part of an appointing authority, supervisor, other employees, or employee organizations as a result of their exercise of rights granted in this Article. The provisions of Section 3500 et seq. of the Government Code are hereby incorporated as such provisions may apply to employees within the Support Services Association. 34 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 181 §2. New Employee Orientation The District shall provide thirty (30) minutes at a mutually agreeable time during the employee onboarding process for a Fire Support Services Association representative to meet with a new Association covered employee and present the benefits of being a member of the Association. Onboarding of new employees occurs during the first working day at the start of a new pay period up to 26 times per year. The District will provide the designated Association representatives with all available information about the employees as required under AB 119 within 30 days of the employees start date and the District will provide the required information on all Association covered employees again as required under AB 119 at least three (3) times per year. ARTICLE IX MAINTENANCE OF BENEFITS All wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment specifically provided for in this memorandum of understanding, shall remain in full force and effect during the term of the MOU, unless modified pursuant to written agreement of the parties. ARTICLE X APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS This MOU is subject to approval by the Board of Directors of District. The parties hereto agree to perform whatever acts are necessary both jointly and separately to urge the Board to approve and enforce this MOU in its entirety. Following approval of this MOU by the Board, its terms and conditions shall be implemented by appropriate ordinance, resolution, or other lawful action. ARTICLE XI PROVISIONS OF LAW It is understood and agreed that this MOU and employees are subject to all current and future applicable Federal and State laws and regulations and the current provisions of District law. If any part or provisions of this MOU is in conflict or inconsistent with such applicable provisions of those Federal, State, or District enactments or is otherwise held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such part or provision shall be suspended and superseded by such applicable law or regulations, and the remainder of this MOU shall not be affected thereby. If any substantive part or provision of this MOU is suspended or superseded, the parties agree to re-open negotiations regarding the suspended or superseded part or provisions with the understanding that the total compensation to employees under this MOU shall not be reduced or increased as result of this Article. District and Association recognize that under this MOU and in personnel matters not covered in this contract, the current District Personnel Rules as amended and effective shall apply. The Personnel Rules applicable to the Association shall not be changed for the duration of this Agreement. ARTICLE XII TERM The term of this MOU shall commence on July 1, 2021 and will continue for a four year period, ending on June 30, 2025. 35 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 182 ARTICLE XIII NEGOTIATION OF SUCCESSOR MOU The parties agree that negotiation of a successor to this MOU shall commence not later September 1, 2024. 36 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 183 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 37 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 184 EXHIBIT A FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES Administrative Assistant Communications Technician Community Affairs Senior Coordinator Emergency Management Coordinator Emergency Medical Services Administrator Emergency Medical Services Administrator— Quality Improvement Nurse Executive Assistant Executive Assistant II Fire Business Manager Fire Equipment Apprentice Mechanic Fire Equipment Lead Mechanic Fire Equipment Mechanic Fire Information Systems Technician Fire Prevention Specialist Inspection I Fire Prevention Specialist Inspection II Fire Prevention Supervisor Fire Shop Supervisor Maintenance Officer Management Aide Management Analyst I Management Analyst II Management Analyst III Plans Examiner- Fire Public Education Specialist 38 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 185 Association District Date Date Shane Adams Robert Neiuber Fire Prevention Supervisor Human Resources Director Jenifer Phillips Deputy Director of Human Resources Approved by action of the Board of Directors the day of , 2021 39 Fire Support MOU 2021-2025 Page 186 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Annette Cano-Soza, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: Consideration of an Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 20042, Located on the East Side of Carnelian Street and North of Hillside Road, Related to Case No. SUBTT20042, Submitted by New Weaver Lane, LLC. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 20042, located on the east side of Carnelian Street and north of Hillside Road, related to Case No. SUBTT20042. BACKGROUND: On June 14, 2017, Planning Commission approved Case No. SUBTT20042 to subdivide 18.2 acres of land into 26 single-family residential lots on the east side of Carnelian Street and north of Hillside Road. On April 15, 2020, City Council approved an Improvement Agreement and associated securities to guarantee the construction of the public improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond No. 4419127 $341,700 Labor and Material Bond No. 4419127 $341,700 Monumentation Deposit $ 4,374 ANALYSIS: The developer, New Weaver Lane, LLC has submitted a request for a 12-month extension to the Improvement Agreement; the agreement on file expired April 15, 2021. Completion of the public improvements has had some delays due to the on-going pandemic. In addition, Edison needs to complete its undergrounding of the existing electrical poles along Carnelian. Once completed the project's frontage improvements along Carnelian may commence. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Page 187 COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's vision for the City by ensuring the construction of high- quality public improvements that promote a world class community. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Page 2 Page 188 Vicinity Map NOT TO SCALE 5 a d 4' G C N N G C G N ATTACHMENT 1 Page 189 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Ernest Ruiz, Streets, Storm Drains and Fleet Superintendent Paul Fisher, Management Analyst II I SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendment No. 9 to Contract Number CO 15-103 with Siemens Mobility, Inc. for Citywide Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting Maintenance Services in the Amount of$1,161,150. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 9 to contract number CO 15-103 with Siemens Mobility, Inc., extending the term of the contract on a month to month basis, contingent upon the approval of the FY 2021/2022 budget, in an amount not to exceed $1,161,150. BACKGROUND: On June 3, 2015, City Council approved and awarded a competitively bid contract (CO 15-103) for Citywide Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting Maintenance to Siemens Mobility, Inc. This contract originally had an option to renew in one year increments up to a total of five years. In order to provide continuous maintenance of the traffic signal infrastructure while these services are re-bid, it is necessary to extend the term of the contract. If approved, Amendment No. 9 to contract CO 15-103 will extend the term of the contract on a month to month basis with NO rate increase. There are no other changes to the scope of work, service level or other terms and conditions. Staff is currently revising the specifications for traffic signal and safety lighting maintenance. The specifications are expected to be completed and the project advertised in the first quarter of FY 2021/2022. The goal is to have the bid process completed and award a new contract before the end of the calendar year. Following the award of a new contact, contract no. CO 15-103 will be terminated, and services will begin with the selected vendor. The annual contract amount listed above includes both routine maintenance and a contingency for extra work. The routine maintenance includes a complete monthly inspection and service at 231 locations consisting of the City's signalized intersections, signalized crosswalks, flashing crosswalks, and flashing school beacons. The contingency for extra work is necessary to complete repairs due to unforeseen failures, traffic accidents, or malfunctions of the traffic signal system, safety lighting, or internally illuminated street name signs. Examples of extra work repairs include, but are not limited to: • Repair or replacement of damaged traffic signal cabinets and controllers Page 190 • Repair or replacement of vehicle detection loops and video cameras • Repair or replacement of emergency vehicle preempt equipment • Repair or replacement of uninterrupted power supply equipment • Replacement of damaged or downed traffic signal poles • Replacement of damaged Public Safety Video Network (PSVN) cameras • Replacement of damaged Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras • Rewiring signalized intersections with new cables and conductors • Replacement of damaged or downed streetlight poles The City of Rancho Cucamonga has signalized intersections that have been in operation for over thirty-five (35) years, which require additional work as equipment nears its life expectancy. Consequently, due to the aging traffic signal infrastructure, rain and wind damage, and damage caused by motorist collisions, extra work is necessary. ANALYSIS: Siemens Mobility, Inc. submitted a Letter of Intent expressing their desire to continue providing services to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for FY 2021/2022 with NO rate increase. Siemens Mobility, Inc. continues to provide prompt service to the City. Staff recommends the City Council approve and extend the terms of contract no. CO 15-103 to a month to month basis effective July 1, 2021, contingent upon the approval of the FY 2021/2022 budget in an amount not to exceed $1,161,150. FISCAL IMPACT: The funding for Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting Maintenance Services is included in the proposed FY 2020/2021 budget in Streets Maintenance (1001318-5300), Measure 1 2010-2040, (1177303-5300), CFD 2018-01 (1876203-5300) and Police Administration (1001701-5217). COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item advances the City Council's Core Values by promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - CO 15-103, Amendment No. 9 Page 2 Page 191 AMENDMENT NO. 9 to Professional Services Agreement (CO #15-103) between Siemens Mobility, Inc (hereinafter Contractor) and City of Rancho Cucamonga(hereinafter"City") This Amendment No. 9 will serve to amend the Professional Services Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement"), CO# 15-103 to incorporate the following: Item 1: The term of the agreement is hereby extended on a month to month basis, effective July 1, 2021, in an amount that shall not exceed $1,161,150 during FY 2021/2022. Said extension will be in accordance with contractor's letter of intent dated March 4, 2021, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Item 2: The schedule of locations receiving routine monthly maintenance effective July 1, 2021 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Item 3: The contract rates effective July 1, 2021 are attached hereto as Exhibit C. All other Terms and Conditions of the original Agreement CO# 15-103 will remain in full effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized representatives, have executed this Amendment by way of signature by both parties and on the date indicated below. Please return two (2) original signed copies to the City no later than April 27, 2021. The City will process both copies for signature and provide Contractor with one (1) fully executed copy of the Amendment. Siemens Mobility, Inc City of Rancho Cucamonga By: By: Name Date Name Date Title Title By: Name Date Title (two signatures required if corporation) Page 192 SIEMENS Siemens Mobility Inc. 2240 Business Way Riverside, California 92501 951-784-6600 951-784-6700 Fax www.usa-siemens.com/mobility March 4, 2021 Ernie Ruiz City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Works Services Department 8794 Lion Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Contract Extension 7/1/2021-6/30/2022 Dear Mr. Ruiz, This shall serve as a letter of intent to continue providing traffic signal maintenance services as per the terms and conditions of the existing agreement (CO 15-103 "Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting Maintenance") between Siemens Mobility Inc. and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for Fiscal Year 7/1/2021-6/30/2022. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you for another opportunity to work with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. We look forward to working together to maintain and improve your traffic signal and safety lighting systems. Sincerely, Siemens Mobility Inc. ec w6w 574� Candace Gallaher Service Account Manager Unrestricted Page 193 Exhibit B Location Schedule Type/Location Quantity Notes Traffic Signal 19th/Amethyst VDS 19th/Archibald VDS 19th/Beryl VDS 19th/Carnelian VDS 19th/Hellman VDS 19th/Hermosa VDS 19th/Jasper VDS 19th/Sapphire VDS 4th/Golden Oak VDS 4th/Resort VDS 6th/Buffalo VDS 6th/Cleveland VDS 6th/Golden Oak 6th/Resort VDS 6th/Richmond VDS 6th/Utica VDS Archibald/4th VDS Archibald/6th VDS Archibald/8th VDS Archibald/9th VDS Archibald/Banyan Archibald/Church Archibald/Highland Archibald/Lemon Archibald/San Bernardino VDS Archibald/Tryon Arrow/Archibald VDS Arrow/Baker VDS Arrow/Center VDS (NB only) Arrow/Etiwanda VDS Arrow/Haven Arrow/Hellman Arrow/Hermosa VDS Arrow/Pecan VDS Arrow/Red Oak Arrow/Rochester Arrow/Vineyard Arrow/White Oak Arrow/Yellowwood VDS (Formerly known as Private Drive) Banyan/East Banyan/Etiwanda Banyan/Fredericksburg Banyan/Golden Lock Banyan/Wardman Bullock/Youngs Canyon Base Line/Alta Cuesta Base Line/Amethyst VDS Base Line/Archibald Base Line/Beryl Base Line/Carnelian Base Line/Central Park Base Line/Day Creek VDS Page 194 Exhibit B Location Schedule Type/Location L Quantity Notes Base Line/ Day Creek Marketplace VDS Base Line/East VDS Base Line/Ellena West VDS Base Line/Etiwanda Base Line/Haven VDS Base Line/Hellman VDS Base Line/Hermosa Base Line/Milliken VDS Base Line/Mountain View VDS Base Line/Ramona VDS Base Line/Rochester VDS Base Line/San Carmela VDS Base Line/Shelby Base Line/Spruce VDS Base Line/Valencia Base Line/Victoria Park Ln Base Line/Vineyard VDS Carnelian/Banyan VDS Carnelian/Highland/Beryl Park Carnelian/LaVine/LaGrande Carnelian/Lemon VDS Carnelian/Red Hill CC Advanced Beacon part of intersection (FSBT) Carnelian/Vineyard VDS Carnelian/Vivero Carnelian @ Wilson Church/Arbor Church/Center Church/Elm East Church/ Elm West Church/Malaga Church/Mayten VDS Church/Spruce VDS Church/Terra Vista Pkwy East Church/Terra Vista Pkwy West Church/Victoria Gardens/VPL Day Creek/Banyan Day Creek/Church Day Creek/Firehouse Day Creek/ Highland Advanced Beacons part of intersection (FE&WBT) Day Creek/Madrigal VDS Day Creek/North Mainstreet Day Creek/Silverberry Day Creek/South Mainstreet Day Creek/Sugargum Day Creek/Victoria Gardens Day Creek/Victoria Park Ln Day Creek/Vintage Day Creek/Wilson East/Miller VDS East/Victoria VDS Etiwanda/Church/Miller Etiwanda/Garcia VDS (WB Only) Page195 Exhibit B Location Schedule Type/Location Quantity Notes Etiwanda/Highland Etiwanda/Napa VDS Etiwanda/Victoria VDS Etiwanda/Whittram VDS Foothill/Archibald VDS Foothill/Aspen VDS Foothill/Baker VDS Foothill/Center VDS Foothill/Cornwall Foothill/Day Creek Foothill/East Foothill/Elm VDS Foothill/Etiwanda Foothill/Haven VDS Foothill/Hellman VDS Foothill/Hermosa VDS Foothill/Highridge Foothill/Masi Foothill/Mayten Foothill/Milliken VDS Foothill/Orchard Plaza/Gemco VDS Foothill/Ramona VDS Foothill/ Rochester VDS Foothill/Sacred Heart/Marketplace Foothill/San Bernardino VDS Foothill/Spruce VDS Foothill/Victoria Commons/Promenade Foothill/Vineyard Grove/9th Grove/Arrow Grove/San Bernardino Haven/ 19th VDS Haven/6th VDS Haven/7th VDS Haven/Alta Loma Haven/Amber/Chaffey College VDS (EB only) Haven/Banyan Haven/Church VDS Haven/Civic Center Haven/Jersey VDS Haven/Lemon Haven/Town Center VDS Haven/Trademark Haven/Valencia Haven/Victoria Haven/Wilson VDS Hellman/8th VDS Hermosa/6th VDS Hermosa/8th VDS Hermosa/Church VDS Hermosa/Feron Milliken/5th VDS Page 196 Exhibit B Location Schedule Type/Location Quantity Notes Milliken/6th VDS Milliken/7th Milliken/Arrow Milliken/Banyan Milliken/Central Park Milliken/Church Milliken/ Fairmont Milliken/Grizzly Milliken/Jersey VDS Milliken/Kenyon Milliken/Millennium/Century Milliken/Mountain View Milliken/Park Milliken/Terra Vista Pkwy Milliken/Victoria Park Ln Milliken/Vintage Rochester/6th VDS Rochester/Chervil VDS Rochester/Church VDS Rochester/Highland Rochester/Jack Benny Rochester/Jersey VDS Rochester/Lark Rochester/Stadium Way VDS (*Aldis, EB only) Rochester/Victoria Park Ln Rochester/Vintage Spruce/Elm VDS Spruce/Town Center VDS Terra Vista/Mountain View Victoria Gardens/Kew Victoria Gardens/Monet Victoria Gardens/North Mainstreet Victoria Park Lane/Long Meadow Vineyard/9th VDS Vineyard/San Bernardino VDS Wilson/Canistel Wilson/San Sevaine Wilson/Wardman Bullock Traffic Signal Total 193 Flashing Crosswalk Amethyst/Pacific Electric Trail Arbor/Gatsby S/O Church Etiwanda/Craig Solar Etiwanda N/O Saddleridge Solar Kenyon/Pacific Electric Trail Mountain E/O Milliken/Pacific Electric Mountain W/O Milliken/Pacific Electric Ramona/Pacific Electric Trail Resort/No Name 2 S/O 6th *Name may change Resort/No Name 3 S/O 6th *Name may change Resort/No Name 4 S/O 6th *Name may change Page 197 Exhibit B Location Schedule Type/Location Quantity Notes Resort/No Name 5 S/O 6th *Name may change Victoria/W/O Etiwanda High School Victoria E/O Etiwanda High School Flashing Crosswalk Total 14 Signalized Crosswalk Archibald/Pacific Electric Trail Base Line/Pacific Electric Trail East/Pacific Electric Trail Elm /Greenway Corridor Etiwanda/Pacific Electric Trail Grove/Pacific Electric Trail Haven/Pacific Electric Trail VDS (Specific to BIKE) Hellman/Pacific Electric Trail Hermosa/Pacific Electric Trail Rochester/Pacific Electric Trail Rochester/RCHS PED Xing Terra Vista/Greenway Corridor Signalized Crosswalk Total 12 Flashing School Beacon Banyan E/O Roberts PI Solar Banyan W/O East Ave Solar Flashing School Beacon Total 2 Flashing Beacon Carnelian S/O Vineyard Solar East S/O Wilson Solar Hermosa N/O Feron Solar Hermosa S/O Feron Solar Wilson E/O East Solar Flashing Beacon Total 5 Radar Speed Limit Carnelian N/O Lomita Fortel Solar Haven N/O Manzanita Fortel Solar Radar Speed Limit Total 2 Grand Total 228 Page 198 Exhibit C Vendor: Siemens Industry,Inc. Contract No: CO 15-103 Project: Traffic Signals and Safety Lighting Maintenance Contract Subject: Pricing for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 with no increase. COLA: 0.00% Section I-Routine Maintenance FY 2021-2022 Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Subtotal per Month 1 Traffic Signal: 193 EA $88.78 $17,134.54 Monthly Routine Maintenance(Each) 2 Flashing Crosswalk: 14 EA $54.31 $760.34 Monthly Routine Maintenance(Each) Signalized Crosswalk: 3 12 EA $54.31 $651.72 Monthly Routine Maintenance(Each) 4 Flashing School Beacons: 2 EA $54.31 $108.62 Monthly Routine Maintenance(Each) 5 Flashing Beacons: 5 EA $54.31 $271.55 Monthly Routine Maintenance(Each) Radar Speed Limit Signs: 6 2 EA $54.31 $108.62 Monthly Routine Maintenance(each) Routine Maintenance(per month)Total $19,035.39 Section II-Extraordinary Maintenance FY 2021-2022 Item Title Quantity Unit Straight Time Overtime 6 Superintendent 1 Hour $120.11 $161.89 7 Engineering Technician 1 Hour $120.11 $161.89 8 Laboratory Technician 1 Hour $109.67 $156.67 9 Traffic Signal Senior Field Technician 1 Hour $96.09 $161.89 Level III(Lead)-IMSA Certification Traffic Signal Senior Bench Technician 10 1 Hour $120.11 $161.89 Level III-IMSA Certification Fiber Optics for ITS,Traffic,and Communication Systems Technician 11 1 Hour $120.11 $161.89 Level I-IMSA Certification Utility Technician-Lead Traffic Signal Construction Technician 12 1 Hour $114.89 $161.89 Level II-IMSA Certification Traffic Signal Field Technician 13 1 Hour $114.89 $161.89 Level II-IMSA Certification Traffic Signal Technician 14 1 Hour $88.78 $151.44 Level I-IMSA Certification Roadway Lighting Technician 15 1 Hour $83.56 $120.11 Level I-IMSA Certification 16 Construction Laborer 1 Day $83.56 $120.11 Traffic Signal Senior Field Technician 17 Level III(Lead)-IMSA Certification 1 Week $772.89 $1,462.23 (master system communication experience/certification) (1 day=8 hours) Traffic Signal Field Technician 18 Level II-IMSA Certification (1 day=8 hours) 1 Week $913.89 $1,462.23 1 of 3 Page 199 Exhibit C Section II-Extraordinary Maintenance (continued) FY 2021-2022 Item Labor and Material Quantity Unit Unit Cost 19 Install 6x6 traffic loop(4 or less) 1 EA $558.78 20 Install 6x6 traffic loop(more than 4)) 1 EA $407.33 21 Install bike loop 6x6 1 EA $558.78 22 Install 6'diameter circular loop(4 or less) 1 EA $558.78 23 Install 6'diameter circular loop(more than 4) 1 EA $407.33 24 Furnish and Install No.3 1/3 pullbox 1 EA $903.45 25 Swap out Video Detection Camera (City to 1 EA $235.00 provide replacement camera) 26 Swap out Video Detection Camera (Contractor to 1 EA $2,820.01 provide City specified Iteris RG4) 27 Furnish and Install No 5 pullbox 1 EA $1,462.23 28 Furnish and Install No 6 pullbox 1 EA $1,723.34 29 Install City furnished pedestrian signal head 1 EA $151.44 30 Furnish and install City specified pedestrian signal head 1 EA $501.34 31 Install City furnished ADA push button 1 EA $78.33 32 Furnish and install City specified ADA push button 1 EA $235.00 33 Install City furnished NEMA conflict monitor 1 EA $229.78 34 Install City furnished Traffic Signal Cabinet 1 EA $2,402.23 35 Conduct Traffic Signal Cabinet operational test 1 EA $1,305.56 36 Conduct Safety Light and ISNS night survey 1 EA $835.56 37 Paint Traffic Signal Cabinet 1 EA $1,357.78 38 Paint Vehicle Head 1 EA $386.45 39 Paint Pedestrian Head 1 EA $308.11 40 Rewire 8-phase intersection with new cable and conductors 1 EA Time&Materials 41 Install City furnished regulatory sign on signal mast arm 1 EA $151.44 42 Replace Type 1-A(10')pole 1 EA $992.23 43 Furnish and install Decorative street light per City Standard Plan 409 1 EA $10,026.70 44 Furnish and install Marbelite street light per City Standard Plan 410 1 EA $7,728.92 45 De-energize and remove damaged Decorative street light 2 EA $1,253.34 46 De-energize and remove damaged Marbelite street light 1 EA $1,253.34 47 Adjust alignment of signal head on pole 1 EA $78.33 48 Adjust alignment of signal head on mast arm 1 EA $88.78 49 Replace Incandescent or LED Signal Indication with City furnished 1 EA $88.78 LED indication 50 Replace Incandescent or LED type Signal with contractor supplied 1 EA $144.13 red,green or amber LED(City Spec.). 51 Replace ISNS panel with City furnished ISNS panel 1 EA $188.00 52 Install City furnished ISNS 1 EA $250.67 53 Furnish and install City specified 6'ISNS 1 EA $1,984.45 54 Furnish and install City specified 8'ISNS 1 EA $2,402.23 55 Install City furnished LED retrofit for ISNS 1 EA $302.89 56 Furnish and install City specified LED retrofit for ISNS 1 EA $1,148.89 57 Measure,order and install ISNS davit arm 1 EA $2,088.90 58 Install City supplied ISNS davit arm and hand existing sign 1 EA $919.11 Furnish and install SDLC cable terminal block and rack for detection 59 replacement in TS1 and TS2 Econolite Traffic Signal Controller 1 EA $5,222.24 cabinets 60 Install and tune City provided ITERIS Video Detection system for 8 1 EA $6,057.80 phase intersection 61 Install City Supplied Street Light Pole on Existing Foundation(Price 1 EA $3,579.08 includes clean-up of pole knockdown) 62 Install City Supplied Street Light Pole on New Foundation(Price 1 EA $4,287.04 includes clean-up of pole knockdown) 2 of 3 Page 200 Exhibit C Section III-Equipment FY 2021-2022 Item Type of Equipment Quantity Unit Cost per Job/Trip 63 Pick-up Truck 1 Trip $41.78 64 30'Boom/Service Truck 1 Trip $57.44 65 50'Height Boom Truck 1 Trip $313.33 66 Crane Truck 1 Trip $344.67 67 Water Truck 1 Trip $52.22 68 Dump Truck 1 Trip $78.33 69 Concrete Saw 1 Trip $52.22 70 Complete Paint Rig 1 Trip $156.67 71 Jackhammer/Compressor 1 Trip $52.22 72 Trencher 1 Trip $219.33 73 Vacuum Truck 1 Trip $276.78 74 113ackhoe 11 Trip 1 $2,402.23 3 of 3 Page 201 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA $l DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Annette Cano-Soza, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: Consideration of Final Payment for General City Master Plan Drainage Improvements Under Drainage Reimbursement Agreement No. DRA-40 for Tract 17382 and Authorization of an Additional Appropriation of $256,141. (CITY). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve: 1. The final payment for General City Master Plan Drainage Improvements under Drainage Reimbursement Agreement No. DRA-40, related to Tract 17382, located on the east side of Center Avenue between Arrow Route and 26th Street, related to Case No. SUBTT17382; and 2. An additional appropriation of$256,141 from the General City Drainage Fund (Fund 112) fund balance to Account No. 1112303-5650/1026112-0. BACKGROUND: Developers who are conditioned by the City to construct master planned drainage facilities necessary for proper drainage of their subdivisions may enter into a Drainage Reimbursement Agreement with the City for a term of 10 years. At the end of each fiscal year, the City reimburses all developers with active reimbursement agreements using a maximum of 25% of all fees collected by the General City Drainage Area program. On September 2, 2009, the City Council approved DRA-40 in the amount of$1,064,265 for Tract 17382 submitted by Lewis Investment Company, LLC for the installation of the off-site master planned storm drainage improvements required by the subdivision. ANALYSIS: At the request of the developer, City staff reviewed the payments previously made toward the City's obligation under DRA-40 along with the fees collected from Fiscal Year 2016/17 to present and discovered discrepancies in the calculation of the remaining balance due previously reported. To date, the City has reimbursed the developer a total of$708,124, leaving a balance due on the agreement of$356,141. Further, based on the terms of the agreement, a maximum of 25% of the fees collected under the General City Drainage program may be used to reimburse developers under active reimbursement agreements. An analysis of the fees collected in Fiscal Years 2016/17 and 2017/18 indicated that adequate fees were collected to authorize the payment of the remaining balance due under the agreement. The table below details each payment made to date in relation to DRA-40 along with calculation of the remaining balance due. Page 202 Eligible Fiscal Year Payment Payment Due Balance Agreement Amount $1,064,264.49 2010/11 $47,341.78 $1,016,922.71 2011/12 $153,899.22 $863,023.49 2012/13 $89,008.28 $774,015.21 2013/14 $159,548.39 $614,466.82 2014/15 $180,930.97 $433,535.85 2015/16 $69,438.76 $364,097.09 2016/17 $7,956.22 $114,179.18 $241,961.69 2017/18 $241,961.69 $0.00 Total $708,123.62 $356,140.87 Payment of the outstanding balance will satisfy the reimbursement agreement amount owed and will be the final payment to the developer. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount$100,000 have been included in the Fiscal Year 2020/21 Budget in Account No. 1112303-5650/1026112-0 for developer reimbursements. In order to cover the funding shortfall of $256,141 and make the final reimbursement payment for DRA-40, an additional appropriation in the amount of $256,141 from the General City Drainage Fund (Fund 112) to Account No. 1112303-5650/1026112-0 is necessary. Sufficient funds are available in the fund balance for Fund 112 to cover the recommended appropriation and reimbursement. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's vision for the City by ensuring the construction of high- quality public improvements that promote a world class community. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Page 2 Page 203 Vicinity Map TR 17382 NOT TO SCALE n 26th St ATTACHMENT 1 N Page 204 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Ivan Rojer, Fire Chief Joseph Ramos, Emergency Management Coordinator Beth Zuppardi, Emergency Management Specialist SUBJECT: Consideration to Continue the Existing Local Emergency Due to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council review and continue the need for the existing local emergency due to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. BACKGROUND: On January 31, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services declared the COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency for the United States. The state of California followed this public emergency, and the Governor declared a state of emergency on March 4, 2020, and the President declared a national emergency on March 13, 2020. Subsequently, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health declared a public health emergency on March 10, 2020. On March 18, 2020, pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act (Government Code Section 8550 et seq.), the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga proclaimed a local emergency by way of Resolution 2020-014. On May 6, July 15, September 16, November 18 of 2020, and March 17, 2021, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reviewed the need to continue existence of the local emergency and agreed to extend for an additional 60 days. ANALYSIS: Government Code Section 8630 requires the City Council to review the need for continuing the local emergency every 60 days until the governing body terminates the emergency. On August 28, 2020 the California Governor released the Blueprint for a Safer Economy which is a risk- based criteria on tightening and loosening COVID-19 allowable activities and expands the length of time between changes to assess how any movement affects the trajectory of the disease. Although the State's regional Stay Home Order was lifted on January 25, 2021, currently, San Bernardino County is placed in a less-restrictive tier, orange-moderate. Since the last review, City staff has regularly updated City Council on public health, economic and social issues arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the region and the City, there remains a need to keep the emergency Page 205 declaration in place. This will allow the City to, among other things, continue assisting residents and businesses affected by these various State and County orders and to effectively respond to emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Staff recommends keeping the local emergency in place throughout this pandemic. FISCAL IMPACT: The budgetary impact is unknown. Emergency operations, response and recovery efforts continue to consume a significant amount of staff time. Various revenue sources, including sales tax and transient occupancy tax (TOT) along with multiple City fees, have been significantly reduced. The City will have to expend funds in the General Fund, and potentially reserves, to combat COVID-19 and continue operations during this crisis. However, maintaining the local emergency does not, in and of itself, result in a fiscal impact of the City. The emergency declaration may allow the City to seek reimbursements for certain emergency protective measures incurred in responding to the pandemic. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: By keeping the need for the local emergency and actively recovering eligible state and federal emergency expenses, we are ensuring our community continues its efforts to be sustainable and maintain a safe, healthy, and high quality of life for all residents. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 2 Page 206 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA $l DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Tamara L. Oatman, Finance Director SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Examination of Sales and Use Tax Records. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-035) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 2021-035 authorizing examination of sales and use tax records. BACKGROUND: On August 6, 1986, the City Council approved Resolution No. 86-236 authorizing certain City officials and a City contractor access to sales and use tax records pursuant to Government Code Section 7056. The City positions authorized were: Administrative Services Director and Assistant Finance Director. The independent contractor authorized was Robert Hinderliter& Associates. ANALYSIS: Over the course of time, the titles of various positions have changed, departments have restructured, and new positions have been created. Additionally, our independent contractor for sales tax assistance has changed its name as well. As a result, the Resolution approved in 1986 has become obsolete and must be superseded by a new Resolution No. 2021-035 to incorporate current City titles and the current name of our sales tax consultant. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The adoption of the Amended Budget supports the City Council's core value of providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all by demonstrating the active, prudent fiscal management of the City's financial resources in order to support the various services the City provides to all Rancho Cucamonga stakeholders. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Resolution No. 2021-035 Page 207 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING EXAMINATION OF SALES AND USE TAX RECORDS WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 9, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) entered into a contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (Department) to perform all functions incident to the administration and collection of sales and use taxes; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga deems it desirable and necessary for authorized officers, employees and representatives of the City to examine confidential sales and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales and use taxes collected by the Department for the City pursuant to that contract; and WHEREAS, Section 7056 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code sets forth certain requirements and conditions for the disclosure of Department records, and Section 7056.5 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code establishes criminal penalties for the unlawful disclosure of information contained in, or derived from, the sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Finance Director, Deputy Director of Finance, Finance Manager, or other officer or employee of the City designated in writing by the City Manager to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration are hereby appointed to represent the City with authority to examine sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales and use taxes collected for the City by the Department pursuant to the contract between the City and the Department. Section 2. The information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of City sales and use taxes by the Department pursuant to that contract, and for purposes related to the following governmental functions of the City: (a) Budget Planning (b) Economic Development The information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for those governmental functions of the City listed above. Section 3. That Hinderliter de Llamas & Associates is hereby designated to examine the sales and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales and use taxes collected for the City by the Department. The person or entity designated by this section meets all of the following conditions, which are also included in the contract between the City and Hinderliter de Llamas & Associates: a) has an existing contract with the City to examine those sales or transactions and use tax records; ATTAPMT 1 b) is required by that contract to disclose information contained in, or derived from, those sales or transactions and use tax records only to the officer or employee authorized under Section 1 of this resolution to examine the information. c) is prohibited by that contract from performing consulting services for a retailer during the term of that contract; d) is prohibited by that contract from retaining the information contained in, or derived from those sales and use tax records, after that contract has expired. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of City sales and use taxes by the Department pursuant to the contract between the City and the Department and for those purposes relating to the governmental functions of the City listed in section 2 of this resolution. Section 4. That this resolution supercedes all prior resolutions of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Revenue and Taxation Code section 7056. Introduced, approved and adopted this 51h day of May, 2021. ATTEST: (s) (s) City Clerk Mayor I, , City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 5th day of May, 2021, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: (Names of Councilmembers) Noes: (Names of Councilmembers) Absent: (Names of Councilmembers) (s) City Clerk Page 209 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director Mike Smith, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Report in Conformance with California Government Code Section 65858(D) on Measures Taken to Alleviate the Need for Interim Ordinance No. 980. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council issue the attached report in conformance with California Government Code Section 65858 on the measures taken by the City to alleviate the need for Interim Ordinance No. 980. BACKGROUND: At the regular City Council meeting of March 17, 2021, the City Council directed the City Manager to research and compile information about service stations in the City related to the following topics of concern: • The number and location of existing service stations in the city; • Analysis of the land use benefits of service stations to the community; • Analysis of the fiscal benefits of service stations and how this compares to other retail uses; • Land use impacts of service stations on the surrounding commercial districts and/or residential neighborhoods; • Costs to the City of providing service at service station locations, particularly calls for public safety services; • Land use policies that will be included in the General Plan update the City is currently preparing and which will be available in draft form within the next month; and • Possible performance stations andVor conditions that could be placed on service station projects in the future. On April 21, 2021 at 4:00 PM, the City Council conducted a special study session during which they received a report prepared by staff that described the impacts of service stations in the City. The City Council then discussed these impacts, the moratorium's purpose, and the applicability/timing of the moratorium. At their regular meeting at 7:00 PM on that date, the City Council subsequently adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 980 (Attachment 2)establishing an interim urgency zoning Ordinance, pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, establishing a moratorium on the approval of applications for building permits or other entitlements for new service station uses or the expansion of existing service station uses in the City. The temporary interim urgency ordinance, if not extended, is set to expire on June 5, 2021. PanPage 2T(F 1 ANALYSIS: Section 65858(d) of the California Government Code provides that, "Ten days prior to the expiration of that interim ordinance or any extension, the legislative body shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance." The 10-day report does not modify nor extend the City's existing moratorium related to service stations. Rather, issuance of the 10-day report satisfies a statutory step in the process to permit the City Council to consider that potential extension at its next regular meeting on June 2, 2021. The following specific activities are currently being undertaken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of Interim Ordinance 980. • The City is currently in the process of updating the General Plan, the Zoning Map, and the Development Code to incorporate appropriate land use regulations and technical/design standards for all types of development within the City. As a part of this effort, the City has also begun the process of identifying updates that will specifically address the development and operation of service stations. In considering land use and zoning provisions for service stations, staff will be evaluating whether the City's residents and visitors are adequately served by the 32 existing service stations in the City. This will assist in determining whether there is a need for more service stations. Or, if the needs of the City are being met, that the City has reached a saturation point with service stations. As the City becomes more "built-out" there is less vacant land available for development that will fulfill the City Council's and community's vision for`A World Class Community.' Thus, the answers to this evaluation also will be critical in shaping the next phase of development, and the pattern of that development, in the City for decades into the future. Most of the remaining vacant land in the City is surrounded by existing development that are considered "sensitive" uses such as residential neighborhoods, schools, and parks. As a result, it has become more important and relevant to consider surrounding uses and context/compatibility when reviewing proposals for service stations. Their location near sensitive uses increases the risk of contaminant exposure to vulnerable populations. This problem is magnified in instances where a service station may become obsolete and become a "brownfield" site, i.e. a property of which the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance(s), pollutant(s), or contaminant(s). Exposure to the types of contaminants that are present, or are potentially present, at service stations threatens the public health, safety or welfare of neighboring sensitive uses. This outcome is not accounted for in the City's current land use regulations and, as a result, they will be updated. A disproportionate amount of the City's existing service stations uses are concentrated in the southwest and central areas of the City. The proliferation of service stations in these areas of the City inequitably increases health risks for the residents of in these locations due to the potential contaminants present at service stations. Under consideration will be where service station uses are designated as a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the City's General Plan and Zoning Map, and how such uses are regulated in the Development Code. The purpose of this will be minimize the undue concentration of service stations in any one area of the City. The updates to these documents also will include an analysis of the land use compatibility of service stations with sensitive uses. Further analysis will be conducted on the contribution of service Page 'age 2 stations to the fiscal vitality of the City and demand for public safety services generated by service stations. These topics are both further discussed below; • Staff has begun researching the fiscal impacts of existing service stations in the City. Staff will be evaluating, for example, the sales tax revenue of each of the existing and potential service stations in the City and comparing their fiscal performance with other commercial uses that could potentially be developed on the property. Based on staff's preliminary analysis, the collective sales tax revenue of the existing service stations in the City has been generally trending downward. Staff also will be researching, for example, the tax revenue generated by service stations in other cities to see how they compare the revenue generated in the City. Note that trends in changing technology may further erode and depress sales tax revenue. As part of staff's efforts, there will be an evaluation of service stations fiscal performance in this context and whether such uses could become obsolete. Staff will also be evaluating the fiscal performance of service stations relative to the demand on public safety services (and the cost to provide them); • Staff has begun researching the demand for public safety services generated by existing service stations in the City. Based on staff's preliminary analysis using data provided by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, total calls for service of any kind at service stations in the City have generally increased since 2016. There were 637 calls for service in 2016 compared to 1,059 calls for service in 2020. Data for 2021 is incomplete but thus far there has been 135 calls for service. Over that 5-year period, this equates to an average of about 924 calls for service. Similarly, the time spent by deputies on these calls during the same period has increased from about 1,101 hours to about 2,455 hours. The average amount of time spent on location is about 1,870 hours. The number of calls for service and the time spent at service stations cause public safety resources to be used in a likely inefficient and potentially unsustainable manner. Furthermore, service stations draw away an important and critical service from other areas of the City. Including 2021 to date, there has been a combined total of 4,754 calls for service for all service stations. The total calls for service are not equal among the various service stations. It is not yet clear why this disparity exists. As part of the evaluation of the demand for public safety services, staff will reach-out to representatives from the Sheriff's Department to determine what they believe are the underlying causes for the increase in calls and time spent on location. Staff will also be researching the operating characteristics of all 32 service stations in the City. Staff believes that the disparity in total calls for service may be due to service stations having different operating characteristics. For example, if a service station sells alcohol; is open 24 hours; has accessory uses such as a car wash or a restaurant; or provides services such as vehicle repair, then staff will utilize that information to determine the relationship with demands on public safety resources. If necessary, staff will develop new regulations and standards that will allow public safety resources to be used more efficiently and sustainably; • Staff has begun researching how conventional service stations may be affected by: advancements in electric vehicle (EV) technology such as increases in their range due to more efficient batteries; the adoption of EVs as a practical alternative to fossil fuel powered vehicles due to the introduction of chargers that bring the batteries of EVs to a full charge faster or batteries that have the capacity to power heavier vehicles such as trucks; the availability of a variety different mobility options, or the preference for them, such as ridesharing services and mass transit; and new government regulations restricting or prohibiting the sale of vehicles with conventional combustion engines at a specified time in the future; Page 'age 3 • Staff is drafting amendments to the Development Code, and other relevant documents as necessary, related to technical/design standards and requirements for service stations within the City for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council by June 30, 2022. As part of this process, staff will be developing new regulations such as those that would, for example, regulate physical requirements such as the number of service stations at street intersections and the minimum distance, or separation, between services stations; regulate operating conditions such as the hours that service stations are open and whether they sell alcohol; and determine what accessory uses or services could (or if the City prefers, should) be included with service stations such as the sale of fresh food. As part of this effort, staff will be reviewing the municipal/development codes of neighboring jurisdictions to determine how they regulate service stations and the technical/design standards that those communities apply to them. Similarly, staff will be researching how older, built-out communities manage service stations within their jurisdictions. When possible, staff will contact their counterparts at these other jurisdictions to discuss their experiences with service stations. The above reflect the actions taken since the adoption of Interim Ordinance No. 980. The City Council must issue the attached report that describes these actions in order to extend the interim urgency ordinance currently in effect. An opportunity for full public comment on the extension of Interim Ordinance No. 980 will be provided at the City Council's Public Hearing to be held on June 2, 2021 prior to the City Council's consideration of an ordinance to extend Interim Ordinance No. 980. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — 10-Day Report Attachment 2 — Ordinance No. 980 Page 'age 4 REPORT ON THE MEASURES TAKEN TO ALLEVIATE THE CONDITIONS WHICH LED THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO ENACT INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 980 ON APRIL 21, 2021, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF BUILDING PERMITS OR OTHER ENTITLEMENTS FOR NEW SERVICE STATION USES OR THE EXPANSION OF EXISTING SERVICE STATION USES IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ISSUED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ON MAY 5, 2021 PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858(d) On April 5, 2021, pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council enacted Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 980 to impose a moratorium on the approval of building permits or other entitlements for new service station uses or the expansion of existing service station uses. Absent any additional action by the City Council, the Interim Urgency Ordinance will expire after 45 days (June 5, 2021). However, additional time is necessary to thoroughly research and evaluate a permanent, non-urgency ordinance, updates/amendments to General Plan policies and goals, the Zoning Map, and the Development Code establishing land use regulations and technical/design standards on service station development in the City. City staff has therefore scheduled and will notice a public hearing for June 2, 2021, to extend the Interim Urgency Ordinance. Measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 980: • The City is currently in the process of updating the General Plan, the Zoning Map, and the Development Code to incorporate appropriate land use regulations and technical/design standards for all types of development within the City. As a part of this effort, the City has also begun the process of identifying updates that will specifically address the development and operation of service stations. In considering land use and zoning provisions for service stations, staff will be evaluating whether the City's residents and visitors are adequately served by the 32 existing service stations in the City. This will assist in determining whether there is a need for more service stations. Or, if the needs of the City are being met, that the City has reached a saturation point with service stations. As the City becomes more "built-out" there is less vacant land available for development that will fulfill the City Council's and community's vision for`A World Class Community.' Thus, the answers to this evaluation also will be critical in shaping the next phase of development, and the pattern of that development, in the City for decades into the future. Most of the remaining vacant land in the City is surrounded by existing development that are considered "sensitive" uses such as residential neighborhoods, schools, and parks. As a result, it has become more important and relevant to consider surrounding uses and context/compatibility when reviewing proposals for service stations. Their location near sensitive uses increases the risk of contaminant exposure to vulnerable populations. This problem is magnified in instances where a service station may become obsolete and become a "brownfield" site, i.e. a property of which the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance(s), pollutant(s), or contaminant(s). Exposure to the types of contaminants that are present, or are potentially present, at service stations threatens the public health, safety or welfare of neighboring sensitive uses. This outcome is not accounted for in the City's current land use regulations and, as a result, they will be updated. Attachment 1 Page 214 A disproportionate amount of the City's existing service stations uses are concentrated in the southwest and central areas of the City. The proliferation of service stations in these areas of the City inequitably increases health risks for the residents of in these locations due to the potential contaminants present at service stations. Under consideration will be where service station uses are designated as a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the City's General Plan and Zoning Map, and how such uses are regulated in the Development Code. The purpose of this will be minimize the undue concentration of service stations in any one area of the City. The updates to these documents also will include an analysis of the land use compatibility of service stations with sensitive uses. Further analysis will be conducted on the contribution of service stations to the fiscal vitality of the City and demand for public safety services generated by service stations. These topics are both further discussed below; • Staff has begun researching the fiscal impacts of existing service stations in the City. Staff will be evaluating, for example, the sales tax revenue of each of the existing and potential service stations in the City and comparing their fiscal performance with other commercial uses that could potentially be developed on the property. Based on staff's preliminary analysis, the collective sales tax revenue of the existing service stations in the City has been generally trending downward. Staff also will be researching, for example, the tax revenue generated by service stations in other cities to see how they compare the revenue generated in the City. Note that trends in changing technology may further erode and depress sales tax revenue. As part of staff's efforts, there will be an evaluation of service stations fiscal performance in this context and whether such uses could become obsolete. Staff will also be evaluating the fiscal performance of service stations relative to the demand on public safety services (and the cost to provide them); • Staff has begun researching the demand for public safety services generated by existing service stations in the City. Based on staff's preliminary analysis using data provided by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, total calls for service of any kind at service stations in the City have generally increased since 2016. There were 637 calls for service in 2016 compared to 1,059 calls for service in 2020. Data for 2021 is incomplete but thus far there has been 135 calls for service. Over that 5-year period, this equates to an average of about 924 calls for service. Similarly, the time spent by deputies on these calls during the same period has increased from about 1,101 hours to about 2,455 hours. The average amount of time spent on location is about 1,870 hours. The number of calls for service and the time spent at service stations cause public safety resources to be used in a likely inefficient and potentially unsustainable manner. Furthermore, service stations draw away an important and critical service from other areas of the City. Including 2021 to date, there has been a combined total of 4,754 calls for service for all service stations. The total calls for service are not equal among the various service stations. It is not yet clear why this disparity exists. As part of the evaluation of the demand for public safety services, staff will reach-out to representatives from the Sheriff's Department to determine what they believe are the underlying causes for the increase in calls and time spent on location. Staff will also be researching the operating characteristics of all 32 service stations in the City. Staff believes that the disparity in total calls for service may be due to service stations having different operating characteristics. For example, if a service station sells alcohol; is open 24 hours; has accessory uses such as a car wash or a restaurant; or provides services such as vehicle repair, then staff will utilize that information to determine the relationship with demands on public safety resources. If necessary, staff will develop new regulations and standards that will allow public safety resources to be used more efficiently and sustainably; Page 215 • Staff has begun researching how conventional service stations may be affected by: advancements in electric vehicle (EV) technology such as increases in their range due to more efficient batteries; the adoption of EVs as a practical alternative to fossil fuel powered vehicles due to the introduction of chargers that bring the batteries of EVs to a full charge faster or batteries that have the capacity to power heavier vehicles such as trucks; the availability of a variety different mobility options, or the preference for them, such as ridesharing services and mass transit; and new government regulations restricting or prohibiting the sale of vehicles with conventional combustion engines at a specified time in the future; • Staff is drafting amendments to the Development Code, and other relevant documents as necessary, related to technical/design standards and requirements for service stations within the City for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council by June 30, 2022. As part of this process, staff will be developing new regulations such as those that would, for example, regulate physical requirements such as the number of service stations at street intersections and the minimum distance, or separation, between services stations; regulate operating conditions such as the hours that service stations are open and whether they sell alcohol; and determine what accessory uses or services could (or if the City prefers, should) be included with service stations such as the sale of fresh food. As part of this effort, staff will be reviewing the municipal/development codes of neighboring jurisdictions to determine how they regulate service stations and the technical/design standards that those communities apply to them. Similarly, staff will be researching how older, built-out communities manage service stations within their jurisdictions. When possible, staff will contact their counterparts at these other jurisdictions to discuss their experiences with service stations. Page 216 ORDINANCE NO. 980 AN INTERIM URGENCY ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ENACTED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR BUILDING PERMITS OR OTHER ENTITLEMENTS FOR NEW SERVICE STATION USES OR THE EXPANSION OF EXISTING SERVICE STATION USES IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Legislative Findings. A. Subsection F(9) of Section 17.32.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code defines a "service station" as a "retail business selling gasoline or other motor vehicle fuels." For the purpose of this Interim Urgency Ordinance, a service station shall be limited to those retail businesses selling motor vehicle fuels derived from liquid fossil fuels. In this context, a service station is commonly referred to as a gas station. B. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified service stations and fuel storage locations as uses that may result in a brownfield site. Brownfield sites are properties, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. C. Common contaminants found at service station sites include gasoline, diesel, and petroleum oil, volatile organic compounds and solvents, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and lead. Exposure to the types of contaminants present, or potentially present, at service stations threatens the public health, safety or welfare of neighboring communities. D. There are thirty-two service stations currently in operation in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are an additional two more service stations that are currently in plan check review for building permit or under construction. Many of the existing service stations are located near sensitive receptors. The close proximity of service stations to these areas increases the risk of contaminant exposure to vulnerable populations. This problem is exacerbated in situations where the service station may become a brownfield site. D. A disproportionate amount of the City's existing service stations are concentrated in the southwest and central areas of the City. Thirteen service stations are located in District 2 and eleven are located in District 3. In contrast, Districts 1 and 4 have only five service stations each. The proliferation of service stations in Districts 2 and 3 inequitably increases health risks for the residents of these districts due to the potential contaminants present at service stations. As a matter of environmental justice, the City Council must carefully consider how such uses are zoned under the City's General Plan and Development Code in order to avoid an undue concentration of service stations in any one part of the City. E. Based on data provided by the Sheriff's Department, the amount of criminal activity that occurs specifically at service stations necessitates that police services be routinely deployed to service stations. Over the past five years, the number of calls for service at service stations has Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 980 - Page 1 of 6 Attachment 2 Page 217 steadily increased. In 2020, a total of 1,059 calls for service were made at service stations in the City, resulting in approximately 2,455 hours of police time spent policing and protecting service stations. The development of additional service stations within the City would result in additional strains on police services to counter the potential for increased criminal activity. G. The increased criminal activity associated with service stations threatens the health, safety and welfare of all residents, but particularly those within the southwest and central areas of the City, due to the inequitable concentration of service stations in those areas. The City Council believes the location and proliferation of service stations in certain areas of the City requires further regulation to ensure that the negative effects of service stations can be curtailed in order to better protect the public. H. Altogether, the existing location and concentration of service stations in the City mean that drivers need only drive approximately five minutes in order to reach most existing service stations in the City. Applications for additional service stations continue to be submitted to the City despite the already high concentration of service stations in the City and declining demand. I. The declining demand for gasoline is partly demonstrated by the decline in annual service station revenues in the City. According to revenue estimates reported to the City by existing service stations, such revenues have declined by over half a million dollars from 2019 to 2020, echoing global trends, which have seen the decline in service stations over the past ten years due to a variety of factors, including the proliferation of electric vehicles, shared mobility solutions, and alternative fuel options. J. Furthermore, vehicle technology is rapidly evolving such that reliance on gas is steadily declining. According to a report from the Boston Consulting Group, it is estimated that by 2030, more than one third of all new vehicles will be fully or partially electric. Charging for electric vehicles can take place in a variety of locations such as at home, work and in parking lots. Ride- sharing solutions further reduce demand for gasoline as car ownership becomes more obsolete. By 2035, shared mobility solutions such as Uber, Lyft, and Zipcar are expected to account for nearly 20% of on-road passenger miles. Meanwhile, alternative fuel options such as hydrogen fuel, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural gas, and biofuels are increasing their share in the gasoline and diesel markets. K. The declining demand for gasoline may increase competition amongst the existing service stations in the City such that closures may occur over time. Due to their propensity to become brownfield sites, service stations require significant investment to remediate any potential ground contamination prior to redevelopment. Closed sites may be abandoned and left unused for years and removal of contaminants may present health risks for neighboring communities and sensitive receptors. Additional closures could result in increased blight and dangerous conditions throughout the City, thereby threatening public health, safety and welfare. The City Council wishes to assess the appropriate concentration and locations of service stations given declining demand. L. The City has received applications for additional service stations to be constructed at the corner of 9th Street and Archibald Avenue and at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Grove Avenue. An additional service station to be redeveloped and expanded two blocks north at the corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route and another to be redeveloped at Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club Drive have previously been approved by the Planning Commission, but have not yet completed plan check and no building permits have been issued. These service station projects would be located within the southwest part of the City, an area with Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 980 - Page 2 of 6 Page 218 an already high concentration of service stations. Based on all of the foregoing impacts associated with the development of service stations, the City Council therefore finds there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare that is presented by pending applications for land use entitlements and building permits to develop new service stations and expand or remodel existing service stations within the City, and that a moratorium is necessary. M. The City Council finds that the time provided by the moratorium will allow for a comprehensive analysis on how to manage and reduce the impact of additional service stations in the City, or if additional service stations or the expansion of existing service stations should be permitted. During the moratorium, the City will be able to analyze their potential impacts on the public health such as the potential for contaminant exposure near sensitive receptors and residential areas; impacts on public safety related to the provision of police services to service stations; and impacts on the public welfare due to the disproportionate concentration of service stations in certain residential areas of the City and potential for blight in connection with declining demand for gas. The City Council finds that these studies will help the Council and the City's Planning Department determine how best to prevent impacts to the public health, safety and welfare. The City Council further finds that the moratorium will allow time to evaluate the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Zoning map and develop appropriate regulations and/or appropriate zones for service stations in the City to achieve a reasonable level of assurance that there will not be serious negative impacts to the overall community and ensure positive outcomes for the City's residents, business community, property owners, and developers. N. Based on the foregoing, the City Council ultimately finds that if the City fails to enact this moratorium, new service stations may be allowed to develop within the City or be redeveloped or expanded within the City that do not reflect the demand for such services, are incompatible with neighboring residential areas and sensitive receptors, and exacerbate existing public safety issues at service stations. Therefore, a current and immediate threat to the public safety, health and welfare exists. SECTION 2. Authority. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, the City Council may adopt, as an urgency measure, an interim ordinance that prohibits any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal that the City Council is considering, studying, or intends to study within a reasonable period of time. SECTION 3. Urgency Findings. The City Council finds and determines that there is an immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that new and expanded service station uses within the City, under the City's current regulations, constitutes a threat to the public health, safety or welfare. As described in Section 1, the staff report accompanying this Interim Urgency Ordinance, and other evidence in the record, such continued service station development in the City could threaten the health, safety and welfare of the community through negative impacts that include, but are not limited to, public safety, contaminant exposure, and police protection services. To preserve the public health, safety, and welfare, the City Council finds that it is necessary that this Interim Urgency Ordinance take effect immediately pursuant to Government Code Sections 65858, 36934, and 36937 to prevent such harm. SECTION 4. Moratorium Established. Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 980 - Page 3 of 6 Page 219 A. Based on the facts and findings set forth in Sections 1 through 3 of this Interim Urgency Ordinance, and notwithstanding any other ordinance or provision of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, the City Council hereby establishes a moratorium on the approval of applications for the development of new service station uses or the expansion of existing service station uses. B. No application for a building permit or any other entitlement, including a design review or conditional use permit, authorizing construction of a new service station use or the expansion of an existing service station use, including the expansion of accessory uses on the same site, shall be approved during the term of the moratorium established herein. C. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the moratorium established by this Interim Urgency Ordinance shall not apply to the following: (1) The improvement, renovation, or demolition of an existing service station, provided that such development otherwise conforms to applicable law, does not result in an increase to the number of gas pumping facilities, does not add any new accessory uses on site, and does not require a discretionary entitlement to perform such improvement, renovation, or demolition; or (2) An application for a service station that has been deemed complete or received all discretionary entitlements as of the moratorium's effective date, provided that the City has issued a building permit for construction or redevelopment of the proposed service station within six months of the moratorium's effective date. The moratorium shall thereafter apply to these applications if a building permit has not been issued within that six-month period. D. For the purposes of this Interim Urgency Ordinance, the term "service station" shall have the same meaning prescribed in Subsection F(9) of Section 17.32.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, except that it shall be limited to retail business selling gasoline or other motor vehicle fuels derived from fossil fuels (e.g., petroleum). SECTION 6. Special Conditional Use Permit. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Interim Urgency Ordinance, the City of Rancho Cucamonga may accept, process and approve applications for special conditional use permits for development or use of property otherwise subject to Section 4 of this Interim Ordinance, if the City Council finds, after receipt of a recommendation from the Planning Commission, that an owner of property subject to the moratorium imposed by this Interim Urgency Ordinance will be deprived of all economically viable use of his or her land unless the property owner is allowed to develop or use the property for a service station, or that the law of California or of the United States otherwise requires the City to approve an application for a permit or an entitlement for the development or use. The special conditional use permit provided by this Section shall be an available entitlement process and permit for a property owner affected by the moratorium whether or not a conditional use permit would otherwise be required by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. A special conditional use permit submitted pursuant to this Section shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 17.14 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, except that the City Council shall serve as the final decision-making body, which shall make the additional findings required by this Section prior to approving the special conditional use permit. Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 980 - Page 4 of 6 Page 220 SECTION 7. Enforcement. The provisions of this Interim Urgency Ordinance shall be enforceable pursuant to the general enforcement provisions in Title 1 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. SECTION 8. CEQA Findings. The City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Interim Urgency Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, because the Interim Urgency Ordinance will impose a temporary moratorium on approvals of applications for service station uses in the City in order to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, and will thereby serve to avoid potentially significant adverse environmental impacts during the term of the moratorium. It is therefore not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act review pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 9. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Interim Urgency Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Interim Urgency Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. SECTION 10. Effective Date; Approval and Extension of Ordinance. This Interim Urgency Ordinance, being adopted as an urgency measure for the immediate protection of the public safety, health, and general welfare, containing a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency, and passed by a minimum four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council, shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall continue in effect for a period of not longer than forty-five (45) days. After notice pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and a public hearing, the City Council may extend the effectiveness of this Urgency Ordinance as provided in Government Code Section 65858. SECTION 11. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Interim Urgency Ordinance and shall cause its publication in accordance with applicable law. Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 980 - Page 5 of 6 Page 221 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of April, 2021. ennis ichael, k4ayor ATTEST: nice C. Reynolds, dty Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Interim Urgency Ordinance was passed and adopted by a 4/5 vote at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 21st day of April, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Hutchison, Kennedy, Michael, Scott, Spagnolo NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None Executed this 22"d day of April 2021, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. J60ce C. Reynolds, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: James L. Markman, ity Attorney Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 980 - Page 6 of 6 Page 222 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA $l DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jason Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Brian Sandona, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Consideration of Adoption of Resolutions of Necessity for the Acquisition by Eminent Domain of Certain Real Property Interests for Public Purposes in Connection with the Yellowwood Place Connection to Foothill Marketplace Project. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-033) (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-034) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends that the City Council: 1. Separately consider each of the following two Resolutions, which are Resolutions of Necessity of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Declaring Certain Real Property Interests Necessary for Public Purposes and Authorizing the Acquisition Thereof in Connection with the City's Yellowwood Place Connection to Foothill Marketplace Project: Resolution No. 2021-033 (Walmart Parcel) Resolution No. 2021-034 (THM Enterprises Parcel) 2. Open and conduct a hearing on the adoption of the proposed Resolutions of Necessity, receive from City Staff the evidence stated and referred to in this Agenda Report ("Report"), take testimony from any person wishing to be heard on issues A, B, C, and D below, and consider all evidence to determine whether to adopt each proposed Resolution of Necessity, each of which requires the City Council's separate consideration and determination. 3. If the City Council finds, based on the evidence contained and referred to in this Report, the testimony and comments submitted to the City Council, that the evidence warrants the necessary findings with respect to each of the proposed Resolutions of Necessity, then City Staff recommends that the City Council, in the exercise of its discretion, adopt proposed Resolution of Necessity No. 2021-033, and Resolution of Necessity No. 2021- 034 (each of which requires a 4/5ths vote of the entire City Council) and authorize the City Attorney's office to file eminent domain proceedings to acquire the real property interests described below, which include permanent roadway easements, temporary construction easements and impacted site improvements (referred to below collectively as the "Subject Property Interests") from the two parcels described below: Page 223 12549 Foothill Boulevard, APNs 0229-031-38 (Walmart Parcel) An approximate 62.72 square foot permanent roadway easement, and a 78.20 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements on a portion of the real property for roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto from the real property located at 12549 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, and identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Numbers 229-031-38, which is owned by Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust (referred to as "Walmart Parcel"). 12449 Foothill Boulevard, APN 229-031-41 (THM Enterprises, LLC Parcel) An approximate 465.28 square foot permanent roadway easement, and a 329.80 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements on a portion of the real property for roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto from the real property located at 12449 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, and identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 229-031-41, which is owned by THM Enterprises, LLC ("THM Enterprises Parcel"). The Subject Property Interests, comprised of the above-described permanent roadway easement areas, are described more particularly in each respective Resolution of Necessity. The Resolutions of Necessity with their respective Exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. If the City Council adopts the proposed Resolutions of Necessity, authorize the City Attorney's Office to file and prosecute eminent domain proceedings for the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests by eminent domain. 5. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute all necessary documents. BACKGROUND: The City Council has before it two proposed Resolutions of Necessity for the acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property interests in connection with the City's proposed Yellowwood Place Connection to Foothill Marketplace Project ("Project"). The proposed Project requires the acquisition of additional right of way for the proposed street improvements. The Project involves the construction of a driveway extending from the northerly terminus of Yellowwood Place into the southerly portion of the Foothill Marketplace shopping center. The proposed driveway will provide an additional access point to the shopping center from the southern portion of the City. The Project is a part of the City's plan to create more streets in the southeast portion of the City. The Street Improvement Plans for the Project are on file with the Engineering Services Department and are incorporated herein by this reference. The Project requires the acquisition of permanent easements over portions of two larger parcels for roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto. The City has attempted to negotiate in good faith with the owners of the two larger parcels to acquire the above-described Subject Property Interests, but parties have not reached a negotiated acquisition for the Subject Property Interests from the subject two larger parcels. Additional correspondence was made between the City and the Foothill Marketplace property manager and the WalMart Real Estate Management Office; however, those talks are ongoing and have not resulted in a negotiated acquisition as of yet. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary Page 2 Page 224 that the City consider the proposed Resolutions of Necessity at this time. The City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests for public use, namely roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Project. The City seeks to construct the Project to improve capacity and circulation. The Project is a part of the City's plan to create more streets in the southeast portion of the City. The Project was planned and located to minimize the impact on the adjacent properties. The Project requires the acquisition of two small permanent easements, and temporary construction easements, over portions of two larger parcels owned by private property owners. The construction of the Project will not result in the displacement of anyone from their residence or business. The City will coordinate the construction with the owners of the Subject Property Interests to minimize the impact of construction on the parcels. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary that the City consider the acquisition by eminent domain of the Subject Property Interests needed from the two larger parcels. The City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests for public use, namely roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Project pursuant to the authority conferred on the City of Rancho Cucamonga to acquire real property by eminent domain by Section 19 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, Government Code Sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including but not limited to Sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and by other provisions of law. For the reasons set forth above, the construction of the Project is in the public interest and necessity and is needed to improve capacity and circulation, by creating more streets in the southeast portion of the City. City's Actions Pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seg. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq., the City of Rancho Cucamonga obtained fair market value appraisals of the Subject Property Interests and the larger parcels of which the Subject Interests are a part, set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market values, and extended written offers to the owners of record. The City negotiated in good faith with the record owners. As of the date of this Staff Report, however, the parties have not reached a negotiated agreement. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary that the City consider the adoption of the Resolutions of Necessity at this time. Following is a summary of the actions taken by the City pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq. 12549 Foothill Boulevard, APN 229-031-38 (Walmart Parcel) Pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq., the City of Rancho Cucamonga obtained a fair market value appraisal of the Walmart Parcel, and the approximate 62.72 square foot area that the City seeks to acquire for a permanent easement, as well as a 78.20 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements, for public use, namely roads, highways and related purposes. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value and extended a written offer on March 18, 2021 to Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, the owner of record. The fair market value appraisal used a date of value of February 26, 2021. Page 3 Page 225 The City's written offer included an informational pamphlet describing the eminent domain process and the record owner's rights under the Eminent Domain Law. In accordance with Government Code Section 7267.2, the City's written offer contained a written statement of, and summary of the basis for, the amount it established as just compensation. The offer set forth the date of value utilized by the appraiser and explained the appraiser's opinion of the highest and best use of the larger parcel. It explained the applicable zoning and General Plan designation of the larger parcel. The City's offer also summarized the principal transactions relied on by the appraiser to arrive at the appraiser's opinion of value. In addition, the written offer explained the appraiser's valuation analysis, including severance damages. It included the City's comparable market data relied on by the appraiser. Further, the City offered, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.025, to pay the record owner the reasonable costs, up to $5,000, for an independent appraisal of the approximate 62.72 square foot permanent easement, and 78.20 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements. The City has followed up with the owners regarding the City's offer and is continuing negotiations. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary for the City Council to consider the adoption of the proposed Resolution of Necessity authorizing the acquisition by eminent domain of the Subject Property Interests needed from the Walmart Parcel. 12449 Foothill Boulevard, APN 229-031-41 (THM Enterprises, LLC Parcel) Pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq., the City of Rancho Cucamonga obtained a fair market value appraisal of the THM Enterprises, LLC Parcel, the approximate 465.28 square foot area that the City seeks to acquire for a permanent easement, a 329.80 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements, for public use, namely roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value and extended a written offer on March 18, 2021 to the THM Enterprises, LLC, the owner of record. The fair market value appraisal used a date of value of February 26, 2021. The City's written offer included an informational pamphlet describing the eminent domain process and the record owner's rights under the Eminent Domain Law. In accordance with Government Code Section 7267.2, the City's written offer contained a written statement of, and summary of the basis for, the amount it established as just compensation. The offer set forth the date of value utilized by the appraiser and explained the appraiser's opinion of the highest and best use of the larger parcel. It explained the applicable zoning and General Plan designation of the larger parcel. The City's offer also summarized the principal transactions relied on by the appraiser to arrive at the appraiser's opinion of value. In addition, the written offer explained the appraiser's valuation analysis, including severance damages. It included the City's comparable market data relied on by the appraiser. Further, the City offered, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.025, to pay the record owner the reasonable costs, up to $5,000, for an independent appraisal of the approximate 465.28 square foot permanent easement, a 329.80 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements. The City has followed up with the owner regarding the City's offer and is continuing negotiations. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary for the City Council to consider the adoption of the proposed Resolution of Necessity authorizing the acquisition by eminent domain of the Subject Property Interests needed from the THM Enterprises, LLC Parcel Page 4 Page 226 City's Actions Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235, the City sent a letter and a notice by first- class mail dated April 16, 2021 to the record owners of the Subject Property Interests the City seeks to acquire from the Walmart Parcel, and the THM Enterprises, LLC Parcel informing them of the City's intent to consider at its May 5, 2021 meeting, the adoption of a resolution of necessity for the acquisition by eminent domain of the Subject Property Interests from each respective parcel. The notices advised the record owners of their right to appear and be heard regarding the City's proposed adoption of the respective Resolution of Necessity by filing, within fifteen days of the date the notice was mailed, a written request with the City to appear at the hearing. The notices specifically informed the record owners of the Subject Property Interests that they have an opportunity to appear before the City Council and raise questions about whether the public interest and necessity require the Project; whether the Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and whether the Subject Property Interests the City seeks to acquire from the owners of record are necessary for the Project. ANALYSIS: As discussed above, based on the proposed timing of the Project, it is necessary for the City Council to consider the adoption of the proposed Resolutions of Necessity at this time. This hearing relates to issues A, B, C, and D below. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY A. The Public Interest and Necessity Require the Project The Project, as planned and designed, is in the public interest and necessity and is needed to improve traffic circulation and efficiency in this area of the City. The proposed Project requires the acquisition of additional right of way for the proposed street improvements. The Project involves the construction of a driveway extending from the northerly terminus of Yellowwood Place into the southerly portion of the Foothill Marketplace shopping center. The proposed driveway will provide an additional access point to the shopping center from the southern portion of the City. The Project is a part of the City's plan to create more streets in the southeast portion of the City. The Street Improvement Plans for the Project are on file with the Engineering Services Department and are incorporated herein by this reference. Accordingly, the Project will benefit the residents and businesses of the City and the community as a whole. The Project, as planned and designed, is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests for public use, namely public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Project. The City seeks to construct the Project to improve circulation by creating more streets in the southeast portion of the City. The Project was planned and located to minimize the impact on the adjacent properties. The Project requires the acquisition of a permanent easement, and a temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, over portions of two larger parcels owned by private property owners. The construction of the Project will not result in the displacement of any person from their residence or business. The City will coordinate the construction with the owners of the Subject Property Interests to minimize the impact of construction on the parcels. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary that the City consider the Page 5 Page 227 acquisition by eminent domain of the Subject Property Interests needed from the remaining two larger parcels. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use to which any easement holders may have appropriated the area (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510). Further, the Project may require the relocation of several utilities to the proposed new right-of-way area. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated any utility easements located in the Subject Property Interests that are affected by the Project. Accordingly, the City is authorized to acquire the Subject Property Interests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650. B. The Project is Planned and Located in the Manner that will be Most Compatible with the Greatest Public Good and the Least Private Injury The Project is planned and located in the manner that is most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. The proposed Project requires the acquisition of additional right of way for the proposed street improvements. The Project involves the construction of a driveway extending from the northerly terminus of Yellowwood Place into the southerly portion of the Foothill Marketplace shopping center. The proposed driveway will provide an additional access point to the shopping center from the southern portion of the City. The Project is a part of the City's plan to create more streets in the southeast portion of the City. Accordingly, the Project will benefit the residents and businesses of the City and the community as a whole. The Project is planned and located to minimize the impact on the adjacent properties. The Project requires the acquisition of a permanent easement, and a temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, over portions of two larger parcels owned by private property owners. The construction of the Project will not result in the displacement of any person from their residence or business. The City will coordinate the construction with the owners of the Subject Property Interests to minimize the impact of construction on the parcels. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary that the City consider the acquisition by eminent domain of the Subject Property Interests needed from the remaining two larger parcels. Further, the public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use to which any easement holders may have appropriated the area (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510). Further, the Project may require the relocation of several utilities to the proposed new right-of-way area. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely public street, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated any utility easements located in the Subject Property Interests that are affected by the Project. Accordingly, the City is authorized to acquire the Subject Property Interests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650. Page 6 Page 228 C. The Subject Property Interests Described in Each Resolution of Necessity are Necessary for the Project The City seeks to construct the Project, as planned and designed, to improve traffic circulation and efficiency in this area of the City. The proposed Project requires the acquisition of additional right of way for the proposed street improvements. The Project involves the construction of a driveway extending from the northerly terminus of Yellowwood Place into the southerly portion of the Foothill Marketplace shopping center. The proposed driveway will provide an additional access point to the shopping center from the southern portion of the City. The Project is a part of the City's plan to create more streets in the southeast portion of the City. The City cannot construct the Project without the acquisition of the following Subject Property Interests, which are described more particularly in each Resolution of Necessity: 12549 Foothill Boulevard, APN 229-031-38) (WalMart Parcel) An approximate 62.72 square foot permanent easement, a 78.20 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements over a portion of the real property for public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto from the real property located at 12549 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, and identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 229-031-38, which is owned by Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust. 12449 Foothill Boulevard, APN 229-031-41 (THM Enterprises Parcel) An approximate 465.28 square foot permanent easement, a 329.80 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months and impacted site improvements over a portion of the real property for public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto from the real property located at 12449 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, and identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 229-031-41, which is owned by the THM Enterprises. As stated above, the public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use to which any easement holders may have appropriated the area (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510). Further, the Project may require the relocation of several utilities to the proposed new right-of-way area. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated any utility easements located in the Subject Property Interests that are affected by the Project. Accordingly, the City is authorized to acquire the Subject Property Interests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650. D. The City has made an offer as required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to the owners of record of the Subject Property Interests it seeks to acquire from each of the two subject parcels Page 7 Page 229 The City, pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq., obtained fair market value appraisals of the Subject Property Interests, set just compensation in accordance with the fair market values and extended written offers to the owners of record of the Subject Property Interests. As detailed above, the City extended to the owners of record of the Subject Property Interests a written offer pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.2 to acquire the Subject Property Interests for public use, namely public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto. Specifically, the City extended written offers to the following record owners of the Subject Property Interests: • The City extended a written offer to Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust to purchase an approximate 62.72 square foot permanent easement, a 78.20 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements over a portion of the real property for public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto from the real property located at 12549 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, and identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 229-031-38. • The City extended a written offer to THM Enterprises, LLC, to purchase an approximate 465.28 square foot permanent easement, a 329.80 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements over a portion of the real property for public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto from the real property located at 12449 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, and identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 229-031-41. In order to adopt the proposed Resolutions of Necessity for the acquisition by eminent domain of the Subject Property Interests, the City Council must find and determine, with respect to each Resolution of Necessity, that: A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; C. The Subject Property Interests described in each Resolution of Necessity are necessary for the Project; and D. The City has made an offer as required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to the owner of record of the real property interests it seeks to acquire. The amount of just compensation is not an issue before the City Council at this hearing. The hearing relates to issues A, B, C, and D above. The amount of just compensation would be determined in the eminent domain proceedings that would be filed if the City Council, in its sole discretion, adopts each proposed Resolution of Necessity. Environmental Analysis The environmental effects of the Project were studied and analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"). Pursuant to Section 15031 of Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines, City Staff determined that the Project Page 8 Page 230 was categorically exempt. The City Council adopted a determination of categorical exemption on March 3, 2021 and directed City Staff to file the Notice of Exemption. Said Categorical Exemption was submitted for filing with the County of San Bernardino on or about March 17, 2021 in accordance with CEQA. In connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity, on May 5, 2021, City Staff reviewed the environmental documentation prepared in connection with the Project. Pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, City Staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Project, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, and that the City has obtained no new information of substantial importance that would require further environmental analysis. These environmental findings are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs for this project are estimated to be approximately $115,000. No funding has been appropriated for this project to date, however, adequate funds to cover the estimated project costs are available in the Infrastructure Fund (Fund 198) fund balance. A request for appropriation to cover the costs for right-of-way acquisition and construction will be made as part of requests to approve those final actions. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's vision to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive by the construction of high quality improvements that promote a world class community. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Attachment 2 - Proposed Resolution of Necessity 2021-033 (Walmart Parcel) Attachment 3 - Proposed Resolution of Necessity 2021-034 (THM Enterprises Parcel) Page 9 Page 231 12549 Foothill Boulevard Vicinity Map NOT TO SCALE rj r�xc�r�` oar 56 rum 4 J Site 06 r , - r , r � r � r r � r 1r �r a �r l O Y r I l ArrOW Rte �' N ATTACHMENT 1 Page 232 RESOLUTION 2021-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF IN CONNECTION WITH THE YELLOWWOOD PLACE CONNECTION TO FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PROJECT (PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS OVER PORTIONS OF APN 229-031-38) WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") is a municipal corporation in the County of San Bernardino, State of California; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to construct the Yellowwood Place Connection to Foothill Marketplace Project ("Project") to create more streets in the southeast portion of the City. The Project, as planned and designed, involves the construction of a driveway extending from the northerly terminus of Yellowwood Place into the southerly portion of the Foothill Marketplace shopping center. The proposed driveway will provide an additional access point to the shopping center from the southern portion of the City. All work is consistent with the City's General Plan of Circulation. The proposed Project will reduce the traffic congestion and improve ingress and egress for adjoining properties and side streets. The Street Improvement Plans for the Project are on file with the Engineering Services Department and are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the environmental effects of the Project were studied and analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"). Pursuant to Section 15061 of Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines, City Staff determined that the Project was categorically exempt. The City Council adopted a determination of categorical exemption on March 3, 2021 and directed City Staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the State of California Clearing House in accordance with CEQA. Said Notice of Exemption was filed with the County of San Bernardino on or about March 17, 2021 in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, in connection with the proposed Resolution of Necessity, on May 5, 2021, City Staff reviewed the environmental documentation prepared in connection with the Project. Pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, City Staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Project, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, and that the City has obtained no new information of substantial importance that would require further environmental analysis. These environmental findings are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: ATTACRT 2 SECTION 1. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopts this resolution, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, declaring certain real property interests necessary for public purposes and authorizing the acquisition thereof in connection with the Yellowwood Place Connection to Foothill Marketplace Project (permanent and temporary construction easements and impacted site improvements over portions of APN 229-031-38). SECTION 2. The City seeks to acquire by eminent domain the real property interests described below in Section 3 of this Resolution for public use, namely public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Yellowwood Place Connection to Foothill Marketplace Project pursuant to the authority conferred on the City of Rancho Cucamonga to acquire real property by eminent domain by Section 19 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, Government Code Sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including but not limited to Sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and by other provisions of law. SECTION 3. The City seeks to acquire an approximate 62.72 square foot permanent easement, and a 78.20 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, over portions ("Subject Property Interests") of the real property located at 12549 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 229-031-38 ("Wal-Mart Parcel") in connection with the Project. The Subject Property Interests are described more particularly in Exhibits "A-1" and "A-2" and are depicted on Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2", which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 4. The environmental effects of the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests were studied as an integral part of the environmental review for the Project. In connection with the proposed Resolution of Necessity, on May 5, 2021, City staff reviewed the environmental documentation prepared in connection with the Project. Pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, City staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Project, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, and that the City has obtained no new information of substantial importance that would require further environmental analysis. These environmental findings are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. SECTION 5. The Project, as planned and designed, is in the public interest and necessity and is needed to improve traffic circulation and efficiency, and will create more streets in the southeast portion of the City as more fully explained below: A. The proposed Project requires the acquisition of additional right of way for the proposed street improvements, The Project involves the construction of a driveway extending from the northerly terminus of Yellowwood Place into the southerly portion of the Foothill Marketplace shopping center, The proposed driveway will provide Page 234 an additional access point to the shopping center from the southern portion of the City. The Project is a part of the City's plan to create more streets in the southeast portion of the City. All work is consistent with the City's General Plan of Circulation. B. The proposed Project will reduce traffic congestion and improve ingress and egress for adjoining properties and side streets. Accordingly, the Project will benefit the residents and businesses of the City and the community as a whole. C. The Project, as planned and designed, is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests for public use, namely public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Project. The City seeks to construct the Project to improve access and streets in this section of the City. D. The Project was planned and located to minimize the impact on the adjacent properties. The Project requires the acquisition a permanent easement and a temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, over portions of two larger parcels owned by private property owners. The construction of the Project will not result in the displacement of any person from their residence or business. The City will coordinate the construction with the owners of the Subject Property Interests to minimize the impact of construction on the parcels. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary that the City consider the acquisition by eminent domain of the Subject Property Interests needed from the remaining two larger parcels. SECTION 6. A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq., the City of Rancho Cucamonga obtained an updated fair market value appraisal of the Wal-Mart Parcel, the approximate 62.72 square foot permanent easement, the 78.20 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements, the City seeks to acquire for public use, namely public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto. B. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value and extended a written offer on March 18, 2021 to Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, the owner of record. The fair market value appraisal used a date of value of February 26, 2021. C. The City's written offer included an informational pamphlet describing the eminent domain process and the record owner's rights under the Eminent Domain Law. In accordance with Government Code Section 7267.2, the City's written offer contained a written statement of, and summary of the basis for, the amount it established as just compensation. The offer set forth the date of value utilized by the appraiser and explained the appraiser's opinion of the highest and best use of the larger parcel. It explained the applicable zoning and General Plan designation of the larger parcel. The City's offer also summarized the principal transactions relied on by the appraiser to arrive at the appraiser's opinion of value. In addition, the written offer Page 235 explained the appraiser's valuation analysis, including severance damages. It included the City's comparable market data relied on by the appraiser. Further, the City offered, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.025, to pay the record owner the reasonable costs, up to $5,000, for an independent appraisal of the approximate 62.72 square foot permanent easement, the 78.20 square foot temporary construction easement with a twelve-month term, and impacted site improvements. SECTION 7. The City provided written notice to the owner of record, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.235 of the City Council's intent to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests by eminent domain. SECTION 8. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use to which any easement holders may have appropriated the area (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510). Further, the Project may require the relocation of several utilities to the proposed new right-of-way area. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated any utility easements located in the area of the Subject Property Interests that are affected by the Project. Accordingly, the City is authorized to acquire the Subject Property Interests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650. SECTION 9. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the Project, including the Agenda Report and documents referenced therein and any oral and written testimony at the hearing, the City Council hereby finds and determines that: A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; C. The Subject Property Interests described more particularly in Exhibits "A-V and "A-2" and depicted on Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2" hereto, are necessary for the Project; and D. The City has made the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to the record owner of the Subject Property Interests the City seeks to acquire. SECTION 10. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council, including the Agenda Report and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference, and any testimony and/or comments submitted to the City by the record owner and or the owner's representative(s). These documents include but are not limited to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan, the offer letter sent to the owner pursuant to Page 236 Government Code Section 7267.2, the notice to the record owner pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 of the City's intent to consider the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity, Street Improvement Plans for the Project, and the Notice of Exemption for the Project. SECTION 11. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's Office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire an approximate 62.72 square foot permanent easement, a 78.20 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements for the Project. The Subject Property Interests are described more particularly on Exhibits "A-1" and "A-2" and are depicted on Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2" hereto. SECTION 12. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute all necessary documents in connection with the eminent domain proceeding. SECTION 13. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of May, 2021. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor City of Rancho Cucamonga ATTEST: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga APPROVED AS TO FORM: James L. Markman, City Attorney Richards, Watson & Gershon CERTIFICATION: I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2021- , was duly adopted by the City Page 237 Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of May, 2021, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 238 Exhibit A-1 Permanent Easement A strip of land, 8.00 feet wide, in that certain Iand in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California over Parcel 12, as shown on Parcel Map 13724, recorded in Book 164, Pages 100 through 107 in the office of the County Recorder of said County, lying north of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the south line o`said Parcel 12, said point being S. 89*21' 40" E., a distance of 7.84 feet along said south line from the Southwest Corner of said Parcel 12, said point also being the Southwest Corner of the North half of the Northeast quarter,Section 8, T. 1 S., R. 5 W.,S.B.M. Thence N. 89*21' 40" W. along said south line, 7.84 feet to the southwest corner of said Parcel 12. Containing an area of 62.72 square feet, more or less. Subject to covenants, conditions, reservations, restrictions, rights-of-way and easements, if any, of record. All as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. LAND -- Prep ed u er the super Fsion o . Matthew Addington, L.S.7649. . .- S -• C.rt1.��` . License expires December 31, 2022 Page 239 Exhibit A-2 Temporary Construction Easement A strip of land, 13.00 feet wide, in that certain land in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California over Parcel 12, as shown on Parcel Map 13724, recorded in Book 164, Pages 100 through 107 in the office of the County Recorder of said County, lying north of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the south line of said Parcel 12, said point being S. 89°21'40" E., a distance of 10.84 feet along said south line from the Southwest Corner of said Parcel 12. Thence N. 89°21' 40" W. along said south line, 10.84 feet to the southwest corner of said Parcel 12. Excepting therefrom, a strip of land 8.00 feet wide lying north of the following described land; Beginning at a paint on the south line of said Parcel 12, said point being S.89°21'40" ., a distance of 7.84 feet along said south line from the Southwest Corner of said Parcel 12; Thence N. 89°21'40" W. along said south line, 7.84 feet to the southwest corner of said Parcel 12. Containing an area of 78.20 square feet, more or less. Subject to covenants, conditions, reservations, restrictions, rights-of-way and easements, if any, of record. All as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. Prepared u er t supervisi of . Matthew Addington, L.S.7649. �4 license expires December31, 2022 Page 240 PH �37249 PRO �641 04 6 7 15 12 LAND � 3 1 Z 0 SO. LINE PM 13724 S89'21'40"E N89'40'41"W z 58.16' 7.84' P.Q.B. fib' SW CDR., N Yz, NE A, SEC. 8, T1 S, R6W, Q S.B.M. n ��rrr �za Q�N U�v YELLDWWDDD °C z STREET U�U U z a DOC# 2017-0527045 Q.R. J Q ry W J N] U� ¢OU CL0z ARROW ROUTE LEGEND: PROPOSED STRIP OF LANC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Zl� Exhibit B-1 Permanent Easement SCALE 1"=20' age PH f1�7��g ��� W641 V OD-10 7 15 12 LANs 106 J 3 No. 7649 OF u7 It SO. LINE PM 13724 S S89'21'40"E �� N89'40'41"W z P.O.B. LLJ 10.84' p 66, om LL a n ❑w� lz w?� H J � Q � U H� a Q YELLOWWQC❑ w o STREET C-)wc) 0 o DOC# 2 0 1 7-05270 4-5 O.R. -JAM C14 Ud rn QOO at?z ARROW ROTE LE(3END: TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Exhibit B-2 Temporary . Construction Easement SCALE 1"-20' Page 242 RESOLUTION 2021-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF IN CONNECTION WITH THE YELLOWWOOD PLACE CONNECTION TO FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PROJECT (PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS OVER PORTIONS OF APN 229-031-41) WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") is a municipal corporation in the County of San Bernardino, State of California; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to construct the Yellowwood Place Connection to Foothill Marketplace Project ("Project") to create more streets in the southeast portion of the City. The Project, as planned and designed, involves the construction of a driveway extending from the northerly terminus of Yellowwood Place into the southerly portion of the Foothill Marketplace shopping center. The proposed driveway will provide an additional access point to the shopping center from the southern portion of the City. All work is consistent with the City's General Plan of Circulation. The proposed Project will reduce the traffic congestion and improve ingress and egress for adjoining properties and side streets. The Street Improvement Plans for the Project are on file with the Engineering Services Department and are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the environmental effects of the Project were studied and analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"). Pursuant to Section 15061 of Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines, City Staff determined that the Project was categorically exempt. The City Council adopted a determination of categorical exemption on March 3, 2021 and directed City Staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the State of California Clearing House in accordance with CEQA. Said Notice of Exemption was filed with the County of San Bernardino on or about March 17, 2021 in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, in connection with the proposed Resolution of Necessity, on May 5, 2021, City Staff reviewed the environmental documentation prepared in connection with the Project. Pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, City Staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Project, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, and that the City has obtained no new information of substantial importance that would require further environmental analysis. These environmental findings are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: ATTACRT 3 SECTION 1. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopts this resolution, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, declaring certain real property interests necessary for public purposes and authorizing the acquisition thereof in connection with the Yellowwood Place Connection to Foothill Marketplace Project (permanent and temporary construction easements and impacted site improvements over portions of APN 229-031-41). SECTION 2. The City seeks to acquire by eminent domain the real property interests described below in Section 3 of this Resolution for public use, namely public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Yellowwood Place Connection to Foothill Marketplace Project pursuant to the authority conferred on the City of Rancho Cucamonga to acquire real property by eminent domain by Section 19 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, Government Code Sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including but not limited to Sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and by other provisions of law. SECTION 3. The City seeks to acquire an approximate 465.28 square foot permanent easement, a 329.80 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements, over portions ("Subject Property Interests") of the real property located at 12449 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 229- 031-41 ("THM Enterprises Parcel") in connection with the Project. The Subject Property Interests are described more particularly in Exhibits "A-1" and "A-2" and depicted on Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2", which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 4. The environmental effects of the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests were studied as an integral part of the environmental review for the Project. In connection with the proposed Resolution of Necessity, on May 5, 2021, City staff reviewed the environmental documentation prepared in connection with the Project. Pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, City staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Project, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, and that the City has obtained no new information of substantial importance that would require further environmental analysis. These environmental findings are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. SECTION 5. The Project, as planned and designed, is in the public interest and necessity and is needed to improve traffic circulation and efficiency, and will create more streets in the southeast portion of the City as more fully explained below: A. The proposed Project requires the acquisition of additional right of way for the proposed street improvements, The Project involves the construction of a driveway extending from the northerly terminus of Yellowwood Place into the southerly Page 244 portion of the Foothill Marketplace shopping center, The proposed driveway will provide an additional access point to the shopping center from the southern portion of the City. The Project is a part of the City's plan to create more streets in the southeast portion of the City. All work is consistent with the City's General Plan of Circulation. B. The proposed Project will reduce traffic congestion and improve ingress and egress for adjoining properties and side streets. Accordingly, the Project will benefit the residents and businesses of the City and the community as a whole. C. The Project, as planned and designed, is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests for public use, namely public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Project. The City seeks to construct the Project to improve access and streets in this section of the City. D. The Project was planned and located to minimize the impact on the adjacent properties. The Project requires the acquisition of a permanent and temporary construction easement over portions of two larger parcels owned by private property owners. The construction of the Project will not result in the displacement of any person from their residence or business. The City will coordinate the construction with the owners of the Subject Property Interests to minimize the impact of construction on the parcels. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary that the City consider the acquisition by eminent domain of the Subject Property Interests needed from the remaining two larger parcels. SECTION 6. A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq., the City of Rancho Cucamonga obtained an updated fair market value appraisal of the THM Enterprises Parcel, the approximate 465.28 square foot permanent easement, a 329.80 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements, the City seeks to acquire for public use, namely public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto. B. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and extended a written offer on March 18, 2021 to THM Enterprises, LLC, the owner of record. The fair market value appraisal used a date of value of February 26, 2021. C. The City's written offer included an informational pamphlet describing the eminent domain process and the record owner's rights under the Eminent Domain Law. In accordance with Government Code Section 7267.2, the City's written offer contained a written statement of, and summary of the basis for, the amount it established as just compensation. The offer set forth the date of value utilized by the appraiser and explained the appraiser's opinion of the highest and best use of the larger parcel. It explained the applicable zoning and General Plan designation of the larger parcel. The City's offer also summarized the principal transactions relied on by the Page 245 appraiser to arrive at the appraiser's opinion of value. In addition, the written offer explained the appraiser's valuation analysis, including severance damages. It included the City's comparable market data relied on by the appraiser. Further, the City offered, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.025, to pay the record owner the reasonable costs, up to $5,000, for an independent appraisal of the approximate 465.28 square foot permanent easement, a 329.80 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements. SECTION 7. The City provided written notice to the owner of record, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.235 of the City Council's intent to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests by eminent domain. SECTION 8. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use to which any easement holders may have appropriated the area (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510). Further, the Project may require the relocation of several utilities to the proposed new right-of-way area. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely public roads, highways and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated any utility easements located in the area of the Subject Property Interests that are affected by the Project. Accordingly, the City is authorized to acquire the Subject Property Interests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650. SECTION 9. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the Project, including the Agenda Report and documents referenced therein and any oral and written testimony at the hearing, the City Council hereby finds and determines that: A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; C. The Subject Property Interests described more particularly in Exhibits "A-1" and "A-2" and depicted on Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2" hereto, are necessary for the Project; and D. The City has made the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to the record owner of the Subject Property Interests the City seeks to acquire. SECTION 10. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council, including the Agenda Report and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference, and any testimony and/or comments submitted to the City by the record owner and or the owner's representative(s). These documents include but are not limited to the City of Page 246 Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan, the offer letter sent to the owner pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.2, the notice to the record owner pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 of the City's intent to consider the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity, Street Improvement Plans for the Project, and the Notice of Exemption for the Project. SECTION 11. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's Office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire an approximate 465.28 square foot permanent easement, a 329.80 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve months, and impacted site improvements for the Project. The Subject Property Interests are described more particularly on Exhibits "A-1" and "A-2" and depicted on Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2" hereto. SECTION 12. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute all necessary documents in connection with the eminent domain proceeding. SECTION 13. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of May, 2021. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor City of Rancho Cucamonga ATTEST: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga APPROVED AS TO FORM: James L. Markman, City Attorney Richards, Watson & Gershon CERTIFICATION: I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2021- was duly adopted by the City Page 247 Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of May, 2021, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 248 Exhibit A-1 Permanent Easement A strip of land, 8.00 feet wide, in that certain land in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California over Parcel 15, as shown on Parcel Map 13724, recorded in Book 164, Pages 100 through 107 in the office of the County Recorder of said County, lying north of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the south line of said Parcel 12, said point being S. 89*21' 40" E., a distance of 7.84 feet along said south line from the Southwest Corner of said Parcel 12, said point also being the Southwest Corner of the North half of the Northeast quarter, Section 8,T. 1 S., R. 6 W., S.B.M. Thence N. 89'21' 40" W. along said south line, 7.84 feet to the southwest corner of said Parcel 12, said point also being the southeast corner of said Parcel 15, and the True Point of Beginning. Thence continuing N. 89*21' 40" W. along said south line of Parcel 15, a distance of 58.16 feet, to the westerly terminus of that course described as S. 89' 36' 48" E, 66.00' as shown on Document No. 2017- 0527045 recorded December 13, 2017, records of said County. Containing an area of 465.28 square feet, more or less. Subject to covenants, conditions, reservations, restrictions, rights-of-way and easements, if any, of record. All as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. AND 116N -717 <2 o. 7649 0' CJ Prepare unde a supervise of W. atthew Addington, L.S. 7649;, License expires December 31, 2022 qTF oh cA��F°fir' Page 249 Exhibit A-2 Temporary Construction Easement A strip of land, 13.00 feet wide, in that certain land in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California over Parcel 15, as shown on Parcel Map 13724, recorded in Book 164, Pages 100 through 107 in the office of the County Recorder of said County, lying north of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the south line of said Parcel 12, said point being S. 89*21' 40" E., a distance of 7.84 feet along said south line from the Southwest Corner of said Parcel 12, said point also being the Southwest Corner of the North half of the Northeast quarter, Section 8,T. 1 S., R. 6 W., S.B.M. Thence N. 89°21' 40" W. along said south line, 7.84 feet to the southwest corner of said Parcel 12, said point also being the southeast corner of said Parcel 15, and the True Point of Beginning. Thence continuing N. 89°21' 40"W. along said south line of Parcel 15, a distance of 61.16 feet, to the westerly terminus. Excepting therefrom, a strip of land 8.00 feet wide lying north of the following described line; Commencing at the southeast corner of said Parcel 15, thence N. 89*21' 40" W. along said south line of Parcel 15, a distance of 58.16 feet. Containing an area of 329.80 square feet, more or less. Subject to covenants, conditions, reservations, restrictions, rights-of-way and easements, if any, of record. All as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. Prepar un the supervis n of . Matthew Addington, L.S. 7649. No. 7649 License expires December 31, 2022 f OF CA��Fi;%" Page 250 PM V 3 72249 FMB V RIV 00 00 4 00 7 15 12 LAND SG J � 3 No. 7649 * I,,/OF CALF co P.O.B. SO. LINE PM 13724 S89'21'40"E N89'40'41"W z 58.16' W 7.8 4' P.O.0 0 66' SW COR., N X, NE Y4, SEC. 8, T1 S, R6W, o c) S.B.M. O W M W Z O _3 I C) I—J O YELLOWWOOD ft�of Z STREET W U QO z DOC# 2017-0527045 O.R. cc) J J N W�M U� Q O O a-U Z ARROW ROUTE LEGEND: OOF LANDED STRIP CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Lw —Exhibit B-1 Permanent Easement SCALE 1"=20' PH W 0249 pW o V 641W 00 fl 0 I 15 12 LAND SG .4 rl 3 No. 7649 z sr��f OF CA01�`� in 3, T.P.O.B. SO. LINE PM 13724 � S89'21'40"E N89'40'41"W 00 Z 61.16' 7.84' P.O.0 p 69' SW COR., N Yz NE Y4, rep SEC. 8, T1 S, R6W, w a M S.B.M. r O w ro wZo H J � Q N U�� F-O I-J O• YELLOWWOOD w Z STREET U O w U QO U 0 DOC# 2017-0527045 O.R. J Q N w J a-n U QOO d U Z ARROW ROUTE LEGEND: EASEMENRY CONSTRUCTION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Exhibit B-2 Temporary �T Construction Easement SCALE 1'=20' Page 252 5/5/2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE FOR ITEM F1. PAL M I E R I Michael I.Kehoe Direct Dial:(949)851-7279 H E N N ESS EY E-mail:mkehoe@palmierilawgroup.com L E I F E R, L L P X File No.:37363-000 May 3, 2021 VIA E-MAIL City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City.clerk(&,,CityofRC.us Re: Resolution of Necessity Hearing regarding 12759 Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA -APN 0229-031-41 Dear City Clerk: This office represents THM Enterprises, LLC. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that THM Enterprises, LLC reserves the right to appear and be heard at the Resolution of Necessity hearing scheduled for May 5, 2021. Please provide us with a copy of the staff report and the proposed resolution of necessity. Thank you. Very truly yours, Michael 1. Kehoe cc: Client Michael H. Leifer Jason.Welday( ,,CityofRC.us 2 Park Plaza, Suite 550, Irvine, CA 92614-2518 (949) 851-7388 1 www.palmierilawgroup.com Page 253 5/5/2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE FOR ITEM Fl. PAL M I E R I Michael I.Kehoe Direct Dial:(949)851-7279 H E N N ESS EY E-mail:mkehoe@palmierilawgroup.com L E I F E R, L L P X File No.:37363-000 May 5, 2021 VIA E-MAIL Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City.clerk@CityofRC.us Re: Objection to Proposed Adoption of Resolution of Necessity for Acquisition of a Portion of Real Property by Eminent Domain Located at 12759 Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, California; Assessor Parcel No. 0229-031-41 Agenda Item No. F 1 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: This firm represents THM Enterprises, LLC ("THM"). THM is the owner of the real property located at 12759 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, California("THM Property"). THM received notice that the City intends to consider the adoption of a resolution of necessity authorizing the condemnation of portions of the THM Property for the City's project. The hearing on the resolution of necessity is set for May 5, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. The purpose of this letter is to provide THM's written objections to the adoption of the resolution of necessity in lieu of personally appearing at the hearing. Accordingly, it is requested that this letter be included as part of the formal record on Agenda Item No. F 1. THM contends that the adoption of the resolution of necessity is improper at this time, and objects to its adoption on each of the following specific grounds as described in further detail below. The City's noncompliant appraisal prevents the City from fulfilling its mandatory statutory requirements to proceed with its proposed acquisition. The THM Property is improved. It is occupied and utilized. The offer/appraisal falsely disregards the status of the property. It disregards the entitled, improved, and occupied nature of the property. Not only does the appraisal/offer disregard the existing nature of the Subject Property, it does not appropriately address the remainder after because it disregards the obvious legal and physical status in the before condition. In short, both the before and after condition are false constructs. To properly proceed with its proposed acquisition, the City must re-appraise the THM Property without its 2 Park Plaza, Suite 550, Irvine, CA 92614-2518 (949) 851-7388 1 www.palmierilawgroup.com Page 254 PALMIERI HENNESSEYO LEIFER, LLP Honorable Mayor and City Council May 5, 2021 Page 2 false constructs, including the entitlements and improvements thereon, in both the before condition and after condition in order to make an appropriate revised analysis based upon a current date of value before proceeding with the acquisition process. The lack of a proper appraisal analysis from which to make a proper offer puts THM at an inappropriate disadvantage with regard to the acquisition and negotiation. The City cannot be considered to be proceeding in good faith if its appraisal analysis has been commissioned to ignore the entitlements and improvements. Further, the hearing for adoption of the resolution of necessity is scheduled shortly after the City sent its updated offer and notice to THM. The City is not negotiating in good faith by providing insufficient time for THM to review and consider. The City ignores viable Project alternatives that will be less disruptive and damaging to the THM Property. Viable Project alternatives would substantially reduce or eliminate the need to acquire private property, including the THM Property. Despite the multiple fatal flaws affecting the proposed adoption of the resolution of necessity, the City is moving forward as it has pre-committed itself to the proposed acquisition. 1. The City has failed to extend a legitimate precondemnation offer pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.2. This is not a vacant land parcel. California law requires the City to make a legitimate offer of just compensation based upon its approved appraisal prior to initiating a condemnation proceeding. Compliance with Government Code section 7267.2 is a mandatory prerequisite to adopting a resolution of necessity and initiating an eminent domain action. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1240.040, 1245.230, subd. (c)(4); City of San Jose v. Great Oaks Water Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1005.) Failure to strictly comply with the requirements of this Section are grounds for dismissing the entire proceeding. The THM Property is improved. It is an entitled site. It contains an approximately 312,761 square feet of multi-tenant commercial buildings, parking and accessway site improvements, and related site improvements, including landscaping. The City commissioned an appraisal to disregard the status of the property. The City's offer/appraisal is based upon improper fiction. The real estate appraiser is required to value the larger parcel (the land as entitled together with the improvements) in the so-called "before" (or no Project) and the "after" (or Project-impacted) conditions, and to assess impacts occurring to the remainder property(the remaining land and improvements)relating to either or both the parts taken and/or the construction and use of the project in the manner proposed in order to properly assess severance damages. The City's appraisal/offer fails because the required analysis was not done. The law does not permit the City to "short cut"the appraisal process. Page 255 PALMIERI HENNESSEYO LEIFER, LLP Honorable Mayor and City Council May 5, 2021 Page 3 Aside from the City's failure to assess severance damages, it likewise failed to analyze sales of improved real property. Even a cursory review of recent sales of comparable properties in the surrounding area indicates a unit rate far in excess of the per square foot rate relied upon by the City in its precondemnation offer. This is because the City only considered sales of vacant land. As such, the City's precondemnation offer is invalid and cannot support the adoption of a resolution of necessity for the proposed acquisition. The City's appraisal of the THM Property does not comply with mandatory statutory requirements. To proceed with its proposed acquisition, the City must re-appraise the entire THM Property including the building and all of the improvements thereon, in both the before condition and the after condition in order to make an appropriate revised precondemnation offer based upon a current date of value before commencing this acquisition process. It is inappropriate to attempt to condemn first, and then suggest that an error can be corrected by a subsequent offer or subsequent appraisal after the adoption of a resolution of necessity. (See City of Stockton v. Marina Towers (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 93.) The City cannot correct its error by simply reappraising after adopting a resolution of necessity to retroactively confer itself with the authority to do that which it has already done. California's Eminent Domain Law mandates strict compliance with its statutory requirements before a public entity may confer itself with the awesome power of eminent domain to condemn private property for a public purpose. "The proceeding to condemn land for a public use is special and statutory and the prescribed method in such cases must be strictly pursued especially if those methods benefit the [property] owner." (City of Needles v. Griswold (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1881, 1895, quoting Harrington v. Superior Court(1924) 194 Cal. 185, 191 and City of Los Angeles v. Glassell(1928) 203 Cal. 44, 46 [emphasis added].) 2. The City has failed to negotiate in good faith pursuant to Government Code section 7267.1. The City has not complied with its statutory mandate to seek to acquire the THM Property by negotiation prior to condemnation. The City's appraisal disregards the approximately 312,761 square foot multi-tenant commercial building, adjacent parking lot, and related site improvements, including landscaping, located on the THM Property and values the land as if vacant. Without an appraisal that complies with mandatory statutory requirements, the City cannot negotiate in good faith to acquire the THM Property. Further, the hearing for adoption of the resolution of necessity is scheduled shortly after the City sent its updated offer and notice to THM. The City is not negotiating in good faith by providing insufficient time for THM to review and consider. Page 256 PALMIERI HENNESSEYO LEIFER, LLP Honorable Mayor and City Council May 5, 2021 Page 4 Government Code section 7267.1 imposes an affirmative obligation on a public entity seeking to condemn property to attempt to acquire that property first by negotiation. (Johnston v. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space Dist. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 973.) "The public entity shall make every reasonable effort to acquire expeditiously real property by negotiation." (Gov. Code, § 7267.1, subd. (a).) The duty to negotiate is designed to avoid litigation, but not to avoid the recognition of the improved property. "In order to encourage and expedite the acquisition of real property by agreements with owners, to avoid litigation and relieve congestion in the courts, to assure consistent treatment for owners in the public programs, and to promote public confidence in public land acquisition practices, public entities shall, to the greatest extent practicable"make every reasonable effort to acquire property by negotiation. (Gov. Code, § 7267; see also 8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (1 lth ed. 2020) Const. Law, § 1321.) The fundamental precept of any good faith negotiation is that it be predicated on a legitimate precondemnation offer that complies with the Government Code. Here, the City's appraiser ignored the improved structure and related improvements and, instead, valued the larger parcel as unimproved land. The offer as proposed cannot be accepted. It fails to account for the substantial damages accruing to the remainder property and its component improvements due to the construction and use of the Project as proposed. Instead of analyzing the Project's true impacts including valuation of the entire THM Property, the City is prematurely moving forward with this condemnation action and demanding that the owner either "blindly" accept its precondemnation offer "as is" (without first providing the property owner with an opportunity to assess the adequacy of the offer) or be named as defendant in a condemnation action. The power of eminent domain is the most coercive power granted to the government under the Constitution relating directly to the ownership of private property. However, with such coercive power comes the responsibility to exercise it appropriately and to seek impartial justice for both the government and private property owner. (See City of Los Angeles v. Decker(1977) 18 Ca1.3d 860, 871.) Here, the City is ignoring its affirmative obligation under the Government Code. Rather, the City seeks to force the property owner to accept a knowingly inadequate offer or be involved in a lawsuit. In this instance, the City's conduct falls below its affirmative duty imposed under the Government Code and higher ethical duty to seek impartial justice. (See Decker, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 871; see also Gov. Code, §§ 7267.1, et seq.) Page 257 PALMIERI HENNESSEYO LEIFER, LLP Honorable Mayor and City Council May 5, 2021 Page 5 3. Based on information currently known,the City's proposed Project is not planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private iniury. The City's consideration and adoption of a resolution of necessity requires a finding that the Project as proposed is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1245.340, subd. (c)(2).) In this case, however, the City has not provided any information to the property owner concerning any viable Project alternatives that may exist which would enable the City to obtain all of the amenities of the Project as proposed. As far as we can tell, based upon the scant information provided, there may be other viable project alternatives that will be less disruptive and damaging to the THM Property, the specifics of which, however, have not been disclosed to the property owner. The City must consider all alternatives before an informed determination can be made as to whether the Project as proposed is "most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury." In this case, however, the owner is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that several viable project alternatives exist that would enable the City to obtain all of the amenities of the Project as proposed but at a substantially reduced cost and with less private property. The owner is further informed and believes that the City has failed and refused to consider viable Project alternatives that would reduce the damaging impacts to the THM Property while maintaining (or improving) any claimed beneficial aspects of the Project. Because each alternative would enable the City to achieve its Project objectives at a greatly reduced private injury, the City must consider those alternatives before an informed determination can be made as to whether the Project as proposed is "most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury." The City could condemn a significantly smaller portion of the THM Property. The City could also acquire other private property for its Project. The proposed Project would reduce the usable size of the THM Property and destroy and/or diminish many of the installed improvements on the THM Property. Other project alternatives are more compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. The City should consider available alternatives. Page 258 PALMIERI HENNESSEYO LEIFER, LLP Honorable Mayor and City Council May 5, 2021 Page 6 4. Based upon information currently known, the City's Project is not a public purpose. The City seeks to acquire portions of the THM Property for its Project. The City's Project connects Yellow Wood Road with the Foothill Marketplace shopping center. The proposed driveway will provide an additional access point to the shopping center. What is the reason for the City's Project? "The Project is a part of the City's plan to create more streets in the southeast portion of the City." (See City's Offer Letter to THM dated October 22, 2020.) The project description is incredibly broad and vague. The City seeks to acquire the THM Property for public use, namely roads, highways and related purposes. The stated purpose of the Project is not a public use. The City cannot make the required findings to adopt a resolution of necessity as the proposed Project is not a public purpose. As noted in the City of Stockton v. Marina Towers, LLC(2009) 171 Cal.AppAth 93, the "Eminent Domain Law requires that the local governing entity identify a 'project' with a public purpose before it undertakes to condemn private property." (Id. at p. 107, emphasis added, citing Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1240.010, 1240.030.) 5. Based upon information currently known, the property sought to be acquired is not necessary for the Project. One of the mandatory components to the necessity determination is that the property sought to be acquired must be necessary for the project. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1240.030, subd. (c).) The Eminent Domain Law defines "property" to include real and personal property and any interest thereon. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1235.170.) Thus, the City must not only consider whether the THM Property is necessary for the Project but also whether the particular interest in the THM Property that the City seeks to take is necessary. In the absence of substantial evidence supporting such a determination, the resolution of necessity will be invalid. The owner is informed and believes that viable Project alternatives exist that would provide all of the amenities of the proposed Project but at a substantially reduced cost and with less private property, as described above. Those alternatives would materially reduce the need to acquire any private property for construction of the proposed Project, including the THM Property. Barring such consideration, the City cannot make an informed determination as to whether the THM Property is actually necessary for the Project. Page 259 PALMIERI HENNESSEYO LEIFER, LLP Honorable Mayor and City Council May 5, 2021 Page 7 6. Based upon information currently known, the City has failed to conduct any analysis of the environmental impacts of its Project. The City's Project will provide an additional access point to the Foothill Marketplace shopping center. The Project is part of the City's plan to create more streets in the southeast portion of the City. The City claims that the Project will benefit the residents and businesses of the City and the community as a whole. The City has not, based on information currently known by THM, conducted any analysis of the environmental impacts of its Project as proposed. The City has determined that its Project is categorically exempt from environmental review, including CEQA. The City incorrectly and without any basis concluded that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA. No information has been provided to THM regarding how and why the City determined its Project is categorically exempt from CEQA, and is missing from the City's Staff Report for adoption of this resolution of necessity. The Project's impacts to the THM Property have not been adequately addressed. There has not been adequate analysis of the dust and traffic hazards anticipated during the construction activities and the use of heavy equipment. There has not been adequate analysis of the aesthetic effects on the THM Property and the surrounding environs. There has not been adequate analysis of traffic and parking impacts after construction. The City must conduct a proper and sufficient environmental review of this proposed Project. 7. Based upon information currently known, the City is not acquiring enough rights for its Project. The City seeks to acquire a permanent easement located on the THM Property. The City's updated offer letter notes that no improvements will be permitted over and within the easement area since it will be used for public roadway purposes. The City's acquisition effectively renders the easement area unusable and unavailable to THM. The City's acquisition of a permanent easement is insufficient. Based on the impact of the City's proposed acquisition of the THM Property, the City is not taking enough rights for its Project. Based on the severe limitations placed on the permanent easement area, the City, if it is to proceed with its Project, should acquire a fee interest in the property sought to be acquired. Due to the City's acquisition of a permanent easement instead of a fee acquisition, THM and other private property owners will effectively have an ownership interest in a public street. The City's permanent easement acquisition subjects THM to increased exposure to liability if any individual or property is damaged within the easement area—the public street. Page 260 PALMIERI HENNESSEYO LEIFER, LLP Honorable Mayor and City Council May 5, 2021 Page 8 8. The City is incapable of conducting a fair,legal, and impartial hearing on the proposed adoption of the resolution of necessity. It is believed that the City has already committed itself to the proposed taking, so any hearing resulting in the adoption of the resolution by the City would be a predetermined result. The proposed resolution hearing is a pretense and artifice, and any resolution adopted under these circumstances would be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction. (See Redevelopment Agency v. Norm's Slauson (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1121, 1127.) As a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of eminent domain, a public agency "must hold a public hearing to determine whether a particular taking meets the [requirements of Civil Code section 1245.235, i.e., is for a public use, necessary, and designed in such a manner to cause the least private injury....]." (Norm's Slauson, supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at p. 1125 [emphasis added].) "Implicit in this requirement...is the concept that...the [a]gency engage in a good faith and judicious consideration of the pros and cons of the issue and that the decision to take be buttressed by substantial evidence...." (Id. at pp. 1125-1126.) "[A]n agency that would take private property...must...conduct a fair hearing and make its determination on the basis of evidence presented in a judicious and nonarbitrary fashion." (Id. at p. 1129.) In the absence of a fair and impartial hearing, the resolution of necessity is void. If the condemning agency fails to conduct itself in this manner, then the resolution is not entitled to its ordinary conclusive effect and the burden of proving the elements for a taking rests on the government agency with the court being the final adjudicator. (Norm's Slauson, supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1128-1129.) "The governmental agency in such a situation cannot act arbitrarily and then seek the benefit of having its decision afforded the deference to which it might otherwise be entitled." (Id. at p. 1129.) In Norm's Slauson, the Court held that the condemning agency's approval of the resolution of necessity was invalid when the agency "simply'rubber stamped' a predetermined result" because, prior to any hearing on the resolution, it(a) entered into an agreement with a developer by which the agency agreed to transfer a portion of defendant/property owner's restaurant, and the developer agreed to construct a condominium thereon; and(b) issued and sold tax exempt bonds to pay for the acquisition. (Id. at p. 1127.) "In short, the agency, without any notice to Norm's [the property owner], in effect sold the property and issued bonds to obtain the money to acquire the property all before taking any steps to condemn the property." (Id. at p. 1125.) Here, the owner is informed and believes that the City has impermissibly committed itself to take portions of the THM Property. By having already committed to the Project, the City has left itself no discretion but to approve the resolution. (See Norm's Slauson, supra, 173 Page 261 PALMIERI HENNESSEYO LEIFER, LLP Honorable Mayor and City Council May 5, 2021 Page 9 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1127-1130; Code Civ. Proc., § 1245.255, subd. (b).) Accordingly, if the resolution is adopted, the hearing which led to its adoption will have been a pretense and the City's policy-making board will simply be "rubber stamping" a pre-determined result. If the resolution is adopted under such circumstances, it will be voidable on that basis. Based upon the foregoing objections, we respectfully request that the City not adopt the resolution or, at a minimum, continue the hearing on this agenda item until such time as the objections are addressed. THM reserves all rights, including but not limited to, the right to raise additional objections, as may be appropriate, when and if further documents and information are provided. Very truly yours, Michael I. Ke oe MK cc: Client Michael H. Leifer, Esq. Jason.WeldaykCityofRC.us Page 262 Yellowwood Extension P roject Pbluic Hearing Resolution of Necessity Public Need Yellowwood Extension Project Project Site %n . r 1 if Ir Approximately 1 ,300 feet north of Arrow Route at the northerly terminus of Yellowwood Place Public Need Existing Conditions Block wall currently on Walmart and THM property separates Yellowwood Place from the parking lot Public Need Proposed Improvements E%ISHNG • Obtain and easement for street and related THM WAL-MART purposes on Walmart and THM properties EX CURB EX PROPERTY LINE AND WALL • Remove block wall between Foothill Market Place to Yellowwood Avenue PROPOSED THM WAL-MART • Extend Yellowwood Avenue to the parking lot REMOVE PORTION OF E% CURB RELOCATED PROPERTY LINE at Foothill Market Place REMOVED WALL AND CURB CONNECT STREET TO EX. ASPHALT i rYF-L OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LOWWOOD LAYOUT PLAN N rau itiw CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Rightmof=WayNeeds / Offers THM Enterprises, LLC: 465 SF of Permanent Easement 330 SF of Temporary Construction Easement of Property Rights Needed for project ` ix_fir, -4"L '��►.�'.1.{is h3dIY�-e. -_ 5 - Y - tF Wal-Mart real Estate Business Trust: 63 SF of Permanent Easement 78 SF of Temporary Construction Easement of Property Rights Needed for project Necessary Findings A. The public interest and necessity require the project. B. The proposed project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. C. The subject property interests described in each Resolution of Necessity are necessary for the proposed project. D. The City has made an offer as required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to each of the owners of record of the real property it seeks to acquire. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244 and Minor Exception DRC2018- 00473— Paul Bardos, Applicant. A Request for Site Plan and Architectural Review of a Proposed 4,118 Square Foot Two-Story, Single-Family Residence with an Attached 771 Square Foot Garage and a Request to Construct Retaining Walls up to 4-Feet and 6-Inches High on a 15,430 Square Foot Lot within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District at 8035 Camino Predera - APN: 0207-631-03. A Minor Exception was also Requested to Exceed the Maximum Height Limit for Retaining Walls in the Zone. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-037 AND RESOLUTION NO. 2021-038) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council uphold the decision by the Planning Commission to deny Hillside Development Review DRC2017-00244 and Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 through the adoption of the attached resolutions of denial. Planning Commission Denial: The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 13, 2019. At that meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to return to a future meeting with a resolution denying the project. The Planning Commission denied Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244 and Minor Exception DRC18-00473 on December 11, 2019. The Planning Commission's recommendation was based on their determination that the size and massing of the proposed residence was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Appeal: The applicant, Paul Bardos, submitted a written appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on December 19, 2019. The City Council held a public hearing to review the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission decision on February 19, 2020. At that meeting, the City Council recommended that the applicant work with the other Camino Predera property owners to come up with a mutually amicable solution. The Council also recommended that the applicant reduce the size of the proposed house by approximately 10 percent and increase the side yard setbacks to reduce the overall massing of the house. Review of the appeal was continued on March 18, 2020, and August 5, 2020, due to the applicant wishing to present the project to the Council in Page 263 person. To date, the applicant has not made any changes to the plans since the project was last reviewed by the Council on February 19, 2020. Project Overview: The applicant is requesting to construct a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence along with an attached three-car 771 square foot garage and 374 square feet of porches and decks on the 15,430 square foot project site. The proposed grading includes up to 8 feet of cut, which necessitates that the project be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission (the maximum cut of fill that can be permitted administratively by the Planning Director is 5 feet). The project complies with the minimum current development requirements of the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District except that the project includes retaining walls over 4 feet in height which necessitates the approval of a Minor Exception for wall height. The following table provides an overview of project compliance with the Development Code: Development Criteria Requirement Proposed Compliant? Front Yard Setback 37 feet 60 feet Yes Side Yard Setbacks 5 and 10 feet 5 and 10 feet Yes Rear Yard Setback 20 feet 85 feet Yes Lot Coverage 40 percent 32 percent Yes Building Height Overall 30 feet 30 feet Yes Building Height at Curb Face 10.5 feet N/A Retaining Wall Height 4 feet max 4 feet—6 inches No** Cut/Fill 5 feet 8* Feet "Grading in Excess of 5 feet Requires Planning Commission Approval "Applicant has submitted Minor Exception (DRC2018-00473)to permit the additional wall height Related Entitlement: Minor Exception (DRC2018-00473): At the February 19, 2020, City Council meeting the applicant stated that the project no longer required the Minor Exception for retaining wall height. Staff has reviewed the current plans which include a 4-foot - 6-inch high retaining wall. The maximum permitted retaining wall height in the Hillside Overlay District is 4 feet. This proposed retaining wall will require the approval of a Minor Exception. As it relates to the Planning Commission's denial of the minor exception, staff notes that the Minor Exception was recommended for denial because it was related to the design review of the proposed single-family residence, which was recommended for denial based on its lack of compatibility with the other residences on Camino Predera. Page 264 Environmental Determination: Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures which covers the construction of single-family residences in a residential zone. The project scope is to construct a single-family residence on a vacant, residentially zoned lot. Staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Director has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on her own independent judgment, concurs with the staff's determination of exemption. FISCAL IMPACT: The project site currently is assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the City's annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The project proponent also will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the proposed project. The following types of services that these impact fees would support include the following: library services, transportation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The project as proposed does not promote the Council's core value of `actively seeking and respectively considering all public input'. The community raised concerns through the process related to size and massing, and the Council asked the applicant to go back and work with the community to address those concerns. Following that direction, the applicant chose not to meet with the community or make any further significant changes to the project. The recommendation to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal would support the City Council's vision to create a world class community by ensuring that new infill housing is built to be complementary and compatible with existing neighboring structures to maintain the integrity and quality of our neighborhoods. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on April 19, 2021. On April 21, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners (173 property owners) within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No correspondence has been received in response to these notices. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - City Council Appeal Staff Report Dated February 19, 2020 Attachment 2 - Draft Resolution of Denial of Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244 Attachment 3 - Draft Resolution of Denial of Minor Exception DRC2018-002473 Page 265 �l DATE: February 19, 2020 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Anne McIntosh, Planning Director Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244 AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 — PAUL BARDOS, APPLICANT. THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED 4,118 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED 771 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE AND A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS UP TO 5-FEET AND 2- INCHES HIGH ON A 15,430 SQUARE FOOT LOT WITHIN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND WITHIN THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 8035 CAMINO PREDERA - APN: 0207-631-03. A MINOR EXCEPTION WAS ALSO REQUESTED TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT FOR RETAINING WALLS IN THE ZONE. THIS ITEM WAS DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND THE CITY'S CEQA GUIDELINES PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(4) AS A PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN REJECTED OR DISAPPROVED. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council deny appeal DRC2019-00975 and uphold the decision by the Planning Commission to deny Hillside Development Review DRC2017-00244 and Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 through the adoption of the attached resolutions of denial. BACKGROUND: Project Description: The applicant proposed to construct a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence that includes a 771 square foot attached three-car garage along with 374 square feet of porches and decks. The 15,430 square foot project site (Lot 13 of Tract 10035) is located on the south side of Camino Predera, one lot to the east of the existing residence at 8045 Camino Predera, in the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District. Review Process Timeline: The Hillside Design Review application for the project was submitted to the City on March 22, 2017. City Staff processed the application and during several cycles of review requested that the applicant provide additional information about the project and revise the design of the house to ensure compliance with the General Plan and Development Code. The City deemed the application "Complete" for processing purposes in September 2019. Attachment 1 Page 266 Page 185 The Planning Commission reviewed Hillside Development Review DRC2017-00244 and Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 at the November 13, 2019, Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to have staff draft a resolution of denial for the subject entitlements for their action at the following Planning Commission meeting. The resolutions of denial.for Hillside Development Review DRC2018-00473 and Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 were placed on December 11, 2019, Planning Commission Consent Calendar,which was approved without comment. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision on December 19, 2019, within the required 10-day appeal period. ANALYSIS: Resident Concerns: The residents along Camino Predera raised concerns related to the project at the June 10, 2019, Neighborhood Meeting;at the October 15, 2019, Design Review Committee meeting; and at the November 13, 2019, Planning Commission meeting. The issues,raised by the residents were related to.building height, building setbacks and the overall size of the structure, each of which they believed was out of character to the existing neighborhood and the intent of the Hillside Design regulations: While the proposed single-family residence complies with the minimum development requirements of the Development Code, staff did not support the project based on building size/massing, building width/setbacks, and General Plan Compatibility. A detailed description and analysis of'the project have been provided in the Staff Report that was presented to the Planning Commission on November 13, 2019 included with this staff report as Attachment 1. New Standards: It should be noted that the Planning Department has been working with the residents of the Red Hill neighborhood to develop development standards to address the long-standing issues related to the development of the 14 remaining vacant lots along Camino Predera. Staff hosted two separate meetings with the Red Hill'residents-on August 8, 2019, and'on September 9, 2019. Based on comments received at these two meetings, it was determined that the residents were only interested in City developing new development standards for the vacant lots along Camino Predera. These updated standards were presented to the Planning Commission on January 22, 2020, as Municipal Code Amendmerit DRC2020-00004. At that meeting, both the existing residents and the vacant. lot owners raised concerns about the proposed standards. The Planning Commission deliberated and asked staff to schedule an additional meeting with the residents along Camino Predera to determine whether a compromise could be reached. That meeting was held in the Tri-Community room of City Hall.on January 30, 2020, with approximately 17 residents in attendance. This meeting concluded with,neither the existing residents nor the vacant lot owners finding common ground on the major issue of building height or building setbacks. The residents did ask for more time to resolve the outstanding 'issues. It is important to note that the Camino Predera residents are aware that their neighbors may continue to submit applications for new homes like this one, and that any delay in adopting new regulations will result in these projects being reviewed under current standards. All of the neighbors were willing to go through the projects one by one in exchange for having more discussion about the standards. Therefore, staff determined that the Planning Commission public hearing for the Municipal Code Amendment with the new standards should be continued to an unspecified date to provide the residents with more time to work the unresolved issues. Mr. Bardos requested that his appeal move ahead to City Council tonight to avoid further delay. FISCAL IMPACT: The project site,currently is assessed by an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the City's annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly.The project proponent also will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City Page 267 Page 186 services due to the proposed project. The following types of services that these impact fees would support include the following: library services, transportation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Although a specific current City Council goal does not apply to the project, the project is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code.The Land Use element within the General Plan (Chapter 2) encourages infill development that facilitates sustainable and attractive development that complements the surrounding neighborhood.The proposed single-family residence is significantly larger than those in the surrounding neighborhood, and the proposed residence is being built to the minimum side yard setbacks, increase the appearance of overbuilding the lot. ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - 11/13119 PC Staff Report Attachment 2- 12111/19 PC Staff Report Attachment 3-CC HDR Reso Attachment 4 - CC ME Reso Page 268 Page187 r CITY OF RANCHO �. STAFF REPORT DATE: November 13, 2019 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244 AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 — PAUL BARDOS - Site plan and architectural review of a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence with an attached 771 square foot garage and a request to construct retaining walls up to 5-feet and 2-inches high on a 15,430 square foot lot within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District at 8035 Camino Predera -- APN: 0207-631-03. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, which permits the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244 and a resolution of denial without prejudice for Minor Exception DRC2018. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The 15,430 square foot vacant project site is located on the south side of Camino Predera, within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District. The property dimensions are approximately 80 feet along the north and south property lines, 195 feet along the east property line and 189 feet along the west property line. The downslope lot has an elevation of approximately 1,301 feet as measured at the curb face along the north property line and an elevation of approximately 1,260 feet as measured along the south property line, for a maximum grade change of approximately 41 feet. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning _ Low (L) Residential District Site Vacant Land Low Residential Hillside Overlay District Low (L) Residential District Low Residential North Existing Single-Family Residence Hillside Overlay District South Pacific Electric Trail Public Mixed-Use (MU) District East Vacant Land Low Residential Low (L) Residential District Hillside Overlay District Page 269 Page 188 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HDR DRC2017-00244 & ME DRC2018-00473— BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. November 13; 201.9 Page 2 Low Residential Low(L) Residential District West Existing'Single-Family Residence Hillside Overlay District ANALYSIS: A. Project Overview: The applicant is requesting to construct a 4,1.18 square foot two-story, single-family residence along,with an attached three-car 771 square foot garage and 374 square feet.of porches and decks on the 15,430 square foot project site. The proposed grading includes up to 8 feet of cut, which necessitates that the project be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission ,(The maximum cut of fill that can be permitted adminstratively by the Planning Director is 5.feet). The proposed residence has a craftsman design theme,which includes a concrete tile roof, horizontal wood siding, shake siding and a river rock wainscot. The proposed 4,118 square foot residence consists of a 2,362 square foot upper level, which includes the main living area and master bedroom, and a 1,766 square lower level, which includes 3 bedrooms and a bonus room. The upper and lower levels each include decks along the south elevations. The 771 square foot three-car garage is located on the upper aevel of the residence, with the garage doors facing Camino Predera. The driveway has a maximum grade of 15 percent. Hillside Development Standard, 17.122.020.C.1.d. states that driveways with grades up to 20 percent are permitted when they are aligned with the natural contours of the lot and are necessary to achieve.site design goals. The project complies with the minimum current development requirements:of the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District except-that the project includes retaining walls over 4 feet in height which necessitates the approval of a Minor Exception for wall height.The following table provide an overview of project compliance with the Development Code (it should be noted that the City is in the process of developing new development criteria for Camino Predera): Development Criteria Requirement Proposed Compliant? Front Yard Setback 37 feet 60 feet Yes Side Yard Setbacks 5 and 10 feet 5 and 10 feet Yes Rear Yard Setback 20 feet 85 feet Yes Lot Coverage 40 percent 32 percent Yes Building Height Overall 30 feet :30 feet Yes Building Height at Curb Face 10.5 feet NIA Retaining Wail Height 4 feet max 5 feet NO** Cut/Fill 5 feet 8* Feet *Grading in Excess of 5 feet Requires Planning.Commission Approval **Applicant has submitted Minor Exception (DRC2018-00473) to permit the additional wall height Page 270 Page189 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HDR DRC2017-00244 & ME DRC2018-00473—PAUL BARDOS November 13, 2019 Page 3 An existing combination wall and wrought iron•fence is located along the west property line that was constructed with the development of the single-family residence to the west. The applicant proposes an up to 4-foot retaining wall topped by a 5-foot wrought-iron fence along the east property line. A 6-foot-High wrought fence is proposed along the south elevation. The proposed perimeter walls are in keeping with Hillside Design Guideline Section 17.122.020.E., which encourages the use of open-view fencing and having walls that integrate the materials and colors used'of the residence. The proposed grading design includes 784 cubic yards of import, which is necessary to construct the foundation of the residence. The foundation of the residence is stepped with the existing,grade, with the upper-pad at an elevation of 1,296 feet and the lower garage pad.at an elevation of 1,286, in conformance with Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.1.a., to terrace the building to follow the slope. Hillside Development Section 17.122.020.D.1.C. requires that residences in the Hillside Overlay District be designed to fit within a 30-foot high'building envelope.The applicant has provided two north-south and two east-west cross-sections with building envelopes demonstrating compliance with the 30-foot height requirement. The height of the residence ranges from approximately 10-feet and 6-inches, along the east side of the residence, to 6- feet and 11-inches, along the west.side of the residence, as measured above curb face on Camino Predera. The proposed landscaping is designed to comply with Hillside Development Section 17.122.020.F., including the installation of a permanent irrigation system landscaping to protect slopes from erosion and planting shrubs to soften the views of the downslope elevations. The project is not within the High Fire Hazard Zone or within a wildland-urban interface area. The proposed landscaping also complies with the front yard landscape requirements, including reducing hardscape to less than 50 percent of the front yard area. The rear yard includes slope planting to prevent erosion. Neighborhood Concerns and Staff Analysis,: Over the years, residents along Camino Predera have raised concerns related to the development of remaining undeveloped lots of Tract 10035. The overriding concern has been that the proposed residences are out of character with the existing neighborhood based on building size/massing, building, height and building width (side setbacks). These same issues were raised by the residents related to the proposed project at the June 10, 2019, Neighborhood Meeting and- again at the October 15, 2019, Design Review Committee meeting. As a result of these persistent neighborhood concerns, and in response to the subject development application, staff attempted to quantify certain characteristics, namely building size and massing, in order to identify what might be considered a compatible development within the neighborhood. To accomplish this, staff reviewed building permits issued by the City for each property within the tract. Where building permits were not available (in two instances), data-was used from the Property Information Management System (PIMS) hosted by the San Bernardino County Assessor's office. Staff notes that building size referenced in this report is inclusive of garages, patios, porches, etc., to account for massing which has been identified as a primary concern of the neighborhood. All data gathered regarding.building square footage is approximate and has been organized into a spreadsheet which provides the average size of residences in the track currently, as well as the average size of houses by decade since the tract was developed.. Page 271 Page190 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HDR DRC2017-00244 & ME DRC2018-00473--PAUL BARDOS November 13, 2019 Page 4 Further, since development along the southside of Camino Predera has been of particular concern to neighborhood residents, data collected by staff also provides the average size of residences along the south side of Camino Predera.This spreadsheet is included with this report as Exhibit.E. The applicant has provided documentation snowing two efforts to address concerns. First, the building could have been designed so that the top elevation is 14 feet above the street, whereas the applicant is only proposing 10 feet 6 inches above the street. Second, the eave has been truncated on the east and west, reducing the profile of the roof. Staff notes that while the Development Code does not provide an objective definition of the term "compatibility," the proposed development 'requires discretionary review by the Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 17.16.140.B.1 and Section 17.122.020.G.i of the Development Code. As such, certain findings are required to be made, including a finding that a proposed project must be consistent with the General Plan (Section 17.16.140.F.1). While staff acknowledges that height and massing could be even greater, staff feels that the applicant could further reduce the roof height.As such, staff does not support the project for the following reasons: 1. Building Size/Massing: Tract 10035 was approved by Rancho Cucamonga City Council in March 1985 and comprises a total of 38 lots. As of 2019, 21 lots within the tract had been developed, with 3 more lots having been approved for development as recent as 2018-and 2019. 14 lots remain undeveloped, each of which are located on the south side of Camino Predera. Of the built residences in Tract 10035, 7 were built in the 1980s, 1 was built in the 1990s, 13 were built in the 2000s, and 3 houses have been approved in the 201 Os, one of which is currently under construction. Generally, the average size of houses in Tract 10035 have increased from 3,128°square feet in the 1980s to an average of 4,237 square feet for those projects approved in the 2010s. This increase in size over time would seem to support certain neighborhood concerns that recent development has been out of character for the neighborhood. Based off building permits and PIMS data, which again,for the purposes of this review includes the cumulative building square footage of garages, patios and porches, etc., the average sized residence in Tract 10035 currently is approximately 3,912 square feet. Further, the average size for residences along the south side of Camino Predera, is slightly larger at 3,918 square feet. At 4,889 square.feet of living and garage area, the proposed residence is larger than the average residence in the tract(3,912 square feet), larger than the average sized residence along the south side of Camino Predera (3,918 square feet), and larger than the average residence approved during the 2010s (4,237 square feet). Notably, when including porches and decks to be consistent with the methodology used in reviewing building permits and PIMS data (374 square feet proposed), the proposed residence increases to 5,263 square feet. Further,. the massing of the proposed residence is accentuated by the height of the roof peak which is 10 feet and 6 inches above the curb face on Camino Predera. Staff has recommended to the applicant that the appearance of massing could be mitigated by increasing,the front setback, thus reducing the overall height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera and/or by modifying,the roof design to reduce the height of the roof peak. Page 272 Page191 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HDR DRC2017-00244 & ME DRC2018600473--PAUL BARDOS November 13, 2019 Page.5 2. Building Width/Setbacks:The project proposes to construct the proposed residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, which conflicts with the intent of Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a, which explicitly encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and,crowding of structures, etc.The existing residence to the west is also constructed at the minimum side yard setback, increasing the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape. It should be noted that staff is currently considering.amendments to the development code to increase minimum setbacks and reduce building height maximums within the Camino Predera neighborhood in a direct effort to address persistent neighborhood concerns regarding these development standards. It is anticipated that these code changes will be ready for public hearings within the coming months. 3. General Plan Compatibility: Staff.asserts that the project as proposed is also not compatible with General Plan Policy LU-2.4, which aims to "promote complementary infill development, rehabilitation, and re-use that contributes positively to the surrounding residential. neighborhood areas." As evidenced by comments received from neighborhood residents at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2019, as well as comments received at the Design Review Committee meeting on October 22, 2019, and considering long-standing concerns regarding the scale of development proposed both within the tract and along the south side of Camino Predera,the proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of General 'Plan Policy LU-2.4 which aims to promote development which contributes "positively' to the surrounding residential neighborhood. Staff acknowledges that the proposed project will develop a vacant lot which might provide an economic benefit to the property owner, however building permit and PIMS data gathered for this report reflect that the average size of residences within Tract 10035 have increased since the tract was approved in the 1980s, and that the proposed project-is larger than the average residence in the tract which would further exacerbate this trend. Staff contends that.this noted growth in average house size correlates to the persistent neighborhood concerns. B. Minor Exception (DRC2018-00473): The maximum permitted retaining wall.height is 4 feet Within the Hillside Overlay District, with stepped retaining walls permitted to have a maximum height of 3-feet with.a minimum 3-foot separation between1he stepped walls. The project includes retaining walls up to 5 feet-2 inches in height. The additional retaining wall height is necessary to lower the height of the foundation of the residence in order to reduce the overall height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera. The applicant has fled .Minor Exception DRC2018-004.73 requesting the additional retaining wall height. A Minor Exception permits an additional 2 feet above the maximum permitted wall height.While staff supports the applicant's intent to lower the height of the proposed single-family residence, staff cannot support the proposed Minor Exception as the project is not consistent with the intent of the General Plan to "promote complementary,infill development." The findings of facts below do not support the necessary findings, which are required by the Development Code: Finding: The Minor Exception Is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or Development Agreement. Fact: The proposed Minor Exception to permit additional retaining wall height is not consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan encourages complementary infill development (General Plan Policy LU-2.4). The related Hillside Design Review (DRC2017- Page 273 Page192 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HDR DRC2017-00244 & ME DRC2018-00473— PAUL BARDOS November 13, 2019 Page 6 00244) is for a 4,118 square foot single-family residence which is not complementary to surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average house size within Tract 10036 (based on the existing and approved residences within the Tract 10035). Finding. The proposed development is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. Fact: The proposed single-family residences is not compatible with the existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area as it is significantly larger than the other residences in the same tract (Tract 10035) and is proposed to be constructed at the minimum side yard setbacks, creating the appearance of overbuilding the lot. Finding: The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or to accommodate unique site conditions. Fact: The proposed increase in the maximum permitted retaining wall height is necessary to lower the overall height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera. Staff supports increasing the retaining wall heights on the project site to further reduce the height of the residence as seen from Camino Predera. Findh1g: The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified-in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Fact: The granting of the minor exception will constitute a grant of special privilege as the additional retaining wall height is related to a proposed single-family residence which is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average size residence within Tract 10035 and is constructed to the minimum setbacks.The City has been contacted by property owners in the surrounding neighborhood who are opposed to the project based on the size of the proposed residence, the height of the residence above curb face on Camino Predera and the width of the project (built at minimum setbacks). C. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Guglielmo, Wimberly and McIntosh) on October 22, 2019. A resident read a letter in opposition to the project during the public comment portion of the meeting. Staff presented the project and outlined the reasons why the project was not being supported as presented including lack of conformance with the intent of the Hillside Design Guidelines, neighborhood compatibility, and inconsistency with the General Plan. Staff also noted that the side elevations of the proposed residence should be enhanced by adding additional horizontal siding to match the front and rear elevations. The Committee stated that they were generally in support of the architecture of the proposed residence, but in the context of this specific location, they understood the neighbor's concerns and recommended that the project be forwarded.to the Planning Commission without a recommendation for review by the full Planning Commission. The applicant did agree to add the requested horizontal siding to the side elevations of the residence to match the front and rear elevations. Those changes are reflected in the building elevations attached to this report (Exhibit B). Page 274 Page193 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HDR DRC2017-00244 & ME DRC2018"00473—PAUL BARDOS. November 13, 2019 Page 7 D. Neighborhood Meeting: The applicant held a neighborhood'meeting in the Rains Room at City Hall on June 10, 2019, with approximately 20 persons in attendance. The applicant provided a general overview of the project and fielded questions. The attendees. raised concerns related to the building height as seen from Camino Predera, the width of. the residence (built to the minimum 5- and 10-foot setbacks), and the size of the residence as compared to older homes along Camino Predera. The applicant responded that lowering the residence would steepen the driveway to the point that it would be difficult to navigate, that reducing the width of the residence would make it difficult to construct a 3-car garage and that the size of the residence is in keeping with the existing'residences most recently constructed along Camino Predera. The, neighbors stated that the size of the recently constructed residences along Camino Predera were not in keeping with the intent of Hillside Design regulations and were too large compared-to,the older residences constructed along the street. E. Public Art: Residential development projects of fewer than 4 units are exempt from the public art requirement. F. Environmental Assessment:The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and the City's CEQA Guidelines.The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures),which permits the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. The project is for the construction of a single-family residence°in a residential zone and there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The project also qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use limitations including allowing additional wall height due to onsite grades., FISCAL IMPACT: The project site currently is assessed by an.annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax .is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the City's annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The project proponent also will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services-due to the proposed.project. The following types of services that these impact fees would support include the following: library services, transportation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:- Although a specific current City Council goal does not apply to the project, the project is not consistent with the goals and policies.of the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code, The Land Use element within the General Plan (Chapter 2) encourages infill development that facilitates sustainable and attractive development that .complements the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed single-family residence is significantly larger than those in the surrounding neighborhood, and the proposed residence is being built to the minimum side yard setbacks, increase the appearance of overbuilding the lot. Page 275 Page194 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HDR DRC2017-00244 & ME DRC2018-00473— PAUL BARDOS November 13, 2019 Page 8 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular 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, no comment/correspondence has been received in response to these notifications. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Aerial Photo Showing Project Location Exhibit B - Complete Set of Plans Exhibit C - Correspondences Exhibit D - Design Review Committee Comments (October 1.5, 2019) and Action Agenda Exhibit E -Tract 10035 Data Exhibit F -Tract Map 10035 Page 276 Page195 A � n }J .! �•�:,,;� �°fir, J 1 4 , , s �t� ��Ij'► d pa J 4 � 1 't l � � i 1 ; � 166 E6@d g a,TQjuxH 11M tip 6fi�fi�;" o a OOK kziig jl� '� gj t 11 r1l I GAMIrlO PREDERA — - IL lie t S w � n gcAsFteB g V kr��` �w~�°• �`A'a.�. �l[�y.�-� � q �� a� ¢ice ,. 7 � �i€ aC ia � ~•� Nil ki c � lei Mo. F'.SGF;G �'v�TR{G��3'Ke IRA- 4 c nz� s'cp q A DU ER: TITLE' N OAFMCra CONSTRUCTION,iF3G NEW C46TOM 4ME SITE PLAN lip%N RMIX0 i11AT MART STOOPS UPI.4ND,GA 91124 n + cues)WI-6151 UC a�e13s2a FAWAo GUCAPr►MA.ACA VW Page 2 3. � o A,e� ,14� / t J t14 r. It TI LE. FRONT S RENDERING NEW • - Y •! • P.�' l fi Ci E � i I, zh j } }� I M1 }x H i I I f Fi J 7 P d. 7S6 III r t 1{ i µ�{ • 'h !p 1 r . w TITLE' FRONT RENDERING 2 .,, 15ARD05 CONSTRUCTION,W, NI U 0U67011'CRATTSMAW 40HE b%N REDUM WAY NARY 3TOOP5 D n WL40.CA $181 893b CAMNO PREDERA ti (WS)48i-b191 uc 4 505220 RANG C CZA NGA,CA V130 Page 2 F 4 1 's j f I �j } 4p �Y 1 v p StklS3ER 11SLE: FRONT RENDERING 3 � BARD05 CON5TR=4TI%,WC '� 1696 N REDONG WAT NEW GUBTOM'CRAFT9MAN'y iPLANP,CA 9{la4 8635 CAYP FREDERA t5e41J 5t-6191 uc 1 5195270 RAN.�C COCAMOWiA,GA 51130 Pa e 2 PROUEG2 RL@ t D=011-0 02 4 4 -- - _ _SULDINGD&ELCFE1396.E ' F i wsrra mesa Or � , i i ti 17 w VI qomE-- U d WAO ' j i fir' T - , r1' •�°pRaptltES1R[Alf!'T000fBI16 FRONT EMVAncN $u 2 �Z�r lit s z m A-� (D N Page 282 Z z Of ■ | | m % � Ila Ldlo � 2 § � § � s ; . §$ 2�§ � ; � ■ ■ � § ��� � ■ � � ' ` w ! � � � . • w . � § , § � k K SUER: mLE' ZDPWORPLAN \ § % mRD0000NSlRUCT".� MCalmH� 6# 106NMD&&, MARIrOOP, § ■ WPLAO,c ■la4 .8035cAMINOFRMERA � ( e� Og-sl u 05OS226) ,ANCk CZa00KCA SiM o pAnk- 911 A� � PROEM 1X W DRC2911-80244 Z wT A We OF 31,0.74OL l� s! n•f' a.r e'7 IN- A504A ^-----_---' EPE 01 MOOR 1 COVERED PATIO '--- --------I F-- 1 e BEDROM 3 1 [F t (n DWRO0114 �[ y r 1 � terbati�n ,a :T 3tplY,EuO Q pang mF.r.RE+ t>� 1 1 Hattie 1 � rw $Ct175 lZOOi7 1 1 � I � I 1 I —^� 1 LIFT * L BEDROOM 5 � a QV Yr p� 'T m >r .•r eY at e H j FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1166 SQ FT EC.Lf t1.�•1:B• ���' AVE ¢ow+ :As . A-1 a 12 5,W5 cn N , w Page 284 tlDZ a6 d n'r Ai I i El I 1 i I 1 I , 1 I A I � 1 1 yyyyCbC �4 + I ' I\\ I + I ' I I_ 1 1 -�' I 1 I Yr 1 w 1 f i I I ' •I 1 b m i A ?c� e BUILDER TITL!" 9ARXS coNsTRdom,INc NM QaTOM HOM5REAR LEYATION MART 6M)PS t EDANG 4 8835 GAMN0 PREDERA (W15)981-bT91 LIc 9 505220 RANCHO GUGAMONGA.G4 91T38 90Z 06 3d rn A oil ilk rr --r Ll lip I r � r•F I I 11+ �r P I I q r I I I L- -------------------------- ------- y _.-_____-i 1 r i a a BA ceNsTMTOR WC TITLE* EAST ELEVATION Ifow N RWDNG VAT UPL=,CA 91154 MARY STOOPS NE[U CUSTOSi HCfSE A � aD �90�981-6191 LC5B5t29 k6 GJG�AS SONG4 C4 Si138 Eat Wj.EtyYE1OPE IT9659 ti? r----------Y--------------------------- Z f o 1 � f 1 6ULfl[NG ENYELDQE d 12me } el 1 _ULDM D 1 1 .0 b.talmlul� __ I I I _ F ••• I4LvfG -- I � ...co,...c4r 1 1 1- U R✓fJ Imo,--_�IL_11�1 rl -IrTI rlrIx- r - ' [ rr 1 1 I 1 1 ifl 1 -���- , 1) 1 i TO 1 i sm'a"x a -- ----------J---- -----_ - WEST ELEVATION "MOW >` 114*—I•-g .ut 4ensllw �,�u nruws r BLAO p9Ji.MW ----------- F a , 1 4 1 I'.rr�- ..y.y�.�,.i,4��+..'v'-.w.....--.-...-'•�•-:.-.tip-T,- �� u 4----�----- - I ------- --a WEST ELEVATION CUTS r.rat d9 SfD-'1�0' A-1 @ OF 12 swum cc m m rn Page 287 GARAGE DOOR 5t11E PRCVEC;SLF. Dxc20 -00744 oFrx aF1A1 I. Z L` .11 411 - � f - WAVY"ER AROOR AUBURN 433 All All �v csa�v sou �4 K 3 Q4� lu U loan 00 2 ROOF PLANPArE m� Il5 A-11 OF 11 5�UT5 m N o Page 288 PROJECT FILE■ PRC20'1 00244 i z�rr rr•w�=++.� . +e+•+ ' jranrs•arrial� w.w..-•+a- 4 t`4 r A Q ,.rnr, '� _ ...w ,.�.-:,erg-.•; '.Jwy/y���..�.---� `�,�, r ,ate �_ I I ./' • 1!`���• � `i.M1/.• rxw 1 .!T" - �.+�{. T_—�� J� J - _ .. M.rYl�u�'.� A w..i- I. nrry t inyw rygr.+r. - y�- A �•w..ice.. i FF �7til �-,9�5,4V � +� �� f.•``+�.�_ - J`.�.�-ter...... r .rr � .(J-r.r.�w•.rrr..r �. rRAP11R IrAll p-�.. ••«•-� •• :*p Avg sccnnti FqUALGRAUNG PLAN DIG ALERT .r... M,"35..Lora A•12 r-Rlp 77Y 7A9C a r . . _ r.r- Rr {ro N co Page 289 rR0.Y MU wj '- CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN-,FOR TRACT NO. 10035, LOT 93 r..-..w_N�r.�.a�..r•r.1....��[.._r�Y.1 �y.W r-.r 1 A , .ir....�.ah...r.w..rn�lr._rrr..r r....l.r.1•.K_ r.�.r_I•ri�.�.w...+ew 1.£GIC DFS'�Mp�lay' LLµ.r._:...w-�•.�.r....r....r wr._rrr•r•.r_.. rmuvwrcuR war wrv�ao � p...rrti- r:.:".''•'.. a+_.. :-='r:".�.+-r..r:.. K.r. dK <� Juslrll v aair rflawvl w wr.rJ+v�r ASS£SsMT r..,aM hy: gM ,• o-a.l aw.�� )a r rrwwraaaor nu. ..•� � a..i.-.r...r.-.-�v-�.....r.r..�.w. nr/�(lraimr ats�+Ve-q+-ro rr.srcvs u.�`��w......r.[...a.,._r.rr.r.�.�r� jfry�+ F�(�al RfIR/A�• dry anvil �.�r.a!■Dry .ca iF-SKr.-.rr.Y.rr1ll..r-r rr �i� U." . /ORAL •molar ra'~'K.�.r�.irhw.�....wr.+n LS(/rtl[+t Ki.�ICPWr/694rr/P l/ 1 +:lr sarvaa oar r ..rr�.........a jr rlmrr now �,rpr[nrprrrwra Arc7la■>N PUSLJG JlIAf/I1£52+w+.�•-..rwr.....w..rr�n.w■.+w.--.. rs racxa wry r�eLm•�I o-'�r•�r�. rw W.rrry•_....raM.rW.w.._u..L�..+..- R CInICa 9I1.[f wl r OAwk n■.. ) wlrrw r�i.r.rw-rya..M4w.+trrwrh.�...•h._r�Ap.... X �Kp4 �:rr�.lYnDrf tL/A.CDlrfl/lltp.I,• flit/Ro�.1+.�=�.rlLr--r..rYr�A.aYr....rrY._..._Ar It t2y Or r'l �� l�■C�.-ruh+.T�� a zr ..�-r...r�..r_...----"._.. .v is rlumr o®m".-■rr�a s� J.�.a..Mir A.P+ e�r.ir,rr.---- _+-r✓-.r....i !rP)r[lilmr ir■savww[w yr Daa1 )ara uplr~ rMSTwj elm 11� 17e]17 n a r� w fir..-ri-..r�.wa. r.r..�_� r a F�iCflo• /Q�prW OMB a p)ro G+�,af,(s T71 SDn ..r�r�. ..,ri4�'rr-.-wr.r..rrr Fs�Ifdfr aJMrA-t7rinr IAE/S!}.Rl so rr AMC`.:�"� .r,.y� . nos■ aM Mr MIA JM4 4115 m ri •-�.r .+_��....�..a r�..u...r�.-`�..r~' �/S low.ar rr I-Y.uam TOTAL SO n: YW m rt DQor[l [.UPlfglrS?X' W.•.w.l......-.w..+w-..r-.+...wurr t terra r� rav w Pr LOT ARM l'.{]0!O n Rt_ru.■ar cc nn.�a oral JE[ Dort Yr!■■JIf wT lk;f wr.rrn 9tlt17■16 f00Ii�fI: A W R Cat—.a.I.■.r aN?1F oKreur■a{n®n y�-Y�J.ir+rv-rr-.rrrw 4Vr•!p r►�r r.-.rrr.-.-+r....r.....r.._.�.r.��....�. ur.—a w.w tir ua.nr�ano R= rnrrc n! a►.I I�tSt O01. ]T{ ue-...o.[lr o.r �gaac wr wr:no 4VMP Aw-A nwr ■pf1Nm0u5V{NSR 1504 ,.•.r..-.w er —ar++r+r cvrres a ooe�t a Ivr �w...taww a t01FL■[rOMOVS tDT CCW+akG 7i34 a..w'.•`iiwY.w...rr_w.r.+..rr...r�r-rrr+r no aw M raenmfavr uhv it r{D �.x atV ll oo Mrm7 Dpal■vm[ rRal oo>.pr) Arm C.O'AR- pl 1T.e OS07 'r131S •s.r.rr.-s....Y i..h+ am-- -..a r.� �.a,✓.w.rr+.-+r...-.+w•r.-.---..w-�.rw—. Pfll A4 ia!'Yr A'W :aw.r.r....•.-....-...rn.rw..-.---ter.-.....e.r JCAG►Is Comm" f^Y/S FOA[7f lO CCM7JNCMrL K�rry rwr�sr■Dnrwrr�rrrr�rvast J Pt•!av a�+n.r-�.[r�.b�r�+-.�..rr.ay.W IrI���� ���Ws K7grnpllr0r%llttfDO�lflr�Cg.RwR�Mf AD lRr riOr/o .a_ rKa.�.r.. w+�orc�ra�.�rKaen/r.ee�mrumrrmuvlr .lrrtrn.rraassvir l.rr.r�r.rax■�aerrwa•Dor�vw� _ K�atmrKaoc��wl.sr.laa.rrrsw+.�rmrnr rKaw.vwmc+rszar�rrrarrar+.ae.rraorr .gym ....r■ in D■rKaiDIWYAr NwiA'I[Va<rar4 �Jr e ^4iwrlrAll+rls IrliO.Mmr /IA<rral/f7[/v41' r�rlCr•61/R111[� Ors aarrrrrrcla oa.■rrlo a■r.w.Pltmrrmr•�n aelcalraP M DRC24917-00244 ■r�.ra+■.r..�rW.�i....�sraa.... sr aa■arwra�orwma�sraw lr'wwaur rvmrsrr lria Kwr[�A.RO�{lp.NJ�■!'Aq nmrr ..r-rJYr..+�. JnrfQTJi�M■A rL�tlfA+✓�IYKP!'a•C�14Iri�r� [I.nrD■!i[IP6 .r...r_.....rla. nu.+nw...uuu.•- ara�wa■DS D,s+arwrrrra[ss�rwrrurn.rr J4a■DJlr/uirrrrrrDlQa wrasw[■■mlr.e�'�1R DnrDrrs■D r+�aun rrw■taaarer raplD■■snrprr rwa N■frpreAprar■rrfDKOSirA�rDI91L,)I■[■plD�sr [■Wlmw Dow ■Ar OltatRr®ariRD.i#fLJISRIvrPP n..rv- �raproDrrrronrrrrwaraprra■a.smrwwsr q rr raRl sr - �•4.. •-•••-• �V�V�PK�ws�lrlrfVJRr�.V�Ar� /a1Lf�niU/af/1aR�/.11fPlJT r7■�rIIrOK■�■1K ' KDA JrrmRaSrC[rDi#rAI=1-.1+WrKlLI'Q■C=.d r 1�Arfti m w v;RNnTCC pro W4 r^gym r-.■rid..+_wr r Ww�/�wM.w/w.w..r rwrw.M RN� CfRfr■!KIPw/4 Fa a4r aKIR r�IIr ram.w......-.,+... rrDKKlDO�PlfWrr■�waww nwra,.or CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rr.arK.M1.sa!Yw•..w.w..r.+r.roar.ir■■ar..Kh��� [6irm DDlrrC1/r/fV ORal Rrit,rMM�lrtllPnr■x ...r n�..r..+.4�.,r•.r•...+w....r�r.��. av K MMP W! FVJM QMADMQ IM" r�IrrrMr r w.�•.-1.rY r r.i.rl■rY ahlo.Y iw rl.Y r.M ■r..-..r�..r-..I....l.r'.r w....!..r..r iR 1010,f,5. L d7 1J 8aYS C"M0 PREVERA RANCHO MC4MONCA GA 917JO //��••��DIG ALERT -� —. Isla ►OL[ VIV .rr ws[r■1 a[om woo a 41 ffl (D N Page 290 s ,�- r 8 S1 , I I ` ro J rma Or aE- 5rww�rwrvw C3 fi vrmAm aL'AY IIO rr•s nv�+4r ws � •rwa U LEJ W � ♦G`��• '� I � � 1 �I �` r_ 5ll I _ 5 u' I j O � a \ + lip A T et�,a. I�, �• 1M �` - ' ,I A �r.a ar r u 3 ,. ,+ ®1 tacr wale a•racae 4•, ! .. Z l f:413dH iH J �+T! 1 f ••T( it �_... __.•��-.-��� a — _— _-! r a _ -. i I _ \ 1 % 1 q v o a tib t 9� o-wwrw ara w n `yf Q.m r.ver�-r».� uru CHAPHIC SCALE .rsr.a.r rrw ra a 1• • r s r ar�r.vo�r� emu. "` Ewe-Eati o-a•d.rr..l rr.u- Asa Q A P w Q •�T���ww�, w�+r�.w�. [>R .49 [Ri rLII•W,a Q6L K pft M LIQi lid•ialP r,n .sue PROJECT FILE #- DRC2017-00244 C6NCEPTUALGRADINGPUW Aa►+� AL n "���u f�� 71P Eppix Wr rr71P� 2 E RLIIDOM' IFO E>an •sr:.� RANCJe(1�CA 07-V YU AR DY wm ar ae FD F3T: P9 fD,a -I w (O (D N o Page 291 s-- N N _ 1 ad .18�21i7 Bd i!B OMIT ri ---rs. 3nc xer SNGSVL3a uru � vn.c. ao9t-�uim-� Pf 1D1 YYpp! !d +na+om au '+ a a.■a a.+ of 1738 Nbld 9NIOVMD-W lid3DN0O +n .... a*n 34 'mm�tmorwota SS4 'ancr1 Ae-.. �• .aarau�3s 1 ,WMv+mfTmma ... ... .,+ y t an+ .rcr Ii •.D.Ia� !a A► +i an b W j 11!�61 L Ail ��� 1>•V S0f 4—f-�-afp of �v �vbLO I-r +s fn asa + .rr u m crur+ v area. m aa+a Im .rai wry-Tk�+—� Y4Z00—LIOZ3a0 / 311j IDWOUd Page 292 �f1 9 e� �Ny �l j d ■d ■■� Rollo an RRRIIIIORRfloCa + Il M 11111110 11111113U ■© ■ow OEM ■■■■■■oo■o ■■■■■■■ummumlQ ■0 Ian ©©0 �0000©0©©© ■■RI■■■0■R0090 ■ - i EW CUSTOM WOME MARY'7.. rtiP. RANC40 CIJCAMONGA,CA 91130 WAV E l,Z a LIZ r� V Y 2.1 -0 WALKING PATH '9 v {�} � WALKING PATH ;U v 2:'1 R wA�Kif�� ppTN � Q) 2:1 jo a s s i [Bull PER: TITLE- N BARD05 GON5TRk1GTION,INC NEW CUSTOM 4E0tiE PLAWING PLAN I69b N REDDING WAY MARY STOOP5 r + 0PE.4ND,GA 91184 8035 GAMNO PREDERA a 4 (SOB)5SI-6191 UG 1 503220 RAN"O CUCAhiONGA,GA 51110 0® q0 �oa B A kD 0 o � /<7- CONSTRUCTION October 7,2019 The City Of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: Mr.John Gillison, City Manager 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 RE: CAMINO PREDERA Dear Mr.Gillison, 1 write to you regarding several matters that have generally been progressing over time in the approval process of properties on Camino Predera and the circumstances specifically surrounding our attempts at gaining approvals for a new single-family residence at 8035 Camino Predera that I believe now give rise to this letter. I am reaching out to city administration and city decision makers to once and for all resolve what are now polarizing issues for neighbors,and to intervene to reduce the extraordinary delays taking place in processing entitlements through to final approval on the street. These issues place both an unreasonable financial and emotional burden on applicants causing harm and they have no equivalent anywhere else in the city. It appears from my numerous discussion with staff that the submittal of DRC2018-00244 for 8035 Camino Predera ("the Submittal") is being generally construed and in some way joined with the proposed Future changes to the development code currently under review by staff, Although I do not believe the Submittal is currently subject to any currently proposed or future changes (that as of the date of this writing have not been Formally published and are still in the internal discussion stage by staff) there stills seems to be considerable abstruseness in the relevance of the proposed changes to the Submittal. As you may or not know I have attended all of the neighborhood meetings and have heard the verbal recommendations of staff and considered the points in its PowerPoint presentation with the intention of participating in neighborhood discussion and incorporating any reasonable recommendations into our current Submittal. Given the current craftsman style architectural of this project and the numerous design changes incorporated into it over the past 31 months in reviews and re-reviews,I have Found none of the proposed code changes to be readily able to be included in our current designs. It is for this reason and the others that I will outline here that we are continuing on in the submittal process to final approval. Prior to beginning any further comments,I would like to provide a brief summary of Bardos Construction's building;history. Our first projects in RC were started before the community was incorporated as a City. Over the past 45 years we have constructed numerous residential Exhibit C Page 214 Page 295 and commercial.projects to include two homes on Camino Predera at 8034 and 8054, and also the corporate headquarters of the then Mercy Ambulance Service (now AMR) to include It's lifesaving 911 dispatch center. on Center Street. These are in addition to the Mercy Air's/City's joint collaboration to construct a medivachelipad site at Rancho Cucamonga's Fire Station#4 and Fire Training Facility on Milliken. Our projects include several new single-family residences in RC and the village of Claremont and if I'm not mistaken we still.have the accolade of having built more new homes in the Claremont Village over the past 25 years than any other builder. We were recognized with several awards for our work there as well as is similarly true with other communities in the Inland Empire. 1 have also worked personally for the State's Licensing Board in nearly a thousand'investigations giving expert opinions on those investigations in administrative,civil and criminal proceedings,and I have given testimony before the CA State Legislature on matters relevant to the construction industry. I therefore write these comments as both an applicant and an experienced and knowledgeable member of my profession. Through my many discussions,emails with staff and neighboring residents in addition to a research of the issues through the City's online archives,,I have come to be familiar with both the neighbor's concerns and the recommendations of staff in addressing them. As I currently understand the neighbor's'objections as both viewed through the record and through my personal contacts and after my wife and I lived on Camino Predera for more than 10 years,the issues are unquestionably solely focused on views of the property owners on the north side of Camino Predera being obstructed by the development of the remaining vacant lots on the south side of the street. These objections have been expressed on many occasions and are codified in the recorded a portion of which is being included here to illustrate a point that begins as far back as early,2001: Concordia IQ'VhrA ng Variance.Reauest:-Planning Commission Meeting-larruarr►2 , 2001. Lynn Massey,8083 Camino Predera,Rancho Cucamonga,thanked the Commission Wallowing him to present his concerns. He thought the facts presented were misleading. He showed a picture of his house and indicated that the level of sight from his front door and his balcony is equal or within 6 inches. He felt the fine-of-alte drawings were misleading because they show two different elevations for his house. He stated his view of the valley and city lights will be obstructed by homes on Lots 2 through 5. He felt that 75 percent of his view will be obstructed and that he will lose all of his view when trees arc grown by the new homeowners. He read from two advertising flyers from Concordia Homes from other communities and several real estate advertisements which highlighted a view as one of their selling features. Mr.Massey stated the community is semi-custom homes with the majoiity being split level or single story. He thought the Commission originally requested single story homes but staff felt Concordia%proposal for two-story homes was feasible. He believed the property is.better suited for split-level homes and that properly values may not be increased because the new horses are not congruent with the community. He indicated that if the Commission approVed the plan, it may he encouraging a civil matter between a voter,taxpayer,and citizen toward { an entity that can't vote or pay taxes and Is not in the community. .2 595 DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT SWC301 49091 9G1-8797 OFFICE r9091 %82-3631 FAX LICENSE #505220 MULTIPLE AWARD WINNING LICENSED AND INsuRED GENERAL CONTRACTOR Page 296 Page 215 Lot ?. -pgrC 003-00961 -pelign Review Comments Alan Warren-AIrrl_6-2004; Malo"ssuss: The followMg broad design Issues wlp be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The major issue for any house product proposed on the south side.of the.streel is the concern of residents on the north side regarding potential view obstructions to the south. The proposed house Is a true split level design that exhibits a single-story facing the street. This entry IeVel becomes the second floor as the structure continues down the slope. The two- story portion faces south down the slope. The house fits within the building envelops as required by the Hillside Development provisions. Letter From Chuck&guet Agri!5,2004-Lot 12-DRC2003-0096j- This correspondence is to register my continuing concern with what has been proposed and approved along one of the last remaining vestiges of the fled Hill area over the past several months, This correspondence is to formally request that careful study be given to impacts of the referenced and future development of this partioul'ar hillside area prior to any Design Review Approvals by either City staff or the Planning Commission. The Red Hill area is one of the only areas within the southwestern portion of the City that allows a unique opportunity for residential development that can capitalize on the natural hill contours and still allow for views of the valley that can be shared by all with proper development of this area. Lot 12- R Plan nei's R rt July 7.2 ' While the approved design Is well within the Clty Hillside standards, the appellants are requesting that the house, and others as may be proposed, be provided with a "lower profile" then is presently approved (Exhlbil"A'). The assumed reason for the lower building profile Is to preserve views from their house on the north side of the street. In a meeting with the Mayor and staff, the appellants stated that their desire Is that the house be lowered so that only. the roof Is visible above street grade. p C2015-00&04-Planning Commis gn Meetitra—Semler-February 14, 2018. Renee Massy, a resident of Red Hill, clarified that she is not against something being built and she also fell in love with the view. She said their lot is between two homes but because of the curve in the road, the view will be obstructed ( Ms. Massey also spoke during public comment and wishes those comments to be included in the record. They are repeated below) Renee Massey, a resident of Red Hill, expressed concern regarding Item D6. She explained that the new home proposed to the south of her home will block their view of the valley. She asked in several meetings to share the view and they,feltthe owners should lower their home by b additional feet. She indicated that just meeting the requirements is 3 595 DALE=Y I..ANE, KALtsprL.L., MT 59901 t9G9) 98 1-679 7 OFFLCE (909) 9B2-3B31 FAX LICEr4ar #51352213 MULTIPLE AWARE) WINNING UrENVIED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR I Page 297 Page 216 not enough and the value of her home will be lessened if the home is built as proposed and she believes she has not been heard". Appellants: Ronne Massey addressed the City Council an the appeal submitted;spoke on the three reasons for their appeal which Include the issue with compatibility, views, and accessory dwelling unit; she referred to two other appeals that were granted and displayed the lots she was referring to;spoke on the loss of views the new home will have on Mr. Rodriguez's property; and expressed concern with the design, height and Incompatibility of the proposed home and displayed pictures of surrounding homes. ftail Common Commondoce Between A li t a.2 : From: H. Lynn Massey .l Sent:Thursday,August 22,2019 9:38 AM To: Paul Cc: Mary Subject: Plans Paul, Thank you for understanding about my daughter's cancer surgery.She is out of ICU...The Doctors removed a 9.5 pound mass and one kidney.We still don't have the lab results on the mass. It's truly been a hectic 7-10 days. l admit I don't know your business...just like yyou may not know what a suitable beta score on a balanced mutual fund should he for optimal growth with reduced downside volatility. I assume you agree...we are all experts in our chosen Field. Here is what we know: • Please be aware that the Galvan's pro ect appeal was upheld by the City Council. They required them to reduce the overall height of the home by six feet • Danny Dera's (Lot 3) house design that is currently under construction gat neighborhood support and approval and the City Council were pleased with the neighbors support and his design. • Also the development code workshops and the pending amendment could be strong indicators that reduced profile Is an issue supported by the City on Camino Predera. Here are some suggestions: e Please modify the design and placement of the home in order to reduce the �roposed street profile.I in not as schooled in design as you but I believe this can e done easily by reducing or redesigning the roof to a lower profile design. V=a flat roof,that doesn't keep with the style. You could move the pad further down the hill and away from the street.You should be able to use reasonable cuts and retaining walls to get this accomplished. • We would like you to provide a profile design that allows for"view sharing" with the neighbors across the street;your home as is could be a standard for future home Construction. If you were building across the street from m home,I would lose a lot of my view.The"view sharing'I'm talking about should- 4 595 DALEY LAN&, KALISPELL, MT S9901 (909) 9MI-6797 MrrICE (9139) 9BZ-3B31 FAX LICENSE #505ZZIa MULTIPLE AWARD WINNING LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR Page 298 Page 217 City lights not just blue sky. 1 believe you can accomplish this by reducing the size of the structure,increasing side yard setbacks and lowering the roof profile as suggestedabove. Paul,1 know you're trying,but all of the nearby home owners who will be affected most by your design should be included in these emails.You took the time to.come to us and I believe you need to take the time to go to them as a good faith gesture. As talented as you are and with your years of experience with design,I know with a little more"XiM sharing effort"you could get almost close to an undisputed support from the residents on Camino Predera. God Bless -Lynn &Renee Massey From.- Paul To: H. Lynn Ma5,sa Cc:tabe.vande rZ3yaagRcJWaEr& 'M= Subject; RE. Plans Date: Monday,August 26,2019 11:54:00 AM Lynn and Renee, Mary and I hope your daughter will recover fully and there will be no further complications for her in the future. I read your suggestions below and found them not very helpful primarily because they are based on subjective impressions of what you think can be done and because we have already done E of those things you have suggested.For instance, we nearly doubled t�e distance of the house from the street than is required and have modified the 1 (upper) floor to narrow it.Those were done quite some time ago in one or more of the 55 submittals after we showed you the initial plan.As for your thought about reducing the roof pitch,we're at the minimum the manufacturer allows (4:12) before their warranty is void and a tile roof will leak. The retaining wall heights of the design are at the maximum height allowed by the Code and the driveway slope is at the maximum too. 1 have tried my best to encourage you to seek the advice of a PE without success to make any contribution constructive and relevant to the technical requirements of the California Building and City's Development Codes and tailored to the unique topography of the lot. There are simply limitations on each of these lots individually that need to be taken into account.There is no "cookie cutter"approach that will work on every lot.What was done on Danny's lot can't be done on ours and any comparison of our lot to his or the Galvan submittal is gravely misplaced.Unless you're unwilling to consult with a PE to advise you 1 don't see how we can progress in this discussion past this point. As for the thought that we should reach out to others on the street,we did that with nearly everyone includingyou and Lynn and we heard no objections so we proceeded with another 5 submittals over 21h years that also went without comment.As for the thought that the city is in de facto agreement with you or that all of the neighbors agree with you that would be another mistaken assumption. There were many at the neighborhood meeting and at the recent development 5 595 DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT 59901 (909) 981-6797 OFFICE (91791 982-3831 FAX LICENSE #5052ZO MLILT:PL£ AWARD wINN:N© LIGEN3E0 AND 1NSUREd GENERAL CONTRACTOR Page 299 Page 218 meting that do not support your views.All of the neighbors immediately affected by our submittal (except Chuck and Suzanne)are in support of our designs and in point of fact the Council denied your appeal of the Galvan residence as it did similarly with the preceding three others filed in the past. As for a beta score,the answer would be less than 1. If I know something about your industry, l think it only fair that l ask you to learn something about mine if it Is in fact your intention to participate constructively. Best, Paul and Mary Without exception every application for development of the remaining vacant lots In Tract 10035 that are on the south side of Predera (and one on the north side--Galvan) have been uniformly opposed over the past 18 years by a very small group and there have been four appeals filed over the same period all of which were denied by the Council. Although there have been other submittals in the hillside overlay district of the Red Hill Community,none of those submittals outside the 10035 Tract have been attended or opposed by any of the objectors on Camino Predera. For instance,a submittal originally filed in December of 2018 for 7563 Alta Cuesta DRC201 B-01014 for a new 4040 sq ft single-family home was unopposed and unattended at its DRC meeting in August of 2019. In less than 8 months the project on Alta Cuesta has gone from submittal to approvals where in comparison,all other projects submitted on Camino Predera have languished for literally years. DRC2018-01014 illustrates the singularity with which the appellants have focused their opposition. CC&R'S Tract 100351— The Private PolU Contract; When the tract map for 10035 was recorded it included a controlling set of CC&R'sz intended to regulate the future development and ownership of the lots. After several buy/sell agreements were thereafter recorded transferring ownership of the tract to one or another developers over the years,Concordia Homes of Southern California eventually took possession of the remaining undeveloped lots after having successfully negotiated a change in the CC &R's with MacMain Associated, LLP in March of 2000. The change in the CC&R's removed the limitation on maximum height of the homes previously set at twenty four feet3 set out in the covenants of the CC&R's. By removing the height restriction Concordia was then allowed to 'A copy of the tract map for Tract 10035 is included hereto as Exhibit 1 2 A copy of the original recorded CC&R's is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 1 Attached in Exhibit 3 is a copy of the changes to the original CC&R's recorded on March 14,2000 two weeks prior to close of escrow by Concordia. These revisions to the CC&R's removed the height limitation of 24'from the regulations. On March 31,2000 Concordia took title to the remaining undeveloped lots in Tract 10035. See grant deed dated March 31,2000 attached as Exhibit 4. 6 595 DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT 59901 (9139) 961-5797 OFFICE (909) 982-3831 F'AX LICENSE #5135220 MULTIPLE AWARD VVINNINo LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR Page 300 Page 219 construct 2-story homes that were within the development code standards still in force today, which they eventually did with the first three of the homes they built on lots 17,19,and 20. All other provisions of the CC &R's remained unchanged to include two important provisions contained in§2.04 and§8.044. Section 2.04 reads in part: ",..For purposes of this Section 2.04, an Owner's "view"shall be deemed to exclude any line of sight from such Owner's Lot which intersects or traverses any neighboring Lot which is of equal or greater elevation at the time the grading and initial construction of improvements of the Project is completed by Declarant. Each Owner, by accepting a deed to the Lot,hereby acknowledges that the line ofsight from Lots in lite Project at the time such Lots were originally offered for sale to lire public by Declarant may be subject to subsequent obstruction as a result of future construction or plantings by Declarant or by other Owners pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the Committee in accordance with this Section 2.04 and Article V of this Declaration." [Emphasis added] And at§8.04 of the CC&Ws- "Section 8.04 Constructive Notice and Acceptance._ Every person who owns, occupies or acquires any right, title, estate or interest in or to any Lot or other portion of the Project sloes and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to the reasonableness and binding effect of every limitation, restriction, easement, reservation, condition and covenant contained herein, whether or not any reference to Declaration is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Project, or any portion thereof. " [Emphasis added] These two provisions expressly make the issue of view obstruction a private matter of dispute between the property owners. Ca St .Arid Developm en t Code Chan 5 Given the long history of contention between property owners and the efforts of but a few of the residents of the Tract to involve the City there now appears to be a directive from the Council to staff to review the controversy and recommend Development Code changes to mitigate the issues. °A reprinting for clarity of the-two relevant sections of the CC&it's Is included herewith as Exhibit S. s A copy of Manning Staffs PowerPoint presentation is attached herewith as Exhibit 6. As of the date of this writing it is the only documentation available that describes their intended recommendations to the Planning Commission. Many of the topics staff presented at the neighborhood meetings were supported by only a portion of the neighbors present. For that reason many of the property owners who objected have written to city administrators independently to codify their objections to staffs presumed recommendations. 7 595 l]ALEy LANE, KALISPELL, MT 59901 (909) 961-6797 DRFIQE (909) 9E32-3a31FAX LICENSE #S13S2213 MULTIPLE AWARE) WINNING LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR Page 301 Page 220 At the second neighborhood meeting staff proposed the following changes to the hillside overlay in a PowerPoint presentation. A formal recommendation has not yet been released to the public. Those points presented are as follows: 1) Increase sideyard setbacks from 5 and 10 to 10 and 15 2) Add a new regulation limiting the height of the roof above the street and that the buildings can be no higher than one story. 3) Orient long axis of roof perpendicular to street 4) Require varied front yard setbacks 5) ArticuIate with variable wail planes 6) For lots on the south side of the street,the floor plan-of the house may"inverted"so that the garage is at or near the street level and the other floors of the residential structure are below the garage floor 7) increase the maximum height of retaining wails to 8 feet without the need for a Variance or Minor Exception. a. Where higher walls are necessary,they shall be terraced with a minimum separation of 3 feet between wall faces. b. Retaining walls within the front yard setback will continue to be permitted up to a maximum height of 3 feet. c. Encourage non-cantilever type retaining walls such as gravity walls,with landscaping. 8) Due to the smaller lot areas,structures are not required to follow the contours of the land. 9) Where second stories are proposed,step back the wall plane of the second floor by 5 feet in the front and/or side. In addition to the above staff has articulated two other points verbally through discussion (1) the will of the community and (2) the character of the neighborhood. At the current time senior staff has indicated the area to be governed by the proposed changes would be limited exclusively to Tract 10435.E Despite the talking points in staff's PowerPoint presentation and stairs apparent intentions to move forward with its some recommendations to be formalized as its recommendations to the Planning Commission,there was no agreement or majority opinion amongst the neighbors at the meeting and there was considerable opposition to the proposed changes with several speaking out against modifying the Development Code at all,believing there was no need for the changes. The will of the community has therefore not been established through quorum or 6 As mentioned previously no formal summary of Staffs recommended changes has been made public. Statements made here are being derived from personal conversations with senior staff members. 8 S95 DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT S9901 19091 981-6797 OFFICE 1909) 9132-3831 FAX LICENSE #505220 MULTIPLE AWARD WINNINn LiceNSED ANC) INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR I h Page 302 Page 221 majority other than it can be characterized as a genuine disagreement amongst property owners. The character of the community,has also not been demonstrated through any statistical or impressionistic review. In past entitlement submittals over the years both planning commissioners and council members alike have commented on the record that the Red Hill community is eclectic and resistant to definition. However along Camino Predera the pattern in development has been to construct two-story homes that are ranging in square footage to between 3,088 to 6,175 square feet.? The average size of homes being built on the street over the past 18 years is just at 4,000 sq ft. Given the limited amount of properties that have either waterfront or views in California it is not surprising that these lots bring a premium in value and attract owners who desire larger living spaces and higher quality amenities in their homes. The character of the immediate community along Camino Predera then would appear to support larger homes that would take advantage of available views. The owners of vacant lots along Camino Predera would therefore be singled out from their predecessors and deprived of similar use of their property should many of the recommended changes be enacted. This depravation of property owner rights would be contrast to all other hillside overlay communities in the city and appears to have little justification or merit other than through neighborhood dissention. conclusion: Given the record, there is little support for any change in the development code particularly when appellant's unambiguous effort for the past 18 years has been to preserve their views at the expense of the vacant property landowner's rights on the south side of the street. "A landowner does not have any right of access to air,light;,or view over adjacent property"has been public policy throughout the state since 1898 set both in statute and precedentO and little has occurred to change that legal principle over the past 120 years. The CC&R's expressly agreed to by all of the owners within Tract 10035 only serves to reinforce and apply public policy in further detail as a binding private contract on the appellants and all others in the immediate Predera neighborhood, It is unfortunate that many of the proposed changes to the development code so far advanced could be easily construed to benefit one party over another in the disagreement and if enacted they unfairly burden the remaining vacant property owners with additional costs,regulations, and delays that deprive them of the implicit development rights bargained for in their purchases. Should the changes proposed be enacted it is a taking of a right through inverse 8034 Camino Predera-4015 sq ft,;8044 Camino Predera—3088 sq ft;8D45 Camino Predera—3628 sq ft;8054 Camino Predera--3765 sq ft,81389 Camino Predera—3778 sq ft-8062 Camino Predera-3212 sq ft.;8072 Camino Predera—6175 sq ft. (Areas were determined from public records. °See 120 Cal.488 L.A.No.322 Supreme Court of California Decided April 011098--Kennedy v.Burnap,120 Cal.488, 488-89(Cal.1898). '?he simplest rule and that best suited to a country like ours,in which changes are taking place In the ownership and the use of lands,is that no right Ito views]can be acquired without express grant of an interest in,or covenant relating to,the lands over which the right is claimed." 9 f 595 DALEY LANE, KALIaPELL, MT 59901 (909) 9B 1-6797 OFFICE (909) 982-383 1 F'AX LICENse #505220 MULTIPLE AWARD WINNiNcs LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR Page 303 Page 222 condemnation that is not consistent amongst all of the properties in the hillside development overlays and any new standards will stand in stark contrast to the recent approvals granted to the applicant at 7563 Alta Cuesta who is also within the same hillside overlay as those who own property on Camino Predera. The application of new development standards For one street and not another that is immediately adjacent is in and of itself a prejudicial act that must be thoroughly explained as the hillside overlay was equally placed on all similar topographies throughout the city For the same reason- to preserve hillsides not views. Setting aside the complaints of a few,what now causes a material change in Camino Predera's topography over those in Haven View Estates or any other that warrants such a drastic depravation to each of its property owners? The answer is nothing! The current standards of the development code have served the needs of the citizenry of Rancho Cucamonga well since being enacted by the Council many years ago, Although the appellants may not agree with the Code,or public policy in.California,or the private contract they have entered into by purchase,and have chosen to express their opposition through the use of repeated appeals the regulatory scheme is nonetheless rule of law under which we all must live. Attrition cannot be used as the basis for precedent. l urge you and the decision makers for the City of Rancho Cucamonga not to modify the development code for the benefit of such a small group to the detriment of the entire city. if the city fathers are inclined to support one small group in such a way,where will such discretion end in similar matters and rules begin that are necessary to preserve the equitable balance that must be struck by every governing body? Respectfully Submitted, BARDO5 CONSTUCTION,INC. Paul Bardos, Mary Hardos President DRC2017-000244 8035 Camino Predera Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 CC. Mayor Dennis Michael Director,Ann McIntosh Sr. Planner, Michael Smith Assoc. Planner,Tabe Van der Zwaag to i 595 DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT 59901 ` (909) 981-6797 OFFICE [9091 9BZ-3831 FAX LICENSE #505220 MULTIPLE AWARD WINNINcs LICENSED ANO INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR Page 304 Page 223 EXHIBIT 1 TRACT MAP 1003 S i Page 305 Wage 224 cr w • w t/j �J•Y•y] ,a 13lstn auen Cl) Efl mac° ■ � e\nub (ON + O4 - . . • -40 rD mac' ' r Ca ro � � entry c u t r �a ~ Q r + h ■ A 01 Q cas y + ■ ' -1 d C. c? O ■ • + rEMM ~���ti • • • ry • O • r • a • a • • ety aapald"se � • cuco r on ■ reek elicar" cn a Creek . ►��`;� I Page 306 Page 225 EXHIBIT 2 CC &R's TRACT 10035 0 I i Page 307 Page 226 Braneb:R03,User.3500 Comment: Station]d:ZYNE I I HHEI1 RECORDED FAIL. TO. El MS+S Wtq 40f; �`i � ';i `b i' ` Rancho ASSOciateS, Ltd. RECOPDED t P.O. Box 70OD-311 HRancho Cucamonga, CA 91101 ' be $vgo I I I TABLE OF CONTE'ITS OF DECLAMATION OF COVENANTS, CO]IDITIONS AIID RESTRICTIONS AND RFSER44TION OF LASENENTS FOR TRACT NO. 10035 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHOtIGA, I COUNTY OF SAI;_ngF1tApn1p;0. at Y .�C i r PAGE 214. , F , ARTICLE I DEF I 1.01 committee I li02 close of Escrow I + 1.03 Declarant 2 2.64 Declaration 2 2.05 Dwelling Unit 2 1.06 Family 2 1.07 Improvement 2 1.08 lot 2 2.09 Hort9age 2 1.1D Horegagee 2 I 1.11 Owner 2 ' 1.12 Person 3 ' 1.13 Projects 7 ' 1.1: Record or Filed 3 1.15 street 3 ARTICLE IT USE RESTRICTj$'J ri....+n r-.-4I v,..., 2.02 Buildings J 2.03 signs 2.f04 Via.. Gc:;trw�i.sr,s 2.06 Nuisance 5 2.07 Antennae 5 2.08 Animal and Insect Restriction 5 2.09 Vehicles 6 I 2.10 Business or Commercial Activity 6 I , r SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 1 Of 18 Printed on 8/22/2019 8A3:21 AM Document:DR 1988.291661 I Page 308 Page 227 Branch:R03,User:3500 Comment: Station Id:ZYNE 88-29t6fl P_h(LE� NO 2.11 Tr h 6 2.12 Naas 42nrdaus ActlVitics 7 2.13 No mining and Drillings 7 2.l4 Further Subdivision 7 2.13 Water and Sever systans 7 2.i6 Drainag0 7 2.27 Solar Energy Installations a ARTICLE III gAnEMENTS.AND_EIiCROACHHEISTS 3.01 utility Easements a 3.02 Access to Slopes and Drainage Hays e ` 3.03 Slope Maintenance 8 3.04 Sight Lines 9 AFTICLF• IV Ml.'�ZSCAPE. 1HRIGkTIQ)1 At7�P'AIdTCL7ANCE 4.01 Installation of Landscaping 9 4.02 Exterior Maintenance and Repair; Ovnarla obligations 10 ARTICLE V ARCHTTEMML Ailt) LA SPSCAPING. COMMT'TT>=E , 5.01 Medbars of Committee 10 5.02 Meetings of the Committo0 11 5 12 5.. )3 No Waivor of Future Approvals0a Compensation of Nombcrs 11 5.05 Correction of Defects 11 5.06 Nan-Liability of Committee Members 12 5.07 Varian= 12 i ARTICLE VT TzRMINATION. AHENDMEIIT AND SEVL�IiniU_ 6.01 Termination and Amendment 13 : 6.02 Sevarability, 13 i ARTICLE VII F.XEMPTTON AND RTCLTS OF nECfARAF7T 13 ARTICtX VII HIAr!F.[.LANEOUs i i 8.01 Enforcement 13 4•V.. Z.:,dtL 1111U ALta M6 'L YLuIL is 8.03 No Representationc or Warranties is l P.nG Can5trUrrivQ I.Ictir_n alpi l AeMnranro a.0b Insurance obligations of ounors 15 1 6.06 Notices 15 i i 1 i SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 2 of 18 Printed on 8/22120 1 9 8:43:21 AM Document: DR 1998.291661 Page 309 Page 228 Branch:R03,User:3300 Comment Station Id:ZYNE , 88-291661 , IMCLARATIolt OF COVENANTS, COUDITlOUS A11D RESTRICTIONS AND BSSERVATION OF EASEMr.175 FOR TRACT 190. 10035 CITY or micito cucAmauGA, COMITY 217 2811 ALWARDILfq CALI FQRN Ih I , I THIS DECLARATION is made by Rancho Associates, Ltd. , a California general partnership, hereinafter referred to as , "Declarant." EQ1: >3L@Lg: I I A. D©clarant is the owner of certain real property f"Project") located in the City of Itancho Cucanonga, County of San Bernardino, state of California, more particularly descrited as follows: Lots 1 thru 3e, inclusive, of Tract fro. 10035, located in the city of Rancho Cucamonga, County of son Bernardino, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 179 of maps, pages 33, 34 and 35, records or Said county. t3. Declarant will convey the Project, subject to certain protective covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements as hereinafter set forth. I C. Declarant hereby declares that all of the project shall ` be hold, sold and conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions, restrictions and casements, all and each of which ' are for the purpose or enhancing and perfecting the value, desirability, and attractiveness of the project, in furtherance of a general plan for the protection of the Project, ar any portion thereof. All, and each of, these covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements of this Declaration arc hereby lmPo&ed as equitable servitudes upon the Project, shall run with the Project, and shall be bindingon all ' parties having or I acquiring any rights, title or interest In the Prajoct or any part theraaf, and their successors and assigns. ARTICLE I I cc`=i�-=.n, "•'_, r,7s.-as' sl:al � ri�a .iny:s are hitrrr,—, ....+ ..a.._..:_ _ nrticla YhercoC, � I I ZWZJ n 1.02, "Close of F'ligrow" shall mean the date on which a dead conveying any Lot is recorded in the Office of the San Bernardino county Recorder. -1• I I I I ' I s , I I I SAN BERNARDIN04A Page 3 of 18 Printed on 8/22J2019 8:43:21 AM Document: DR 1998.291661 Page 310 Page 229 Branch:R03,User.3500 Comment: Station [d:ZYNG r I I 88��9�fifi� I section 1.D3. "1211c3arant" shall mean Rancho Assoeia.es5, Ltd., a California general partr_ership, its succossors, and Any Person to which it shall have assigrad tiny rights hereunder by an exprousad written assignment. i 5detjon 1,04. "DoalRration" ahalI scan this instrument as it may be amended from time to time. i Section 1.05. " Jellira Uni " shall mean a detached I building located on a Lot and designed and intended for use and ' occupancy as a residence by a single family. ' t Section 2.oG, "Camily* shall mean (1) a group of natural Persons related to each other by blood or legally related to each other by marriage or adoption, or (2) a group of not Clore than six (6) Persons not all so related, Inclusive of their dorestic servants, who maintain a common household in a Uwallang ' unit. I §2etion_1_,07_. 11JmVx5LtQM=1' shall mean all structures and t y typo and kind, including but not ' appurtenances tAereto of ever limited to buildings, outbuildings, valkuays, bicycle trails, sprinkler pipes, garages, carports, roads, drivcways, ,parking t areas landscaping items, fences, screening walls, retaininq walls, stairs, decks, landscapinq, hedges, windbreaks, plantings, planted trees and shrubs, palest, signs, exterior air conditioning and utter-softener fixtures or equipment. Contion l.oa. "Lay', Shall mean any residential plot of land shown upon any recorded subdivision map or recorded parcel cap of the Project which is subject to this Declaration. i Section 1.69. "ltvrtq�ge'+ shall mean any mortgage or deed of t ""mat or other conveyance of a Lot to secure the performance of i an obligation, which will be reconveyed upon the completion of such performance. The term "Deed of Truat" or "Trust Deed" when used tlerain shall be synonymous with the term "Mortgage." section l.Z. "Mortgagee" shall mean a Person to whao a Mortgage is made and shall include the beneficiary of a Deed of Trust; "Mortgagor" shall mean a Person who mortgages his or its property to another (i.e., the maker of a Mortgage), and shall include the Trustor of a Deed of Trust. The term "Trustor" shall "Boneilciary" shall be synonylsous�with the term "Mortgagee". t "tirn-ar" anali mean the Person or Persons, —u :mottle interest et record to any Lot which is a part of the Project, including sellers under executory contracts of sale, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an I obligation. For purposes of Article II only, unless the context + otherwise requires, "Owner', shall also include the family, ' guests, invitees, licensees and lessees of any owner. I t I i t I I I SAKI B$RNARDINO,CA Page 4 of 18 Printed on 9/22/2019 8:43:22 AM Document:DR 1989-291661 Page 311 page 230 Branch:RQ3,User:3500 CommcnL Station ld:ZYNE 88--291661 "Perue shall mean a natural individual, a i corporation orany mthcr entity with the legal right to hold title to real property. i Spa t10 13. "pro_i�cS" shall bean that certain real property described in paragraph A of the Preanble to thl3 , Declaration. � i S,�ction_ J 4. "g cord" or oriid" shall Wean, with respect i to any document, the recordation or filing of such deeu�ent in the Offica of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, state of California. ation�_,3 "S et' shall moan any street or other thoroughfare, shown on any recorded subdivision map or parcel hap of the project. The foregoing definitions shall be applicable to this Declaration and also to any Declaration of Amendaant, , unless otherwise expressly provided, recorded pursuant to the provisions of this Declaration. ARTICLE II i Ica' RESTAICTIQL& ' 1 All real property within the Project ohall be held, used and enjoyed subject to the following limitations and , restrictions, subject to the exemptions of Declarant not forth j herein: i ti Reaiden�e• Each Let shall have a iruolling unit constructed thereon which shall be used as a residence for a single Vamily and for no other purpose. ' sectlon_2-22. Huildinas. No Dwelling Unit shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain in. any lot other than one detached Dwelling Unit designed to accombadate no more than a single family and its servants and occasional guests, plug a garage and fencing and such other Inprovamenta as are necessary or customarily incident to a cirtgla Family ' Dwelling Unit, 11otvithstandinq the foregoing, an accessory structure (i.e., garebo, cabana, eta.) may be erected withthe Article V of this Declaration. Anything containedain structure .ion to t11e r.f:ntrnry notu(th:�tandinq, Y , "v t,n nlAced on the Lot until Guyer cotaan:$ aLl ptt�.:3 •� •� eoMplias with all governmental roes, 3nc:1uUj1.y, u..'- to, the setback requirements required by zoning ordinance(s). in addition to the foregoing, the precise design and placement of all structures on all Lots With the , Project shall be subject to approval by the Design Service i -3- , i i I � 1 SAN BERNARDINUA Page 5 of 18 Printed on 8/2212019 81:22 AM Document:DR 1988.291661 Page 312 Page 231 Branch:R03,User:3500 Carnment: Station Id:ZYNE r i i r r 88-29I661 r of bul tee of the City of Rancho Cucanen r of hnildin.g pernits. 9s prior to the issuance i advetka' ! q..devico ohs. no sign, Paster, b-Illboard ' displayed t° the r other display of any kind shall'be z any Lot, without .public view on anY Portion of the Project the prior written ''""Pt one sign for each consent of the Conmttec�r square feet, advertising thetproq Unit, of not care than sibs• frif except signs, regardless of size, for sale or rank, or successors or assigns, for directional by Declarant, 'or to advertise the Pr03oct Burin °r lnfa=ationipurpases period. All signs nr hi act during g the construction and sale for the regulaClon thereof s and thIL-Onditlons all a hall conform to the re0iromOntatof applicable governmental ordinances. i of V_few of peclarant as set Forth in t Subiect to the exemption r improvement, o his Deplatatian, no vegetation, constructed r other abstractions shall be Planted,. or malntaintd such height as to unreasanablyaobstrwet tha viers from an o ` Y lot in such location or or Lot in the Project. Each Owner the Periodic .tri-MMA9, and of a Lat shalt be 1 ther located' on Pruning of all he ;eSPOnsible for from ad hag Lot', so as to not unreasonably shrubs and trees to the obstructiaLots� Tn the event of a Y al�struct the view i submitted to the Cominittaa from dlmh di between ownern as roo a tot, such dis u be bindin . Who decisions a such shall he COmmitteeg• Any Such obstruction shall n such natter shall of the Cam>rritteemovod or otherwise a upon request of the � 'Obstruction is by the owner of ehetLosd to thr satisfacelon I t uPan wl;ich said i to ramave or athorvise alter the event that. any Owner shall tail with theriz raquosts ofnY such obstruction in accordance authorl'zad a the CoCmmittee, the Committee or its duly 'Written appointees or agpnta, upon fifteon {1SJ days right tdnaorrectas the Owner ofuch aohditianthe affected Lot ,hall Prior for the , and a ' hall have reimbursauthesCoof doing so, and such owner enter-up n such 0wner,s�Lot recoverable b MMittee of the cost :shall promptly i Article IV of Y the Committee i thoraof. Such cast shall be �this Declarat, the Same manner as set forth in 2.041 an 0wneros "view" purposes o sight from a,rrh n•_ shall be deChPq 1. y f this Sectinn L;.t c--a..� any line or r•"ynouring tot which is °f. �'ntch intersects or traverses any time the equal or Prolver. j!,, 1nn and iniriat ccustz,cgXCeintar e1eeati•cn n` t�•c + deeri to l aEteu by [lecla��r- f t la�provtn� - + Lacs "twLy dcknowled by accepting in the Project at the ticregss that the line of sib ' offered for gale to the Lich Lots were origeat sIght rrom strbsequcnt obstruction public! Declarant may Alantih s as b result of y 1�e subject to g by declarant ar b future ponstruction or specifications approved b y other Owners pursuant to Section 2.04 and Article y the Coro Pursuant accordance.With and of, this With this Declaration. 7hc maximum � i t -4- i i SAN SERNARDINO,CA Page 6 of 18 Printed on 8122/20 1 9 8:43:22 AM Document: DR 1988.291661 Page 313 Page 232 Branch:R03,User:3500 Commcnt: Station Id:ZYNE i i roof height of Lots 1 to 21 inclusive shall not excacd , twenty-four (241 teat above top of turn at the canter of the i lot. i am ian 2.Qu. •rarmerlary„bUildinas. subject to the provisions or Article V1I of this Declaration, no outbuilding, basement, tent, privy, snack, shed or other temporary building s or Improvements of any kind shall be placed upon any portion of 1 the Project either teppnra:ily or permanently+. Ro garage, t trailer, capper, motor home, beat or recreation vehicle shall l:e , used as a residence in the Project, either temporarily or permanently, notwithstanding the foregoing, an acceannory + structure (i.e., gazebo, cabana, etc.) may be erected with the + express written consent of the Committee formed pursuant to Article v of tho Declaration. Anything contained in this -ection to the contrary notwithstanding, no accessory structure ' nay be placed on the tat until Owner obtains all permits and + complies with all governmental laws, Including, but not limited ' to. the setback roqul:ohento required by zoning ordinance(%). + nuc%jons. 1a1113nce. llo Lat shall be used in such mannor as to obstruct or interfere unreasonably with the ' residential uses of other L.ota, nor in such runner as to ' unreasonably annoy the occupants of Dwelling Units located en ' other Lots.by unreasonable noises, offensive odors, noxious or ` offensive trade or activity, or otherwise. ' i secxLEz,07. Antennae. no exterior radio antenna, C.11. ` antenna, television antenna, satellite dish, pole or other antenna of any typo shall be erected or maintained on any Lot. A master antenna or cablevlsion antenna may be provided for the use of all Owners, and Declarant may grant eacaments for such ' purposes, i Saetian 2.08. ins a c R ,gSrction, too livestock, i reptiles, insects, poultry or other animals of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept an any Lot, except domestic dogs, cats, , fish, birdu and other household path may be kept an tots, i provided that they are not kept, bred or maintained for commorclal purposes or in unreasonable quantities. As used in this Declaration, "unreasonably quantitios" shall ordinarily mean more than three (3) pets per Dwelling Unit, provided, , Y.- _ r1•�r tCt -.tf .� t.. ^iir.h. , 4. ..1,,,1.i,. , number In any instance may be noro or less. The Committee uhall e have the right to rrohibit mnintcnince of any ahirml which In 1 its mpinion cun3:titutGfi a nuLaanua to dny otner owner. Anlmitifl 1.u1[.1,yil,ej Lc, U�l,V i::, QccuNiillLa OL tnoar ilcunaees, tenants or inviteds within the project must be either kept within an enclosure, or enclosed patio or on a leash being held by a i Person capable of controlling the animal. Furthermore, any owner shall be absolutely liable to each and all remaining + Owners, their families, guests, tenants and invitees, for any animaim brought or kept upon the Project by an owner or by members of hia family, his tenants or his guests. + 1 -5- ' 1 i 1 , SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 7 of l8 Printed on 8122/2019 8:43:22 AM Document:DR 1988.291661 Page 314 page 233 Branch:RO3,llser:3500 Comment: S(ption Id:ZYNE s8-2sissl , gert(on-3�Q2• yehicles. vo trailer, trailer coach. cas:p trai'ier, motor home, recreational vehicle, trucP, carper, cr boat shall be kept or Maintained anywhere on the Project, , Including without limitation, any Stteet (public or Frivate). in i such manner as to be visible iron a neighboring Lot, unlons f screened in a designated sideyard behind fencing approved by the Architectural CCamittoa. Ito vehicle or boat shall be Constructed or repaired upon any Lot or Street (public or i private) in such a manner as to be visible ,frop any Lot. No inoperable vehicle shall- be stored or alloyed to rehain on any Lot or street (public or privatol in such a manner as to be s visible from any othur Lot, vehicles owned, operated or within , the control of any Curler shalt he parkad in the garage of such owner, to the extent. of the Space available therein; and each owner shall ensure that his garage is maintained so as to be capable of accommodating at leaKt two 01 full-sized automobiles. notwithstanding the foregoing, these restrictions , shall not be interpreted in uth manner no as to porn'it any , activity which would be contrary to any ordinance of he City of Rancho Cucamonga. Saetion_8�14. [•AR o� lnnnnrcfal AetJV1JX• Ito part of the project shell over be used or caused to be used or allowed i or authorized in any may, directly or indirectly, for any business, commercial, :nanufacturing, nareantile, storing, � vending or other such non-residantial purposes; except Deciarant, its successors or assigns, may use any portion of the i project awned by Declarant for nodal hone sites, dinplay and i notes office during the construction 'and sales period in accordance with this Declaration, and except professional and administrative occupations kithout'external evidence thereof, Ear ao long as such occupations are in conformance with local governmental ordinances and are merely incidental to the use of the Mallinq Unit as a single ramily residential home. lash owner may rent or lease the Dwelling Unit on his Let by means or a written lease or rental agreement subject to the restrictions of this Declaration. The terms of any such tease or rental agreement shall be subject in all respects to the provisions Of this Declaration, and any failure by the lessee of such a•.elling i Unit to comply with Lhe terns of this Declaration shall constitute a default under the lease or rental agreement. !ro rubbish, trash or garbage or other waste m orial shall beKept or permitted upon any' Lot, except .. .... arc .e rr..� ....«-r-n•! ^a concealed from view; and no odor shall be permitted to arise therefrnn so 1A to rr.nder the project, or any portion thereof`, i un-an12ary. unsiontly. 4ttanolve or detrl[lental to ally craer property .in 'the vicinity tneruul al to Les CILCUI.,4,1-0. iau..:. containers shall be exposed to the view of neighboring lots only when set cut for a reasonable period of time (not to exceed i twelve (12), hours boCcre and after scheduled trash collection hoursl . There shall be no exterior fires whatsoever except barbecue fires contained within receptacles therefor and fire , f i -e- e 1 , , SAN.BERNARD1NO;CA Page 8 of 18 Printed on WN2019 8:43:22 AM t Document:DR 1988.291661 Page 315 Page 234 Branch:R03,User:3500 Comment: Station ld:ZYNE , 88-;9iffil pits in the enclosed yards designed in ng orahousohold that fabrlc' do not create a fire hazard. !io clothing shall be hung, dried edinnthocProjoeh a t,iandhnoplunber,as Se be visible to other property, n s or plant waste. metals, bulk grass, shrub, or tree clipp gbe i x,atarials, scrap, refuse or trortionaaf thekprojectrexccPG i allowed to aeeucUlate on any P ro riately screened from within an enclosed atructura or app p view. rt s t v t' No activiiios Sh++ll Gn �2n zl�• and nfl Improvenenta shall be be conducted on any Lot, hich are or might be unsafe or haxar cus constructed on any Lot w to any person or property. d TSO portion of the soes33� or oce or mining. auarryir.3, , Project shall be uo�dexCar loringpfor er removing vator, oil, gas, drilling, boring, P ravel or earth. or other hydrocarbons, slLbereXp tacks, atones. t in the Project pe gravel or earth shoot be exported from any 1 so long as any other oat in the Project has a need for gravel or earth. u v• ; No pwnor shall further , c„ction 2_.14• Provided' Y,owever, that this sul3divide or partition his Lots Provision shall not be construed to limit the right of an pwner i (11 to rent or lease all of his oat by peons Of a written leasehe ' this or rental agreement subject LoetS6 nottleased°farftransient or � Declaration, so lung 7 transfer or 5e11 his hotal purpO5es* (2) to sell his Lot; or t ) as Iat to more than °ne Person to be hold dcby them or tenantsas I ity i common, joint tenants, tenants by , Property- Terms of any such rental or lease agreement sht�ll be subject in all rasPnets to the provisions Of to eomsly with then and any failure by the lessee of such Lot P y terms of this Declaration shall constitute a default under the lease. Ltaa�d S Wn a m - No individual water cpetSon Z�1�• osal system supply system; ,,rater softener system or sewage di8p 9ha11 be permitted on any Let unless such system is designed, th the located. constructedtdndaxdsnandgrecornmendationsed in dor any ance iappliabbic .My —rat. i.- i t% authority vaEer district and any having jurisdiction. Thery snaal p'� J.G _. ..u...C^• _ _ i with o�r o struction of the sect, �nieserjo ban+adeAuate alternative over any Lot within the Pro j roved in ' provision is made for proper drainage and is first approved Writing by the committee. Any alteration wjtph all yapplicable drainage pattern rcupC at all times comply purpose ose hereof, i local governmental ordinances. For the p rP. '•established" drainage is defined as the drainage which exists 1 i i , i SAN BERNARDINQ,CA Page 9 of 18 Printed on 8122120 1 9 9:43.23 AM Document: DR 1988.291661 Page 316 Page 235 Branch:ROWser:3500 Comment: Station Id:ZYNE �i9-291�1 ; at the tine the overall grading of any Lot is conpleted by Declarant, or that vhich is shown on any plans approved by he Committee. Each Cvner shall maintain. repair and replace and r keep fraa from debris or obstructions the drainage systca and I devices, it any, located on his Lot. r SP1?n-7•17• &SII trEncrev ."ngtallafijgns. The Ccpcittee shall approve the plans and specifications for the installation of residential (including swim-iing gaols) solar systors, provided chat the Committee decerr.+ines that such plans and specifications demonstrate the exercise of reasonable reascres to minimize the potential adverse aesthetic impact of the installation on. othor portions of the Project. The Committee shall promulgate reasonable standards and guidelines against vhich to examine any such plans and specifications, in aecordanea with ;.rtiele V of the Declaration. 11otwithstend1rq the foragoirg, any such Committee approval shall have no effect upon the enforceability of any other use restriction in the Declaration. ARTICLE III rASEMEICi S 1 t 0 t 1 Seetion_].01. Ut_i-Lity F.aserents- Each owner agrees, by the ' acceptance of his deed, that his Lot is granted subject to easelfents for utility installations and maintenance. Easements ' for installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are reserved as shown on any recorded Subdivision flap of the project, within these easenenta, no structure, planting or other material shall be placed or permitted to remain which may damage or interfere with the installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities. The utility casement area•: of each Lot and all It+provenents in it shall be maintained continuously by the Owner of such Lot, except for those Improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible. r sDf 'Asce4�s_t,$� 411_e_R_amd hrdlna9t' WRVS. Each � planer agrees for himsalr and his successors in interest, by the , acceptance of his deed, co permit free access by owners of other s Lots cc slopes or drainage ways, if any, located on his Lot, , which slopes or drairenr• wav- -7f'1— -..+ -'r,_ • _ "':uass 13 es t essential ter the maintenance of permanent , stabilization on such slopes or tar the maintenance nr ni!d '�:�::'.•}•� '7), "�: �', y��__.cn Lr zu ur Said other Lut3. , &�ctlan z.o3. .41Q2S—H2it>SRaans•e. The slope areas, if any, of each Lot and all Improvements in them shall be maintained continuously by the Owner of the Lot, except for those Improvements For which a public authority or utility company is responsible. r r i i i i r SAN BERNARDiNO,CA Page 10 Of 18 Printed on 8122/20 1 9 8:43:23 AM Document: DR 1988.291661 Page 317 Page 236 Branch:RO3,User:3500 Comment: Station Id:ZYNE t I Sec do fence, wall, hedge, or %litut planting which obstructs sight lines at elevations between two I and six feet above the Street shall be placed or permitted to renain on any corner Let within the triangular area forrtd by the street property lines and a line connecting then at Pointe twenty-five (25) feet from the intersection of the Street liner.. or in the cane of a rounded property corner from tht: intersection Of the Street property lines extended as it the , Streets intersected. The same sight—line limitations shall apply to any Lot within ten (10) feet from the Intersection of a Street property line with the edge of driveway or alley pavement, Ito trees shall be pe mitted to ruraln within such distance of such intersections unless the foliage line is naintained at sufficient height to prevent obstruction of the sight lines. t ARTICLE IV ` LAIMSCAPE 01 IAH section a.ql. Instailation of 4andsrafl within ninety (90) days after the close of escrow for the sale or a Lot with a Felling Unit thereon in the Project fron Declarant to a purchaser, the owner shall plant lawns or otherwise landscape the front yard and side yard in a neat and attractive condition, ` in accordance with a landscape plan approved in writing by the Committee pursuant to Article %' of this Declaration. within i twelve (121 months after close of escrow for the sale of a Lot with a ravelling Unit thereon in the Project from Declarant to a Purchaser, the owner shall plant lawns or otherwise landscape t his rear yard, and thereafter maihtain the landscaping of his rear yard in a neat and attractive condition, in accordance with a landscape plan approved in writing by the Committee pursuant to Article V of this Declaration. In the event such landscaping Jr. not completed within the tine-frame above mentioned, Declarant or the Committee may enter an to such Lot and carry out landscaping plans approved by the Committee at the expense of the owner of such Let. said plan shall provide for landscaping sufficient to prevent drainage or flow of water from said owner's Lot onto any adjacent Lot. All vegetation on the Lots shall be irrigated and fertilized regularly. Each Owner of a Lot shall cut, prune, irrigate and maintain regularly the , In the event of a failure of an owner to comply with any of the fnrcgnino regtsirrnr_nrn (which rai)tsre shall be rerjarded tis n nuisancel. the Committee or its sluiv alltnarizeQ appointees ar , agents shall s;o noeixy tnc UUnar anct direct •suu1 uwnet t.0 t , whatever work is necessary to secure compliance with this section. If within thirty (30) days alter such owner's receipt of said written notice, the owner's Lot still does not conform to the requirements of this Section, the Committee or its duly authorised appointees or agents shall have the right either to seek any remedies at law or in equity which it may have or to enter upon the offending Lot and remove weeds, rubbish or other materials and do all things necessary to place such Lot in , i I f s i 'I 1 i SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page I I of 18 Printed on 8/22l2019 8:43:23 AM I Document:DR 1988.291661 Page 318 page 237 Branch:R03,User:3500 Comment: Station 1d:ZYNE corpllance with this Section, including the installation, Irrigation and fertilization of vegetation and other landscaping. The connittoe shall have the right to order such work to be acCOnplisnod by any third party at any tire after sending notice to such Owner. The comnittee shall have the right to eonrence an action at law against any much owner to recover the cost of such work. Interest shall accrue on such delinquent amounts at the rate of ten percent (101) par arnun from and after eypiratian of such thirty (10) day period, and any judgment in favor of the Committee shall include all cost of suit and reasonable attorneys' foes. Serftion 4,02. `,,11or-lgr�MgInS_enonce_ and Repair! C-!ner's 0121 atjorlta. No Improvements anywhere within the Project shall bo permitted to fall into disrepair, and each Ynprovamnnt shall at all times be }.opt in good condition and repair. In tlhe ev.:.^.; that any owner shall permit any Improvenent, which is the responsibility of such owner to naintain, to fall into disrepair so as to create a dangerous, unsafe, unsightly or unattractive condition, the Committee upon fifteen (15) days prior Written notice to the Owner of such property, shall have the right to Correct such condition, and to enter upon such Owner's Lot for the purpose of doing so, and such owner shall prorptly rainburso the Committee for the cost thereof. Such cost shall be recoverable by the Committee in the same manner as set forth in Section 4.0I of this Articic. The owner of the offending LOL shall be personally 1Lable, and his Lot may be subject to €e = chanic's lion, for all costs and cxpcnacs incurred by the Committee in taking nuch corrective acts, plus all costs incurred in collecting the amounts dye. Each Owner shall pay ` all amounts dun for such work with ten (10) days after receipt of written demand therefor. ' ARTICLE V CN p !VS CA Pr JIGCOM17T7gE ' action_s,o1, H-enbers of Caw..mittee. The Architectural and Landscape Committee, sometimes referred to in this Declaration as the "Committee", shall consist of representatives of peciarant whose business address is P.D. Box 7000-321, Rancho Cucamangga, California 91701. Declarant shall have the unrestricted right to appoint and remove a majority of the rsnnljere of rl2n ...a r— eJ f l . ... .r nalority os the roomers of the Ccmzlittee rnd-to'fill any vacancy } of such majority until the "turnover slate" which Thal) hn the ,�=c :—'r. ciu.tc .:, ns,wty [�rr:�1,t lb4y at cfw wto , • r' '. �l .. J..I.0 w,.ui. :aL alS •tftL tiJ� f:4 i':SS recorded ("Close of Escrow") , or (2) five years following the date or issuance of the Final Subdivision Public Report for the , Project, whichever occurs earlier. Declarant nay at any tins , assign in writing such powers of removal and appointment to any , developer of Lots in the Project, subject to such terns and conditions as Declarant may impose. Commencing one (1) year from the date of Close of Escrow for the Tale of the first Lot in the r SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 12 of 18 Printed on 8122/2019 8:43:23 AM Document: DR 1988.291661 Page 319 Page 238 Branch:R03,User.3500 Comment: Station Id ZYNE 88-291661 r Project to a purchaser (other than a developer) from Declarant, i the Owners of a na)ority of the Lots (excluding Lot awred ty Declarant) shall have the power to appoint in writing ono (1; nembor to the Cormittee, until the turnover date. Thereafter, t the owners of a majority of the Lots (including Lets owned ky Declarant) shall have the power to appoint and remove all of thr aanbers of the eemnittee. kenbers of the Committee appointed to the Ccrnittee l:y Reel Slant need nst ba residents of the Pra•.'Jcr: i but all other neabers of the Corrnittee nust be full tire residents of the Project. i Section 5.aZ. }leet ngs_gfthe CafitnitzQS. Thu Committee i shall meet iron, time to tire as necessary to perrorn its duties hereunder. The Camnittce may from time to time, by resaluticn tsnani::ously adopted in writing, deoignate a Co:nit_ea Representative (Lho nay, but Deed not, be one of its rembers) t= take any action or perforn any duties for and on behalf cf the Committee, except the grAnting of variances pursuant to Sectlo.i 5.08 hereof. In the absence of such designation, the vote or ' the vrittpn consent of a majority of the Caraitteo taken without a treating shall constitute an act of the committeo. ' r $gction 5.01, l"sa jj _ er of Future AnprgyAls, The approval of the committee to any proposals or plans and spamirleations or drawings for Any Lork done or proposed or in connection with any ether natter requiring the approval and consent of the caarnittee shall not be doered to constitute a waiver of any right to withhold approval or consent as to any similar proposaln, plans and specifications, drawings or ratter whatever subsequently or additionally submitted for Approval or consent. ' i gpction 5,25. CnmpnrjieZtion of Mombarw. The oenbers of the ' CaflZittee shall receive no compensation for services rendered. ' other than reirbursoment for expenses actually incurred by then in the performance of their duties hereunder. faction $.OS. Correction of Dafgc&%. Inspection of wort: � and correction of detects therein shall proceed as follows: r (a) The Committee or its duly authorized representative nay at any time inspect any Improvement for which Amnroval of nlnns is ,!..an. ar. n-«_.,,, .. . .. :,,_ v ro•weyer. that LAC Committee's right of inspection of Improvocents for which plans have. boon submitted and arnroved � given written notice to the Committea of such completion. The Committee's rights of inspection shall not torninate pursuant to this paragraph In the event that plans for the wort: of Improvement have not previously been :ubtaitted to and approved , by the comaittee. If, as a result, of such inspection, the Committee finds thdt such Improvement war. done without obtaining r approval of the clans therefor or was not done in substantial cor..pliance with the plans approved by the committee, it shall , i i i SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 13 of 18 Printed on 9/22/2019 8:43:23 AM Document: DR 1988.291661 Page 320 Page 239 Branch:RO3,User:3500 Comment: Station Id:ZYNE i , I 88-291661 notify the owner in writing 40) of days flane to Co. the inspection, SPecifyi.nR Article V within sixty ( ) Y the particulars of ncncocPli'anee. The cos.3ittee shall ha•re tt^.a authority to require tho oner to take such action as nsi' te, ' pocessary to remedy the nonoorpliance. (b) It Upon the expiration of sixty 160) I days train the date of such ratification, the vrner rhall haaa l I failed to remedy such ntncoaPliance, the coaYiremovinglthe sane, i dete mina the estimated cost of oorrectinq I and the .Cammittetr, at its option, may record a notice of ` nenronpliance in Che Ofiicc of the: County ]tecorder of San nernardLi3ino and may peacefully remedy the nonGomplianco. and trio 1 owner shall :ai-bursa the Corlittoe, with demand, for all expenses incurred in connectwnerion ttartt,etConssittee,,.htham the not promptly repaid by Committee shall have all rights at law or in cyuit1 to aeon such exponses, in accordance with the provisions of Section of this Declaration. ' to (c) If for any =canon the Camr+lttce fails Submitted notify the Owner of any noncomplia�nncedaithys a�rerirecaipisild ' and approved plans within sixty ( ) written notice of canplotion from the owner; the ropedvpldns. ' shall be deet,ed to be iri,accordance with said approved , ltcither I Oc i eclar nt�e committee nor any member thereof, nor their dul} authorized representative shall be liable to any ownay connectedy lose, damage or injury arising cut of or in any way Witt) the poriormance of the C0PMIttee's dutias hereunder, unless duo to the willful Misconduct or bad faith of the Committee The Committee shall review and approve or disapprove all plans Or subnitted to it for any proposed Ipprovencnt, alteration addition, oa the basis of satisfaction of tha iteration with the grading plan, location of the Improvements on the Lot, the firiishad ground elo style and vatlon the color scheme, finish, design, i proportions, architecture, shape, height, ; appropriateness of proposed Improvements to views from typeoof tng Lets, the materials used therein, the kinds, p M. r�+rrS rherevn, the Planting 'landscaping_ , size, height or location of vegetaeaon un a -cL, t,r aesthetic considerations andjthe over'le benefit or'nArcr detrim nt aild the which Would YCS,iLC t4 :L� - :'L'••ltfati4in tnr-• i generaLly. I aesthetic aspects yof�the architectural designs, placer-cz and buildings, landscaping, color schenes, extoriormaterials and similar features, but Shall not be responsible for ravias+ing, not shall 'its hpproval of any plans or design be deemed approval of, any plan or design from the standpoint s • structural safety or conformance with building or other eadea k caction 5.07. Vim. The Committee may authorize variances from compliance with any of the architectural 4 I i I I , , , SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 14 of 18 Printed on 812212019 8:43:23 AM Document:DR 1998.291661 I. Page 321 Page 240 Branch:R03,User:3500 Comment: Station Id:ZYNE 88-291661 provisions of this Declaration, including without lininatian restrictions upon height, size, floor area or placement of atructures, or similar restrictions when circucstancos such as topography, natural obstructions, hardship, aestha tic or environmental consideration may require. Such variances rust be i evidenced in writing, must be signed by nt least a najority of the committee and nhall become effective upon recordation in the orrice of the County Recorder of San Bernardino. If such variances are granted, no Violation of the covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall be deemed to have occurred with respect to the batter for which the variance war granted. The granting of such a variance shall not operate to waive any of the terns and provisions or this Declaration for any purpose excupt as to the particular property and particular provision hereof covered by the variance, nut i shall it affect In any way the owner's obligation to ccaply with , all governmental laws and regulations affecting the use of his Lot, including but not limiters to zoning ordinances and Lot setback lines or requirenents imposed by any governountal authority. ARTICLE VI T€RM111 J. AMENDMErrr Ar+D_5�eQ�eri[TY Section 6.01. Termination and Amendirgnt. All the covenants, conditions, and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall run with the Project and shall be binding on. and enforceable by, all owners far a period of tioa extending until December 11, 2023, and thereafter said covenants, conditions and restrictions shall automatically be extended for successive periods of ten (In) years, unless, by a written instrument signed by the ownurn of seventy-five percent (7St) or the Lots at any time and recorded in the Office of the San i Bernardino County Recorder, the owners determine to revoke or chnngt in whole or in part this Declaration, subject to the i provisions of Article V11 of this Declaration. i g?�tian 6.07. Severability. Invalidation of any one of the casements, covenants, conditions or restrictions of this Declaration by judgment or court order shall not affect any other provisions shall rennin in full force and effect. ARTICLE VII r+•c..5++•n.! n T••ntt�� nc nrn..r•.••• � i nothing in this Declaration shall limit the right of Declarant to complete construction of Irprovenonts on the Project or to alter the foregoing, or to construct such additional Improvements as Doclarant deers advisable prior to the completion and the sale by Declarant, of all of the Lots in the Project. Such rights shall include, but shall not be ` limited to, orecting, constructing, and maintaining on any portion of the project owned by Doclarant such structures and ' i SAN BERNARDINQ,CA Fags 15 of 18 PHnied on 8/2212019 8:43:24 AM I Document,DR 1989.291661 Page 322 Page 241 Branch:RO3,User:3500 Comment: Station Id:ZYNE , 88 -291661 , displays as nay be reasonably necessary for the conduct or its , business of completing the wort. and disposing of the sane by sale, lease, or otherwise. Declarant upecifically reserves the right to use any unsold Lots on the Project for models and sales- officer., and further renarves the right to rent any unsold I Lot%. This Declaration shall not limit the right of Declarant I at any time prior to acquisition of title to a Lot by a purchaser from Declarant to establish on the Lot nddltional i easements, reservations and rights-of-way for itself, utility companies, or other as may from time to tine be reasonably i necessary for the property development and disposal of the Project. Declarant reserves the right to alter its construction , plans and designs as it deems appropriate. Declarant further reserves the right to alter floor plans, styles, quality, sixo and cost of Gwe)ling Units ounad by Declarant in the Project without first seeking the approval of the Committee. Declarant may further subdivide any Lot owned by ❑eclarant. The rights of i Declarant hereunder maybe assigned by Declarant to any successor to all or part of Declarant's interest in the Project. The provisions of this Article shall not be altered or terninated without the prior written consent of Declarant fo so long as any Lots in the Project remain unsold. ARTICLE VIII HFSCELL t1E4115 I SRstion_fl.D1. KnI2r;.Urent. Breach of any of the casements, covennnts, conditions, or restrictions contained in this Declaration and the continuation of any such breach may be enjoined, abated, or remedied by appropriate legal or equitable proceedings by an owner, by the .13mmittee for member thereof), i by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or by Declarant' provided, however, that any matter duly approved by the Committee as provided herein shall be deemed not to be in violation of any provision of this Declaration. It is hereby agreed that recovery of damages at law for any breach of the prcvisions of this Declaration would not be an adequate remedy. Breach of any easements, covenants, conditions, or restrictions contained in ' this Declaration shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any recorded Mortgago, or any part thereof, made in good faith and for value as to env hot of the Prnipet, but such covenants, conditions, and restrictions sndil me binding and offectiva against any Owner of a Lot or Lots whose title thereto I Sncrign 8,0/. Co5t5 and Attorneys Fees. if an action is instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce any of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, or easements contained in this Declaration, the party against whom the judgment decree, order, or declaration is entered shall, and agrees to, pay all costs of suit and a reasonable 4Lterney's fee, such as may be cstablishod by said court. i -14- , I I I I , , SAN SERNARDINO,CA Page 16 of 18 Printed on 812212019 8:43:24 AAA Document:DR 1988.291661 Page 323 Page 242 Branch:1103,User:3500 Comment: Station ld:ZYNE r , I 88-281661 + Se n g atib o representations or warranflf-ntien..f any kind, express or implied, have 'been given or made by Declarant, or its agents or' enplayecm in connection with the Project or any portion of the Project i dealing with its physiCal condition, zoning, compliance with , applicable lass, purpose for intended use, nor in connection I with the subdivision, sales operation, or use, of the Pro}cct , except as specifically and expressly set torah in. this Declaration and except as may be filed by Declarant from time to I ties With the Cal irornia Department of Real Estate or with any other governmental authority. A*rurtiV ttot{cP and ACCetYYaQ'. Every person who owns, occupies or acquires any rig he, title, estate E or intereat in or to any Lot of other portion of the rroject does and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to the reasonableness and binding effect of every I limitation, restriction, casement,reaervation, eor.3ition and covenant contained herein, whether or not any reference to % Declaration Ls contained in the ihstrutrent by Which such person acquired an interest in the Pro}art, or any Dartien thereof. t o �,p�b�ioatian o[ owners. Each 4>~rer shallll�bo OIL_" responsible for insuring all of his Dwelling Units, including without limitation the structural portions of I such Dwelling Units, against loss or damage by fire or other casualty. Each owner shall also be solely responsible for obtaining adequate comprehensive public liability insurance, and malicious mischief, insuring including radical p4ynentg a njury, death and property damage against liability for bodily i ; arising from his activities on his tat. Section L_U- i's:• . Any notice permitted or required to I be delivered as provided herein shall be in writing and ray he F delivered either personally or by mail. If delivery is made by mail, It shall be deemed to have been delivered forty-eight (48) hours alter a copy of the same has been deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to any person at the address given by such person to the Conmftitoc for the purpose'01 service of such notice, or to the residence of such person it ne address has been given to the committee, �5uoh addressrmay{hi^^ cnangeo ttvC Line Lu :,;1 t, TJI P__day �c13ranT� has rtxert+tad thlr• Declaration 1s of this i lope, I I RANCHO ASSOCIATES, Ltd., a , Cyl�fo/rnia G nera] Fartnerrflh,ip I , , I SAN B.ERNARDINO,CA Page 17 of 18 Printed on 8/22i2019 8:43 24 AM Document:DR 1988.291661 Page 324 Page 243 Branch:RO3,User:3.500 Comment:. Station ld:ZYNE I � I S:`iiiz f:F W:,LI}'CFt.I [ f]t7�29t%l �. 1 t r GP SAN BFApinkDNe f r;, this 29"'i0 of August l,g8b, be;ara roc the srdersignCsi i a :.ovary l;ulilic in anti for spz4 state, personalt! appeared Yet neth £, LaDa=, i.ttarn��y-i !'ac,t of !lam:tho hsscc'iates, Ltd„ a Cal forma general partnershzp, snowy to to ht, the Iverson I hO exerutad the within 7n3trun;ont on behalf of tha Partnershil, I thert•tn namo-1, 1n hr, arkr.[x3c;ge,1 to rr.: •:Gat .nu,,h i+ar•ntur!+il t:rc.ateti the rants, and al'et: known to be the parmen Whose name t is sabs,ribccl to the within Instrument as nttbrnej--in-Pa,t I or kanchri Assocs.::rs Gt{i.., and aeknowledgod to rae that ha I subacrihert .the name of Rancho AsibCiates, Lrd.. tthareto as a nartt,ership and his Own name aS .Attorney-in-Fart. I WIVIrSIS my [ind an� Cfi ial, eal. + / r ! +51gratef—:: I it . mm"UM Nk MONIANA -� Vitt , , e i + 1 I � 1 ; 1 SAN BERNARDINO,CA Pagc IS of 18 Prinlcd on 8/22/2019 8:43.24 AM Document:DR 1988.291661 Page 325 Page 244 Branch:Ra3,User:3500 Commeritt Station)d ZYNE Racarded in official Records, County of San ear'nard1reo, Larry Walker,, Rsccrdsr Doc No . 29000.084209 RECOROtNt3 REQUESTED BY: 08 A.0am 03/14 00 First American Title Company WHEN RECORDED MAILTO:. First bra title B 1611 First 323 Co rt Sete t I 3 5 a 7 a ! C San Bernardino,, CA 92401-_ ea rrt eea sale rn rn ten M m ue ra M nm Atm. Sheila G1aBs' 94540 S S b SPA. s' rr errm mee ru ar. Mile race '�1f��'+•, +� �, i14C'G�i•[�e(`CT.-��In-, tti�l��- � �' ��r5 - THIS CERTIFICATE OF UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE ("Cart111cate"):is hereby made as of this 5th day of March. 2040,with reference to the following. A. The undersigned constitute all of the members of the Architectural and Landscape Committee(the"Comm__ lt#ae')estabUshed pursuant l0 Section 5.01 of That certain Dedaration of Covenants,Conditions and Restrlctiaris and Reservation of Easements for Tract No. 10035.City of Rancho Cucamonga,County of San Bernardino,State of California,recorded on August 31, 1988, as Instrument No. 88.291651. in the Official Records of Sort Bernardino County,Calitarnia(the"fleclaratfon"),as appointed by the owner of the majority of lots within the property covered by the Declaration., B. Pursuant to Section 6.07 of the Declaration, the Committee teas approved, by unanimous consent, a variance from those certain building height restrictions established in Section 2.04 of the of the Declaration. NOW,THEREFORE,the Corrmlittee,by-its execution below,hereby cartiries as fcilows: 1. The reference:in Section 104 of the Declaration with respect to the maximum roof helght.of structures on Lots 1 to 21.Inr:Iusive,is hereby deleted. The owner of such Lots 1 to 21, inchrsive,shall not be subject to any root,structure,or building height limitation, provided that any structure to be.constructed on any such Lot(s) complies with the requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2. The foregoing variance to the restrictions set forth in the Declarabon has been unanimously approved by the member;of the Committee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the members of the Committee Have executed this Cer-Acate as of the date first above written. 'r1115IiiSrRl�lel.'eYff!r,1 ra4 316AS�82797Ev1 t� C' +'M1.,h •••. � s.a'ea�'�7l!:5:.111y - p!'t' p}FI.I:S Lt'�ii rir�.• SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page I of 4 Printed on 8f2212019 8:43,24 AM Documcnt:DR 2000.84209 Page 326 Page 245 Branch:1103,User:3500 Comment: Station Id:ZYNE MteMala Associates,L.P..a Washington limited partnership By: Polygon lands,Inc.,a Washington corporation,its general partner r By: �s d G.F.Ledwith,Vicc President MacMuin Associates,L.P.,a Washington limited partnership gu: Polygon Lands,Inc.,a Washington corporation,its gates!p By: !i A.Pit Vice Presid M MacMain Associates,L.P„a Washington limited partnership By: Polygon Lands,Inc.,a Washington corporaticn,its general partner L.W.Bam,Secretary Treasurer stassrex�ts.t SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 2 of Printed on 8/22/2019 8:43:24 AM Document: DR 2000.84209 Page 327 Page 246 Branch :R03,User-3500 Comment: Station WZYNE w�+cxt STATE OF0GA♦F9RNIAr ) 1 ss. COUNTY OF sKAGiT ? On March 6 , 2000. before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public In and for said County and State, personally appeared Geo>:ge F- lkawiOl personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(Q-whose name(also as subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hehhehhey executed the some in hirdherltheir authorized capacity(le*, and thal by his t#e lr signaturefoon the Instrument the person{yr or the entity upon behalf of which the person(a}-acted,executed the within instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. C �4 :�P� �i59i�N `S'G��► otary P tfc- Kathryn L. Sutton r :U NOrq�y a+S I+johary Public in and for the State of t+3ashisrgton Residing in Skagit ommty Sri r .curt: My Caniasion Esoires: 5-9-2002 T OF t6A�IF�BRWIA- 1 �n%iSt STATE .. )ES. COUNTY OF SK1 IT ) On , 2000, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved W me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person*whose name*isAwe subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me [hat hakAe4ey executed the same in heir authorized capacltyf+e* and that by hisl fAhe3lF slgnature{y on the instrument the person(Q, or the entity upon behalf of which the person,e+actsd,executed the within Irrrlrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. = t'��;Y ra � ;� ructr fir:: -+'► Notary blic - lrethiyn L. Sutton Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Ftes).W t in Skagit county t w oprnissior+ aspires: 5-9-2002 r+� :.;''•n a .. _ 3054279790 i r _. SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 3 of Printcd on 8/2212019 8:43:25 AM Document: DR 2000.84209 Page 328 Page 247 Branch:R03,Uscr:3500 Comment: Station Id:ZYNE WAS8]NG M STATE OF 6A61FORNIA—• } COUNTY OF } On Maxeh 6 , 2000, y fo p�e• the undersigned, arNotary Public In and for said County and Stale, personal) appeared W. personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of sallsfectory evidence) to be the person(e+whose names} islets subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hskAwAba* executed the same In h1sftw6 l3 4 authorized capaclty(lee}; and INd by hisRser airsignatureWon the instrument the personfO,or the entity upon behalf of whiff the person(rr•acted,executed the within instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ,,< -�y.r�••�,� �;�' ... 6 y tf t r`1 14+f Iary Pu I1c Notary public in and for•the stai:e of Wasf'ri rnton ��,' ;,'':r•' � Presiding in Skagit C=tY "r� `':.'. ;a _ My Cmmission Fires: 5-9-2002 +•ti..�'i,ri'. _ }�6BSIA2T979vt SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page 4 of 4 printed on W2/2019 8:43:25 AM Document:DR 2000,84209 Page 329 page 248 EXHIBIT 3 CC &R MODIFICATION March 14, 2000 Page 330 Page 249 Branch :1103,User:3500 Comment: Station Id:ZYNE Racarded 1n Offlalal Raeords, County of San Bernardlna, Larry Walkar, Aaaordor Doc No. 20000084209 RI:CORUING REQUESTED BY: 08 . 00am 03/14/00 First American Title Company WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO; First Arlin Title B I fli I!Lrst American T'ft1L- Go. 23 Cou ree l 2 7 ti T ! f Son Bernardino CA 92401 PC 1° An 91148 P° IV ru R rca Accn. Sheila Glass. 94540 5 5 8 SPA.'"*sr ur m co I Wasut of aua MM THIS CERTIFICATE OF UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE (gff111 bate") is hereby made as of INS 6th day of March, 2000,with reference to the following. A. The undersigned consfilute all of Lhe members of the Architectural and Landscape Committee (the`Committee') established pursuant to Section 5.01 of that certain Declaration of Covenants.Conditions Elnd Restrictions and Reservation of Easements for Tract No.10035,City of Rancho Cucamonga,County of San Bernardino,Stale of California,recorded on August 31. 1988, as Instrument No. BB-291881, in the OfiMclal Records of San Bernardino County,CalNomla(the'g aclaration%as appointed by the owner of the majority of lots within the property covered by the Declaration- B. Pursuant to Section 5.07 of the Declaration, the Committee has approved, by unanimous consent. a variance from those certain building height restrictions established In Section 2.04 of the of the Declaration. NOW,THEREFORE.1he Commttee,by Its execution below,hereby certifies as tcHOWS: 1. The reference in Section 2.04 of the Declaration with respect to the ma,dmum roof height of structures on Lots 1 to 21,inclusive,is hereby deleted. The owner of such Lots i to 21.Inclusive,shall not be subject to any roof.structure,or building height limllalion, provided that any structure to be constructed on any such Lots)complies with the requirements of the City or Rancho Cucamonga. 2_ The foregoing variance to the restrictions set forth In the Declaration has been unari[mously approved by the members of the Committee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the members of the Committee have executed this Certificate as of the date First above written. 71i151NS-WlF..11-IT FIIr'1roQ cr^''%13Y �'r}Tnr�F.Rl�AN SIGSSifl27976v! �.!l,y. 1:fly ,I:'.14)r'.y•5: 111`J ESE:[.�j,:,1IrIE,�'. ,:'-•`• ' �.t,.ci L pd[I irra.� SAN BERNARDINO,CA Page I of Printed on 8/2212019 8:43.24 AM Document:DR 2000.84209 Page 331 Page 250 EXHIBIT~ 4 CONCORDIA HOMES GRANT DEED Page 332 Page 251 R■oarded in Off1C1bl1 Rotorua, CoLnty of Smn Bernardino, Larry W kar. Recorclar REC61)INC 1tEQllESTED IIY Doc No . 20000110994 First American-1 AND W}iEAt RECORDRD 03 : 00pm 0a3/3 1/00 RECORDED 1tIA1L TO; Concordia Homes of Southern California First �;� Title � � ��� 1131 West Sixth Street,Suite 110 ri i i Ontario.CA 91762 t V 2 7 r,M a 7 1.' " 11 1111 ra in .11" Elms Fit OFT C9T CFY AUG■M Pelt rtt rats ttaM!r In sYT cnio rums TAY 111 omo Y A.P.N.:0207-631-01 thru 11;0267-641.01 thru ld Order No.:296391 Escrow No.:9454US GRANT DEED THE UNDERSIUNED GRANTOR(s)DECLAREW THAT DOCUlt EMARY TRANSFER TAX IS:COUNTY 5-0$j, 150 I X�I carnpuled au full value of property conveyed,or ({ u:puted on full value less Yalue of liens or eticutnbranem remaining at timt of sale, uteittcorporawd area; I X] City of Pjancho Cucamonga,and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Receipt of'which is hereby acknowledged, MacMaIn Associates, L.P.,a WashingtDn Limited Partnership hereby GRANT(S)to Concordia Hems of Southern California, a California Corporation the following described property in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. County of San Bernardino State of CalirDmin: Lots 1 to 21 Inclusive,Track No.10035, in the City or Rancho Cucamonga, County or San Bernardino, State of California.as per plot recorded In Book 179 of Maps, Page(s) 33 through 35 inclusive, Records of said County, MadMain Associates, L.P..a Washington Limited Partnership George Ledwith Document Date; December 17, 1999 STATE OFC�L LoAS}isNET&A) ),SS COUNTY OF Kl At G- ) On before ttr:_ �V p tU fi �W 1 L L f PS ?A N FUJILid personally appeared &c o lt:figP 1_A D lei t ZA penanally known to me(or proved to me an the b>tsb of satlsfactury evidence)to be the peraon(s)whosa mmc(s)Ware subscribed ro the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helthelthey executed the same Its hisllterlthcir authorized capacl(y(tr s)and that by hislbcr.1their alanature(s) on the Instrument the fvrwntat ur the tansy upktn txhulrof which the perwn(s)actny executed the 1n3uumwtt WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature r R.• YVONNE PHILLIPS Notary Public/for the State of Washington STATE OF WASHINGTON Residing in Seattle, Washington NOTARY--•--PUBLIC My appointment Expires: 06-01-2003 MY COMMISSION WIRES 6-01-b31 Mail Tax Stalemenis to: SAME AS ABOVE or Address Noted Below Page 333 Page 252 EXHIBIT 5 CC &R REPRINTING Page 334 Page 253 PORTIONS OF AND REPRINTED FOR CLARITY., DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATION OF EASEMENTS FOR TRACT NO.10035 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Section 2.04 View Obstructions. Subject to the exemption of Declarant as set forth In this Declaration,no vegetation,Improvement,or other obstructions shall be planted,constructed,or maintained on any lot in such location or of such height as to unreasonably obstruct the view from any other Lot in the Project. Each Owner of a Lot shall be responsible for the periodic trimming and pruning of all hedges shrubs and trees located on his Lot,so as to not unreasonably obstruct the view from adjacent Lots. In the event of a dispute between Owners as submitted to the Committee,whose decisions on such matter shall be binding. Any such obstruction shall,upon request of the Committee, be removed or otherwise altered to the satisfaction of the Committee,by the Owner of the Lot upon which said obstruction Is located. in the event that any Owner shall fail to remove or otherwise alter any such obstruction in accordance with the requests of the Committee,the Committee or its duly authorized appointees or agents,upon fifteen(15)days prior written notice to the Owner of the affected Lot,shall have the right to correct such condition,and enter upon such Owner's Lot for the purpose of doing so,and such Owner-shall promptly reimburse the Committee of the cost thereof. Such cost shall be recoverable by the Committee in the�same manner as set forth in Article IV of this declaration. For purposes of this Section 2.04,.AA,Owner's"view"shall be deemed to exclude any line of sight from such Owner's Lot which intersects or traverses any neighboring Lot,which•is of equal or greater elevation at the time the grading and initial construction of improvements of the Project is completed by Declarant. Each Owner, by accepting a deed to the Lot,hereby acknowledges that the line of sight from Lots in the Project at the time such Lots were originally offered for sale to the public.by Declarant may be subject to subsequent obstruction as a result of future construction or plantings by Declarant or by.other Owners pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the Committee in accordance with this Section 2.04 and Article V of this Declaration. The maximum roof height of Lots:I to 21 shall not exceed twenty-four(24)feet above top of curb at the center of the lot. (Amended and deleted 3-14-2000 prior to sale of lots 1-21 to Concordia) ARTICLE V ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Section 5.01 Members of Committee. The Architectural and Landscape Committee,sometimes referred to in this Declaration as the"Committee,"shall consist of representatives of Declarant whose business address is P.O.Box 7000-311, Rancho Cucamonga,California 91701, Declarant shall have the unrestricted right to appoint and remove a majority of the members of the Committee and to fill any vacancy of:such majority of the members of the Committee and to fillany vacancy of such majority until Page 335 page 254 the"turnover date"which shall be the date on which either(1)ninety percent(90%)of the lots subject to this Declaration have been sold and the deeds recorded ("Close of Escrow"),or(2)five years following the date of issuance of the Final Subdivision Public Report for the Project,whichever occurs earlier. Declarant may at any time assign in writing such powers of removal and appointment to any developer of Lots in the Project,subject to such terms and conditions as Declarant may impose. Commencing one(1)year from the date of Close of Escrow for the sale of the first Lot In the Project to a purchaser(other than a developer)from Declarant,the Owners of a majority of the Lots(excluding Lot owned by Declarant)shall have the power to appoint in writing one(1) member to the Committee,until the turnover date. Thereafter,the Owners of a majority of the Lots(including Lots owned by Declarant) shall have the power to appoint and remove all of the members of the Committee. Members of the Committee appointed to the Committee by Declarant need not be residents of the Project but all other members of the Committee must be full time residents of the Project. Section 5.02 Meetings of the Committee The Committee shall meet from time to time as necessary to perform its duties hereunder. The Committee mayfrom time to time,by resolution unanimously adopt In writing,designate a Committee Representative(who may,but need not, be one of its members)to take any action or perform any duties for and on behalf of the Committee,except the granting of variances pursuant to Section 5.08 hereof. In the absence of such designation,the vote or the written consent of a majority of the Committee taken without a meeting shall constitute an act of the Committee. Section 5.03 No Waiver of Future Approvals. The approval of the Committee to any proposals or plans and specifications or drawings for any work done or proposed or in connection with any other matter requiring the approval and consent of the Committee shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any right to withhold approval or consent as to any similar proposals,plans and specifications, drawings or matter whatever subsequently or additionally submitted for approval or consent. Sectlon 5.04 Compensation of Members. The members of the Committee shall receive no compensation for services rendered,other than reimbursement for expenses actually incurred by them in the performance of their duties hereunder. Section 5.05 Correction of Defects. Inspection of work and correction of defects therein shall proceed as follows: (a) The Committee or its duly authorized representative may at any time inspect any Improvement for which approval of plans is required under this Article V provided,however, that the Committee's right of inspection of Improvements for which plans have been submitted and approved shall terminate sixty(60)days after such work of Improvement shall have been completed and the respective Owner shall have given written notice to the Committee of such completion. The Committee's rights of inspection shall not terminate pursuant to this paragraph in the event that plans for the work of Improvement have not previously been submitted to and approved by the Committee. If,as a result of such inspection,the Committee finds that such improvement was done without obtaining approval of the plans therefore or was not done in substantial compliance with the plans approved.by the Committee,it shall notify the Owner in writing of failure to comply with this Article V within sixty(60) days from the inspection,specifying the particulars of noncompliance. The Committee shall have the authority to require the Owner to take such action as may be necessary to remedy the noncompliance. Page 336 Page 255 (b) If upon the expiration of sixty(60)days from the-date of such notification,the Owner shall have failed to remedy such noncompliance,the Committee shall determine the estimated cost of correcting or removing the same,and the Committee,at its option, may record a notice of noncompliance In the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino and may peacefully remedy the noncompllance,and the Owne.rshall reimburse the Committee,upon demand,for all expenses incurred in connection therewith. If such expenses are not promptly repaid by the Owner to the Committee,then the Committee shall have all rights at law or in equity to collect such expenses,in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.01 of this Declaration. (c) if for any reason the Committee falls to notify the Owner of any noncompliance with previously submitted and approved plans within sixty(60)days after receipt of said written.notice of completion from the Owner,the Improvement shall be deemed to be in accordance with said approved plans. Section 5.06 Non-Liability bf Committee Members. Neither Declarant,the Committee nor any member thereof,nor their duly authorized representative shall be liable to any Owner for any loss, damage or injury arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of the Committee's duties hereunder,unless due to the willful any or bad faith of the Committee. The Committee shall review and approve or disapprove all plans submitted to it for any proposed Improvement, alteration:or addition,on the basis of satisfaction of the,Committee with the grading plan,location of the Improvements on the Lot,.the finished ground-elevation,the color scheme,finish,design, proportions, architecture,shape,height,style and appropriateness of proposed Improvements to view from adjoining Lots,the materials used therein,:the kinds,pitch or type of roof proposed to be place thereon, the planting landscaping,size,height or location of vegetation on a lot,or on the basis of aesthetic considerations:and the overall benefit or detriment.which would result to the immediate vicinity and the .Project generally. The Committee shall take into consideration the aesthetic aspects of the architectural designs,placement of buildings,landscaping,color schemes, exterior finishes,and material and similar feature,but shall not be responsible for reviewing,not shall its approval of any plans or design be deemed approval of, any plan or design from the standpoint of structural safety or conformance with building or other codes. Section 5.07. Variances. The Committee may authorize variances from compliance with any of the architectural provisions of this Declaration,Including without limitation restrictions upon height,size, floor area or placement of structures,or similar restrictions when circumstances such as topography, natural obstructions, hardship,aesthetic or environmental consideration may require. Such variances must be evidenced'In writing,must be signed by at least a majority of the Committee and shall become effective upon recordation in the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino. If such variances are granted,no violation of the covenants,conditions,and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall be deemed to have occurred with respect to the matter for which the variance was granted. The granting of such a variance shall not operate to waive any of the terms and provisions of this Declaration for any purpose except as to the particular property and particular provision hereof covered by the variance, not shall it affect in any way the Owner's obligation to comply with all governmental laws and regulations affecting the use of his Lot,including but not limited to zoning,ordinances and Lot setback lines or requirements imposed by any governmenta[authority. Page 337 Page 256 Section 8.04 Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who owns,occupies or acquires any right,title,estate or interest in or to any Lot or other portion of the Project does and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to the reasonableness and binding effect of every limitation,restriction,easement,reservation,condition and covenant contained herein,whether or not any reference to Declaration is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Project,or any portion thereof. Page 338 Page 257 EXHIBIT 6 PLANNING STAFF POWERPOINT 1 Page 339 Page 258 Jane and John Adams 8045 Camino Predera Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 (909) 605-3312 September 26,2019 Ulo Certifled Mull#70171070 000 34061225 Mr.John R.Gllllson City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Dear Mr.Gllllson: I RE: THE HILLSIDE ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO-CAMINO PREDERA IN THE Bra HILL AREA I am appalled, bewildered and disheartened. My husband and I are owners of tot 12 of Tract 10035 otherwise known as 8045 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga,California 91730, along with two(2) adjoining vacant lots(Lot 11 and Lot 10), all which we purchased 12 years ago. The land is governed by the Hillside Development Ordinance and located in the Red Hill area. B045 was purchased with approved plans and we built the house pursuant to those plans,over a decade ago. Our intent was to build two more houses,in the future,for family members. Our expectation was that we could build similarly in accordance with the plans approved for Lot 12. As I am sure you may already be aware that since 2004--and before---Lots 1-21 of Tract 10035 have been the subject of much discussion at the "Neighborhood Meetings" (which often turned venomous), the Planning Department, Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. Applicants desiring to building on those lots have been denied, discouraged and derailed with obstructive and Irrational objections. Notwithstanding the fact that an applicant may have met all the technlcal requirements,they have been forced to attend meeting after meeting,multiple resubmissions of their plans and delays of, not just months,but yearsl---all In an effort to appease a handful of vocal apposition,who is willing to mount an onslaught of objections and appeals. What I have witnessed over all this time is that the City of Rancho Cucamonga,appearing to"take sides", has provided the same few Individuals(hereinafter referred to as"dissenters")a platform from which they have created dissension among the residents of Red Hill and lashed out with ad hominem attacks at applicants during many meetings. I have recorded a litany of statements made during some of these meeting just as an example:"You might reconsider building a two-story house, as you're getting older and climbing stairs will become more difficult." WHATI[??? This is a valid objection to an applicant's otherwise complete plans???? Who is running these departments? From our vantage point,It looks like the dissenters are In contrail i So, here we are, 12 years later,and are ready to begin building on the other two lots. However,what we have encountered within the planning department has left us shocked and dismayed. Page 340 Page 259 Mr.John R.Gillison -2- September 26,2019 There is a movement afoot land consultants,Civic Solutions, hired) to begin work on amending the Hillside Development Ordinance found in Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. We stranaly ob�ectl NOTHING has changed In the past 12 years that would require amending the hillside standards— NOTHING has changed since the July 7,.2004 appeal to City Council where these dissenters lost their appeal-on every level. Nonetheless,they are once again expressing their disagreement with the decisions against them made by the local authorities,notwithstanding the fact that there were NUMEROUS thorough and de novo'rev.lews by each department. Instead of takingtheir issues up for a Judicial review,they continue objecting to most projects, In my opinion, it is a blatant attempt to discourage anyone from building on the southslde of Camino Predera. We are not discouraged. I apologize for the length of this letter but I feel It necessary to explain our personal dilemma with any proposed changes to the Hillside Ordinance. l quote from a letter written by dissenters Chuck and. Suzanne Buquet, dated April 5,2004 and presented as an exhibit In the July 7, 2004 City Councll:agenda, Involving our lot#12.The appeal was denied. The Buquet's wrote, and I quote,"We believe that a master plan approach should be undertaken to determine what would be reasonable and,prudent residential product along the entire hillside slope area,and not just on a case by case basis as currently being provided under the individual lot development strategy..." The'Buquet's"master plan approach" is inconceivable. All one need do Is visually Inspect Camino Predera to see that each and every southside lot is unique. It only makes sense that each lot should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking Into consideration the topography. Our three lots,are above curb and,therefore,we paid a premium for those lots. To reduce our ability to bulld out our remaining two lots in the same manner we built the first lot would create an unjust and unreasonable result. First and foremost,the houses directly across the street from us are two and three-story. As is the situation with our current house,the height is 14'above curb level,at that height, the houses on the north side are so high that they look directly over our property. As for requiring us to push the house further below the curb not only makes it much more difficult and costly to accomplish because of the steepness but doing so would eliminate ANY view our"view lot"could have because of the protected silk oak trees at the bottom of the lot,along with the row of townhouses, blocking ANY view. We would literally be In the gully. I will repeat Councilmember Howdyshell's sentlments.at the July 7,2004 Council Meeting,.that he could not imagine somebody wanting to build on a hill and then accepting a requirement to set their house down Ina hole. I agree,and Ladd. Talk about diminution In value??11?? Another dissenter and appellant, Renee Massey,already acknowledged at the July 7,2004 City Council Meeting,where one of her appeals was heard,that the "crux of the matter"was if this project were approved( DRC2003-00961--referring to our house,lot#12) it would set the standard for the rest of the lot-by-lot development. This project was approved. 1 believe the standard has been set. ' 1 am aware that the Hillside Development Ordinance requires a four-pronged approach to analysis for approval of a project. However, I do-have some questions as to how,why and who initiated action for I amendment of this code.But I will refrain from expounding on that;at this juncture. Suffice it to say that Page 341 page 260 Mr.John R.Gilllson -3- September 26,2019 Mdevelopment will change and/or Impede the view prior to the development. Our city's development code Is replete with discretion provided to the decision-makers(and I don't mean the dissenters)to further the General Plan and allow for reasonable development of land. However,our city's Development Code also boldly asserts that applicants.should attempt to minimize view obstruction---understanding that it is generally impossible to ellminate view obstruction. Title 17 expressly provides for specific procedures in order to initiate action for amendments to the Code. The city's website states that citizens rely on the city.managerto"provide complete and objective information,pros and cons of alternatives,on long-term consequences." 1here.are other lot owners on Camino Predera who are similarly situated and express utter frustration,as It appears that no one from the city is listening to the remaining vacant lot owners of Tract 10035. In fact,the DRC is supposed to "...provide direction to applicants regarding their development application." My experience and! observations have shown that not to be the case. Obstructing and ignoring concerns that are not aligned with the dissenters seems prejudicial. Therefore, we ask that you look more deeply Into the appropriateness of this movement by a handful of dissenters to amend the Code. My.husband.and 1 ask: For what purpose does.the,Code require amending? As this movement Is steamrolling over others'rights,l ask.that you keep In mind the Mission Statement for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to"make decisions,and be Perceived as making decisions,for the general welfare of the community." And not for a few favored dissenters. I thank you for your time and my husband,John Adams,who has been a general contractor for over 47 years,wishes to address each proposed amendment as provided at the September 9,2019"Community Workshop#!2". His comments are attached along with the proposed amendments. I hope yovcan understand and appreciate OUR concerns. We welcome your comments. Sincerely, Jane Adams Cc: L.Dennis Michael,Mayor Anne McIntosh, Planning Director Mike'Smith,Principal Planner Jean Ward,AICP(Civic Solutions) Page 342 Page 261 I have heard a lot of comments about Red HlIYs character and hove special Camino Predera Is and I feel most of It has been mischaracterized. I have lived In Rancho Cucamonga since 1985 and have lived on Camino Predera for the past ten years. While the view is wonderful, It is also a great burden.People stop in front of the empty lots to see the view(even though It Is posted"no stopping"at anytime, people somehow feel it-is their'right to eat their food,drink their beers and do their drugs.Then they ' feel they have the right to getout of their cars and trespass an my land(which I had posted no trespassing until they tore the signs down)and then throw all their trash on my property and/or in the street. Much more goes on than I can put in this letter. The street also has a very steep Incline often used by skaters and bike riders as a racetrack.,Lots of cars also use this downhill as a raceway;so many cars In fact, that we would not allow our granddaughter to play in the front yard with all the people coming to this"view"and the homeless living at the bottom of each property. The neighborhood has also experienced a lot of break-ins,drug use,vandalism,littering and trespassing that we never witnessed living In other Rancho neighborhoods.My point Is this is not the paradise some are proclaiming it to be.it could be a great street to live on,but it needs houses and neighbors. There are dissenters who do not want any development—or so It seems. 'I fear that adding more restrictlans to the standards wilt keep development from happening. I also fear that that these sarne individuals would welcome the new restrictions but,nonetheless,continue rejecting designs. There are a lot of changes being proposed for a couple of unhappy homeowners,with talk of overbuilding,massing and mansionization.There are no mansions that have been built on this street, but with the high cost of building on a hillside lot,one needs to build a house with enough square footage to recoup one's investment upon resale. None of the houses built in the last twenty years are tiny houses.Does this not set a precedent? Therefore, I would like to address each proposed change to the current Hillside Design Standards,as 1t relates to our two vacant lots,adjoining 8045 Camino Predera,our current residence. (1) SIDE YARD SETBACKS- WE ARE 100%AGAINST INCREASING SIDE YARD SETBACKS. OUR LOT IS 76'ACROSS THE FRONT,WHICH IS NOT WIDE TO START WITH,A REDUCTION OF 25'Taking 25' LEAVES A TOTAL OF 51'CREATING EXTREME DIFFICULTY IN DESIGN. MOREOVER,THE HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET ARE 50 HIGH THEY WILL LOOK RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF OUR PROPOSED HOUSE BASED UPON OUR LOT LOCATION. I HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AS I HAVE BEEN INSIDE EVERY HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR LOTS. LARGER SETBACKS ALSO CREATES A PRIVACY ISSUE FOR US.AS FAR AS REDUCING VISUAL MASSING FROM THE STREET THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET(LOCAL ROAD)AND,TO MY KNOWEDGE,WE HAVE NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE VIEWS TO THE PUBLIC.THERE ARE MORE THAN 60+HOUSE ON CAMINO PREDERA AND ADJACENT CUL-DE-SACS WITH A 10'AND 5'SETBACKS.IT IS UNFAIR AND UNNECESSARY TO 50 ADVERSELY'IMPACT THE FEW REMAINING LOTS. Page 1 of 3 Page 343 page 262 (2) REDUCE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT- THE HOUSE WE LIVE IN NOW HAS A HEIGHTOF 14'ABOVE CURB.THE'HOUSE WAS LOWERED THREE TO FOUR FEET TO ACHIEVE THIS.OUR TWO REMAINING LOTS ARE ABOVE CURB HEIGHT.THE LOWER THE ROOF,THE LOWER THE HOUSE HAS TO.BE PUSHED DOWN IN THE LOT AND THE DRIVEWAY BECOMES STEEPER.OUR HOUSE NOW HAS A SINGLE-STORY APPEARANCE FROM THE STREET AND ALLTHE HOUSES ON THE NORTH SIDE HAVE MORE VISUAL MASS THAN OURS. (3) ROOF DESIGN- A HIP ROOF WOULD ALSO CREATE TRIANGLE EFFECTS. (4) VARIABLE FRONT YARD SETBACK - ALL THE LOTS THAT ARE LEFT ARE GOING TO BE CUSTOM HOUSES.IPirS A GREAT DESIGN I CANNOT UNDESTAND HOW A CONTINUOUS WALL PLANE TAKES ANYTHING AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. (5) ARTICULATION AND VARIABLE WALL PLANES-SIDE YARD THIS WOULD PUT MASSIVE RESTRICTIONS ON NEW HOMES AND-MAKE DESIGNING EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. (6) FLOOR PLANS- THIS IS BASICALLY THE DESIGN I AM PROPOSING WITH THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NOW IN EFFECT. HOWEVER, IF THE PROPOSED STANDARDS PRODUCE A ROW OF NARROW HOUSES,WHAT AN UNFLATTERING LOOK FOR THE STREETTHIS WOULD CREATE. (7) RAISE THE HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS- IN MY OPINION,THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A STANDARD ALLALONG.EVEN THE CITY'S OWN ENGINEER SAID THAT MOST LOTS WILL NOT WORK WITH THE CURRENT STANDARDS. (S) GRADING-FLEXIBILITY TO BUILD LQWER ON THE LOT I HAVE A LEVEL LOT. THERE IS NO REASON FOR ME TO BUILD LOWER ON THE LOT.. Page 2 of 3 Page 344 Page 263 (9) STEP BACK SECOND STORY WALL PLANE- ALL BUT ONE'.LOT'ARE DOWN-HILL SLOPES. NO ONE CAN SEE MASSING GOING DOWN HILL. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THREE LOTS,ONE CANNOT SEE THE PROPERTIES FROMTOOTHILL BOULEVARD DUE TO THE THREE-STORY CONDOS AND EXISTING TREES. I AM CONFUSED AS TO WHY THIS IS EVEN A CONSIDERATION. MY FINAL REMARKS- As we can build on our two lots using the current Hillside Deslgn standards and not eliminate anyone's view, we feel that if these new standards are implemented,they would greatly take away from what we should be able to build, make the house less desirable and devalue our property.If these proposed changes were guidelines to be considered on a lot-by-lat evaluation based upon the topography rather than as standards to be strictly applied,it seems more plausible and just. The current vacant lot owners should be afforded the same considerations as the current homeowners. it does NOT feel like that. Reasonable expectation Is a legal term that 1 believe applies to our property.We live In a house on the south°side that was approved by staff, DRC,Planning and ultimately by city council. When we bought these two lots over ten years ago,we had a reasonable expectation that we would be able to build houses on these lots in the same manner as the one we live In now. Should the proposed changes be implemented, our future projects will be greatly diminished and so,too,will our ability to fully utilize our lots to their fullest capacity. In my opinion,such a taking of a property-owner's rights without a legitimate reason is unconscionable. Thank you for your patience In reading the detailed description of my concerns over changes to the Hillside Design standards. I hope you can appreciate my concerns. I am open for further discussion on any of these issues as they relate to my property. Sincerely, John I.Adams, Homeowner 8045 Camino'Predera Rancho Cucamonga,CA 92730 909-322-3850 Page 3 of 3 Page 345 Page 264 October 6, '2019 To: City Staff, Planning Commission Members, Mayor and Members of the City Council; I very much appreciate that our long, time concerns are being taken seriously, with the recent Hillside Development Standards meetings. As you know, we have been dealing with the same issues again and again since 2000. These are the very last remaining hillside view lots in Red Hill and once they are gone that's it, no do over's. And gust a quick bit of history dating back to 2004 and in response to Renee and Lynn Massey's Appeal 2"d appeal, the City Council was very clear as to their concern with the size and scale of new homes going in, hillside grading concerns, and keeping the distinctive residential character of the area, as well as consideration of view sharing. Yet sadly here we are again, neighbors who are put right back in the middle of this. Mr. 8ardos, who purchased this vacant lot back in 2008, only purchased it to "protect his view" which he told us while he was our next store neighbor. He was also the one who built the f irst McMansion on our street. And while he is very proud of that fact, it has forever changed the character of our neighborhood and not for the better in my humble option. He first f iled the residential application with the City in early 2017, and has not once come to us to discuss his plans. Yet our home is the one most impacted by this new McMansion version of Page 346 Page 265 some plans he found apparently found somewhere. Instead he has tried to work everyone else he thought he could on our street, and now is doing his continuing best bullying practices to move this forward, and will say and do anything to get his way. This is and always has been about what is best for his personal prof its and he personally has no care or concern about the neighborhood. At the Community meeting he suggested the neighbors offer comments, but he was not open to anything that was suggested as to lowering the profile of the house or dropping it down, or even changing the roof profile. He kept saying it was "physics" and suggesting our simple minds could not understand that, and any of our "oh so silly" ideas could not be done. Threw up his hands and said he had done all he could do. All I see is yet another huge house that covers the entire front of the lot, blocks out the sun from our house looking to the east, lacks 360 degree architecture or anything of interest on the sides and is totally view focused on the back of the house. (Prof it NOT Community/Neighborhood driven) One of my major questions and concerns is, since he personally seems to have prepared all of the plans, where is any of ficial verification as to his grading analysis, slopes or even ability to build this huge house on this lot? He makes a lot of claims as to why he can't lower the house or driveway or do this or that, but there is no Engineering Professional or Reports to validate anything that he has drawn on the plans. And after all these Page 347 Page 266 years of this spin and nonsense, I am simply not very trusting any longer. I am shocked that someone can get this far down the road on a hillside, with a Jiff icult lot to build on with no legal verification by an Engineering Professional willing to put his stamp on plans at a minimum. And I honestly think the City, Planning Commission and City Council should be concerned too. Respectfully, Suzanne Buquet 8725 Predera Court Rancho Cucamonga f Page 348 Page 267 Re:Amendments to 17.122.020 Hillside Development Standards Avery special thank you to the city of Rancho Cucamonga for taking the time and expending the effort to listen to the residents of the beautiful Red Hill Community. The workshops held by the Planning Department give me hope that the integrity and heritage of our neighborhood will be maintained and that the great"view grab"will cease to occur. Unfortunately,yet again we,the Red Hill Residents find ourselves very concerned with the prospective builds on Camino Pedrera,especially with the latest"Mc Mansion" home project designed by builder Paul Bardo. This project is on the south side of Camino Pedrera. This builder has shown a complete lack of respect and is remarkably hostile to the residents of both Red Hill and especially to those of Camino Pedrera. This builder doesn't choose to work with the residents instead at meetings he prefers to bully and insult the residents and the city for that matter. Mr.Bardo is so arrogant that he stated last year,in a city board meeting,that his design/build in Red Hill was the first one-million-dollar home, unfortunately, money and his aggression towards the residents is driving his motives,not common courtesy. The residents of Camino Pedrera will lose their view and see their property values decline. There are other vacant lots and If this build is allowed versus working with the residents to push it lower, that only the roof is seen from the street,as has been repeatedly discussed, it will be a free for all with the remaining vacant lots on Camino Pedrera. More importantly we will be faced with the same battle that we have been faced with repeatedly over the years. This builder repeatedly states we are too ignorant to know enough about the physics of building and he absolutely cannot drop this home that only a rooftop is seen from the street. The residents do not trust his motives and we do not trust that he will listen to a word the city says. The city has been to my house, has admired my beautiful views,and clearly can see that in order to protect the residents on the North side of Red Hill CC Drive, back in 1975 the houses were dropped very low. When did this common courtesy and the notion of view sharing ever stop? The"Mc Mansions" built circa 2004/2005 stand out like a sore thumb and look awful too large for the Sot they are on. The envelope has been pushed way too far and residents are at their breaking point. Kudos to the latest project underway,owner Danny Dera, he appears to be building a beautiful property and instinctively is not obstructing anyone's view. He has proved it can be done so for Mr.Bardo to bully his way with the city officials and the residents and claim we are too stupid to understand the physics of building is disgraceful. If allowed it will set the stage for the demise of historic Red Hill.The cascading views that have attracted so many will be robbed by this builder and others on the vacant lots,and potential tear downs and the integrity of this beautiful community gone forever. Don't let this be your legacy for Rancho Cucamonga's most historical community. sincerely, Rakan and Maria Alamat 8551 Red Hill Country Club Drive Rancho Cucamonga Page 349 Page 268 October 7,2019 To: City Staff, Chairman and Planning Commission Members, Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Thomas Snedeker (8080 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga) R.E. Amendments to 17.122.020 Hillside Development Standards I am writing this letter on behalf of myself and other conceened residents who live in Red Hill and specifically on Camino Predera. I have attended both of the meetings/workshops instituted by the Planning Department which ware extremely informative with respect to Hillside Development Standards (17.122.020). At the meeting on September 9, 2019, we were encouraged by the Planning Department Members proposed Amendments to these standards which include but not limited to reducing the maximum building height, grading changes, the increasing of the aide yard set backs and changing the maximum height of retaining walls. As a resident of Red Hill/Camino Predera for the past 30 years, my greatest interests are to maintain the character of our neighborhood while providing adequate view sharing for all who live there now and in the future. I want to thank the Planning Department and the City Council for all the time and interest you have given to our concerns and for future considerations in this matter. Since ely, Thomas Snedeker 8080 Camino Predera Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Page 350 Page 269 T/SS11-7 Tabe, Z:+3 rI" 1 would Iike some clarity on staffs position on our submittal. I've asked several times for a statement of its position and for several weeks. Is staff going to recommend the project and if not why not? Please be specific when describing staffs position. My understanding after several months of discussion with you and the neighbors is that the neighbor's objections center primarily around view obstruction. Is there any other issue you're aware of that is relevant to the approvals of our project as we move forward? You've previously indicated our submittal meets the Code. When 1 spoke with Jean she said she would meet with staff and provide me some insight into the changes to the Code planning intends to propose prior to their being addressed at the upcoming 8/9 meeting, Do you have those recommendations with the thought I can look at possibly incorporating them to enhance our designs prior to meeting with DRC? I also want to reiterate conversations we've had previously about public policy throughout the state on view obstruction. The statewide policy is quite harsh and definitive on the subject and runs strongly against the neighbors who have expressed a right that is not protected in California. The precedent was first established in 1898 by the California Supreme Court and is still good law today. Has anyone from staff reviewed public policy on the question of view rights to see if positions being taken now are in compliance with statewide mandates and precedents? It's my understanding DRC meets"as needed." The October 1 date doesn't work for us. Can we set a date prior to October 1 to meet? There are several other property owners on the south side of Camino Predera who have also indicated an interest in attending,and I would like the date to work for all those who've expressed an interested being there. Thanks in advance for your help with these questions. Best, Paul Page 351 Page 270 From:Van der Zwaag,Tabe [mallto:Tabe.VanderZwaag@cityofrc.us_ Sent:Wednesday,August 28, 2019 12:50 PM To:Paul Subject: RE: CRC It is too late to get on a September DRC.The next available DRC will be October 1".You will need to submit 10 sets of plans prior to September 17`h to be on that DRC.As discussed in a prior conversation, the neighbors will more than likely be in attendance at the DRC.The Planning Commissioners are also aware that the Planning Department is working on new regulations for the Red Kill area,With neighbor opposition,there Is a good chance that they would not recommend approval by the Planning Commission. Tabe From: Paul< aul bardosconstruction.com> Sent: Monday,August 26,2019 11:07 AM To:Van der Zwaag,Tabe<Tabe.VanderZwaag@cityofrc.us> Subject: DRC CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or o attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Tate, When is the next DRC meeting in September? I'd like to get on calendar for it. Heft several messages for Matt to return my calls but so far he's not responded. I also left a message for his administrative assistant who also hasn't responded to my voicemall. Paul i Page 352 Page 271 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Tabe van der Zwaag October 15, 2019 HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244 — PAUL BARDOS - Site plan and architectural review of a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence with an attached 771 square foot garage on a 15,430 square foot lot within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District at 8035 Camino Predera-APN: 0207-631-03. Related Records: Minor Exception DRC2018-00473. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. which permits the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. Site Characteristics: The 15,430 square foot vacant project site is located on the south side of Camino Predera, within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District. The property dimensions are approximately 80 feet along the north property line, 195 feet along the east property line, 189 feet along the west property line, and 80 feet along the south property line. The downslope lot has an elevation of approximately 1,301 feet as measured at the curb face along the north property line and an elevation of approximately 1,260 feet as measured along the south property line, for a maximum grade change of approximately 41 feet. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Low(L) Residential District Site Vacant Land Low Residential Hillside Overlay District Low Residential Low(L) Residential District North Existing Single-Family Residence Hillside Overlay District South Pacific Electric Trail Public Mixed-Use (MU) District Low(L) Residential District East Vacant Land Low Residential Hillside Overlay District Low Residential. Low(L) Residential District West Existing Single-Family Residence Hillside Overlay District Proiect Overview: The applicant is requesting to construct a 4,118 square foot two-story, singlefamily residence along with an attached 771 square foot garage on the 15,430 square foot project site. The proposed grading includes up to 8 feet of cut,which necessitates that the project be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission(5-foot max cut or fill for Planning Director approval). Architecture: The proposed residence has a craftsman design theme, which includes a pitched concrete tile roof, horizontal wood siding, shake siding and a river rock wainscot. The proposed 4,118 square foot residence consists of a 2,352 square foot upper level, which includes the main living area and master bedroom, and a 1,766 square lower level, which includes 3 bedrooms and a bonus room. The upper and lower levels each include decks along the south elevations. The 771 square foot three-car garage is located on the upper level of the residence, with the garage door facing Camino Predera. The driveway has a maximum grade of 15 percent. Hillside Development Standard 17.122.020.C.1.d. states that driveways with grades up to 20 percent are Exhibit D Page 353 Page 272 DRC COMMENTS HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244—PAUL BARDOS October 15, 2019 Page 2 permitted when they are aligned with the natural contours of the lot and are necessary to achieve site design goals. Low Residential District Code Compliance: The project complies with the current development requirements of the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District as shown in the following table (it should be noted that the City is in the process of developing new development criteria for Camino Predera): Development Criteria Requirement Proposed Front Yard Setback 37 feet 60 feet Side Yard Setbacks 5 and 10 feet 5 and 10 feet Rear Yard Setback 20 feet 85 feet Lot Coverage 40 percent 32 percent Building Height Overall 30 feet 30 feet Building Height at Curb Face 10.5 feet Retaining Wall Height 4 feet max 5 feet Cut/Fill 5 feet 11.5' Feet "Grading in Excess of 5 feet Requires Planning Commission Approval Retaining Walls:The maximum permitted retaining wall height is 4 feet within the Hillside Overlay District,with stepped retaining walls permitted to have a maximum height of 34eet with a minimum 3-foot separation between the stepped walls. The project includes retaining walls up to 5 feet-2 inches.The additional retaining wall height is necessary to lower the foundation of the residence to reduce the height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera. The applicant has filed a Minor Exception request for the additional wall height. A Minor Exception permits an additional 2 feet in building height above the maximum permitted wall height. Perimeter Wails and Fencing:There is an existing combination wall and wrought iron fence along the west elevation that was constructed with the development of the single-family residence to the west. The applicant proposes an up to 4-foot retaining wall topped by a 5-foot wrought-iron fence along the east property lime. A 6-foot-high wrought fence is proposed along the south elevation. The proposed perimeter walls are in keeping with Hillside Design Guideline Sections 17.122.020.E., which encourages the use of open-view fencing and having walls that integrate the materials and colors used of the residence. Grading:The proposed grading design includes 784 cubic yards of import, which is necessary to construct the foundation of the residence. The foundation of the residence is stepped with the existing grade, with the upper pad at an elevation of 1,296 feet and the lower garage pad at an elevation of 1,285, in conformance with Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.1.a., to terrace the building to follow the slope. Building Envelope Anal sis: Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.1.C. requires that residences in the Hillside Overlay District be designed to fit within a 30-foot high building envelope. The applicant has provided two north-south and two east-west cross-sections with building envelopes demonstrating compliance with the 30-foot height requirement.The height of the residence ranges Page 354 Page 273 DRC COMMENTS HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244—PAUL BARDOS October 15, 2019 Page 3 from approximately 10-feet and 6-inches, along the east side of the residence, to 6-feet and 11- inches, along the west side of the residence, as measured above curt}face on Camino Predera. Landscape: The proposed landscaping is designed to comply with Hillside Development Section 17.122.020.F., including the installation of a permanent irrigation system landscaping to protect slopes from erosion and planting shrubs to soften the views of the downslope elevations. The project is not within the High Fire Hazard Zone or within a wi[dland-urban interface area. The proposed landscaping also complies with the front yard landscape requirements, including reducing hardscape to less than 50 percent of the front yard area. The rear yard includes slope planting to prevent erosion. Neighborhood Meeting: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting in the Rains Room at City Hall on June 10,2019, with approximate 20 residents in attendance. The applicant provided an overview of the project and fielded.questions.The residents raised concerns related to the building height as seen from Camino Predera, the width of the residence(built to the minimum 5-and 10- foot setbacks), and the size of the residence as compared to older homes along Camino Predera. The applicant responded that lowering the residence would steepen the driveway to the point that it would be difficult to navigate, that reducing the width of the residence would make it difficult to construct a 3-car garage and that the size of the residence is in keeping with the existing residences most recently constructed along Camino Predera. The neighbors stated that the size of the recently constructed residences along Camino Predera is not in keeping with the intent of Hillside Design regulations and is too large compared to the older residences constructed along the street. Staff Comments Over the years, the City has received numerous concerns and complaints from neighborhood residents in response to projects along the south side of Camino Pradera. Generally, neighborhood residents have expressed concern that these projects are not compatible with the existing neighborhood. Specifically, as it relates to this development application, concerns as expressed at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2019, involve the height, width, and size of the proposed residence. As expressed by residents at the Neighborhood Meeting, a primary concern is that recently constructed and/or proposed residences, including the subject application, which have typically ranged from 3,500 to 5,000 square feet, are much larger and inconsistent with older residences which dominate the character of the established neighborhood and which typically range in size from 2,400 to 3,000 square feet. In addition, staff feels that the:proposed project does not meet the intent of the existing Hillside Development regulations. For example, the applicant proposes to build to the minimum side setbacks of 5 and 10 feet whereas Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a explicitly discourages this and recommends increased side yard setbacks to avoid the appearance of overbuilding of lots, among other design guidelines. Regarding concerns of"compatibility,"the General Plan provides qualitative language which may be applied to the subject development application. For example, Policy LU-2.4 could be interpreted to apply to this project.This General Plan policy aims to"promote complementary infill development, rehabilitation, and re-use that contribute positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas." Further, the discussion section of this policy states that"The General Plan encourages the development of vacant residential lots where they are largely surrounded by other residential development to maximize efficient use of existing infrastructure and to meet housing demand. Land use controls that include development standards will ensure that infill development is compatible with neighboring uses." Page 355 Page 274 DRC COMMENTS HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244—PAUL BARDOS October 15, 2019 Page 4 While the proposed project meets the current development standards,and while the Development Code does not provide an objective definition of the term "compatibility," the proposed development requires discretionary review by the Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 17.16.140.B..1 and Section 17.122.020.G.i of the Development Code. As such, certain findings are required to be made, including a finding that a proposed project must be consistent with the General Plan(Section 17.16.140.F.1). In summary, staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend that the Planning Commission deny the subject application for the following reasons: • Project Conflicts with Intent of Hillside Design Guidelines:The project proposes to build to the minimum side setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, which conflicts with the intent of Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a, which explicitly encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures. • Project is incompatible with Existing Neighborhood.At 4,118 square feet, the proposed residence is significantly larger than older existing residences within the established neighborhood which range on average from approximately 2,400 to 3,000 square feet. • Project is Inconsistent with General Plan: General Plan Policy LU-2.4 promotes "complementary infill development...that contributes positively to the surrounding neighborhood."As evidenced by comments received at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2019,and considering long-standing concerns regarding the scale of other development proposed along the south side of Camino Predera, the proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of General Plan Policy LU-2.4. Notably, and in order to address long-standing concerns of neighborhood compatibility, Planning Department staff, at the request of the City Council, have initiated a separate process to reevaluate certain hillside development standards, namely building height, setbacks and grading standards.This process is ongoing as of the writing of this report. Regarding architectural concerns, and in the event that the applicant were to revise the project into a development which would be acceptable to staff, staff recommends that the applicant increase side yard setbacks and step the upper level of the residence from the lower level. Staff also recommends that additional design enhancements are needed to the side elevations of the residence to better characterize the craftsman architectural design theme. Staff recommends that wood siding used on the front and rear elevations be continued to the side elevations of the second (upper)story. Major Issues: Staff does not support the proposed project for the reasons explained above. Discuss whether the committee should recommend approval or denial of the project design to the Planning Commission. Page 356 Page 275 DRC COMMENTS HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW ORC2017-00244—PAUL BARDOS October 15, 2019 Page 5 Seconds Issues: Whether the side elevations of the 2nd (Upper) story should hd� upgraded to include wood siding to match the front and rear elevations to provide 360-degree architecture. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend that the Planning Commission deny the subject application. Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag Staff Coordinator: David Eoff, Senior Planner Attachment: Letters of project opposition Page 357 Page 276 OCTOBER 15, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE A. CALL TO ORDER 7:00pm Roll Call: Ray Wimberly x Tony M. Guglielmo x David Eoff Alternates: Lou Munoz Francisco Oaxaca Additional Staff Present: Anne McIntosh, Planning Director; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Sean McPherson, Senior Planner B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee on any item listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Staff Coordinator, depending upon the number of individuals members of the audience. This is a professional businessmeeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes. Fallowing Page t of 3 Page 358 Page 277 OCTOBER 15y 2019 - 7:00 P.M. each presentation, the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS Room CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE C1, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 AND MINOR EXCEPTION ORC2019-00205— PHELAN DEVELOPMENT-A request to develop an 11.73 acre site with three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 236,534 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located on the north side of 901 Street, west of Vineyard Avenue, at 8768 91 Street--APN: 0207-262-28, 0207-262-35, 0207-262-36, 0207-262-41,and 0207-262-42 . Related File: Minor Exception DRC2019-00205. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. The project was approved as presented The Design Review Committee's only concern was the outstanding purchase agreement with the parcel of land at the southeast corner of the project site. They recommended that the applicant clarify this issue by the time that the project is reviewed by the Planning Commission. C2. HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244— PAUL BARDOS - Site plan and architectural review of a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence with an attached 771 square foot garage on a 15,430 square foot lot within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District at 8035 Camino Predera - APN: 0207-631-03. Related Records: Minor Exception DRC2018-00473. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. which permits the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. The Design Review Committee moved the project forward to the full Planning Commission without recommendation. The Committee informers the applicant that they faced challenges ahead for the PC to approve a project that is opposed by residents in the surrounding area. Page 2of3 Page 359 Page 278 RANCHO a a 7 7'> CITY OF OCTOBER 159 2019 - 7:00 P.M. D. ADJOURNMENT 8:30pm The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. if items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Committee. ACTION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS Room CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday, October 10, 2019 at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. if Wimpaired, ecial assistance or accommo dations to participate in this meeting, please contact thepartment at (909)477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable thea reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for Page 3 of 3 Page 360 Page 279 OBt 080d w r-+ biLSBi'8T6£ anq fAPWd w1 wx,)io Ws4zn05 fZ69LUgB0► _ _ LG58Z9'82TE s086["I a aany 1e1a1 EEEBDZ'ET6E long],e,l leiOl W ti9L5 "Z00-4[OZ]!O0 a7Uaplsae pasodWd EO-T£9-LOZO plaPald aulwe35fOB ZGEi 800Z Mrs-MZn --- e,apa,d owwe�s"q SL6£ p(0Z LD-IE°.YLozo e,apa,d &61 9ZSE 9002 1-0-L9L0 e,aga,d ouiwe)6L6L Z89£ MW oi-to-LoLO e'4-ld O—Pl 1961 OTTb Imz H-M LOEO e,apald W—D LS6G e�apald'Sui,wea{o api34;nos 986e 6861 pl laa coZO uno7—Pp dOtig eltP SWld 89££ EOOZ sl-lCa-LoeD ElnnD elapa,d urke AWOYaanay,uiaw,ad 9PIQ ON eiep5Wld 509E 6E61 uc10-Loeo un03 e,aPwd 5LLa A4uno]'asno4 lo{71wiao 8p14 oN ZEZ£ Zooz all6a-LoLo Ilna3 wapa,d T Z LB 459E Imc 94'4£9-LOLo llno.)e'W-d OLLB ELZS LOOZ 9l lea-LOBO una]e.VWd SILO an- Ina uno7 eupald :IBC 696[ -;:D-LOzO elapa,e ou!we3880E ORU 686T -,r]-a;; elapald ouiwl)0808' vii[F. Lftfi[ e,spa,d--,-)WR 050 (BE/ZTPana dvl L4-.448; 0 y34?Pl40WRMeD vuL 900Z I.-4 b9'Loell Elapa,d ou!wFD 7908 69£5 BOOt f..-l0-40LO e,apald ou1we7 p50B 446E L002 _ !,"TLOZO e,apa,d Oulwe}"ON 4A84 LOOZ iZ-l£7LOEo elapald ou-we)VEOB T90E 1Bm :Z-m-Lodo elapa,d owwe]B[64 T90E 886i pL-if3Lozo e,apa,d 996L VOPaAd dulwej to-Pis 41oN saiaN (palanl7suo� tl NdV ....PPq 'sa45Jod'aBe,e9'aauapjs;w 1aA tau P panoldde leaA)lD TIIn81caA paulq—:))pwlad Bulplm8 OXIS a5nap eie❑—PM oulwe� Page 361 L.��bG! Ardl,rvee wwlas EanF[/!E TRACT NO 10035I OF 3 AIiV /eslnacQVrC•�lcln!(//JbeMri J2firat4.�PgrdIWE/r++f" Jl!Y/S.Im014(.wK/Y.MfdJ1AL1lGL109rL.rlU P4li'/ lL6 GrP/L� r eiu ENllw•P a..vvNruvr.esrwvF�vnv.wNdr�w nef• IN 7MLRYLr R11NGFgCl1[AMOIJGA,LAL.Ir02NVi ��LFy✓a.[r drR�Z frlJ q�q.wR'M µPKS/GiCfVl•✓IxGaA/# �TA•V/if gSl✓I(JS�l IGftP OYiNPArl9 CN9.A+nmLa'l+P4fP�b+aL04i�O PJ.@9 xW.EN�.VGgM • ORx[M. M RN lal.R[�D W EOVC 21,1110('A Ll rIA1B 1'Yi LLIr10,'i]tACT IM[p(�N ICR LLaf'IIGGRR9p ECOIe N IL(2YlrJM10'A LYAMFJ,.(L4 RwrCxO IaeOCI\TEl,tTO..A CW rOnx1A e[x CkLL xYAx[Aann .FCEI@]S,Y IQLlrw'/YQ.fWS FprC/LNpM� 1Y�KESTERN DEVELOPMENT CO.,A CALIFORN14 MmERAL RARTNERMIIR, QEf�M,(M FLfJCR• �MATNE[OI R\Md0 A1lOCIATLS.LTo.1 i'f/L r/NV f/VfL ENCf/NEE9S iir [O.TO'I/[RC,IAl[TY[R OF ME[TEAR CEV[LOANELT MI pNldl7 L'dC/ ipiVGNC{,wp¢vI¢wnrYn.naw.mwsmrxsi�eurwwxn s��currY+wnrcrt�iru�oon.�awnou[Ir.wra..w..orww �• GIOAL O.Mrr6Ol0 vta.wu.L•,•oaar„nr.w.ar muwMow lR•a0 anrerf maxaao r,wmNfF pam®ro l�aq.w.eea m•mcrpwyrxyL+W.s•+xw[v .wJi aMreq.rFTu.PAY.wr xu�IrRr[arY 11•gxlmx w((rnN„yoT.•r•IL arp M.L1Y[0 rq w.p10.ya0.Tit[LKdT16aI MMLFTHL4 AIV L.sRI✓AYKM Sim/N//ea'0.^ dC /O�AhfJ !AS I!•NE dfY JO/A�f uw wiVrYwP..w .Y:urown+r,n rvniLci�.w��waa fGrRCVY.gY/O/nMa•IP[aIV IMM,sMl fYJ,Ma�J Pl4 Aef [� LYAGd H'JJ?bMN AaJ w exM 1 .ar�� wP AlMx wnn w.m+mvl M.raer•.vmaexx.uevwwrcmTrve+xula rwl.++v —7��0----- LkM..rTymF.l• x..�Mw.rMMlwaOwrwrLv�iRW MPr�� „II.GA ice/ G 1pl p%KI a safmrMY,a •f�wr Mnm�nrl vorYa_Y—s•Trarr p /HW .Gt'P J(rLA^N/ifR pRYiJ SYAQ lRIrz.IJ BEMT• +e'r•s'T7mwr•rarlm wnarw,w.ora ao /4l[X.' trwm rs atY woRn 0�tarnr JX✓(drmAafJP, raeoa✓/:Gts'r.amRas.,Nar /geM�sv. vr °ir"`'r..'�."�`r•.•Jl.c'.�.•.:;x+s,.rrt_:n;,�.r.>""'�`iaa e"Ti.•,:%tun sd/ wr.....:.�o••Mrr""re.l e.s"f°"`on� a••�r9• •1 Ai Lvrwa•m.'!, mi:,;.:xrr vn-.r .(•'nr'rn.raLrae .w r..cJwa ar✓xa'AL Aaaa zle•. L-' .a.IL , eY�ftRrQ,d�y�w.c naisrlE o-rM,S•ih65 I.roe A..wGGMrYllelfa!NJ i CRY a st RAEHING GP!M1991aN9 ce•T1Fl�/�,TC ��x��aW'4•+luuL>oM mra,auwrla.0 ;0.• I.••3.Frw!^.:u.'.. .p.X.'ri:iW.wYw+h�lxSJ�wAV.erP:..ndW NN Q�p,� yxry 7 1LC 61TIYM.i Krl.'w._'.r/�irY'MM7.YJ,G'AdL�u'.:.G J/lMAw4W p.rvZww.r,a. • drN.Lr SI i�.:4"�.F.Ii..K.+' ..f L/M'/••t:G.+aLw>r;iradP.a,i A-0rPFN/OIIKEL'INII%r4JQ'iLY.IL`P/Y(NI.c�Y.1.�3/ri�TrJ�EM/.Arlq✓NIP yam-_3'�l�Sr �IAY/FM'��✓ d'A7AME�PI�R/J~.VLII�N�JRus[/p/ /�(.y�YfP IMf�Ir pLV MM1 Nl ASef LMY/YlASIb(NY/O NJ BYIINr �WF0.Yr..tw..s...:�9\r..W:Y• ECWPa[WGtV1/0.t0 CsnTPIGLTOe OYId/YaWJrttVP•NS iMPiC o'.NaAer[LLIw:NyI I terM.axr.r w.r•y,l r.E.er r/�aU'.[I.wW CWrJrr.•,n rW.nlr%�aP amine,o ar!e>*.we.�.r✓..N ��->��i%. �le•1[Teae a+l�cn ..am�..e nL.Irv..r�.wo..un ra.,..e.A,ro„u..ud.re..r.vn. J �tl P.�momwm•.r.¢a.o-w r. Ar+'er..e•r..,..e rvs..�e r�w.neawr awrAl�Alr.r..r.a ' Far.a.r� A�,r`° r.•.fsi-M rwrwwwwr.rrerrn. .Mrr+w....rcrx.w•..w..v ma�nr.m...w..,..a�.. +✓�... .:' e.�.rter..m ..w..�....�w....oLrvda..cR.. o-ll,.naorre ...w....r.` ..�I MaYnndr.(A.p� rlex•nw w1�r4wwsa,rtr.Or- Vd.V,rVT,.A.Pmlr.•ronewwxe�w ruxwu�reV S/•1/i5 rlAYY Y/V� MO rc.A.x.nwasa»swan s�rsV.rrr nwM-x,An rr,�s.°r•vv.ewL YML PrIAY'p� ✓ A argao.•IxrmOr FAwaArwV�.m•an.••r.rn+w..ra.`'"�or.KLJ e.Am mE(WJYn OrIAIF ap.W,JJ',,�•oo�L�dNr✓/'Y/!B!R/:Ax'f woF MTlr05f4.1d�Y.�%N N oeew�rT.a ccwa,oa sw.r.r[.+wt.o Mc.cr..wu wnn.mw.r /1••'�' ,LJRY/lI LV�iN�Pl.N 3✓A.(J/ll/P+fO1IKLY�bYMlD NRyFY y�_ J w• re[om a,w Lvwr w.ar¢e umx•.m.noawra nav�.M WRao a• fKlMI��J/'q�ri<so-vJ EL���'wr�ow.wr��! wrw.o-.r..c saanmu•.raa..a.v.a.rwr®.r ae.. .v .P�'�/ n.wW 4•y.omsMarsnt.•u•��/P r�aYY.wF'.aL•NJm Mieaaar�r ?K'.6"eL�,P1n..n.«x.L+.rra'!��`AV//NIJl1GFAa(JN6rJ+x"RE�t��-,• ,••, - Rf IlN.E4i.(R/ rw rwx•w s r.a aonr+wuu�rwm+.a,na.W,...V,ors.a�sV..I.s.sr AtlaNlJ MIMMIG •l'RK. T������4�•��e� w�ca u�a.•ow�clrir an 4iw R�wou v�Lwm M]xY nwrow�Mt�T6�ws.AkN r,m Iww.r.v.vactm rruwrc+..or w.w wm.we - I(AC nd(N INH PRT4(F4fD RllPkWL(6+MeIOMf-VOrN�eRX/ltlAOrf .n.v.w.T:«.'ea.•.er. ulr(.H(PMV7M'-4rL(R✓rwAwrLallen+Ar�noe us..rseyJCG,..v.arrr.wr / /lelG /•LI/ \��� l/S6vReH[i GZnrDM1V GuIdwi EM P•'(�waa•Y AVN(aLO AwwIF-f[1.dvFA(!� � frr raxdrrrf<rcwu aKiawre or a(w4nLl.r.a di(r,n�.u��aw �, I! A rf N H N COJpYPM:✓7:V:�:'A.Fflri::iwi• � • a6 %EP.fJIi EYL'SL[1'ea.^ En6✓!PY<L(Sf.IXCr R_s At!ILt�q RrM ril ar / n awR.rLvd ca.•r ac+.r_+sY.`lq+rro lAd/Jrn✓�roF 1/rrGLA_-irA-t`�� VW ps 9 aTwa T.e e•x eF...ex il..Garonn rv.ruxo.ieo:u�.'a:°M."W l � - ~i.�:`."G rm of '�..oci:ai iir °µ au n,wrll o. xur uw�I1 A. 11°"T wrtrnn �.111t113R ��1.+ 1\ i ro ri era o�rvia I` E• a 1 f tl yr�'6 werulRa a.x u.xrn.av v ry..rx•r+i.anr i..n4•a°pl,ru�ii i.iarte ne n.w ON....! .Ri�aetie.xr e.x.a•n.a 2"."., � N (+ }» N qLg . ' .. •la'A...•roe F•Wry04.....a.yr AT....h!'.r..�..� s.�:- n Ir•-wrF xar x r • . WLre aMRL�•Ta\.Lr0..Ax0 rA•T 1.0 Auir AAA--AAA.—>A IaLL e i awlM f fNpEX I•*•JLa�a�.lw a�uv•�r�G+{/.�Ia�.L w.a. BOOIC.�.Z�.,Q/..� E T r M'O S.iK+3d 'K— WAY„ OF.......C.:C.1i�S.... Y/CJNirv!YAa ...:....... 174�3 3 r.v.xel Page 362 - surer S Or J rueers TRACT NO. 10035 ire+.w,a4vr er s�w.vnMv..v,r rwwv�.r.✓w[rsvorrxw.v.rr arr.resarerw Arrme'ri i°st u w.vrro w✓w vrrt rrwcr.✓arre,wr rti q�uV�v�NM/wY 1//�wyy�y/rrr drfi/,rb9YH L//W.dRrMf/IS,A/L.�ROPOS GY I. /Y /ER.Y6PiK4�.a(IlF 6scw N W?r/•dAOr n rwurA-ro• Wy,pwr caautrc cr✓r E.�rvCfR �y ,w .,r '� y µ¢IY avraa�CArrRFNrA �.fEO NlLL LOu'Y -.n•r � � ]�] •�1 � arnsvrrwr '� 3 I �� a...•ar.�sa � 'a .� 5.:�':�vw° ``ems.. �Q ..R:"......•.s —_ i _ " ;\ Vil, �6� b8 ��.• AS � � 41 w `, ,yner .�s�°n s�•r /.rwun 4y s�rl F� d �, ly�i":T� �,t� `� �`f"" ji .40 15 or Al 10 �,p i�.'i�" 1 f'.��.r•.r � Irs�w nr r.:,J'i�,rr.J'�..� \n, a Ei'f Y � , ti rq .r.r.� 'x' � ���•�'N. A }a \�'r l �' '!�` '+'+rw T •,swvrwwi�KZ Y•' r+A'+. r/� ¢�4 $�� \ � � � � 'r ' a roi.•wd- + Apt � rrv"I'd1 '�.w�.'e°i.:�i°.'°n'a aa�ra+r,','„+.- 3+a"' ..4.,y ,e' .jr'�•,r^�'r fR+l . '^�''"-"�►•",w `�'. .e.( r ,. rr4 t+t�n goo r ow :w°�.,av t�s"wa Iiiv�..-rl��a u�vr°ouv.n�irs`rirrrer t ry'w .yy, satl �„� �• d e .mrrwmr,,aia•.w,✓�r parm., ,. �OswnO..wxyrky,cu vrv9.crcM �� r •s>scnrnrro '\ reerw a wrwraa neertirr[caa•r�eat nra�m/.- .vesm• _. .,!•s...»"�ir 'Se'rau� L�i�waw n,ar�..nr e.r°Oois�w r�uwib i.rrr..rw, - :•wer j� t Rra.%•.rr a..ra.�'wt'.e�,a.�;� a wwe,r ,zs na �em'�rewr irarvui�,vv,•e �SfY.f,�'fo�r '�'"• '""^'� Sr "� r rwr_ >,.ma+a�.eri a rerw mv�r,rr Qarrae,rrc�wwwar. ■!f r,...sa.'r:I;taanrvn°`-.rurrar[ra.•,x,Y 7YP/CAL r 7r EASEMENT pElRlL r,rwyrr,,ra..rs rn(.. r'•ro' w eean.,aen,rs ncoe.sa uaw,�w..un.K. Page 363 s��Zt TRACT NO. 10035 N me CrrY a irr.�Wc CncgMoN4q, cA[/fGYrflR In�w�w. K.af w crwwlnav a r gr)AaY a tO111 r.wo.aC rxr v ramaaav `a••"a"•• ayy�Y trde bwY ri r�I✓Agi rF.MNe I!O•r�r0>•.M S,L.�r ra�r v rvr lcv ateQ+x s�,wrr u.n.v me�i•rePs Wlu�re �F+apvarornr raw�.arsav�r avasarro•er[evxavi, t�� Siq,, 1 DEAhBE�/j[yM�/M/K %NUI fA(l ��\. �b11 I FI�ypGb /1 .per I b�r"�� �✓�\��+Q� 'o�l�� INA) PIN, ,+F�}gip,+ 'S�.yy,,;� � •tj}� 4 • I5'• "k� is p + Srl74M Li4a/NFISEIfFNf k T� , « ° M i r.,G"N t; rT [ \♦♦ j PRE C' "'Ur' ~_�i,3 i� . +\ ✓J yam! g- F��i.� V tr \♦�' f r✓ d�' �QG�. 1\ �d CeOMlNOLrr�c}E � . ,yam\ ,,,Y• ' r. . y� \ arse.rn alas •..wr �i'. A_�C- f��;' rm♦v\ \♦ ••. mc— ._ - wK. .r + '. ...,ra.. .,.r ' .,,.+s .r.�s d- ♦ 'C .y.f \l♦0 s Rur�itas'\\♦ 'vX � ' it k N y` i \ LOT 5, RED HILL ■ * $ i t'� IMF �} SUBDIVISION, M.0.ZV33 •nr.... �i, ! L 4�Rf � :r Q F� � �r.ni y4:or�i.� , r.�M � Oat _ � �\�•''•ti`�°�reK d'•.'.:Y � p�•^`1:�:SPA:�n..�«' w�nwrirsi:rmm...N..,�.raK..er n�..r.. skvNr.SY iRC/F/G .emL/.x7vv RA51? ad MAY �'{y nn xe3 '- 1D035 Page 364 CITY OF RANCHO ♦ a $, STAFF REPORT DATE: December 11, 2019 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2017-00244 AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 — PAUL BARDOS - Site plan and architectural review of a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence with an attached 771 square foot garage and a request to construct retaining walls up to 5-feet and 2-inches high on a 15,430 square foot lot within the Low(L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District at 8035 Camino Predera - APN: 0207-631-03. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244 and Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 through the adoption of the attached resolutions of denial. PROJECT REVIEW BACKGROUND: Hillside Development Review DRC2018-00473 and minor exception on DRC2018-00473 was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the November 13, 2019, Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, staff presented an overview of the project, the applicant responded to staff comments and the public was provided time to comment on the project. The Planning Commission closed said meeting, deliberated and voted 5-0 to have staff draft resolution of denial for the subject entitlements for their action at the next Planning Commission meeting. ANALYSIS: A detailed description and analysis of the project has been provided in the Staff Report that was presented to Planning Commission on November 13, 2019. Page 365 Page 284 RESOLUTION NO. 19-75 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA,DENYING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2017-00244 - A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A 4,118 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED 771 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ON A 15,430 SQUARE FOOT LOT WITHIN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND WITHIN THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 8035 CAMINO PREDERA; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT TH EREOF—APN: 0207-631-03. A. Recitals. 1. Bardos Construction, Inc.,filed an application for Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Hillside Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of November 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conduced a noticed public hearing on the application,concluded said hearing on that date and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial to formally adopt the action. 3. On the 11th day of December 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted this Resolution denying the application and making findings in support of its decision. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW,THEREFORE,it is herebyfound,determined,and resolved bythe Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the all available evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on December 11, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant is requesting to construct a 4,118 square foot, two-story single-family residence along with an attached 771 square foot three-car garage on the 15,430 square foot project site (the "project"); and b. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations forthe project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Low(L) Residential District Site Vacant Land Low Residential Hillside Overlay District Low (L) Residential District Low Residential North Existing Single-Family Residence Hillside Overlay District Page 366 Page 285 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-76 HDR DRC2017-00244— BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 2 South Pacific Electric Trail Public Mixed-Use (MU) District Vacant Land Low(L) Residential District East Low Residential Hillside Overlay District Low(L) Residential District Low Residential West Existing Single-Family Residence Hillside Overlay District C. While the proposed project generally conforms to the minimum development requirements of the Hillside Design Standards,the Planning Commission finds that the project is not in character with the surrounding neighborhood and existing residences along Camino Predera for the following reasons: 1. Building Size/Massing: Tract 10035, which includes the project site, was approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in March 1985 and comprises a total of 38 lots.Twenty-one of the lots are currently developed with single-family homes. Based on staffs review of available building permit data, which measures the cumulative building square footage of all development, including garages, patios, and porches, as well as information provided by the Property Information Management System hosted by the San Bernardino County Assessor's Office and square footage data for other projects recently approved within the tract,the average size for residences in the tract is 3,912 square feet, and the average size of residences along the south side of Camino Predera is approximately 3,918 square feet.The size of the proposed project's living and garage area alone is 4,889 square feet. Notably, when including porches and decks (374 square feet proposed),to be consistent with the methodology used in reviewing building permit data, the proposed project's size increases to 5,263 square feet. For the foregoing reasons,the Planning Commission finds that the project's size is substantially larger than the predominant home size within the neighborhood and is therefore not consistent with the neighborhood's character. In addition,the Planning Commission finds that the project's massing could be mitigated by increasing the front setback,thus reducing the overall height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera and/or by modifying the roof design to reduce the height of the roof peak. 2. Building Width/Setbacks: The project proposes to construct the proposed residence at the minimum side yard'setbacks of 5 and 10 feet(Development Code Table 17.36.010-1). Section 17.122.020.D.2.a of the Municipal Code provides that the "design of the structure shall give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views." The Planning Commission expressed concerns that the proposed project as well as the neighboring existing residence, both having been built to the minimum setbacks, would result in the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape therefore establishing an adverse precedent. As a result, the Planning Commission finds that the project is not consistent with the goals and guidelines of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. 3. General Plan Compatibility:The Planning Commission finds that the project as proposed is also not compatible with General Plan Policy LU-2.4, which aims to"promote complementary infill development, rehabilitation, and re-use that contributes positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas."The proposed project does not meetthe qualitative intent of General Plan Policy L.U-2.4 which aims to promote development which. contributes "positively" to the surrounding residential neighborhood.This is based on the following factors: (1)as discussed above, the project is out of character with the size and massing of the existing single-family Page 367 page 286 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-75 HDR DRC2017-00244— BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 3 homes in the neighborhood; and (2) the project's side yard setbacks contribute to the appearance of overcrowding and overbuilding on the south side of Camino Predera. In addition, the Planning Commission recognizes the comments received from neighborhood residents that the scale of development within the tract and along the south side of Camino Predera is not in character with the neighborhood's small single-family homes. Such comments were received from neighborhood residents at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2019, as well as comments received at the Design Review Committee meeting on October 22, 2019. The Planning Commission finds that the increasing growth in average house size, including the proposed project, correlates to the neighborhood concerns about maintaining the neighborhood's character and its negative impact on development that contributes positively to the neighborhood. 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts setforth above,this Commission herebyfinds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan,specifically General Plan Policy LU-2.4.The General Plan encourages complementary infill development(General Plan Policy LU-2.4). The proposed residence is not complementary to the surrounding development as it is significantly larger than the other residences in Tract 10036. At 4,889 square feet include living and garage area, it is 977 square feet larger than the average residence in Tract 10035(3,912 square feet) and provides side yard setbacks that are not compatible with the Hillside Development Ordinance. b. The proposed use is not in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project is not in accord with the objectives of Section 17.122.020 (Hillside Development) of the Development Code which states that the hillside design standards and guidelines are intended to facilitate the appropriate development of hillside areas.The proposed single-family residence is incompatible with the other single-family residences as it significantly larger(977 square feet)than the existing and approved residences in Tract 10035 and is proposed at the minimum side yard setbacks (5 and 10 feet) in conflict Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a, which encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures. In addition, the project does not conform to the maximum height restriction for retaining walls in the Hillside Overlay Zone. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.122.020.C.1.g., retaining walls may not exceed four feet in height, although within the minimum required street front setback, individual retaining walls shall not exceed three feet in height. In this case, the project proposes retaining walls of up to five feet,two inches in height. By separate resolution,the Planning Commission has denied a proposed minor exception to permit the additional retaining wall height above the height limit permitting by the Development Code. Accordingly,the project does not comply with the retaining wall height limit in the Development Code. C. The proposed use is not in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project is not in accord with the Development Code as the project site is located within the Hillside Overlay District which was intended to facilitate the appropriate development of hillside areas.The project proposes to construct a single-family residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, in conflict with the intent of Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a,which explicitly encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures, etc. The existing residence to the west is also constructed at the minimum side yard setback, increasing the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape. d. The proposed use,together with the conditions applicable thereto,will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the Page 368 page 287 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-75 HDR DRC2017-00244— BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 4 vicinity. The proposed single-family residence is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average size residence within Tract 10035 and is constructed to the minimum setbacks, creating the appearance of overbuilding. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project that is rejected or disapproved. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption,and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth above, and all of the evidence in the record,this Commission hereby denies Hillside Development Review DRC2017-00244 and the project proposed by the application. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF December 2019. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Guglieimo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary 1,Anne McIntosh,AICP,Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced,passed,and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of December 2019, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Page 369 Page 288 RESOLUTION NO. 19-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473-A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS UP TO 5-FEET AND 2-INCHES HIGH FOR A 4,118 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED 771 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ON A 15,430 SQUARE FOOT LOT WITHIN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND WITHIN THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 8035 CAMINO PREDERA; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0207-631-03. A. Recitals. 1. Bardos Construction, Inc., filed an application for the approval of Minor Exception DRC2018-00473, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,the subject Minor Exception request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of November 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conduced a noticed public hearing on the application, concluded said hearing on that date and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial to formally adopt the action. 3. On the 11th day of December 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted this Resolution denying the application and making findings in support of its decision. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW,THEREFORE,it is herebyfound,determined,and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon all available evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on December 11, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant is requesting to construct a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence along with an attached 771 square foot,three-car garage on the 15,430 square foot project site (the "project"); and b. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.122.020.C.1.g.,retaining walls may not exceed four feet in height within the Hillside Overlay Zone, although within the minimum required street front setback, individual retaining walls shall not exceed three feet in height. C. The application is for a Minor Exception (DRC2018-00473) to permit the project's proposed retaining walls.to be over the 4 foot maximum height limit (five feet, two inches proposed). The project site is within the Hillside Overlay Zone. Page 370 page 289 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-76 HDR DRC2018-00473—BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 2 d. The Planning Commission makes the following findings in support of its decision to deny the application: 1. Building Size/Massing: Tract 10035, which includes the project site, was approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in March 1985 and comprises a total of 38 lots.Twenty-one of the lots are currently developed with single-family homes. Based on staffs review of available building permit data, which measures the cumulative building square footage of all development, including garages, patios, and porches, as well as information provided by the Property Information Management System hosted by the San Bernardino County Assessor's Office and square footage data for other projects recently approved within the tract,the average size for residences in the tract is 3,912 square feet, and the average size of residences along the south side of Camino Predera is approximately 3,918 square feet.The size of the proposed project's living and garage area alone is 4,889 square feet. Notably, when including porches and decks(374 square feet proposed),to be consistent with the methodology used in reviewing building permit data, the proposed project's size increases to 5,263 square feet. For the foregoing reasons,the Planning Commission finds that the project's size is substantially larger than the predominant home size within the neighborhood and is therefore not consistent with the neighborhood's character. In addition,the Planning Commission finds that the project's massing could be mitigated by increasing the front setback,thus reducing the overall height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera and/or by modifying the roof design to reduce the height of the roof peak. 2. Building Width/Setbacks: The project proposes to construct the proposed residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet(Development Code Table 17.36.010-1). Section 17.122.020.D.2.a of the Municipal Code provides that the "design of the structure shall give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views." The Planning Commission expressed concerns that the proposed project as well as the neighboring existing residence, both having been built to the minimum setbacks, would result in the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape therefore establishing an adverse precedent. As a result, the Planning Commission finds that the project is not consistent with the goals and guidelines of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. General Plan Compatibility:The Planning Commission finds that the project as proposed is also not compatible with General Plan Policy LU-2.4, which aims to "promote complementary infili development, rehabilitation,and re-use that contributes positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas."The proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of General Plan Policy LU-2.4 which aims to promote development which contributes "positively" to the surrounding residential neighborhood.This is based on the following factors: (1)as discussed above, the project is out of character with the size and massing of the existing single-family homes in the neighborhood; and (2) the project's side yard setbacks contribute to the appearance of overcrowding and overbuilding on the south side of Camino Predera. In addition, the Planning Commission recognizes the comments received from neighborhood residents that the scale of development within the tract and along the south side of Camino Predera is not in character with the neighborhood's small single-family homes. Such comments were received from neighborhood residents at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2019, as well as comments received at the Design Review Committee meeting on October 22, 2019. The Planning Commission finds that the increasing growth in average house size, including the proposed project, correlates to the neighborhood concerns about maintaining the Page 371 Page 290 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-76 HDR DRC2018-00473—BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 3 neighborhood's character and its negative impact on development that contributes positivelyto the neighborhood. 3. Based upon all available evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or Development Agreement. The proposed Minor Exception to permit additional retaining wall height is not consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan encourages complementary infill development(General Plan Policy LU-2.4).The related design review(DRC2017-00244)is for a 4,118 square foot single-family residence which is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average house size within Tract 10035 (based on the existing and approved residences within the Tract 10035). The proposed building size along with the proposed building setbacks creates the necessity for retaining walls over the maximum height limit. b. The proposed development is not compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. For the reasons stated above, the proposed single-family residence is not compatible with the existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area as it is significantly larger than the other residences in the same tract (Tract 10035) and is proposed to be constructed at the minimum side yard setbacks, creating the appearance of overbuilding the lot and increasing the necessity for retaining walls over the maximum height limit. C. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s)is not necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or to accommodate unique site conditions. The necessity for retaining walls above the height limit can be mitigated by reducing the size of the proposed residence and by increasing the side yard setbacks. d. The granting of the minor exception will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of the minor exception will constitute a grant of special privilege as the additional retaining wall height is related to a proposed single-family residence which is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average size residence within Tract 10035 and is constructed to the minimum setbacks. The City has been contacted by property owners in the surrounding neighborhood who are opposed to the project based on the size of the proposed residence,the height of the residence above curb face on Camino Predera and the width of the project (built at minimum setbacks). 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project that is rejected or disapproved. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption,and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth above, and all of the evidence in the record,this Commission hereby denies Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 and the project proposed by the application. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Page 372 Page 291 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-76 HDR DRC2018-00473—BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF December 2019. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Guglie[mo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I,Anne McIntosh,AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed,and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of December 2019, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Page 373 page 292 RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEAL DRC2019-00975 AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2017-00244; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0207-631-03, A. Recitals. 1. Bardos Construction, Inc.,filed an application for Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Hillside Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of November 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conduced a noticed public hearing on the application,concluded said hearing on that date and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial to formally adopt the action. 3. On the 11th day of December 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 19.75 denying the application and malting findings in support of its decision. 4. 'On December 19,2019,the applicant,Bardos Construction, Inc.,filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the application. 5. On the 19th day of February 2020, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the appeal, concluded said hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the application and making findings in support thereof. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW,THEREFORE, it is hereby found,determined,and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the all available evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on February 19, 2020, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant is requesting to construct a 4,118 square foot, two-story single-family residence along with an attached 771 square foot three-car garage on the 15,430 square foot project site (the "project"); and b. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations forthe project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Page 374 Page 293 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX DRC2019-00975 A CC APEAL OF DR DRC2017-00244--- BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. February 19, 2020 Page 2 Land Use General Plan Zoning Low (L) Residential District Site Vacant Land Low Residential Hillside Overlay District Low (L) Residential District Low Residential North Existing Single-Family Residence Hillside Overlay District South Pacific Electric Trail Public Mixed-Use (MU) District Vacant Land Low (L) Residential District East Low Residential Hillside Overlay District Low (L) Residential District Low Residential West Existing Single-Family Residence Hillside Overlay District C. The proposed project does not conform to the minimum development requirements of the Development Code and Hillside Design Standards because it does not conform to the retaining wall height limit applicable to the project. Concurrent with this Resolution, the City Council is also adopting a Resolution to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny a minor exception for retaining wall. height. The City Council also finds that the project is not in character with the surrounding neighborhood and existing residences along Camino Predera for the following reasons: 1. Building Size/Massing: Tract 10035, which includes the project site, was approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in March 1985 and comprises a total of 38 lots.Twenty-one of the lots are currently developed with single-family homes. Based on staffs review of available building permit data, which.measures the cumulative building square footage of all development, including garages, patios, and porches, as well as information provided by the Property Information Management System hosted by the San Bernardino County Assessor's Office and square footage data for other projects recently approved within the tract, the average size for residences in the tract is 3,912 square feet, and the average size of residences along the south side of Camino Predera is approximately 3,918 square feet. The size of the proposed project's living and garage area alone is 4,889 square feet. Notably, when including porches and decks (374 square feet proposed), to be consistent with the methodology used in reviewing building permit data, the proposed project's size increases to 5,263 square feet. This means that the project is approximately 1,351 square feet larger than the average residence in Tract 10035 and 1,345 square feet larger than the average residence on the south side of Camino Predera. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council finds that the project's size is substantially larger than the predominant home size within the neighborhood and street and is therefore not consistent with the neighborhood's character. In addition, the City Council finds that the project's massing could be mitigated by increasing the front setback,thus reducing the overall height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera and/or by modifying the roof design to reduce the height of the roof peak. 2. Building Width/Setbacks: The project proposes to construct the proposed residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet(Development Code Table 17.36.010-1). Section 17.122.020.D.2.a of the Municipal Code provides that the "design of the structure shall give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views." At the November 13, 2019, Page 375 Page 294 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX DRC2019-00975 A CC APEAL OF DR DRC2017-00244-- BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. February 19, 2020 Page 3 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concerns that the proposed project as well as the neighboring existing residence, both having been built to the minimum setbacks,would result in the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape therefore establishing an adverse precedent.The City Council has independently reviewed the record and concurs with the Planning Commission's findings and concerns. As a result, the City Council finds that the project is not consistent with the goals and guidelines of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. 3. General Plan Compatibility, The City Council finds that the project as proposed is also not compatible with General Plan Policy LU-2.4, which aims to "promote complementary infill development, rehabilitation,and re-use that contributes positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas." The }proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of General Plan Policy LU-2.4, which aims to promote development which contributes "positively" to the surrounding residential neighborhood.This is based on the following factors: (1)as discussed above, the project is out of character with the size and massing of the existing single-family homes in the neighborhood; and (2) the project's side yard setbacks contribute to the appearance of overcrowding and overbuilding on the south side of Camino Predera. The Planning Commission, at the November 13, 2019, Planning Commission meeting, received public comments that the scale of development within the tract and along the south side of Camino Predera is not in character with the neighborhood's smaller single-family homes. similar comments were received from neighborhood residents at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2019, as well as comments received at the Design Review Committee meeting on October 22, 2019. 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan,specifically General Plan Policy LU-2.4 which encourages complementary infill development. The proposed residence is not complementary to the surrounding development as it is significantly larger than the other residences in Tract 10035.At 4,889 square feet include living and garage area, it is 977 square feet larger than the average residence in Tract 10035 (3,912 square feet) and provides side yard setbacks that are not compatible with the Hillside Development Ordinance which encourages increase setback to avoid the appearance of overbuilding and crowding of structures b. The proposed use is not in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project is not in accord with the objectives of Section 17.122.020 (Hillside Development)of the Development Code which states that the hillside design standards and guidelines are intended to facilitate the appropriate development of hillside areas.The proposed single-family residence is'incompatible with the other single-family residences as it significantly larger(977 square feet)than the existing and approved residences in Tract 10035 and is proposed at the minimum side yard setbacks (5 and 10 feet) in conflict Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a, which encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures. In addition, the project does not conform to the maximum height restriction for retaining walls in the Hillside Overlay Zone. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.122.020.C.1.g., retaining walls may not exceed four feet in height, although within the minimum required street front setback, individual retaining walls shall not exceed three feet in height. In this case, the project proposes retaining walls of up to five feet,two inches in height. By separate resolution,the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision to deny the proposed minor exception to permit the additional Page 376 Page 295 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX DRC2019-00975 A CC APEAL OF DR DRC2017-00244— BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. February 19, 2020 Page 4 retaining wall height above the height limit permitting by the Development Code. Accordingly, the project does not comply with the retaining wall height limit in the Development Code. C. The proposed use is not in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project is not in accord with the Development Code as the project site is located within the Hillside Overlay District which was intended to facilitate the appropriate development of hillside areas.The project proposes to construct a single-family residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, in conflict with the intent of Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a,which explicitly encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures, etc. The existing residence to the west is also constructed at the minimum side yard setback, increasing the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape. d. The proposed use,together with the conditions applicable thereto,will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.The proposed single-family residence is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average size residence within Tract 10035 and is constructed to the minimum setbacks, creating the appearance of overbuilding. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project that is rejected or disapproved. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in.Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,the City Council hereby denies the Appeal of Planning Commission Decision DRC2019-00975, and upholds the Planning Commission's decision denying Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244. 6. This Council hereby provides notice to the appellants that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b)forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Mr. Paul Bardos, at the address identified in City records. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of February 2020, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Page 377 Page 296 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX DRC2019-00975 A CC APEAL OF DR DRC2017-00244—BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. February 19, 2020 Page 5 ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Dated: JANICE C. REYNOLDS, City Clerk Page 378 Page 297 RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEAL DRC2019-00975 AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0207-631-03. A. Recitals. 1. Bardos Construction, Inc., filed an application for the approval of Minor Exception DRC2018-00473, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,the subject Minor Exception request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of November 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conduced a noticed public hearing on the application,concluded said hearing on that date and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial to formally adopt the action. 3. On the 11th day of December 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 19.76 denying the application and making findings in support of its decision. 4. On December 19-2019,the applicant, Bardos Construction, Inc.,filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the application. 5. On the 19th day of February 2020, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the appeal, concluded said hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the application and making findings in support thereof. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW,THEREFORE, it is hereby found,determined,and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon all available evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on February 19, 2020, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant is requesting to construct a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence along with an attached 771 square foot,three-car garage on the 15,430 square foot project site (the "project"); and b. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.122.020.C.1.g., retaining walls may not exceed fourfeet in height within the Hillside Overlay Zone,although within the minimum required street front setback, individual retaining walls shall not exceed three feet in height. Page 379 Page 298 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX DRC2019-00975 A CC APPEAL OF ME DRC2018-00473— BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. FEBRUARY 19, 2020 Page 2 C. The application is for a Minor Exception (DRC2018-00473) to permit the project's proposed retaining walls to be over the 4-foot maximum height limit (five feet,two inches proposed). The project site is within the Hillside Overlay Zone. d. The City Council makes the following findings in support of its decision to deny the application: 1. Building Size/Massing: Tract 10035, which includes the project site, was approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in March 1985 and comprises a total of 38 lots.Twenty-one of the lots are currently developed. with single-family 'homes. Based on staffs review of available building permit data, which measures the cumulative building square footage of all development; including garages, patios, and porches, as well as information provided by the Property Information Management System hosted by the San Bernardino County Assessor's Office and square footage data for other projects recently approved within the tract, the average size for residences in the tract is 3,912 square feet, and the average size of residences along the south side of Camino Predera is approximately 3,918 square feet. The size of the proposed project's living and garage area alone is 4,889 square feet. Notably, when including porches and decks (374 square feet proposed), to be consistent with the methodology used in reviewing building permit data,the proposed project's size increases to 5,263 square feet. This means that the project is approximately 1,351 square feet larger than the average residence in Tract 10035 and 1,345 square feet larger than the average residence on the south side of Camino Predera. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council finds that the project's size is substantially larger than the predominant home size within the neighborhood and street and is therefore not consistent with the neighborhood's character. In addition, the City Council finds that the project's massing could be mitigated by increasing the front setback,thus reducing the overall height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera and/or by modifying the roof design to reduce the height of the roof peak. 2. Building Width/Setbacks: The project proposes to construct the proposed residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet(Development Code Table 17.36.010-1). Section 17.122.020.D.2.a of the Municipal Code provides that the "design of the structure shall give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of overbuilding orcrowding and to minimize the blocking of views." The Planning Commission,at the November 131" Planning Commission meeting, expressed concerns that the proposed project as well as the neighboring existing,residence, both having been built to the minimum setbacks, would result in the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape therefore establishing an adverse precedent.The City Council has independently reviewed the record and concurs with the Planning Commission's findings and concerns. As a result, the City Council finds that the project is not consistent with the goals and guidelines of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. 3: General Plan Compatibility: The City Council finds that the project as proposed is also not compatible with General Plan Policy LU-2.4, which aims to "promote complementary infill development, rehabilitation,and re-use that contributes positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas." The proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of General Plan Policy LU-2.4 which aims to promote development which contributes "positively" to the surrounding residential neighborhood.This is based on the following factors: (1)as discussed Page 380 Page 299 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX DRC2019-00975 A CC APPEAL OF ME DRC2018-00473—BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. FEBRUARY 19, 2020 Page 3 above, the project is out of character with the size and massing of the existing single-family homes in the neighborhood, and (2) the project's side yard setbacks contribute to the appearance of overcrowding and overbuilding on the south side of Camino Predera. In addition, the City Council recognizes the comments have been received from neighborhood residents that the scale of development within the tract and along the south side of Camino Predera is not in character with the neighborhood's small single-family homes. The Planning Commission, at the November 13, 2019, Planning Commission meeting, received public comments that the scale of development within the tract and along the south side of Camino Predera is not in character with the neighborhood's smaller single-family homes. Similar comments were received from neighborhood residents at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10,2019,as well as comments received at the Design Review Committee meeting on October 22, 2019. 3. Based upon all available evidence presented to this City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan. The proposed Minor Exception to permit additional retaining wall height is not consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan encourages complementary infill development(General Plan Policy LU-2.4).The related design review (DRC2017-00244) is for a 4,118 square foot single-family residence which is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average house size within Tract 10035 (based on the existing and approved residences within the Tract 10035). The proposed building size along with the proposed building setbacks creates the necessity for retaining walls over the maximum height limit. b. The proposed development is not compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. For the reasons stated above, the proposed single-family residence is not compatible with the existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area as it is significantly larger than the other residences in the same tract (Tract 10035) and is proposed to be constructed at the minimum side yard setbacks, creating the appearance of overbuilding the lot and increasing the necessity for retaining walls over the maximum height limit. C. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s)is not necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or to accommodate unique site conditions. The necessity for retaining walls above the height limit can be mitigated by reducing the size of the proposed residence and by increasing the side yard setbacks. d. The granting of the minor exception will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of the minor exception will constitute a grant of special privilege as the additional retaining wall height is related to a proposed single-family residence which is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average size residence within Tract 10035 and is constructed to the minimum setbacks. The City has been contacted by property owners in the surrounding neighborhood who are opposed to the project based on the size of the proposed residence,the height of the residence above curb face on Camino Predera and the width of the project(built at minimum setbacks). 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the Page 381 page 300 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX DRC2019-00976 A CC APPEAL OF ME DRC2018-00473—BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. FEBRUARY 19, 2020 Page 4 requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project that is rejected or disapproved. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the Appeal of Planning Commission Decision DRC201 9-00975 and upholds the Planning Commission decision to deny Minor Exception DRC2018-00473. 6. This Council hereby provides notice to the appellants that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b)forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Mr. Paul Bardos, at the address identified in City records. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of February, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL. MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Dated: JANICE C. REYNOLDS, City Clerk Page 382 Page 301 Hillside Design Review (Appeal ) DRC2019-00975 February 19, 2020 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 383 Project Overview Project: A request to construct a 4, 118 square foot two-story, single-family residence along with an attached 771 square foot garage and 374 square feet of patios and porches on the 15,430 square foot project site Entitlements: Appeal DRC2019-00975 Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244 Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 Zoning Designation: Low (L) Residential District Overlay District: Hillside Overlay (HO) District General Plan Designation: Low CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 384 Tract 10035 History • Tentative Tract Map 10035 was originally approved on March 255 1981 , and comprises 38 lots; • The project site is Lot 13 of Tract Map 10035; • As of February 2020, 21 lots within the tract have been developed with 3 more lots having been approved for development; • 14 lots remain without entitlements, each of which is located along the south side of Camino Predera. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA err. Page 385 Project Review Timeline • The project was submitted for review in March of 2017; • The project went through several cycles of review to revise the design for compliance with the Development Code; • The City deemed the application "Complete" for processing purposes in September of 2019; • Neighborhood meeting held on June 10, 2019; • Design Review Committee meeting held on October 15, 2019. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 386 Resident Concerns The resident's raised the following concerns at the neighborhood and DRC meetings, which they believe makes the proposed residence out of character with the existing neighborhood: 1 . Building height above street curb; 2. Building at the minimum 5 and 10 foot setbacks; 3. overall building size/massing. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 387 Planning Commission Meeting (November 12, 2019) • Staff highlighted that the project was out of character with the neighborhood based on the building size, massing and minimum side yard setbacks giving the appearance of overbuilding the lot; • Applicant highlighted that the project complied to all related development standards and that the house was at 9 feet above curb level to reduce view obstructions; Neighbors raised concerns related building height, building setbacks and building size. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 388 Planning Commission Decision • Planning Commission, while conflicted , felt that the applicant should do more to address neighbor concerns; • They stated that reducing the overall size/massing of the proposed house and increasing the side yard setbacks would reduce the impact on the existing residents; • Planning Commission voted 5-0 to have staff return at the next PC meeting with resolutions of denial; • The resolutions of denial were placed on the December 11 , 2019, PC consent calendar, which was approved ; • Applicant appealed project on December 19, 2019, within the required 10 day appeal period . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �r Page 389 Location AV Af CITY ' '. � ' -E •r}` 1�e •'�• r•�j0.1 � � ¢per' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 390 Development Requirements Requirement Proposed Compliant? Front Yard Setback 37 feet 57 feet Yes Side Yard Setbacks 5 and 10 feet 5 and 10 feet Yes Rear Yard Setback 20 feet 85 feet Yes Lot Coverage 40 percent 32 percent Yes Building Height Overall 30 feet 30 feet Yes Building Height at Curb 9, Face Retaining Wall Height 4 feet max 5 feet Yes Cut/Fill 5 feet 1 11.5* Feet I Yes *Grading in Excess of 5 feet Requires Planning Commission Approval CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 391 a CAtV40 PRWERA 57' Site Plan 5' 10' �w 3 - _. 85CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 392 PROJECT FILE i Mr-201-002" ------_-----._____-_.- ------ --- -GENVELOP 5 ---- 91 V ti ialoe i i T wse ems+urR to uen+N t wr..� --`------- Fib E33 FfTE F1FIEB --- wuricnc -- ----- - 7�{ _J t- �a wx vex - - -i?- -- — MROW MAYATTGN OCITY F • CUCAMONGA MOO Page 393 r� r- J I m yrowaml � ur'ebl m'n nl �er"�'ina'a`� I ss j ---- - I Ig I Ii4SRV/' ,,. ,�� I I 1 I 1MA M IAd _ 1 I 1 F------- -- I I�i I � I 1 _ YyU I I I I A i17tIi 1 � 11: CCCT 1ll "T T -1�1 1 � I I I 1.1..11 - •yy�pq L - --L----- - --------------- --- -- I B'9Pdt li�dtl'GIAIH��lG. ww.11lwe1 � rw� 3 B'46L1 II hB;JMY7�16 aaeod I.r�n. I -_ - -.--- ---------------------------------1 -sm avm/,N3 fJ 4a= Q'4Gil�id0liMii�Pp71ii Page 394 pp, 14 DAMOPE•1299.0 y PAMW NLE 1: DROW-902M S � SLRDM BriHnPI012KO Z r,r :r's`rTr' � r1x_:rir.rltir�i ..7LS� r`s�r � rrr t rr-iiri �?r''T-7'ix�xr �. ., ....... 3 , EAST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION CITY . • . A • i Page 395 B JLDNG ENVELOP=a,M.50 ---------7---------- i O JUANO ENVELOPE d 12".0 -__i --------------------- -L_DILOIrCs 6rV Ywr r m� F_ y r , °nit'eod.'�. ,� i I I I�Ilil[-itItI II i I i ;�• l i l l i , i p.r__-----J I , , L S I I i 1 I 1 I I �,ya� ew r , '_r, t rItIII rI[I rI� tiY I711trlrl Irl I I,IIII I -i �ItY I�Ti�,� J T I lyl It�41T1 1 r i III T lT]I II III IT"l1�L1IT`t"� I f I I 1 T T f i 'I ] I ' I r , --rim `----------� i rw - PALu wa ZEl J WEST ELEVATION e•,ur wrc ------------- r r I r WEST ELEVATIpN ' Page 396 WIN 11111 a "WMIF -1 i As seen from driveway of house • • side of Camino + P • . • . ���r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page rr rr r 397 As seen from sidewalk on north side of Camino Predera - r.. IL:bl Page 398 AII �k As seen from sidewalk on north side of Camino Predera East of the project site rr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 399 Updated Development Standards • Planning Department is working with residents to develop new development standards to reconcile the longstanding issues; • Neighborhood meetings were held on August 8, 2019, and on September 9, 2019, to discuss issues; • Staff developed new development standards in an effort to balance the concerns of vacant lot owners and existing property owners; • The new standards were presented at the January 22, 2020, PC meeting; • Vacant lot owners and existing property owners did not agree with new standards and PC asked staff to hold an additional neighborhood meeting. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �l Page 400 Neighborhood Meeting (January 30, 2020) • Approximately 17 persons attended meeting in Tri- Community room at City Hall; • Staff opened the meeting, presented the ground rules and left room to give residents time to discuss issues; • Staff debriefed the attendees after discussion period and found that common ground had not been reached on the major issues of building height and setbacks; • The residents asked for more time to resolve the outstanding issues; • Staff presented the outcome of the neighborhood meeting at the February 12, 2020, PC meeting, and the Planning Commission continued the new standards. 00, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 401 Staff Recommendation That the City Council deny Appeal DRC2019-00975 and uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244 and Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 for the following reasons: • Project Conflicts with Intent of Hillside Design Guidelines: The project is proposed at the minimum side setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, which conflicts with the intent of Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a, which explicitly encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures; • Project Is Incompatible with Existing Neighborhood: The size/massing of the proposed residence is out of character with the exiting residences along Camino Predera; • Project is Inconsistent with General Plan: General Plan Policy LU-2.4 promotes "complementary infill development. . .that contributes positively to the surrounding neighborhood." Based on the comments received by the neighborhood, the proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of this General Plan policy. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 402 CITY COUNCIL APPEAL FEBRUARY 19, 2020 NEW CUSTOM HOME 8035 CAMINO PREDERA 4118 Sq Ft Living Area DRC2017-00244 Page 403 HOW DOES THE HOME EXCEED THE MINIMUM CODE STANDARDS? CAMINO PREDERXS TOPOGRAPHY Page 404 STAFF COMMENTS MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 - VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 5'2" RETAINING WALL F[T .SPF AiIL1N7ELTU6Y i'LLV fiLN , � EXACl 6[CEiAC lX/tl4�ClLLK �i n aim f iY9.:CNJ IW �3T` t a C e-� Page 405 STAFF COMMENTS MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 - VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 5'2" RETAINING WALL LU 2.4 DRC2013-00961 Storm Western DRC2015-00114 Lewis Homes DRC 2015-00683 Archibald Oil Page 406 STAFF COMMENTS MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 - VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 57' RETAINING WALL LU 2.4 LARGER THAN "AVERAGE" HOME SIZE Page 407 TRACT 10035 CAMINO PREDERA lKl AM LAmmdRAdd= 21111K lslN1 tlm3rhm ZEKALLu Lot 0207641-0t41000 D—T 11966 tax t1207i41-02-0000 W.rg 25470 Lai 0207-W-03-0000 6063c—m.0.etlera D— 9104t 39M W19 1A44 OM1641-04-0000 1069 c—Predera S—, 106S 4453 2012 LA 5 om-r.41-05-0000 P.d01. 72100 Las 0207641-06-*M S.... 17720 La 7 0207641-07-OWO 16810 Las 02076414)L4M S-- 13110 Lag 020764t4)%4K 0 3— 13277 Lot LO 020764t-104M00D Adxns 13616 1 11 0207611-01-0000 Adams 14842 LA112 020763L-02-OOM 104E Campo Pr4deLa Mama 14847 4376 7009 La 13 0207631-03-CM 1D35 Canna Pr.d.r. Stoops 15360 48M 2019 la 14 0207-0114W0000 k. 15464 1a 15 0207631-050000 Pahl IS690 IA416 0207631-06-0000 Pale, 15600 La 17 0207631-07-0000 7997 Cxnino Pred.n NS'eh.3 L5440 3845 2005 Lo i1 07LI7-"t4 4m00 Mahe 15312 La 19 02076314734E0 ""Campo Fred.. AU— us7s 3413 2ODS Lm 20 0207631-10-0000 M7 Campo Pr.dera Y dun l0 13068 3291 20% La 21 0207-631-11-0D00 nS7[amwe PreMa c user Isam 332E 2m5 Lm 22 0207631-24-ODW 7971 c—Pred.ra Hey 109M 79% I9A9 Lm 21 0207631-2S40W C—P-5 tz6 La 24 0207-611-14-=i 873E Preder.C1 Frd It500 3074 1%9 Lot 25 O2G7631-LS110D0 6772 Preder.b 7 n b— 14016 13U 2003 im 29 02117631-164MM 9720 Pr.d.r.C3 Hs0 148% 35M 2003 Lot 27 0207631-17-0000 9714 P—M.Cl V..b 15376 5133 199E Em 21 0207631-15-0000 871E Preder Ct t< 145M 4581 2007 LALM 6207631-19-0000 9771 Pd. C3 Road— 13sM 310L 2003 LOW 0M7631-20-OMI 872E Pr.dera C, 11-q— 131SS 36M 120 L37131 ON7631-22-0000 8034 Cams,Pr Ld MCIFaar 14134 ml Nn7 La 32 0207631-22-0000 1044 c—Pr.d.ra Li 1266E 3613 2007 Los 33 0267631-2341100 SOS4 Comma Pr.e.ra Scott 12104 4425 2DD9 La 34 0207641-11-0000 &X2 Canso Pned.s- Moss[ 12103 3938 2m6 L.35 0207641-124000 W66 Larnaso P-d G.h 12ODD 6t75 2016 Lo136 0207-Ml L3-0000 /072 Camino Psed— Reyes lima 3049 1997 L.37 02C7641444)000 amc—Pr.Msa SI d.M` low Ime 1969 yin 36 02C7fe11-LS0001 10s6 Canna Psed.ra m-n 11550 3012 1905 Page 408 Camino Predera New Home Construction Over Time a� bona S ee A� V4 E S f01� ^W^$MIMl —TrendYne mm W> Ian! M* Yeas Built Page 409 STAFF COMMENTS MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 - VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 5'2" RETAINING WALL LU 2.4 LARGER THAN "AVERAGE" HOME SIZE FLOOR AREA RATIO—"FAR" (LOT COVERAGE) MANSIONIZATION ORDINANCE—CITY OF LA Page 410 STAFF COMMENTS MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 - VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 5'2" RETAINING WALL LU 2.4 LARGER THAN "AVERAGE" HOME SIZE SECTION 17.122.020.D.2.a a. The design of the structure shall give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views. For example, within a development, the majority of the units should not be designed with minimum setback to minimum setback. Page 411 STAFF COMMENTS MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 - VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 5'2" RETAINING WALL LU 2.4 LARGER THAN "AVERAGE" HOME SIZE SECTION 17.122.020.D.2.A CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OF RC HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE "NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION AREA" "NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AREA (NCA)" Page 412 STAFF COMMENTS MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473 - VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 57' RETAINING WALL LU 2.4 LARGER THAN "AVERAGE" HOME SIZE SECTION 17.122.020.D.2.A CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SB330—THE EMERGENCY HOUSING CRISIS ACT OF 2019 ""Objective design standard"is: ".._a design standard that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to on external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal of on application." Page 413 DESIGN ELEMENTS Page 414 f� ,•,- � r.- - 'ti �-�. k ,a a Y - y.. ��_ -^ 9 - �..,:fir .3 - y • 1 Page 415 P.. r� OW ■ Ifs _- �1,��_ � _ Page 416 CAMINO PREDERA V SID WALK :, �L _i— w 2., \ x E � w n I 2 o _p V y0 � ` '7 y� r= Page 417 6-V yy g NOLLV TS 16'03 T Gz� !i g T ' F~ Aw MIT l � o=WMZ -LOW ILI ' F neoa.M[7ya -e�t7�'yald � - 0 WZ k•3.MaA/a3 9w CVGi Page 418 Vf N ---------- - 1 R9V : ------------- i I � g N , W „T� WEST ELEVATION- 5 D 16 N cA M,d. MCM ® �se•�see-iv uc sesue wrwpo 0ar.��,w Page 419 R i i t i i t i i i K C b a e(� TItLE: FRONT ELEVATION ©arwce caaena(c"Luc we+cua*ah'c nw WM gp y I Y MART&TWNn 8 t� (9891901�f!' JC•S6�i71B msj,O~rRmeRA LLCNt'tg4 CA 47B Page 420 PI2pJEGr W.E w GRGtateezu OI�LGItIO_F�!1(y •imp � D�tlwlef R1vl:4a'L IpSae `. � ; plkARl9 wmicrs•ITµ _ IfeAY �low f- I -- ---- !TI EAT x , eauTM tlev4nq•e - A-e �ITS Page 421 C."We DOOR 9TYLE rRD.6Gi FLE r �RG7Yi�-YY7M I k E7� Z5 �•� - i"PIGAL GABLE YEW ED GHIOELED IMLL ROOF PLAN it 5c�: dw A-11 - ___ _ _ _ _ _ w IZsQr. ■ Page 422 Harme.P1Ank'I ap SIAIn[g HaililePanel'veitlr.Rl S{nlnp MAilileShlnple %ifoln j IIIIIIIIINVIaIIAL SINVINKEW . A&r Y Tape I UWAn .c 1141n L.Wtk, 4.2 in 5.5 in. 8.75 if. 7.25 M. ID in Memm 15.25 in Flp r 7n p sJra wl 630 arr.nb colon 7+MMa.d'ShYpw m.aKUM n t,a lu�rw Mw ABOUT JAMES HARDIE PRODUCTS COLOR Page 423 • HarAlePtank•Lap Siding HardlePanel°Vertical Siding kaTcHaShingle'Siding SELECT CEWIHMILL' wlli fborn Thkk"sB 5116 in. Lenwh 12 it plim" W M 5.25 in 6.25 in. 7.25 N& &25 in. D.251n' 12 in.' - Eapoaln 4 kt 5 In 6 K 7In an. 10.75 In. C41a ftis raJPairl 280 252 210 FriwPULAIam 360 308 252 23D 190 157 P'ca/Sq 250 20A 16.7 1/.3 12-5 6.3 a r1�a View all Hal'itlePlank Lap Siding Products LJ' T� ABOUT JAMES HARDIE PRODUCTS COLOR MdamPage 424 r Page 425 GAIBLE ROOF DJTUNE SHOWNAi i Page CAMINO PREDERA'S TOPOGRAPHY Page 427 Page 428 '' • ': ,- lF� 1 Page 4 • .•} z _ .tom_ � �� w4 � - - a r i b 'j.. +y y. k -rat �r S'� ',� r "•,y , E rfY '1' Page 430 y �r. A.-.- Page 431 i+f Page 432 EXHIBIT B- 20' FROM TOP OF CURB Page 434 w' , ' R.y''. I;� �• � s. tip' u; +}:, - s :' y �' '� ;�'_�,�. r�1`�''+d• I It r..... �l� �' Sti:. � �,.' �„�,•��ry i I - r ''. '- r i�. -' 4e� --��4''w`« _ -. � '��Mlii•.•;i•i`►;•- �_ ,: K a �y,. ._ ... � ��7r^W � �r �-. :�-' _ ^- 'I Page r 4 .5 . w Page 436 Conclusion: 1. THE SUBMITTAL MEETS ALL THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODES AND THE SPIRIT OF THE CODES 2. THE SUBMITTAL INCORPORATES NUMEROUS AND SIGNIFICANT MITIGATING FEATURES IN CONSIDERATION OF NEIGHBOR14000 CONCERNS AND THE SENSITIVITIES OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT 3. CURRENT PUBLIC POLICY THROUGHOUT THE STATE STRONGLY ENCOURAGES NEW HOUSING CONSTRUCTfON BECAUSE OF A CRITICAL HOUSING SHORTAGE (SB330-THE EMERGENCY HOUSING ACT OF 7019) 4. DRC,PLANNINC COMMISSION AND NEIGHBORS COMMENTS HAVE BEEN OVERALL COMPLIMENTARY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND DESIGNS AND THERE 15 STRONG NEIGHBOR SUPPORT 5. THE HOME IS CONSISTENT WITH NEIGHBORHOOD TRENDS AND PAST APPROVALS 6. THE SUBMITTAL ENCOURAGES SIMILAR LOWERED DEVELOPMENT TO CONTINUE EASTWARD WITH LOWERED STREET PROFILES 7. EACH SITE 15 UNIQUE AND EACH APPLICATION SHOULD BE REVIEWED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS USING SITE TOPOGRAPHY B. INCORPORATE WITH THIS APPEAL ALL PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH CITY REPRESENTATIVES THAT RELATE TO CAMINO PREDERA AND ALL PRIOR SUBMITTALS TO THE CITY FOR NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION ON THE STREET. 9. FOR THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MORE HEAVILY WEIGHT TOPOGRAPHY ON PREDERA AS SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN APPROVALS. 10. APPLICANT RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THIS PROJECT BE APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL Page 437 2/I9/2Q20 ,,RECEI�TED DURING PUBLIC COMMENT.REGARDIN" .G I-EM-12 February 19, 2020 Good evening Mayor Michael and Council Members, My name is Renee Massey. My husband Lynn and I have lived on Camino Predera for twenty three years, and tonight, along with our neighbors, we want to extend our support for staff's recommendation to this Council. The ANALYSIS presented this evening regarding Resident Concerns , captures the essence of what we, the residents on Camino. Predera have been expressing to staff, the Planning Commission and City Council for twenty years. Our concerns over that time have been consistent and remain so this evening regarding this project. They are related to building height, building setbacks and the massive overall size of the structure. The staff has based its conclusions on current standards and has stated "the project is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code". The Staff's report is extensive and thorough and we appreciate the many hours of preparation. We thank Council for their leadership and based on staffs recommendation, we encourage the City Council to adopt both resolutions as presented this evening. Thank You, Renee and Lynn Massey Page 438 02/19/2020 City Coundi Meetingl Item 32:Additional Material/Correspondence From: Susan McNinch To: &W Cc: Lmn Massey(ofsmass(@9ma€€.com);Rob Patel(robO)socaltitie24.com);iadamsranchoCa)omail.com; chuck(&charlesioseah.biz;MM;D& Subject: Re:Camino Predera Date; Saturday,February 01,2020 4:45:28 PM Attachments: Worf.,ev Loan 2019 RG€3,email.ono All. Susan and I are in total concurrence with what Paul has eloquently articulated. Our main desire would be a maximum height above curb level of 10 feet, but understand that this need to be evaluated on a case by case basis to preserve views for all. Thank vou William (Bill) McNinch Vice President/Senior Project Director 101 E Huntington Dr, Suite 100, Monrovia, CA 91016 T: 626 803 5406 work 1 626 5518739 cell www.worley.com Worley .I.IV I� 1,....m Sent from my iPad On Jan 31,2020, at 10:03 AM, Paul <paul@bardosconstruction.com>wrote: To all: I'm starting the discussion to summarize and memorialize our meeting of last night at city hall. I have included all of those for whom I have email addresses,but for those I'm missing(and to those who have additional emails to add for others) please forward this on to them to contribute. My intention is to start off with our discussion points from last night to assist planning staff on the areas where the concepts were generally agreed upon to move forward and where additional discussion needs to take place. When a comment to this email is added,please be sure to"Reply to All"when responding. Having one email being circulated will keep the dialog open and frank as occurred last night and it will also serve to consolidate the discussion points in one place for forwarding to staff. We may then see where the disagreements exist and continue to work towards full resolution. At Mike Smith's request last night, please provide your comments over the weekend for forwarding to him by Monday afternoon. Page 439 Additionally,there was a consensus last night that the discussion was both constructive and productive but that given the shortened notice additional time to develop further resolution is,needed Beyond Monday. The neighbors would request that the Planning Commission move their current date of February 12, 2020 to a further hearings on DRC0004-2020, ("the Predera Review")to a time in late February or early March-a two to three week continuance. Disclaimer!! In.no way is this first email intended to create a concrete decision on any single point,but rather,it is a beginning for contributions by all the property owners to round out the discussion and formalize the understandings reached to narrower the context. Ultimately it will be staffs role to use their expertise to formulate the necessary language or policy guidelines to effectuate the understandings agreed upon here and that are to be applied on future development applications. General Goals: It is the intention of the neighbors to expedite approvals,reduce ambiguities in interpreting the current Development Code within the Hillside Overlay("the Standards"),and set new Standards for future homes that are beneficial to all concerned. Maximizing views for all residents is the primary goal. In general the topographical features of each of the lots should be the more heavily weighted factor in future property developments. Each lot should be reviewed by staff on a case by case basis that takes into consideration the following factors: (1) How will the development impact views of existing residents?; (2) How will the views of the applicant be similarly protected?; (3) What are the topographical features of the property that can be applied under current Hillside Standards to influence the placement.of the proposed residence on the property? (e.g.should the current standard of 5'cut and fill be maintained in some instances or should latitude be given for unique property characteristics or hardship-i.e.staffs proposed recommendation to increase retaining wall heights to 8' could be granted under a variance based on a top ographical'hardship). However,an 8'wall should not be .used to create an artificial man-made building elevation. Both the 5'and 8' standards could be applied as the controlling factor to reduce cut and fills preserving the intent of the Hillside Overlay while maximizing view potential to the applicant and existing residents; and(4) maximize property owner's use to the full extent of their property boundaries and up to current design Standards. These factors are to be applied collectively to minimize massing at or near the street level while also encouraging development,whenever practical for the applicant that's based upon topography(e.g.the Danny Dera model). Retaining walls should be utilized to create lower profiles and increase building front yard setbacks rather than the opposite wherever practical. Case by Case Basis Page 440 The residents of Predera recognize the unique characteristics of each of the lots and how some lots lend themselves to increased front yard setbacks,lower street profiles,wider side setbacks and a select few do not. These characteristics,unique to each lot,are both an attribute and a challenge to development depending on whether or not the design approaches are used properly. Therefore each applicant's submittal shall be reviewed on a case by case basis following the previously described guidelines and those that will follow now. Some generally agreed upon guidelines from last night's discussion follows in a lot by lot description below While this may present additional challenges to staff in the future,those challenges can be mitigated by a formalized policy statement in a written hand-out form.available to future applicants wishing to build. For reference,Lot 1 begins at the west side of Camino Predera at its intersection with Red Hill Country Club Drive.. The lots are consecutively numbered from there to lot 16,which is at the south side of the intersection of Camino Predera and, Predera Court. A tract map is included with this email for reference. Lot 12,the Adams'home,is built. Lot 4-Semler--is entitled as is the case with Lot 3 -Dera. The remainder of the lots are vacant. The remaining vacant lots are: Lot# Owner Attendance Comments Lot 1 Drury Did not attend forth/South sloping lot. Minimal view impacts because of location. Likely best suited for terraced floor plan following north/south lot contours Lot 2 Wang Did not attend Similar to Lot 1 but could benefit from increased front yard setback to a lower natural building pad area below and away from the street. Lot 3 Dera Did not attend Entitled Lot 4 Semler Did not Attend Entitled Lot 5 Padilla Did not attend Preliminary application submitted then abandoned shortly thereafter. Lower natural pad area available-similar to Dera contours. 10'&15'setbacks possible from wider lot width and lot size. Reduced elevation above street possible and limited to 6-8' overall Lot 6-9 Samiee Did not attend Similar to Dera contours. 10'&15'setbacks possible from wider lot width. Reduced elevation above street possible and limited to 6-8'overall Page 441 Lot 10 Adams Present Large earthen mound remnant from street construction. Should be allowed 14'height and standard 5 &10'setbacks to match mound remnant Lot 11 Adams Present Current Application--Large earthen mound remnant from street construction. Should be allowed 14'height and standard 5 &10'setbacks to match mound remnant Lot 12 Adams Present Completed Construction Lot 13 Stoops Present Current Application Lot 14 Patel Family Present Future discussions pending on Monday-between the Patel's and Boquefs-recommended reduced height balanced against steep grade drops and difficult built site Lot 15 Patel Family Present Application Pending-Future discussions pending on Monday--between Patel's and Boquet's- recommended reduced height balanced against steep,grade drops and challenging build site Lot 16 Patel Family Present Current Application-Future discussions pending on Monday between Patel's and Boquet's -recommended reduced height balanced against steep grade drops and challenging build site Additional Comments: It was generally agreed that garages may be constructed under any configuration allowed by current Standards to include tandem. Articulation and a recognizable architectural style as currently required under the Standards were broadly supported. Roof ridge orientation was not a significant issue if coupled with the overall objectives sought to be achieved. I know this is not a comprehensive summary of every detail and I am rely on everyone to contribute to the discussion to complete any of the remaining items. Hopefully we can get something together that makes sense for Mike on Monday. I would like to thank everyone for their continued contributions to resolving these issues. I think we'll all celebrate when the last home is built and we can enjoy our hard work. Page 442 Best, Paul % BAKDOS "" TT Paul8ardos 595 Daley Lane Kalispell,MT 59901 PouI PBardosConstruction_com (406)309-8080(Office) 909 982-3831(FAX) (909)241-7627(Cell) Lic#505220 8,C39,C20 Multiple Award Winning Builder This e-mail message and any attachments to this e-mail message contain confidential information that may be legally privileged.If you are NOT the intended recipient,you must not review, retransmit, convert to hardcopy, download,copy,print or otherwise disseminate or retain this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error,please contact my office at the number above and notify me of the error by return e-mail. Please then delete the message erroneously received. <Tract Map 10035.pdf5 Page 443 02/19/2020 City Council Meetingl Item 32:Additional Material/Correspondence From: Eaw To: "chuckpcharlesjoseph.biz";ofsmassCmama0,Qm;mcnmCni0aamail.com;rob(dsocaltitle24.com; jadamsrancho(dlamail.com;MM; hristopher.nosrat[agmaii-com" Cc: Suzanne Buauet;T55nedekgr@(ireatdane.com;Thomas Reyes;"danny.dera@amail.com "mcninsh@atLnet" Subject: RE:Camino Predera Date: Tuesday,February 11,2020 10:29:00 AM Attachments: imo-211100203-0001.odf Lynn and Renee, Mary and I are returning the request to continue the PC hearing on amendments for DRC 0004-2020 to you signed with our support for another meeting. We believe our last meeting was constructive and productive and we are optomistic that another meeting will produce a final agreement of all the neighbors that the city will support. Best, Paul and Mary Tr BnRj)os Paul 8ardos 595 Doley Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 Paul Cc)BardosConstruction.com (405)309-8080(Office) (909)982-3831(FAX) (909)241-7527(Cell) Lic#505220 B, C39,C20 Multiple Award Winning Builder This e-mail message and any attachments to this e-mail message contain confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are NOT the intended recipient,you must not review, retransmit, convert to hardcopy,download, copy,print or otherwise disseminate or retain this e-mail or any attachments to it. if you have received this e-mail in error,please contact my office at the number above and notify me of the error by return e-mail. Please then delete the message erroneously received. From:chuck@charlesioseph.biz [mailto:chuck@charlesjoseph.biz] Sent: Monday, February 03, 2020 3:12 PM To: Paul; pfsmass@gmail.com; mcninchl0@gmail.com; rob@socaltitle24.com; jadamsrancho@gmail.com; Mary Cc:Suzanne Buquet;TBSnedeker@greatdane.com;Thomas Reyes Subject: RE: Camino Predera Paul: Thanks for your e-mail. I appreciate you taking the time at the property owners meeting to constructively participate in the discussion and consensus building that occurred before staff came back in for the final time, but also for putting together your summary of various points of discussion that occurred during the meeting. Page 444 The key issue is the pressure being brought to bear following almost no known activity after the Septembe"r 9, 2019 Workshop until we received notice of the January 22, 2020, Planning Commission hearing for the Development Code Amendment, staff report being unavailable until after hours on Thursday, January 16th, City Hall closed on Friday through Monday, and no opportunity for communication with City staff until City Hall opened on Tuesday, January 21, 2020, the day before the Planning Commission hearing. Regrettably, I believe that we we're very close to obtaining general consensus on compromise that could have constructively identified and addressed the concerns of both the resident property owners and the property owners who want to develop and sell the remaining vacant lots on the south side of Camino Predera, In fairness, following 20 years of not much being accomplished to address the concerns of the respective property owners, the City should allow for a reasonable opportunity to continue with collective communication that could result in a constructive resolution of the key issues and allow for the continuance of what was a good start by the City to hopefully result with a positive ending. Thanks for your help with this. Please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity should you have any questions or need of additional information or assistance with this matter. Thanks, Chuck Buquet, President Charles Joseph Associates 9581 Business Center Drive, Suite D Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Office (909) 481-1822 Fax (909) 320-2296 *******************PLEASE NOTE****************** This message, along with any attachments, may be confidential or legally privileged. It is intended only for the named person(s), who is/are the only authorized recipients. If this message has reached you in error, kindly destroy it without review and notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your help. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Camino Predera From: Paul <,paul(&bardoscons_truction com> Date: Fri, January 31, 2020 10:03 am To: "Lynn Massey ( )." <pfsmass0amail.com>, "mcninchlOOgmall.com" <mcn0nch10(&gr_nagl com>, "Rob Patel (rob(@socaltitle24:com)" <rob(asocaltltle24.com>, ",jadamsr_ancho_@gmail.com" <jadamsrancho(&gmail.com>, "chuckCa)charlesjoseph.biz" <chuck(&charlesioseph.biz>, Mary <ma[ycalbardosconstruction.com> To all: I'm starting the discussion to summarize and memorialize our meeting of last night at city hall. I have included all of those for whom l have email addresses,but for those I'm missing (and to those who have additional emails to add for others) please forward this on to them to contribute. My intention is to start off with our discussion points from last night to assist planning staff on the areas where the concepts were generally agreed upon to move forward and where additional Page 445 discussion needs to take place. When a comment to this email is added,please be sure to"Reply to All"when responding. Having one email being circulated will keep the dialog open and frank as occurred last night and it will also serve to consolidate the discussion points in one place for forwarding to staff. We may then see where the disagreements exist and continue to work towards full resolution. At Mike Smith's request last night,please provide your comments over the weekend for forwarding to him by Monday afternoon. Additionally,there was a consensus last night that the discussion was both constructive and productive but that given the shortened notice additional time to develop further resolution is needed beyond Monday. The neighbors would request that the Planning Commission move their current date of February 12, 2020 to a further hearings on DRC0004-2020, ("the Predera Review") to a time in late February or early March-a two to three week continuance.. Disclaim-ed! In no way is this first email intended to create a concrete decision on any single point,but rather, it is a beginning for contributions by all the property owners to round out the discussion and formalize the understandings reached to narrower the context. Ultimately it will be staffs role to use their expertise to formulate the necessary language or policy guidelines to effectuate the understandings agreed upon here and that are to be applied on future development applications. General Goals: It is the intention of the neighbors to expedite approvals,reduce ambiguities in interpreting the current Development Code within the Hillside Overlay("the Standards"),and set new Standards for future homes that are beneficial to all concerned. Maximizing views for all residents is the primary goal. In general the topographical features of each of the lots should be the more heavily weighted factor in future property developments. Each lot should be reviewed by staff on a case by case basis that takes into consideration the following factors: (1) How will the development impact views of existing residents?; (2) How will the views of the applicant be similarly protected?; (3) What are the topographical features of the property that can be applied under current Hillside Standards to influence the placement of the proposed residence on the property? (e.g.should the current standard of 5' cut and fill be maintained in some instances or should latitude be given for unique property characteristics or hardship-i.e. staffs proposed recommendation to increase retaining wall heights to 8'could be.granted under a variance based on a topographical hardship). However,an 8'wall should not be used to create an artificial man-made building elevation. Both the 5'and 8' standards could be applied as the controlling factor to reduce cut and fills preserving the intent of the Hillside Overlay while maximizing view potential to the applicant and existing residents;and (4) maximize property owner's use to the full Page 446 extent of their property boundaries and up to current design Standards. These factors are to be applied collectively to minimize massing at or near the street level while also encouraging development,whenever practical for the applicant that's based upon topography(e.g.the Danny Dera model). Retaining walls should be utilized to create lower profiles and increase building front yard setbacks rather than the opposite wherever practical. Case by Case Basis The residents of Predera recognize the unique characteristics of each of the lots and how some lots lend themselves to increased front yard setbacks,lower street profiles,wider side setbacks and a select few do not. These characteristics,unique to each lot,are both an attribute and a challenge to development depending on whether or not the design approaches are used properly. Therefore each applicant's submittal shall be reviewed on a case by case basis following the previously described guidelines and those that will follow now. Some generally agreed upon guidelines from last night's discussion follows in a lot by lot description below While this may present additional challenges to staff in the future,those challenges can be mitigated by a formalized policy statement in a written hand-out form available to future applicants wishing to build. For reference, Lot 1 begins at the west side of Camino Predera at its intersection with Red Hill Country Club Drive. The lots are consecutively numbered from there to lot 16,which is at the south side of the intersection of Camino Predera and Predera Court. A tract map is included with this email for reference. Lot 12,the Adams' home,is built. Lot 4-Semler-is entitled as is the case with Lot 3 - Dera. The remainder of the lots are vacant. The remaining vacant lots are: Lot # Owner Attendance Comments Lot 1 Drury Did not attend North/South sloping lot. Minimal view impacts because of location. Likely best suited for terraced floor plan following north/south lot contours Lot 2 Wang Did not attend Similar to Lot 1 but could benefit from increased front yard setback to a lower natural building pad area below and away from the street. Lot 3 Dera Did not attend Entitled Lot 4 Semler Did not Attend Entitled Page 447 Lot 5 Padilla Did not attend Preliminary application submitted then abandoned shortly thereafter. Lower natural pad area available-similar to Dera contours. 10'&15'setbacks possible from wider lot width and lot size. Reduced,elevation above street possible and limited to 6-8' overall. Lot 6-9 Samiee Did not attend Similar to Dera contours. 10'&15'setbacks possible from wider lot width. Reduced elevation above street possible and limited to 64 overall Lot.10 Adams Present Large earthen mound remnant from street construction. Should be allowed 14'height and standard 5 &10'setbacks to match mound remnant Lot 11 Adams Present Current Application-Large earthen mound remnant from street construction. Should be allowed 14'height and standard 5 &10' setbacks to match mound remnant Lot 12 Adams Present Completed Construction Lot13 Stoops Present Current Application Lot 14 Patel Family Present Future discussions pending on Monday-between the Patel's and Boquet's-recommended reduced height balanced against steep grade drops and difficult built site Lot 15 PateI Family Present Application Pending-- Future discussions pending on Monday-between Patel's and Boquet's- recommended reduced height balanced against steep grade drops and challenging build site Lot 16 Patel Family Present Current Application-Future discussions pending on Monday between Patel's and Boquet's recommended reduced height balanced against steep grade drops and challenging build site Additional Comments: It was generally agreed that garages may be constructed under any configuration allowed by current Standards to include tandem. Articulation and a recognizable architectural style as currently required under the Standards were broadly supported. Roof ridge orientation was not a significant issue if coupled with the Page 448 overall objectives sought to be achieved. I know this is not a comprehensive summary of every detail and I am rely on everyone to contribute to the discussion to complete any of the remaining items. Hopefully we can get something together that makes sense for Mike on Monday. 1 would like to thank everyone for their continued contributions to resolving these issues. I think we'll all celebrate when the last home is built and we can enjoy our hard work. Best, Paul Paul 8ardos 595 Daley Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 309-8080 (Office) 909 982-3831(FAX) (909) 241-7627(Cell) Lic # 505220 8, C39, C20 Multiple Award Winning Builder This e-mail message and any attachments to this e-mail message contain confidential information that may be legally privileged. if you are NOT the intended recipient,you must not review, retransmit, convert to hardcopy, download, copy,print or otherwise disseminate or retain this e-mail or any attachments to it if you have received this e-mail in error,please contact my office at the number above and notify me of the error by return e-mail. Please then delete the message erroneously received. Page 449 10 % 02/19 2020 Ci Council Meetingl Item J2: Additional Material/ Correspondence / o BA OS 1, � Z--<7 CONSTRi-, f1C31*I January 21, 2020 City of Rancho Cucamonga Via Email: Daniela.Rodriguez a cityofrc.us Attn: Planning Commissioners Certified Mail 7019 1640 0001 7256 7222 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I write this letter to provide the Commissioners with our objections to the proposed changes to the Development Code authored by staff in DRC0004-2020 and that are recommended for approval at the Planning Commission meeting on January 22, 2020. It has long been known that the views along Camino Predera from the lots in Tract 10035 are amongst the best and most sought after in Rancho Cucamonga. It is no wonder that for 18 years residents on the north side of Predera have repeatedly objected to construction on the south side of the street to protect their views. Even a cursory review of the city's public records using the search term "Camino Predera" at hops:Hredoes.cityofrc.us/WebLink/Welcome.asspx?cc—1 yields dozens of resident's letters, staff reports, and records on appeals that over the period have unquestionably illustrated and recorded the neighbors' concern over view obstruction. For staff to omit this fact from its report and recommendations is none other than dereliction of its duty to you,the Commissioners. The recommendations of staff are also thinly veiled to circumvent California Public Policy and case precedents to create a view easement over property owners on the south side of Camino Predera for the benefit of owners on the north side of the street. Thereby staff wrongly encourages you,the decision makers here, to enter into a private contract dispute for the benefit of one party over another. The private contract was established through the CC&R's recorded on the tract at its formation and to which all of the residents have agreed by their property ownership. Staffs recommendations that you intrude will also concurrently provide a public use of Camino Predera as a view corridor without the requisite findings, notices, and hearings required to create such things. Even if staff feigns ignorance or avoidance on their attempts at creation of a view corridor or view preservation, their re-wording of the narrative and their selective language describing the neighborhood issues does not alter the realities: their recommendations are, in fact and at the very least,a taking without Just Compensation for the depravation of property owners' rights for the trespass of another. Property ownership rights are amongst the most cherished in our society and should never be abridged by government without a substantive and overriding public need. S9S DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT 59901 (909) 981 -6797 OFFICE (909) 982-3831 FAX LICENSE #S❑5220 MULTIPLE AWARD WINNING LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR Page 450 In this case the public is not served because of the extraordinarily"limited geography of the proposed regulations and the extraordinarily few number of residents these proposed standards seek to harm. Not only do these standards purport to regulate only one tract,but in simple truth,as staff report clearly makes known,the standards will apply to only a subset of 14 parcels within that tract. Existing developed homes and entitled vacant properties remain unaffected and rewarded for their development in time. This is also an "ad hoc"application of development standards that sets an unjustifiable precedent that should go hand in hand at the very least with heightened scrutiny. Staff s recommended"solutions" are not proportional to the impacts at issue and that they claim,are in desperate-and immediate.need to be ameliorated. Staff lobbies you now to approve of their recommendations because of a differing"topography" and"development patterns"in the Red Hill community than exists in any other part of the city. Yet this assertion is unfounded and unsupported by anything other than mere conjecture and commentary. No study exists in support of the broad conclusion reached. Staffs only true evidence is the strident cacophony of a select few neighbors. Staff also implies that the Council is implicitly supporting their recommendations,because of their findings on the Galvan appeal,yet the Council's findings (that denied the Galvan appeal in support of the Commissioner's approval) did not describe any such advisement to the Planning Commissioners nor was any such determination by the Council described in its resolution of denial of the appeal. We will never truly know what the full Council's position was because the applicant and the appellants reached a settlement agreement encouraged by mediation arranged by the City. To further exacerbate the issues,staff is recommending that the Commission find that 9 property owners, and no others in the city,shall be discriminated against for choosing their purchase,of vacant land with a Reasonable Investment-Backed Expectation to develop their land as neighbors on both sides of the street have already been allowed to do and thereby prosper economically accordingly. There is neither fairness nor justice in any application of regulations staff proposes that pits neighbor against neighbor in close proximity to each other on the same street and indeed even as close as one next door neighbor to another. This is the case with our property and uniquely illustrated because we would be restricted even further from choosing which side of our home shall have the 15'proposed setback as the existing home to our east has a S' setback on their west and the regulations propose that there be a minimum 20'setback between homes. Given the topography of our lot,the preferred side for a 15''setback would be to our east. We would lose the ability to choose and concurrently be burdened more so than any other property owner should these amendments be adopted. These new standards leave neighbors doing little more than vying for parity and inflamed over the application of standards with one neighbor benefiting more than another just feet away from each other. "First come first serve"will be the another new development standard on Predera--it's no longer going to be discretionary to the designer if your neighbor builds first as the existing standards currently allow for in greater fairness. 595 DALEY LANE, KALISP.ELL, MT 59901 (909) 981-6797 OFFICE (909) 9B2-3831 FAX LICENSE #505220 'MULTIPLE AWARD WINNING LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR Page 451 Fairness also dictates, and current zoning and housing regulations require, non-discriminatory practices in land use. Staffs proposed changes discriminate against narrower lots in preference of wider lots because increased.setbacks disproportionately restrict development on the narrower lot far more than is the case for the larger or wider parcels. Where the zoning practice normally would allow for a variance for such an unfair imposition,here staff advocates to promote a more discriminatory practice instead'. These conditions again unfairly"leverage" permit approval authority for excessive concessions from a single property owner.that Staff now requests be determined administratively by their Director instead of by you the Commissioners as has been done in the past for decades. Staff s proposals also do not take into consideration the unique topography of the remaining lots, another commonly used factor to grant variances to Code requirements. Staffs recommendations are more appropriate for Terra Vista style developments with flat and regularly shaped Iots where commonly applied standards work uniformly. Many of these lots, however, like Danny Dera's and lots 14-16 on the east side,have an initial steep drop-off at the sidewalk that levels out into a relatively flat building pad below. Other lots, such as lots 10-13 have their natural building pads at or near the street level. Lots 10 &11 have a large earthen mound remnant from street grading and paving operations completed back in the late 80's. These 4 lots are particularly impacted sites because of the natural building site contours occurr at street level with increasingly steep slopes to their south. These conditions are the opposite for the other lots 14-16 and lots 1-9. Staffs recommendations should take into consideration topography by restricting the creation of artificial grades that would elevate the home to street level rather than utilizing the naturally occurring building pads in the lower elevation areas of the properties. Topography is something the existing Hillside Ordinance seeks to preserve and is being overlooked in these recommendations by allowing 8'retaining walls to create man- made elevations. Moreover, nowhere has staff found a nuisance, risk to public safety, or interest in preserving some underlying,long=standing public principle to support these amendments. Quite to the contrary the background principles already created here by prior entitlements on the street and throughout the city run contrary to staffs recommendations. Again, any consideration of fairness is opposite to the standards being recommended. Staff also fails to articulate its goals in promoting the change in the standards in any objective fashion or with quantifiable measurements. There are references to excessive "size (floor area)," "massing and over building,"and"character of the neighborhood" in staffs report to be modified, however no objective measurements are provided by staff to illustrate the undesirable condition from the ideal one they seek to achieve.What floor area size,massing, or character does staff seek to establish? Rather,staff continues to promote more subjective characterizations as a resolution of what are already unfairly subjective oppositions. Here I would refer Commissioners to definitions in the newly enacted legislation of SB330—The Emergency Housing Crisis Act of 2019 -that became effective on January 1, 2020 for guidance. Therein the language of the law defines an "Objective design standard"as: 595 DALEY LANE,. KALISPELL, MT 59901 (9119) 981-6797 OFFICE (909) 982-3831 FAX LICENSE #505220 MULTIPLE AWARD WINNING LICENSED AND INSURED. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Page 452 ,...a design standard that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application." I would submit for the Commissioners consideration thatSB330 is applicable in this instance for numerous reasons not the least of which is because staff proposes standards on the whole tract (modifying its conditions of approval ex post facto) and SB330 bars the subjectivity staff seeks to reintroduce into any further development with all the failings subjectivity will create. Should these amendments be adopted they will only continue to yield further controversy on the street. For instance,in our submittal recently denied by the Commission in December,our floor area was considered too large and our retaining wall was found to be too high,yet staff fails to define the maximum allowable floor area in their new standards (nor do they define it as the Code currently allows at 40%lot coverage) and their objections to a 57'wall on our project now gives rise to gratis approval of W high retaining walls. If we were to resubmit under the new standards we would surely look for approvals on a narrower and taller structure to the maximum height of 14', but with the same floor area elongated on the lot rather than the lower and wider more beneficial profile we previously presented. These new standards therefore do little to resolve the "massing and over building" or define the"character of the neighborhood" staff seeks to address with any"Objective design standard" as the new law requires. A careful reading of the new law would yield significant other Iegal impediments to staffs recommendations. In conclusion,the current language of the Development Code is and has been since creation of the tract able to accommodate and promote diverse use. As some residents require smaller housing space,those spaces exist within Tract 10035. Others,some of whom began construction decades ago,have enjoyed larger living spaces in varied architectural styles. For those who prefer smaller homes they already exist. For those who desire greater diversity in larger homes those exist too. Red Hill is an eclectic community and that pattern is rightly being repeated here in Tract 10035 in each of its uniquely designed homes. Staff provides no reason to alter what has been lawfully approved property developments by Commissioners for the past 18 years. I find it odd that development along the street progressed well with the guidance of former directors and that now new regulations are required instead. I would Iike to thank the Commissioners in advance for taking the time to consider these comments. Sincerely, BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC: Paul Bardos, President 595 DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT 59901 (909) 981-6797 Mrmrm= (909) 982-3931 FAX LICENSE #505220 MULTIPLE AWARD WINNING LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR Page 453 O2/19/2020 City Council Meeting Item l2:Additional Material/Correspondence b uoa vnw RS CERII/CAIE �rr.�srrvsrnlY rvr..,c.•��rasr�s,vwe«56vr.�Lury nr :wJaxar:er $+iEET I OF 3 SFRETS TACT NO 10035 ~mgW/ er R.aaxr cricR to gra c rE>vE almrrfcav nrvn'rnsNr•Nvrs eeE FwrEn�rrvrasawaNN Ch'1Ff�6.Y r'rAN 1N TF4E GI1Y drI�RLNCIvOLLYAMOMfiA,GALVF"dRNW wx�R•vRcv ro���/ aR,NR-ws ivvs-T/eN'sL�.vr..P•w.wJr 'pfE.WN.6As.LK/:RL:Ya GVLra.,VP sv�.RNeo+.cwr.vr.,v.rr�Loo+.rao la,AEo r�u weolvroN pLr7 A6 FSR MAP RFYFRLYD IN pPPK R1,A19C'J9 Q MArR ANP Lm Iq,Y kAtl' A K mR rvr R�a'tl xl Ra"r n/i R11�rp,v.'O'N BFr,NPf,L'1, RµcXG.RRGCNTCE,LTD,..GALIFORNN Rt XER.L MnTN£RRxlr K{pYA.cVIEC(W'JY[XSWANK6AZNtf AIlEO•CAC/FaP1'M FX EIE STERN GEVELCPMEM CO..A CALIFORNIA GENERAL MRTx[WP, GECV4GEHM/M MdCK tlNl`,I°Jbl i MTNER(s RANCIq A,RGLNT[5.LTD.1 CQN5(/IO.^n4I 1,10RNNG/NEERS {Y E G.10 EENG.(MRTMER GF WLRT...LEYCLDfNENT GO l I241M p 4ML/FLiQNL4 [W►OWS(bl[TVICATR: IIM1Cil0 CIILAAIORIGA.LITY CpAY.IL(eRTINCATE T ANXECRAw:IYF,MKeYmRnr•I TNrc L W a RWNWMma,a Wa'•lWee a,Ne w,e ��`• GEOR6 G.TDRI�MD — ML'yi'h�I %mW�e Yn nn.e4.X..�V.ems a�w�N.V.•IA�L T�wv RN (�/yyi/W.Ym 91:CF�4S•f'EF/( .er/pA�sa w ra,"�'.,em an� .�o�mra.��.��er^�pWµr� ���� YM+',uwrwlry,rr•wosY�esa r fur RIFMCr Gtm��K��/l-/k� _ _rR9i/./f1'S/IRUIYA.NrAd �'-"p'��im,41G,„v.cTRwuea wrµC exiTir� �:b/e�ruspe+xew+ev ]Bt..��..1L�� Cwre.NYR rd rHs}ww,ed X,cWN N/ CU'K MJ,x' NP�R'rrd'NlC4 RWI� PiM: rµ' W draw...Y y�y,C�rt�/nw,[c L,.M�CeM4 R W rwT aw/4fC•r ,e wx,.aav w.ulw mARFEO, R�{LOL1r1Fi'6.QKiDiL'd�.NKYR2/fN./fM'f/Mh'6�M ��Wx:".lv.•A'SI.,S.fl.::iJ::x"r,.11�r�aY.L::. -rcJr,:w �w.ra.wn wrmr.w�iw+w,ea���yyec+� ,•n�rvr,aw.R rfC+BLKPAR/prtF NL RECdgi IMSe/I'.a r-e'..v.q:d:_.::wMS_r v„NSY.J�fC,�.'/J,Y.f1.V'.NO �~�,Oe� {d.VO-YG� oaten.7'SI'I'b vnN{rx'•L-•Lw,a•,r,rcvr' urY.,,�lanMa car.�Mr�srows celmrlr�,.Te ��^"a�"_�°"�"q�"��^ ,rr.,:orcwe..:. f JN:M1.�,-;�:,� :.•:xu,:..av�.a.,v rNr.ew�r.aP:,.n.•rempr ]fE�ef;[.lf�Ke— /pl.C(.,r:AKYr:✓Nr4r'• rrirn?.d'ONr.i.+.A:%: J.:..4�-�.w�N {' �./L�wILRgJaR�Y .aM s�oe�ypg (/,.ear,..r�e�xun Ow.i+�:,l":�`-�/'�Y�iaK:+'C.[.i/p,'WC�/rW�/�v.�y/.../.�r�r•�Yspi�h�sd+rL'od9IK Nr.m�,Rr��aP.eaEac^urEa rAEJwmwrvfranvt•,vrnwa�L'rcval RxTro .3-aJ-flr . AY naPdry N/:IO�rAti'OgGMt?'6E�10NE I.var SCC,vrauE! �SXfr �vraf r,Pv.v,•ssEv ur fvn¢suav,ra nerisrvs ���T,��.w....:rL:.w,,..va, Eo.wvw.r.��son uenrom= rR,rr..:w,wrr�N'ti..sNeue.eool�.erc.-�`s"e' a ///��� ��, eK.w..•N.w �ALL,�r».r.e..e,»L.»a{3r.er....��R...�.......�> .r,vNX+r o..W--_" slvxXATwr(NGWRN,45 Q�s w!nti:w LWwn,R+e awmrlW Y ST.e.. . � .e.•,�.__,_v"met _ ...w«r�.,R...•x 6 r'!J16� o..nm —- N. .�.. n•_•..m.e w6nunre.,. a+,Twne ��� .tlprW MdEAFR/C AR'✓7RrT ARRgWLLdIM/M1 .rs N a/r oerc.r. RW„= .,pNluT a..W:.a.w�,a, k%r.NW 9E.,rP•'r AWO[K.WHHtOM/3WS, 'ax14'i:.Er�� 'L6e 3sA w�Y"raR�.eua.o••'�"TRc`BY..wa.+rmw.++ro,.ET.woE„L.x.R�,T.....T.. maefexcP.r o•tw.wuc„Rrin Rr/r•+'rves e�m 'rMEYwI[�ERX.x!ru,A. a;,.-. A✓ ir. `, dam r4rr�<sa+[Lri m+s•Rr�v�� ..cev .�.R.�ro.r»T..��ro e��s��:r� u�w�.r.o.. �-E ElfRray.•[LY.roc»wro.rf/a.nzns�z.'rvrTr�aesscrzuT,a �;.v,..m.w,,+»voam.,.r».e.�.a.�mo /IC/P./E nEro�p��p�/+�1�R20.YS lKIJE/EC TEO)NE M/�/.�E r�v� s wwk)(r/I/w�ae rtiwww✓ww,R-r/a r,urwrranLv /W RF L•/aR�,P/ 0�6' Rau JC-k Iirf.mwI - ,w.uutr•nrre'.w.-< �� •fevwlx'iA.rr �xM�'���� :�'f f.6 pJNwF9r�rfO JCeFs»6W['dWnNY PPMAes6Fa✓FYEw'FNroavrRipf•ftiF .y o,,,y,.r,,,,Y f�Xacy, r•n,.'npv�uerrf/vt]M�.xrY/„K...l a.v arS alrFrsl llW.'w,RN:wN �/ `.�E 56vircmf w Ld�Mi'RN f•[/l•Wii FO/Xb,NI ruEN1YP•O A+MLPor.WfAlf!- nvNrfGv ri[c,Rx CaXC.s par nRueN@roC.a w1{}9e'IL6 MfENl O-R. If J GL e6 d K N LO/rdaP:r ftl::::'nKrTNl.,i^.!/ � JAIMEC'fE/�i Wl'4X.^<LYfNIn'IQ�A e Sl��Es✓vdc[[L/J wr y r�l +� w +we�vrso.N�vvLr ea.�wfr�eei4.e' -re - I K A �rmP Cr AEIC�w v.eiavrM[YA"Aw rYN E4W Po hAA/siLN�'O/ . eK n couRTr Gr LaE u�ieuv �" o�'�f��P3s w 6 Lm.ry RRruor RT vR..R M vsx..c�RR xxowX,R Nc A R.uL R.TXL�` ' ���a( K � ♦r er fi a�n G . wR e +...I 1. AT y ..... .:.;�•.. A re T { + ov0.Fx •"•`••• •'•*^o..as RR.L EIDGKI7�A..EE9...rAou. '1 IE NO OF.......Nap- r t /'+rw• Gl' 'aa .sEN 110 LIIwtT BFCpI{EN 1Cc35 /79/33 Page 454 / surer z of d areers TRACT NO. 10035 W rile elrY ff N.4NCNO&"jtfOV M,CRUFMAq R.n wo•.�rm�o+w/arrnw.r can rwwv�.rec Nru rueri�rxay.a rc+ I✓//�WImY/,/I6rN OJ KOftl wNJ LOIN,�wIr A/O.1Nf wY N,f ,Nq/,,rr�rruuppC[,OQwar fr N4 /Y6! c .I,yO Jtl�ARIRS.OIL,/P"[OPLtS L�rKa QiGwlrArSeNBEPwiY.i9,SGfl�ArCw mow. fir—'—,-,� 6E8Rt;Erx MiMM4C.� Fcrtw:M-fa' o-rM,rlw, �: '- E crr�f[nNGC,vrErrGi,YEER � ,� —�—r>`� ,r'N� .� ��W7IY avlaRrc3 Ga[rFcv r'iA o "^ r•r'a .errv�re w,rrar�r. rrcwe � � I � '�o.xnm¢a ' 'y E rnr.0 . fyra,o r LDS 4 1. i rwwvna..dv 5a'� .µ'�c,�f' - W,1•— r r m= '�rld4� �Si.a y-1 �i f I ` Ihr�.• f r��W ;: :Af' [ � na� """'• e,.f ,. � �7,,.�,mar ",b e rrJ `Jib.✓" '". !¢ ` << ` `i�°s. "'"i u `a w� cr u � m ryvr 'r" c.ie \ '&'S i •� a/ri r0'e. m zz p �a p^i @@@$ �' � k L/ .w.rm. �s•."siF r pR,.,r r,r.• 4'r¢r �. !/ \o C•L q. �� r � No"rc, ,. r>''a�,+" rdo-rw'•�. ��- �tr � i ..• � ^.�� ^H�,r sm�n-�,nm �r:f �r"-- �yf'" �� 1 ♦ \ Y�4 �^ �•r rrwwn -"- p.n+r� YIr nnY+ttr`• '' /0 d YA �. e i 5•,'nu i eP \ i r•¢ r•Nl Apr +•p n � 'u r d �+�� ���.�i w R ' rn, e.r �.�lW'Rlb'•� �d ��•"'.�rawn�"w a"'r`� �`\ i M r -o-:i;jmr ELM Fppp ' r.rtc�..w•srnsr'Lo- r ApIL ES: '�¢r�+a,sy,•,� �.. � .err y„ro �/AG/ .� �- NOl• �.,m,rurr.r„Laa,wr raQrrcr.¢rvwwrMe ' "t yr c+t v �P.rn.s -.Orr¢'ER17 '% f�Naws mrcr.w.crrr Nf/.ea¢',�msewrravw a �<� vaae¢, r nwe[Lw„rrJ.rA•rra. qp4, SOr"" refra'.v,a�*.erwnr. . � ��i .r-: ,sesr.•renrro ,. \ sasrer•w r r r.arr ra/.eaives.rwtmv e.a:✓wn awmva.os. ..�� Hruarr.wr rss � 5 ueru p+re♦aeurrrsnio,frfwra,r/,aa•.rri.cee.uvi. �i�•... ._.. .��rre�mu ,�+�`�,` .—�It r xmr rxzr.wr.r ron,...a.nax�a �:°eam 4 i a fre. /iarsrr rrrr',•mrrerr.' �'ww �n,�V�,a¢N� rc�sr�Or•o r cfN.N�NYYfenayairwlapa!V. ra,;" .Aww' . rira nmrrrrr�rrnaaxrrvrrv/,ar. ��o F �� Y4 ��q�.Yr ' R I[m�rmrriefri�v➢k'ter R¢frw'i.rr[r rill , WiCdL r:x roarer s'earrsHrr ne¢w.fi wWdM r"•zV' n.a:w�er.,ee rw•¢*w exrrr wrrorw.sr..a, gyp, !?F 3 Page 455 TRACT NO. 10035 /Y 7J/6 L/7Y Ar RiPFkWO acgMaysq, 6OElFQQXIq •rwaw>ruartiew a•PMrIAW sr[oAl r.wo.xlevaeF P.aarsiac, �+�Prvso, �✓l �r2YW].Tl+.ue r b f wmi fav!F.'�'4lY fl M wr a•M.Nr,P..'P lPrp frPCT ✓R JN[l.a PIP N.I%RCP bveaar.r iasrs u.INP rP OFM.4Ps' MI1 -- +.�F.RAPeSA"rYf°L'I.MFr O".tIIv4WA4KlY.YO,SFC/L�C t,FAaui/. RE-' \ GEO+R�iEMJa/P1M.1CK SrPL1:/'�iO' /[a!'nw/ ^r OVTQR/a GI!/�L�N/A ,�off^` I L_1ry �a°t�mrP� r�csE�`Enfd,nd��'���\ � y'N90N .1 oeN: 4 s ✓ter. IS .�' r rsx+'1 war' ���+° a z a. . 4. 9. . \ ✓ '� \�,•ac L�r41Z � ""c F -� CC���y •• , \\\\- 1TGPM e[ats Li4WN.rO elyr yr ° �„.>d. ma�` g `•'"'k"'.-t P .{"� M ,` cy'i��` �iJ • hrre M l A `� Qa V .. 6Y.Ey W L�C k1 4• r~ .{ 0 @� V° 4: r �.�, iO� ,�Z/ ,� g1 `\/ � art' y'f $- �y�r Mr✓r• i:iiri +,�rA a nr�+.• •"�--�9:.0 �i \� � Q¢ F'/P...�k�Nr lO SC.Em MIlJO�• ..w. ate-....n `.. ` \ ki,�� 'rn zo o irt�w arde�inarxaar I. r ._�.CRNT W1'` ;..��.:.r� ..,,�.�..r'"w.• -��6'R� °� t5�*•; u ZI ..:.F'. +•� .,.., _ ."'�,.',.�• mod- \� dcpf �� �`xizar \ N :°; v. ••x:r' _ _� F to \.\. nAl .Pry `z wrt �r� ;� LOT 5. RE6"ILL /p + «�a`y SUBUIVISIOY, M.B.21/33 AD :•nn°"'""`"""— .�.--°'Y.':`"i;:l>vo� rrmfec+s,.Qncrwxiir.v ar>,v�v.�c,r�ormy.ry.r.V ' • ~ C �-• �� � '•�,.� sa'4NE,C4+ RPtii/G .GO/LP.AOO ,Pi6NT 4R IY.o!'. � ��.. . '���T al �� rN• s•e . W" 179 . tiooas �� Page 456 RESOLUTION NO, 19-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473-A'REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS UP TO S-FEE:T AND 2-INCHES HIGH FOR A 4,118 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED 771 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ON A 15,430 SQUARE FOOT LOT WITHIN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND WITHIN THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 8035 CAMINO PREDERA; .AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0207-631-03. A. Recitals. 1. Bardos Construction, Inc., fled an application for the approval of Minor Exception DRC2018-00473,as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,the subject Minor Exception request is referred to as"the application." 2: On the 13th day of November 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conduced a noticed public hearing on the application,concluded said hearing on that date and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial to formally adopt the action. 3. On the 11th day of December 2019, the Planning 'Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted this Resolution denying the application and making findings In support of Its, decision. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. S. Resolution. NOW,THEREFORE,it is hereby found,determined,and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby,specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,Part A,of this Resolution are true and correct. 2_ Based upon all available evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on December 11, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant Is requesting to construct a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence along with an attached 771 square foot,three-car garage on the 15,430 square foot project site (the"project"); and b. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.122.020.C.1.g.,retaining walls may not exceed four feet in height within the Hillside Overlay Zone, although within the minimum required street front setback, Individual retaining walls shall not exceed three feet In height. C. The application-is for a,Minor Exception (DRC2018-00473)to permit the project's proposed retaining walls to be over the 4 foot maximum height limit(five feet,two inches proposed). The project site is within the Hillside Overlay Zone. Page 457 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-76 HDR DRC2018-00473— BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 2 d. The Planning Commission makes the following findings in support of its decision to deny the application: 1. Building Size/Massincr Tract 10035, which includes the project site, was approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in March 1985 and comprises a total of 38 lots.Twenty-one of the lots are currently developed with single-family homes. Based on staffs review of available building permit data, which measures the cumulative building square footage of all development, including garages, patios, and porches, as well as information provided by the Property Information Management System hosted by the San Bernardino County Assessor's Office and square footage data for other projects recently approved within the tract,the average size for residences in the tract is 3,912 square feet, and the average size of residences along the south side of Camino Predera is approximately 3,918 square fleet.The size of the proposed project's living and garage area alone is 4,889 square feet. Notably,when including porches and decks(374 square feet proposed),to be consistent with the methodology used in reviewing building permit data, the proposed project's size increases to 5,263 square feet. For the foregoing reasons,the Planning Commission finds that the project's size is substantially larger than the predominant home size within the neighborhood and is therefore not consistent with the neighborhood's character. In addition,the Planning Commission finds that the project's massing could be mitigated by increasing the front setback, thus reducing the overall height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera and/or by modifying the roof design to reduce the height of the roof peak. 2. Building Width/Setbacks: The project proposes to construct-the proposed residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet(Development Code Table 17.36.010-1). Section 17.122.020.D.2.a of the Municipal Code provides that the "design of the structure shall give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in orderto avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views." The Planning Commission expressed concerns that the proposed project as well as the neighboring existing residence, both having been built to the minimum setbacks, would result in the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape therefore establishing an adverse precedent. As a result, the Planning Commission finds that the project is not consistent with the goals and guidelines of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance, General Plan Compatibility:The Planning Commission finds that the project as proposed is also not compatible with General Plan Policy LU-2.4, which aims to "promote complementary infill development, rehabilitation,and re-use that contributes positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas."The proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of General Plan Policy LU-2.4 which aims to promote development which contributes "positively" to the surrounding residential neighborhood.This is based on the following factors: (1)as discussed above, the project is out of character with the size and massing of the existing single-family homes in the neighborhood; and (2) the project's side yard setbacks contribute to the appearance of overcrowding and overbuilding on the south side of Camino Predera.In addition, the Planning Commission recognizes the comments received from neighborhood residents that the scale of development within the tract and along the south side of Camino Predera is not in character with the neighborhood's small single-family homes. Such comments were received from neighborhood residents at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2019, as well as comments received at the Design Review Committee meeting on October 22, 2019. The Planning Commission finds that the increasing growth in average house size, including the proposed project, correlates to the neighborhood concerns about maintaining the Page 458 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-76 HDR DRC2018-00473—BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 3 neighborhood's character and its negative impact on development that contributes positivelyto the neighborhood. 3. Based upon all available evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or Development Agreement. The proposed Minor Exception to permit additional retaining wail height is not consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan encourages complementary infll development(General Plan Policy LU-2.4).The related design review(DRC2017-00244)is for a 4,118 square foot single-family residence which is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average house size within Tract 10035 (based on the existing and approved residences within the Tract 10035). The proposed building size along with the proposed building setbacks creates the necessity for retaining walls over the maximum height limit. b. The proposed development is not compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. For the reasons stated above, the proposed single-family residence is not compatible with the existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area as it is significantly larger than the other residences in the same tract (Tract 10035) and is proposed to be constructed at the minimum side yard setbacks, creating the appearance of overbuilding the lot and increasing the necessity for retaining walls over the maximum height limit. C. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is not necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or to accommodate unique site conditions. The necessity for retaining walls above the height limit can be mitigated by reducing the size of the proposed residence and by increasing the side yard setbacks. d. The granting of the minor exception will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of the minor exception will constitute a grant of special privilege as the additional retaining wall height is related to a proposed single-family residence which is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average size residence within Tract 10035 and is constructed to the minimum setbacks. The City has been contacted by property owners in the surrounding neighborhood who are opposed to the project based on the size of the proposed residence,the height of the residence above curb face on Camino Predera and the width of the project (built at minimum setbacks). 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project that is rejected or disapproved. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption,and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth above, and all of the evidence in the record,this Commission hereby denies Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 and the project proposed by the application. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Page 459 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-76 HDR DRC2018-00473—BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF December 2019. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony uglielrno, Wman ATTEST: �- Anne clntosh, AICP, Secretary I,Anne McIntosh,AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced,passed,and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of December 2019, by the following vote4o-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GUGLIELMO, DOPP, OAXACA, WILLIAMS, MORALES NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Page 460 i RESOLUTION NO. 19-75 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA,DENYING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2017-00244 - A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A 4,118 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED 771 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ON A 15,430 SQUARE FOOT LOT WITHIN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND WITHIN THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 8035 CAMINO PREDERA; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF--APN: 0207-631-03. A. Recitals. 1. Bardos Construction, Inc.,filed an application for Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Hillside Development Review request is referred to as"the application." 2. On the 13th day of November 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conduced a noticed public hearing on the application, concluded said hearing on that date and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial to formally adopt the action. 3. On the 11th day of December 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted this Resolution denying the application and making findings in support of its decision. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW,THEREFORE,it is hereby found,determined,and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the all available evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on December 11, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant is requesting to construct a 4,118 square foot, two-story single-family residence along with an attached 771 square foot three-car garage on the 15,430 square foot project site (the "project"); and b. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Low (L) Residential District Site Vacant Land Low Residential Hillside Overlay District North Existing Single-Family Residence Low Residential Low (L) Residential District Hillside Overlay District Page 461 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-75 HDR DRC2017-00244—BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 2 South Pacific Electric Trail Public Mixed-Use (MU) District Vacant Land Low(L) Residential District East Low Residential Hillside Overlay District Low(L) Residential District Law Residential West Existing Single-Family Residence Hillside Overlay District C. While the proposed project generally conforms to the minimum development requirements of the Hillside Design Standards,the Planning Commission finds that the project is not in character with the surrounding neighborhood and existing residences along Camino Predera for the following reasons: 1. Buildina Size/Massing: Tract 10035, which includes the project site, was approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in March 1985 and comprises a total of 38lots.Twenty-one of the lots are currently developed with single-family homes. Based on staff s review of available building permit data, which measures the cumulative building square footage of all development, including garages, patios, and porches, as well as information provided by the Property Information Management System hosted by the San Bernardino County Assessor's Office and square footage data for other projects recently approved within the tract,the average size for residences in the tract is 3,912 square feet, and the average size of residences along the south side of Camino Predera is approximately 3,918 square feet.The size of the proposed project's living and garage area alone is 4,869 square feet. Notably, when including porches and decks(374 square feet proposed),to be consistent with the methodology used in reviewing building permit data, the proposed project's size increases to 5,263 square feet. For the foregoing reasons,the Planning Commission finds that the project's size is substantially i larger than the predominant home size within the neighborhood and is therefore not consistent with the neighborhood's character. In addition,the Planning Commission finds that the project's massing could be mitigated by increasing the front setback,thus reducing the overall height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera and/or by modifying the roof design to reduce the height of the roof peak. 2. Building Width/Setbacks: The project proposes to construct the proposed residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet(Development Code Table 17.36.010-1). Section 17.122.020.D.2.a of the Municipal Code provides that the "design of the structure shall give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views." The Planning Commission expressed concerns that the proposed project as well as the neighboring existing residence, both having been built to the minimum setbacks,would result in the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape therefore establishing an adverse precedent. As a result, the Planning Commission finds that the project is not consistent with the goals and guidelines of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance, 3. General Plan Compatibility:The Planning Commission finds that the project as proposed is also not compatible with General Plan Policy LU-2.4,which aims to "promote complementary infill development, rehabilitation, and re-use that contributes positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas."The proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of General Plan Policy LU-2.4 which aims to promote development which contributes "positively" to the surrounding residential neighborhood.This is based on the following factors: (1)as discussed above, the project is out of character with the size and massing of the existing single-family Page 462 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-75 HDR DRC2017-00244— BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 3 homes in the neighborhood; and (2) the project's side yard setbacks contribute to the appearance of overcrowding and overbuilding on the south side of Camino Predera.In addition, the Planning Commission recognizes the comments received from neighborhood residents that the scale of development within the tract and along the south side of Camino Predera is not in character with the neighborhood's small single-family homes. Such comments were received from neighborhood residents at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2019, as well as comments received at the Design Review Committee meeting on October 22, 2019. The Planning Commission finds that the increasing growth in average house size, including the proposed project, correlates to the neighborhood concerns about maintaining the neighborhood's character and its negative impact on development that contributes positively to the neighborhood. 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth above,this Commission herebyfinds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan,specifically General Plan Policy L.U-2.4. The General Plan encourages complementary intill development(General Plan Policy LU-2.4). The proposed residence is not complementary to the surrounding development as it is significantly larger than the other residences in Tract 1003& At 4,889 square feet include living and garage area, it is 977 square feet larger than the average residence in Tract 10035(3,912 square feet) and provides side yard setbacks that are not compatible with the Hillside Development Ordinance. b. The proposed use is not in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project is not in accord with the objectives of Section 17.122.020 (Hillside Development) of the Development Code which states that the hillside design standards and guidelines are intended to facilitate the appropriate development of hillside areas. The proposed single-family residence is incompatible with the other single-family residences as it significantly larger(977 square feet)than the existing and approved residences in Tract 10035 and is proposed at the minimum side yard setbacks (5 and 10 feet) in conflict Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a, which encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures. In addition, the project does not conform to the maximum height restriction for retaining walls in the Hillside Overlay Zone. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.122.020.C.1.g., retaining walls may not exceed four feet in height, although within the minimum required street front setback, individual retaining walls shall not exceed three feet in height. In this case, the project proposes retaining walls of up to five feet,two inches in height. By separate resolution,the Planning Commission has denied a proposed minor exception to permit the additional retaining wall height above the height limit permitting by the Development Code. Accordingly,the project does not comply with the retaining wall height limit in the Development Code. C. The proposed use is not in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project is not in accord with the Development Code as the project site is located within the Hillside Overlay District which was intended to facilitate the appropriate development of hillside areas. The project proposes to construct a single-family residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, in conflict with the intent of Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a,which explicitly encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures, etc. The existing residence to the west is also constructed at the minimum side yard setback, increasing the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape. d. The proposed use,together with the conditions applicable thereto,will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the Page 463 PLANNING COMMISSION.RESOLUTION NO. 1.9-75 HDR DRC2017-00244—BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DECEMBER 11, 2019 Page 4 vicinity. The proposed single-family residence is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average size residence within Tract 10035 and is constructed to the minimum setbacks, creating the appearance of overbuilding. 1. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project that is rejected or disapproved. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption,and based on its own independent judgment, concurs.in the staffs determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and,conclusions set forth above, and ali of the evidence in the record,this Comm ission,hereby denies Hillside Development Review DRC2017-00244 and the project proposed by the application. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF December 2019. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,y BY: Tony 9fuglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary 1,Anne McIntosh;AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by .the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on'the 11th day of December 2019, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GUGLIELMO, DOPP, OAXACA, WILLIAMS, MORALES NOES: COMMISSIONERS:` ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Page 464 RESOLUTION NO. 21-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEAL DRC2019-00975 AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2017-00244; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN: 0207-631-03. A. Recitals. 1. Bardos Construction, Inc., filed an application for Hillside Design Review DRC2017- 00244, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Hillside Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of November 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application, concluded said hearing on that date, and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial to formally adopt the action. 3. On the 11th day of December 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted this Resolution denying the application and making findings in support of its decision. 4. On December 19, 2019, Bardos Construction, Inc. ("Appellant"), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying the application. 5. On the 19th day of March 2020, the City Council of the City of Rancho conducted a noticed public hearing on the appeal and continued said meeting to March 18, 2020. 6. On the 18th day of March 2020, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga continued said meeting to August 5, 2020. 7. On the 5th day of August 2020, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga continued said meeting to a date uncertain. 8. On the 5th day of May 2021, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted this Resolution upholding the Planning Commission decision denying the application and making findings in support of its decision. 9. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Co of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon all available evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on May 5, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: Page 465 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX DRC2019-00975 A CC APEAL OF DR DRC2017-00244 — BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. May 5, 2021 Page 2 a. The applicant is requesting to construct a 4,118 square foot, two-story single- family residence along with an attached 771 square foot three-car garage on the 15,430 square foot project site (the "project"); and b. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land Low Residential Low (L) Residential District* North Existing Single-Family Residence Low Residential Low (L) Residential District* South Pacific Electric Trail Public Mixed-Use (MU) District East Vacant Land Low Residential Low (L) Residential District* West Existing Single-Family Residence Low Residential Low (L) Residential District* Hillside Overlay District C. While the proposed project generally conforms to the minimum development requirements of the Hillside Design Standards, the City Council finds that the project is not in character with the surrounding neighborhood and existing residences along Camino Predera for the following reasons: 1. Building Size/Massing: Tract 10035, which includes the project site, was approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in March 1985 and comprises a total of 38 lots. Twenty- one of the lots are currently developed with single-family homes. Based on staff's review of available building permit data, which measures the cumulative building square footage of all development, including garages, patios, and porches, as well as information provided by the Property Information Management System hosted by the San Bernardino County Assessor's Office and square footage data for other projects recently approved within the tract, the average size for residences in the tract is 3,912 square feet, and the average size of residences along the south side of Camino Predera is approximately 3,918 square feet. The size of the proposed project's living and garage area alone is 4,889 square feet. Notably, when including porches and decks (374 square feet proposed), to be consistent with the methodology used in reviewing building permit data, the proposed project's size increases to 5,263 square feet. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council finds that the project's size is substantially larger than the predominant home size within the neighborhood and is therefore not consistent with the neighborhood's character. In addition, the City Council finds that the project's massing could be mitigated by increasing the front setback, thus reducing the overall height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera and/or by modifying the roof design to reduce the height of the roof peak. 2. Building Width/Setbacks: The project proposes to construct the proposed residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet (Development Code Table 17.36.010-1). Section 17.122.020.D.2.a of the Municipal Code provides that the "design of the structure Page 466 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX DRC2019-00975 A CC APEAL OF DR DRC2017-00244 — BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. May 5, 2021 Page 3 shall give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views." At the November 13, 2019, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concerns that the proposed project as well as the neighboring existing residence, both having been built to the minimum setbacks, would result in the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape, therefore, establishing an adverse precedent. As a result, the City Council finds that the project is not consistent with the goals and guidelines of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. 3. General Plan Compatibility: The City Council finds that the project as proposed is also not compatible with General Plan Policy LU-2.4, which aims to "promote complementary infill development, rehabilitation, and re-use that contributes positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas." The proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of General Plan Policy LU-2.4 which aims to promote development that contributes "positively" to the surrounding residential neighborhood. This is based on the following factors: (1) as discussed above, the project is out of character with the size and massing of the existing single-family homes in the neighborhood; and (2) the project's side yard setbacks contribute to the appearance of overcrowding and overbuilding on the south side of Camino Predera. In addition, the City Council recognizes the comments received by the Planning Commission from neighborhood residents at the November 19, 2019, Planning Commission meeting that the scale of development within the tract and along the south side of Camino Predera is not in character with the neighborhood's small single-family homes. Such comments were received from neighborhood residents at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2019, as well as comments received at the Design Review Committee meeting on October 22, 2019. The City Council finds that the increasing growth in average house size, including the proposed project, correlates to the neighborhood concerns about maintaining the neighborhood's character and its negative impact on development that contributes positively to the neighborhood. 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan, specifically General Plan Policy LU-2.4. The General Plan encourages complementary infill development (General Plan Policy LU-2.4). The proposed residence is not complementary to the surrounding development as it is significantly larger than the other residences in Tract 10035. At 4,889 square feet include living and garage area, it is 977 square feet larger than the average residence in Tract 10035 (3,912 square feet) and provides side yard setbacks that are not compatible with the Hillside Development Ordinance. b. The proposed use is not in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project is not in accord with the objectives of Section 17.122.020 (Hillside Development) of the Development Code which states that the hillside design standards and guidelines are intended to facilitate the appropriate development of hillside areas. The proposed single-family residence is incompatible with the other single-family residences as it is significantly larger (977 square feet) than the existing and approved residences in Tract 10035 and is proposed at the minimum side yard setbacks (5 and 10 feet) in conflict Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a, which encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures. In addition, the project does not conform to the maximum height restriction for retaining walls in the Hillside Overlay Zone. Pursuant to Municipal Page 467 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX DRC2019-00975 A CC APEAL OF DR DRC2017-00244 — BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. May 5, 2021 Page 4 Code Section 17.122.020.C.1.g., retaining walls may not exceed four feet in height, although, within the minimum required street front setback, individual retaining walls shall not exceed three feet in height. In this case, the project proposes retaining walls of up to five feet, two inches in height. By separate resolution, the Planning Commission denied a proposed minor exception to permit the additional retaining wall height above the height limit permitting by the Development Code. Accordingly, the project does not comply with the retaining wall height limit in the Development Code. C. The proposed use is not in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project is not in accord with the Development Code as the project site is located within the Hillside Overlay District which was intended to facilitate the appropriate development of hillside areas. The project proposes to construct a single-family residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, in conflict with the intent of Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a, which explicitly encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures, etc. The existing residence to the west is also constructed at the minimum side yard setback, increasing the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape. d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed single-family residence is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average size residence within Tract 10035 and is constructed to the minimum setbacks, creating the appearance of overbuilding. 4. Planning Department staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project that is rejected or disapproved. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's denial of Hillside Design Review DRC2017- 00244 and denies Appeal DRC2019-00975, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Page 468 RESOLUTION NO. 21-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEAL DRC2019-00975 AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2018-00473; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0207-631-03. A. Recitals. 1. Bardos Construction, Inc., filed an application for the approval of Minor Exception DRC2018-00473, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Minor Exception request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of November 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application, concluded said hearing on that date, and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial to formally adopt the action. 3. On the 11th day of December 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted this Resolution denying the application and making findings in support of its decision. 4. On December 19, 2019, Bardos Construction, Inc. ("Appellant"), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying the application. 5. On the 19th day of March 2020, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting on the subject appeal continued said meeting to March 18, 2020. 6. On the 18th day of March 2020, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga continued said meeting to August 5, 2020. 7. On the 5th day of August 2020, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga continued said meeting to a date uncertain. 8. On the 5th day of May 2021, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted this Resolution upholding the Planning Commission decision denying the application and making findings in support of its decision. 9. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon all available evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on May 5, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: Page 469 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 21-XX DRC2019-00975 A CC APPEAL OF ME DRC2018-00473 — BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. MAY 5, 2021 Page 2 a. The applicant is requesting to construct a 4,118 square foot two-story, single- family residence along with an attached 771 square foot, three-car garage on the 15,430 square foot project site (the "project"); and b. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.122.020.C.1.g., retaining walls may not exceed four feet in height within the Hillside Overlay Zone, although, within the minimum required street front setback, individual retaining walls shall not exceed three feet in height. C. The application is for a Minor Exception (DRC2018-00473) to permit the project's proposed retaining walls to be over the 4-foot maximum height limit (five feet, two inches proposed). The project site is within the Hillside Overlay Zone. d. The City Council makes the following findings in support of its decision to deny the application: 1. Building Size/Massing: Tract 10035, which includes the project site, was approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in March 1985 and comprises a total of 38 lots. Twenty- one of the lots are currently developed with single-family homes. Based on staff's review of available building permit data, which measures the cumulative building square footage of all development, including garages, patios, and porches, as well as information provided by the Property Information Management System hosted by the San Bernardino County Assessor's Office and square footage data for other projects recently approved within the tract, the average size for residences in the tract is 3,912 square feet, and the average size of residences along the south side of Camino Predera is approximately 3,918 square feet. The size of the proposed project's living and garage area alone is 4,889 square feet. Notably, when including porches and decks (374 square feet proposed), to be consistent with the methodology used in reviewing building permit data, the proposed project's size increases to 5,263 square feet. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council finds that the project's size is substantially larger than the predominant home size within the neighborhood and is therefore not consistent with the neighborhood's character. In addition, the City Council finds that the project's massing could be mitigated by increasing the front setback, thus reducing the overall height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera and/or by modifying the roof design to reduce the height of the roof peak. 2. Building Width/Setbacks: The project proposes to construct the proposed residence at the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet (Development Code Table 17.36.010-1). Section 17.122.020.D.2.a of the Municipal Code provides that the "design of the structure shall give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views." The Planning Commission, at the November 13t" Planning Commission meeting, expressed concerns that the proposed project as well as the neighboring existing residence, both having been built to the minimum setbacks, would result in the appearance of overbuilding along the Camino Predera streetscape, therefore, establishing an adverse precedent. As a result, the City Council finds that the project is not consistent with the goals and guidelines of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. Page 470 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 21-XX DRC2019-00975 A CC APPEAL OF ME DRC2018-00473 — BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. MAY 5, 2021 Page 3 General Plan Compatibility: The City Council finds that the project as proposed is also not compatible with General Plan Policy LU-2.4, which aims to "promote complementary infill development, rehabilitation, and re-use that contributes positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas." The proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of General Plan Policy LU-2.4 which aims to promote development that contributes "positively" to the surrounding residential neighborhood. This is based on the following factors: (1) as discussed above, the project is out of character with the size and massing of the existing single-family homes in the neighborhood; and (2) the project's side yard setbacks contribute to the appearance of overcrowding and overbuilding on the south side of Camino Predera. In addition, the City Council recognizes the comments received from neighborhood residents that the scale of development within the tract and along the south side of Camino Predera is not in character with the neighborhood's small single-family homes. Such comments were received from neighborhood residents at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2019, as well as comments received at the Design Review Committee meeting on October 22, 2019. The City Council finds that the increasing growth in average house size, including the proposed project, correlates to the neighborhood concerns about maintaining the neighborhood's character and its negative impact on development that contributes positively to the neighborhood. 3. Based upon all available evidence presented to this City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or Development Agreement. The proposed Minor Exception to permit additional retaining wall height is not consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan encourages complementary infill development (General Plan Policy LU-2.4). The related design review (DRC2017-00244) is for a 4,118 square foot single-family residence which is not complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average house size within Tract 10035 (based on the existing and approved residences within the Tract 10035). The proposed building size along with the proposed building setbacks creates the necessity for retaining walls over the maximum height limit. b. The proposed development is not compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. For the reasons stated above, the proposed single-family residence is not compatible with the existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area as it is significantly larger than the other residences in the same tract (Tract 10035) and is proposed to be constructed at the minimum side yard setbacks, creating the appearance of overbuilding the lot and increasing the necessity for retaining walls over the maximum height limit. C. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is not necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or to accommodate unique site conditions. The necessity for retaining walls above the height limit can be mitigated by reducing the size of the proposed residence and by increasing the side yard setbacks. d. The granting of the minor exception will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of the minor exception will constitute a grant of special privilege as the additional retaining wall height is related to a proposed single-family residence which is not Page 471 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 21-XX DRC2019-00975 A CC APPEAL OF ME DRC2018-00473 — BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. MAY 5, 2021 Page 4 complementary to the surrounding neighborhood as it is significantly larger than the average size residence within Tract 10035 and is constructed to the minimum setbacks. The City has been contacted by property owners in the surrounding neighborhood who are opposed to the project based on the size of the proposed residence, the height of the residence above curb face on Camino Predera, and the width of the project (built at minimum setbacks). 4. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project that is rejected or disapproved. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and concurs in the staff's determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's denial of Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 and denies Appeal DRC2019-00975, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Page 472 }��!�� � { �� 'i 1 '�•.r'. t`•''�.i � ♦� ',k T� �ti - _ � - 1 r,r +r� 3ti •fr . . •�� •• f. r� `.�� I 05/05/2021 City Council Meeting: Additional Material For Public Hearing Item G1. Submitted by Paul Bardos on 5/5/2021 12:1OPM AY Imow A •f �f 1 f • k , #L f _ � - �� f' s� + i •. a - _POL .. f• • 5 r 41 F� EL Rutherfa - _rd -- dw ' ' -r ` y' { - s • 'S•�' ++ }+ ' ' - y ' - .� - T 4 ' - ' ,-rLL ± i a �� _ t — ' �"�} .� � ti , r �? �•- •+.`�'�' - ?� mow.- .� ., ' � r - � _ -3i -�. � � -41 1pr jrA lob +• s _ �J z +; •, x•-fa. f _ — a {f #' �' _ �k - ft #y - + -■ ` ■•* 1 { ++ r p+ _ •�5 + �.�r �' � _ V � � yt ti `i ! �i _ 'a =tip r �` stir ir + # M".. ,i �7 Shy h 1 t +` #' _# �l �3 '4 'r ' '.f �+ •+} €i Ilk Z r � :w-iA, 1 I T, f ,+.a•d�."� r4 f�'+ Syr}: •' t ti-.�+yy;�}- y {Ok-{+`.• � C'r�# ex .,� ar• •�r�f a+r'A1 ,,,#'1,i ## - "f 'f• x + • f. •4 �•YL! ���� r + ' _ ` AMM r•a r _ 4*. T -. ')yr T a+� � - +%'.a ►A. - _ # -_ •' f !��� #� �. + •. �Y ,� ` ' •' I Y 1 ,fi fX 3J ay i -•� - r - '+`4 '��y -F� a ,- - L r*. - ; , '4 - i.� 1 4. '. i ; • � ' /'.1 f - ! '� � i- ����#`'��- _ a`�=Snti-L .f�� � f� - -- _ t. .rt 4�. •��_��-- rt -.�..���`•+ l� f � � � � _ � F _. � �+",�.��.' �' ++rr- +, -'4"4 y +'•l+t _, •' A] *,' 'J"' �a •s - ;I a• r a F _ y 31� tc„7 - ~ • ,�7r — •4 �' -� - �_Ilk— IF • L� 5r�y 'i f J 4 • � �, f '1 t F •� r, +,� I' tl _ - 4 "► r ti ++• - - ,1 1 oW •16 pop— Doi- I�• - _ - Al ��• � _ ,''{; .'i i" � T� � + �' � -'Y _ _ - .. - 4 ',_ ' ••., x - y - 5 } . " 5 /Jr , 4 �_ :,� i?�y. - - .�'.- •;' ,'Y yI 1 ♦ 1 J"-•y '•*}y'� JIL l -M1,do l .. l _ � 1' ft4 i• Y.-- �tiY.',�• �Y - ;� ��y'„ f r F'.Y� ` • ! I' T• +#' kk'i 1 y Y -• t ,�%� ^�,_V - - +� •Y/�{} �.•[,�y��.,y+ � � �. } �F 'T r rr � 4+r}�1, '� .!. .V R• !F+• ' � 11' ,4a.y r F�r i- .� M'.. {4.�'t' { � �ti•_�.� � - � ' `��y�{ �,� - -� Al - �'' ,r y J -a _ • •'�• • - 1't+ L t . - �71' i 5 Y 4.•f i T *..'T../ -ti z �4' y' {, .•f` 'I .l •��. A� # 4i - • - - - •,w , .�� _ _ -.'.1 ,A_ I'-4. �� -.. ' - .l op. , ~ 1' 44�- .'i_ 1 � � -_ �+'�� _ _ ' , • r'- • _ - . t y .k i` 1' 7 ,.', 4 , r - Ls� " ,-�` .. :ay�-' - ■f_ "T f 1 `y- "� Y�1 . _ 9 '�'• , _ •k ` - y� %} ir{. _ •~ i 'r J ;' r' � - •13 •r� -.• ? - - 4 -- i s �' � � • ! .-. } -. .�5 4 •., .� r�_ - # - r. -1 Y � .�J/a �� •'�, x �■ .Y. �,' 4 �' _ - +ram � - •� .fir y 1' £ �� � ar f ''FL-+� +' � �.=•la�. :� ! •�""'y� `'• - '+�� i 4 -a* �_ri .�• � r ■ 4Y !,", +*. .y K•� r" '-*- - * .J-!# „ 46 '4 "Sx�� , +Y i '� * "' .yt i .t, 4�#`•' �'. � +� ..w 4 t 'r { y '„ ti�''r' ��rr � , �1��- �i, t, '�`+ _ Y -1 f'•IT�- Y '•� 1 �fY.r �iYry'ir,-` 1 *. T� `�•�.n '!}/'�•.4F `+-.1, ! } I� ''�µ t _ iK ; y �� £fi�� �tr1y�'� ' + r'� � * , ;y ,. `4, -- - * f_ - y.+ 4'. �,.' #• i, + .. _ r{ v;. _ L :; ';+ t, a .•1 1 ,� .r r .'. �a+ .i• ii •� , r. -�wr'G- a J ��sr � - - .` {+ _ 'i•. - ����� f;.•�� -- �� _ a - y''' •Y + ^ � �. 4�. •s 1' _r•.� �.7 _- •4. � � ,� i _� - i���,}I w ;r.fi -� r-`'.. _ !��' �4 a#r� .� � •�, 3.t�i,,, _ - a�_■■FF `.r yt�. iiF .��,-r{'. �w �"ri.;'�_ �t„�+��-��± r�:'*I! '•'L �,.,�Y,�' '��-e .. +f A I "}•..�'.-y �r's� � � � �i' .ram} - `~ ~' _ •4�t 7_k Z�w .. - _ - 'Cot; • " 4 -_ � { - _ er r .!'r' +Y r F.fir' 4 1 -- { _ i 49 meow Ammmw� VA �, . 1 &Wk CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING ZONING INFORMATION FILE Effective Date: June 29, 2008 ZI NO.2391 BASELINE MANSIONIZATION ORDINANCE COUNCIL DISTRICT: ALL COMMENTS The Baseline Mansionization Ordinance (No. 179,883), effective on June 29, 2008, establishes new regulations for properties citywide zoned single-family residential (R1, IRS, RE9, RE11, RE15, RA, RE20, and RE40)not located in a Hillside Area or Coastal Zone, and primarily focuses on new size and height limitations. If this ZI is applied to a property then the ordinance applies. If this ZI is not applied to a property then the regulations in this ordinance do not apply. INSTRUCTIONS Vested Development Plans This ordinance does not apply to development plans submitted for plan check prior to June 29, 2008 and vested under the provisions of Section 12.26 A.3 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. Projects For Which This Ordinance Applies Development plans submitted for plan check on or after June 29, 2008 shall be reviewed in accordance with the size and height limitation as outlined in the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance (No. 179,883). A copy of the adopted ordinance is attached to this ZI, along with a technical summary of the new provisions. CLEARANCE INFORMATION: Plan checks and permit approvals for development plans are done by the Department of Building & Safety. if you have any questions regarding this matter, please call 1-888-LA-4-BUILD (1-888- 524-2845); outside of L.A. County, call 213-482-0000. Last Updated 612412D08 Page 476 ORDINANCE NO. 179883 An ordinance amending Sections 12.03, 12.04, 12.07, 12.07.01, 12.07.1, 12.08, 12.21.1, 12.23, 12.28, 12.32, and adding Section 13.13 to the Los Angeles Municipal Code to establish new regulations for all single-family residential zoned properties (RA, RE, RS, and R1) not located in a Hillside Area or Coastal Zone. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 12.03 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended by adding the definitions of"Base Floor" and "Floor Area, Residential" in proper alphabetical order to read: BASE FLOOR. That story of a main building, at or above grade, which is not considered a basement, and which has the greatest number of square feet confined within the exterior walls, including the area of the attached covered parking at the same story. All levels within four vertical feet of each other shall count as a single story. FLOOR AREA, RESIDENTIAL. The area in square feet confined within the exterior walls of a building or accessory building on a lot in an RA, RE, RS, or R1 Zone. Any floor or portion of a floor with a ceiling height greater than 14 feet shall count as twice the square footage of that area. The area of stairways shall only be counted once regardless of ceiling height. Area of an attic or portion of an attic with a ceiling height of more than seven feet shall be included in the floor area calculation. Except that the following areas shall not be counted: 1. The first 400 square feet of covered parking area. 2. Detached accessory buildings not exceeding 200 square feet; however, the total combined area exempted of all these accessory buildings on a lot shall not exceed 400 square feet. 3. The first 250 square feet of attached porches, patios, and breezeways with a solid roof if they are open on at least two sides. 4. Porches, patios, and breezeways that have an open lattice roof. 5. The first 100 square feet of any story or portion of a story of the main building on a lot with a ceiling height greater than 14 feet shall be counted only once. 1 Page 477 B. A Basement when the elevation of the upper surface of the floor or roof above the basement does not exceed two feet in height at any point above the finished or natural grade, whichever is lower. Sec. 2. The definition of"Floor Area" in Section 12.03 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read: FLOOR AREA. The area in square feet confined within the exterior walls of a building, but not including the area of the following: exterior walls, stairways, shafts, rooms housing building-operating equipment or machinery, parking areas with associated driveways and ramps, space for the landing and storage of helicopters, and basement storage areas. Except that buildings on properties zoned RA, RE, RS, and R1, and not located in a Hillside Area or Coastal Zone are subject to the definition of Residential Floor Area. Sec. 3. Subsection D of Section 12.04 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read: D. Certain portions of the City are also designated as being in one or more of the following districts, by the provision of Article 3 of this chapter "O" Oil Drilling District "S" Animal Slaughtering "G" Surface Mining District "RPD" Residential Planned Development District 59K„ Equinekeeping District "CA" Commercial and Artcraft District "POD" Pedestrian Oriented District "CDO" Community Design Overlay District "MU" Mixed Use District "FH" Fence Height District "SN" Sign District "RFA" Residential Floor Area District The "Zoning Map" is amended to indicate these districts and the boundaries of each district. Land classified in an "O" Oil Drilling District, "S"Animal Slaughtering District, "G" Surface Mining District, "RPD" Residential Planned Development District, "K" Equinekeeping District, "CA" Commercial and Artcraft District, "POD" Pedestrian Oriented District, "CDO" Community Design Overlay District, "MU" Mixed Use,District, "FH" Fence Height District, "SN" Sign District or "RFA " Residential Floor Area District is also classified in one or more zones, and land classified in the "P"Automobile Parking Zone may also be classified in an "A" or"R" Zone. 2 Page 478 These classifications are indicated on the "Zoning Map" with a combination of symbols, e.g., R2-2-0, C2-4-S, MI-3-G, MI-'I-P and R2-0, G2-G, etc., where height districts have not been established. Sec. 4. The first unnumbered paragraph of Subsection C of Section 12.07 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read: C. Area (Development Standards). No building or structure nor the enlargement of any building or structure shall be erected or maintained unless the following yards, lot areas, and floor area limitations are provided and maintained in connection with the building, structure, or enlargement: Sec. 5. Subsection C of Section 12.07 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended by adding two new subdivisions numbered 5 and 6 to read: 5. Maximum Residential Floor Area. For a lot located in a Hillside Area or Coastal Zone, the maximum floor area shall comply with Section 12.21.1 A 1 of this Code. For all other lots, the maximum residential floor area contained in all buildings and accessory buildings shall not exceed 25 percent:of the lot area, except that when the lot is 20,000 square feet or greater, then the residential floor area shall not exceed 20 percent of the lot area or 5,000 square feet, whichever is greater. An additional 20 percent of the maximum residential floor area for that lot shall be allowed if any of the methods listed below is utilized. Only one 20 percent bonus per property is allowed. a. The total residential floor area of each story other than the base floor in a multi-story building does not exceed 76 percent of the base floor area; or b. The cumulative length of the exterior walls facing the front lot line, equal to a minimum of 25 percent of the building width shall be stepped-back a distance of at least 20 percent of the building depth from a plane parallel to the lot width established at the point of the building closest to the front lot line. When the front lot line is not straight, a line connecting the points where the side lot lines and the front lot line intersect shall be used. When through-Eats have two front yards, the step- back shall be provided along both front lot lines. For the purposes of this provision, all exterior walls that intersect a plane parallel to the front lot line at 45 degrees or less shall be considered to be facing the front lot line. The building width shall be the greatest distance between the exterior walls of the building measured parallel to 3 Page 479 the lot width. The building depth shall be the greatest distance between the exterior walls of the building measured parallel to the lot depth; or c. For new single family dwelling construction only, the new construction shall be in substantial compliance with the requirements for the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED°) for Homes program at the "Certified" level or higher. Prior to submitting an application to the Department of Building and Safety for a building permit, the applicant shall be required to obtain an authorization to submit for plan check from the Department of Planning. In order to obtain this authorization, the applicant shall provide: (1) Documentation that the project has been registered with the USGBC's LEED°for Homes Program, and that the required fees have been paid; (2) A preliminary checklist from a USGBC-contracted LEED' for Homes Provider, which demonstrates that the project can be registered with the LEED` for Homes Program with a target of certification at the "Certified" or higher level; (3) A signed declaration from the USGBC--contracted LEED° for Homes Provider stating that the plans and plan details have been reviewed, and confirms that the project can be registered with the LEED°for Homes Program with a target certification at the "Certified" or higher level; and (4) A complete set of plans stamped and signed by a licensed architect or engineer that include a copy of the preliminary checklist and signed declaration identified in Subparagraphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph and identify the measures being provides! for LEED Certification. Each plan sheet must also be signed by a USGBC-contracted LEED®for Homes Provider verifying that the plans are consistent with the submitted preliminary checklist. The Department of Building and Safety shall refer applicants to the Department of Planning prior to issuance of a building permit to obtain a clearance to verify the project compliance with the originally approved plans. If changes are made to the project, the applicant shall be required to submit a revised set of plans, including the four requirements fisted above, with all revisions necessary to make the project in substantial compliance with the requirements for LEED° Certification. 4 Page 480 6. Verification of Existing Residential Floor Area. For additions with cumulative residential floor area of less than 1,000 square feet constructed after January 1, 2008, or remodels of buildings built prior to January 1, 2008, the existing residential floor area shall be the same as the building square footage shown on the most recent Los Angeles County Tax Assessor's records at the time the plans are submitted to the Department of Building and Safety and a plan check fee is paid. Except that residential floor area may be calculated as defined in Section 12.03 of this Code when a complete set of fully dimensioned plans with area calculations of all the structures on the lot, prepared by a licensed architect or engineer, is submitted by the applicant. Any work that does not qualify as a remodel, as defined in the paragraph below, or additions that are 1,000 square feet or larger shall require a complete set of fully dimensioned plans with area calculations of all the structures on the lot prepared by a licensed architect or engineer. For the purposes of implementing this subdivision, a remodel shall mean the alteration of an existing building or structure provided that at least 50 percent of the perimeter length of the contiguous exterior walls and 50 percent of the roof are retained. Sec. 6. The first unnumbered paragraph of Subsection C of Section 12.07.01 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read: C. Area (Development Standards). No building or structure nor the enlargement of any building or structure shall be erected or maintained unless the following yards, lot areas, and floor area limitations are provided and maintained in connection with the building, structure, or enlargement: Sec, 7. Subsection C of Section 12.07.01 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended by adding two new subdivisions numbered 5 and 6 to read: 5. Maximum Residential Floor Area. For a lot located in a Hillside Area . or Coastal Zone, the maximum floor area shall comply with Section 12.21.1 Al of this Code. For all other lots, the maximum residential floor area contained in all buildings and accessory buildings shall not exceed the following standards for each RE Zone: RE9 and RE11 40 percent of the lot area, except that when the lot is 15,000 square feet or greater then the residential floor area shall not exceed 35 percent of the lot area or 6,000 square feet, whichever is greater; RE15, RE20 and RE40 - 35 percent of the lot area. 5 Page 481 An additional 20 percent of the maximum residential floor area for that lot shall be allowed if any of the methods listed below is utilized. Only one 20 percent bonus per property is allowed. a. The total residential floor area of each story other than the base floor in a multi-story building does not exceed 75 percent of the base floor area; or b. The cumulative length of the exterior walls facing the front lot line, equal to a minimum of 25 percent of the building width shall be stepped-back a distance of at least 20 percent of the building depth from a plane parallel to the lot width established at the point of the building closest to the front lot line. When the front loft line is not straight, a line connecting the points where the side lot lines and the front lot line intersect shall be used. When through-lots have two front yards, the step- back shall be provided along both front lot lines. For the purposes of this provision, all exterior walls that intersect a plane parallel to the front lot line at 45 degrees or less shall be considered to be facing the front lot line. The building width shall be the greatest distance between the exterior walls of the building measured parallel to the lot width. The building depth shall be the greatest distance between the exterior walls of the building measured parallel to the lot depth; or c. For new single family dwelling construction only, the new construction shall be in substantial compliance with the requirements for. the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED°) for Homes program at the "Certified" level or higher. Prior to submitting an application to the Department of Building and Safety for a building permit, the applicant shall be required to obtain an authorization to submit for plan check from the Department of Planning. In order to obtain this authorization, the applicant shall provide: (1) Documentation that the project has been registered with the USGBC's LEED°for Homes Program, and that the required fees have been paid; (2) A preliminary checklist from a USGBC-contracted LEEDO for Homes Provider, which demonstrates that the project can be registered with the LEED°for Homes Program with a target of certification at the "Certified" or higher level; (3) A signed declaration from the USGBC-contracted LEED for Homes Provider stating that the plans and plan details have 6 Page 482 been reviewed, and confirms that the project can be registered with the LEEDO for Homes Program with a target certification at the "Certified" or higher level; and (4) A complete set of plans stamped and signed by a licensed architect or engineer that include a copy of the preliminary checklist and signed declaration identified in Subparagraphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph and identify the measures being provided for LEED"' Certification. Each plan sheet must also be signed by a USGBC-contracted LEEDO for Homes Provider verifying that the plans are consistent with the submitted preliminary checklist. The Department of Building and Safety shall refer applicants to the Department of Planning prior to issuance of a building permit to obtain a clearance to verify the project compliance with the originally approved plans. If changes are made to the project, the applicant shall be required to submit a revised set of plans, including the four requirements listed above, with all revisions necessary to make the project in substantial compliance with the requirements for LEEDO Certification. 6. Verification of Existing Residential Fluor Area. For additions with cumulative residential floor area of less than 1,000 square feet constructed after January 1, 2008, or remodels of buildings built prior to January 1, 2008, the existing residential floor area shall be the same as the building square footage shown on the most recent Los Angeles County Tax Assessor's records at the time the plans are submitted to the Department of Building and Safety and a plan check fee is paid. Except that residential floor area may be calculated as defined in Section 12.03 of this Code when a complete set of fully dimensioned plans with area calculations of all the structures on the lot, prepared by a licensed architect or engineer, is submitted by the applicant. Any work that does not qualify as a remodel, as defined in the paragraph below, or additions that are 1,000 square feet or larger shall require a complete set of fully dimensioned plans with area calculations of all the structures on the lot prepared by a licensed architect or engineer. For the purposes of implementing this subdivision, a remodel shall mean the alteration of an existing building or structure provided that at least 50 percent of the perimeter length of the contiguous exterior walls and 50 percent of the roof are retained. 7 Page 483 Sec. B. The first unnumbered paragraph of Subsection C of Sections 12.07.1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read: C. Area (Development Standards). No building or structure nor the enlargement of any building or structure shall be erected or maintained unless the following yards, lot areas, and floor area limitations are provided and maintained in connection with the building, structure, or enlargement: Sec. 9. Subsection C of Section 12.07.1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended by adding two new subdivisions numbered 5 and 6 to read: 5. Maximum Residential Floor Area. For a lot located in a Hillside Area or Coastal Zone, the maximum floor area shall comply with Section 12.21.1 Al of this Code. For all other lots, the maximum residential floor area contained in all buildings and accessory buildings shall not exceed 45 percent of the lot area, except that when the lot is 9,000 square feet or greater, then the residential floor area shall not exceed 40 percent of the lot area or 4,050 square feet, whichever is greater. An additional 20 percent of the maximum residential floor area for that lot shall be allowed if any of the methods listed below is utilized. Only one 20 percent bonus per property is allowed. a. The total residential floor area of each story other than the base floor in a multi-story building does not exceed 75 percent of the base floor area; or b. The cumulative length of the exterior walls facing the front lot line, equal to a minimum of 25 percent of the building width shall be stepped-back a distance of at least 20 percent of the building depth from a plane parallel to the lot width established at the point of the building closest to the front lot line. When the front lot line is not straight, a line connecting the points where the side lot lines and the front lot line intersect shall be used. When through lots have two front yards, the step- back shall be provided along both front lot lines. For the purposes of this provision, all exterior walls that intersect a plane parallel to the front lot line at 45 degrees or less shall be considered to be facing the front lot line. The building width shall be the greatest distance between the exterior walls of the building measured parallel to the lot width. The building depth shall be the greatest distance between the exterior walls of the building measured parallel to the lot depth; or 8 Page 484 c. For new single family dwelling construction only, the new construction shall be in substantial compliance with the requirements for the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED°) for Homes program at the "Certified" level or higher. Prior to submitting an application to the Department of Building and Safety for a building permit, the applicant shall be required to obtain an authorization to submit for plan check from the Department of Planning. in order to obtain this authorization, the applicant shall provide: (1) Documentation that the project has been registered with the USGBC's LEED°for Homes Program, and that the required fees have been paid; (2) A preliminary checklist from a USGBC-contracted LEED° for Homes Provider, which demonstrates that the project can be registered with the LEED®for Homes Program with a target of certification at the "Certified" or higher level; (3) A signed declaration from the USGBC-contracted LEED° for Homes Provider stating that the plans and plan details have been reviewed, and confirms that the project can be registered with the LEED°for Homes Program with a target certification at the "Certified" or higher level; and (4) A complete set of plans stamped and signed by a licensed architect or engineer that include a copy of the preliminary checklist and signed declaration identified in Subparagraphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph and identify the measures being provided for LEED° Certification. Each plan sheet must also be signed by a USGBC-contracted LEED` for Homes Provider verifying that the plans are consistent with the submitted preliminary checklist. The Department of Building and Safety shall refer applicants to the Department of Planning prior to issuance of a building permit to obtain a clearance to verify the project compliance with the originally approved plans. If changes are made to the project, the applicant shall be required to submit a revised set of plans, including the four requirements fisted above, with all revisions necessary to make the project in substantial compliance with the requirements for LEED® Certification. 9 Page 485 6. Verification of Existing Residential Floor Area. For additions with cumulative residential floor area of less than 1,000 square feet constructed after January 1, 2008, or remodels of buildings built prior to January 1, 2008, the existing residential floor area shall be the same as the building square footage shown on the most recent Los Angeles County Tax Assessor's records at the time the plans are submitted to the Department of Building and Safety and a plan check fee is paid. Except that residential floor area may be calculated as defined in Section 12.03 of this Code when a complete set of fully dimensioned plans with area calculations of all the structures on the lot, prepared by a licensed architect or engineer, is submitted by the applicant. Any work that does not qualify as a remodel, as defined in the paragraph below, or additions that are 1,000 square feet or larger shall require a complete set of fully dimensioned plans with area calculations of all the structures on the lot prepared by a licensed architect or engineer. For the purposes of implementing this subdivision, a remodel shall mean the alteration of an existing building or structure provided that at least 50 percent of the perimeter length of the contiguous exterior walls and 50 percent of the roof are retained. Sec_ 10. The first unnumbered paragraph of Subsection C of Section 12.08 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read: C. Area (Development Standards). No building or structure nor the enlargement of any building or structure shall be erected or maintained unless the following yards, lot areas, and floor area limitations are provided and maintained in connection with the building, structure, or enlargement: Sec. 11. Subsection C of Section 12.08 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended by adding two new subdivisions numbered 5 and 6 to read: 5. Maximum Residential Floor Area. For a lot located in a Hillside Area or Coastal Zone, the maximum floor area shall comply with Section 12.21.1 A 1 of this Code. For all other lots, the maximum residential floor area contained in all buildings and accessory buildings shall not exceed 50 percent of the lot area, except that when the lot is 7,500 square feet or greater, then the residential floor area shall not exceed 45 percent of the lot area or 3,750 square feet, whichever is greater. An additional 20 percent, or 30 percent for lots less than 5,000 square feet in area, of the maximum residential floor area forthat lot shall be allowed if any of the methods listed below is utilized. Only one bonus per property is allowed. 10 Page 486 a. The total residential floor area of each story other than the base floor in a multi-story building does not exceed 75 percent of the base floor area; or b. The cumulative length of the exterior walls facing the front lot line, equal to a minimum of 25 percent of the building width shall be stepped-back a distance of at least 20 percent of the building depth from a plane parallel to the lot width established at the point of the building closest to the front lot line. When the front lot line is not straight, a line connecting the points where the side lot lines and the front lot line intersect shall be used. When through-lots have two front yards, the step- back shall be provided along both front lot lines. For the purposes of this provision, all exterior walls that intersect a plane parallel to the front lot line at 45 degrees or less shall be considered to be facing the front lot line. The building width shall be the greatest distance between the exterior walls of the building measured parallel to the lot width. The building depth shall be the greatest distance between the exterior walls of the building measured parallel to the lot depth; or c. For new single family dwelling construction only, the new construction shall be in substantial compliance with the requirements for the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Homes program at the "Certified" level or higher. Prior to submitting an application to the Department of Building and Safety for a building permit, the applicant shall be required to obtain an authorization to submit for plan check from the Department of Planning. In order to obtain this authorization, the applicant shall provide: (1) Documentation that the project has been registered with the USGBC's LEED` for Homes Program, and that the required fees have been paid; (2) A preliminary checklist from a USGBC-contracted LEED® for Homes Provider, which demonstrates that the project can be registered with the LEED°for Homes Program with a target of certification at the "Certified" or higher level; (3) A signed declaration from the USGBC-contracted LEED' for Homes Provider stating that the plans and plan details have been reviewed, and confirms that the project can be registered with the LEED°for Homes Program with a target certification at the "Certified" or higher level; and 1'[ Page 487 (4) A complete set of plans stamped and signed by a licensed architect or engineer that include a copy of the preliminary checklist and signed declaration identified in Subparagraphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph and identify the measures being provided for LEEDO Certification. Each plan sheet must also be signed by a USGBC-contracted LEED° for Homes Provider verifying that the plans are consistent with the submitted preliminary checklist. The Department of Building and Safety shall refer applicants to the Department of Planning prior to issuance of a building permit to obtain a clearance to verify the project compliance with the originally approved plans. If changes are made to the project, the applicant shall be required to submit a revised set of plans, including the four requirements listed above, with all revisions necessary to make the project in substantial compliance with the requirements for LEED® Certification. 6. Verification of Existing Residential Floor Area. For additions with cumulative residential floor area of less than 1,000 square feet constructed after January 1, 2008, or remodels of buildings built prior to January 1, 2008, the existing residential floor area shall be the same as the building square footage shown on the most recent Los Angeles County Tax Assessor's records at the time the plans are submitted to the Department of Building and Safety and a plan check fee is paid. Except that residential floor area may be calculated as defined in Section 12.03 of this Code when a complete set of fully dimensioned plans with area calculations of all the structures on the lot, prepared by a licensed architect or engineer, is submitted by the applicant. Any work that does not qualify as a remodel, as defined in the paragraph below, or additions that are 1,000 square feet or larger shall require a complete set of fully dimensioned plans with area calculations of all the structures on the lot prepared by a licensed architect or engineer. For the purposes of implementing this subdivision, a remodel shall mean the alteration of an existing building or structure provided that at least 50 percent of the perimeter length of the contiguous exterior walls and 50 percent of the roof are retained. Sec. 12. The second and third unnumbered paragraphs of Section 12.21.1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code are amended to read: In the Al, A2, RZ, RMP, and RW2 Zones, and in those portions of the RD and R3 Zones, which are also in Height District No. 1, no building or structure shall exceed 45 feet in height. In the RA, RE, RS, R1 and R2 Zones in Height District No. 1, located in a Hillside Area or a Coastal Zone, no building or structure shall exceed 45 feet in 12 Page 488 height_ In the RU and RW1 Zones, no building or structure shall exceed 30 feet in height. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, the following height regulations shall apply on a lot that is not located in a Hillside Area or Coastal Zone: In the R2 Zone, no building or structure shall exceed 33 feet in height. In the R1, RS, or RE9 Zones, no building or structure shall exceed 33 feet in height; except that when the roof of the uppermost story of a building or structure or portion of the building or structure has a slope of less than 25 percent, the maximum height shall be 28 feet. In the RE11, RE15, RE20, RE 40 or RA Zones, no building or structure shall exceed 36 feet in height; except that when the roof of the uppermost story of a building or structure or portion of a building or structure has a slope of less than 25 percent, the maximum height shall be 30 feet. Notwithstanding the above, when 40 percent or more of the existing one-family dwellings with frontage on both sides of the block have building heights exceeding these limits, the maximum height for any building on that block may be the average height of the dwellings exceeding these limits. Height limitations in specific plans, Historic Preservation Overlay Zones or in subdivision approvals shall take precedence over the requirements of this section. This section shall apply when there are no height limitations imposed on lots by a specific plan or a Historic Overlay Zone or created by a subdivision approval. Sec. 13. Subdivision 1 of Subsection A of Section 12.211 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read: 1. The total floor area contained in all the main buildings on a lot in a commercial or industrial zone in Height District No. 1 shall not exceed one-and-one-half times the buildable area of the lot; for a lot in all other zones, except RA, RE, RS, and R1 Zoned properties not located in a Hillside Area or Coastal Zone and developed primarily for residential uses, the total floor area contained in all the main buildings on a lot in Height District No. 1 shall not exceed three times the buildable area of the lot. For RA, RE, RS, and R1 Zoned properties not located in a Hillside Area or Coastal Zone, the total residential floor area shall comply with the floor area restrictions for each zone. Portions of Height District No. 1 may be designated as being in an "L" Limited Height District, and no building or structure in Height District No. 1-L shall exceed six stories, nor shall it exceed 75 feet in height. Portions of Height District No. 1 may be designated as being in a "VL" Very Limited Height District, and no building or structure in Height District No. 1-VL shall exceed three stories, nor shall it exceed 45 feet in height. Notwithstanding that limitation, portions of Height District No. 1-VL that are also in the RAS3 or RAS4 Zones shall not exceed 54 feet in height. Portions of Height District No. 1 may also be designated as being in an "XL" Extra Limited Height District, and no building or structure in Height District No. 1-XL shall exceed two stories, nor shall the highest point of the 13 Page 489 roof of any building or structure located in this District exceed 30 feet in height. In the RA, RE, RS, and R1 Zones, portions of Height District No. 1 may also be designated as being in an "SS" Single Story Limit Height District, and no building or structure in Height District No. 1-SS shall exceed one story, nor shall the highest point of the roof of any building or structure located in this District exceed 18 feet in height. For the purposes of Height District No. 1-SS, a basement does not count as a story when the elevation of the upper surface of the floor or roof above the basement does not exceed two feet in height at any point above the finished or natural grade, whichever is lower. Sec. 14. Subdivision 1 of Subsection A of Section 12.23 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended by adding a new Paragraph (c) to read: (c) A building, nonconforming as to the residential floor area regulations on properties zoned RA, RE, RS, and R1 and not located in the Hillside Area or Coastal Zone, shall not be added to or enlarged in any manner. However, alterations, other than additions or enlargements, may be made provided that at least 50 percent of the perimeter length of the contiguous exterior walls and 50 percent of the roof are retained. Sec. 15. Subsection A of Section 12.28 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended by adding a second unnumbered paragraph to read: The Zoning Administrator shall also have the authority to grant adjustments in residential floor area of no more than a ten percent increase beyond what is otherwise permitted by Chapter I of this Code. A request for an increase in residential floor area greater than ten percent shall be made as an application for a variance pursuant to Section 12.27 of this Code. Sec. 16. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Subdivision 1 of Subsection S of Section 12.32 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code are amended by replacing the phrase "this article"with the phrase "Article 3 of this chapter" everywhere that the phrase "this article" appears. Sec. 17. The list contained in Paragraph (b) of Subdivision 1 of Subsection S of Section 12.32 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended by adding a new entry to read "RFA" Residential Floor Area District at the end of the list_ Sec. 18. Subparagraph (2) of Paragraph (c) of Subdivision 1 of Subsection S of Section 12.32 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read: (2) Additional Requirements for Application. One or more of the owners or lessees of property within the boundaries of the proposed district may submit a verified application for the establishment of a district. An application for the establishment of a Commercial and Artcraft District, 14 Page 490 a Pedestrian Oriented District, an Equinekeeping District, a Community Design Overlay District, a Mixed Use District, a Sign District, or a Residential Floor Area District shall contain the signatures of at least 75 percent of the owners or lessees of property within the proposed district. An application for the establishment of a Fence Height District shall contain the signatures of at least 50 percent of the owners or lessees of property within the proposed district. An application shall be accompanied by any information deemed necessary by the Department. if establishment of a district is initiated by the City Council, City Planning Commission, or Director of Planning, the signatures of the property owners or lessees shall not be required. Sec. 19. Subsubparagraph (iii) of Subparagraph (3) of Paragraph (c) of Subdivision 1 of Subsection S of Section 12.32 is amended to read: (iii) Time for Commission to Act on Application. The City Planning Commission shall act on an application to establish an nQ " «S;p, "G,„ "K," "CA," "POD," aCDO,,, WIJ,11 "FH," "SN" or "RFA " District within 75 days from the date of the filing of the application. The City Planning Commission shall act on an application to establish an "RPD" District within 75 days from receipt of the Subdivision Committee report and recommendation. The City Planning Commission shall act on proceedings initiated by the Council within 75 days of receipt of that action from the Council, or within the time that the Council may otherwise specify. Sec. 20. Article 3 of Chapter I of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended by adding a new Section 13.13 to read: SEC. 13.13. "RFA" RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA DISTRICT. A. Purpose. This section sets forth procedures and guidelines for the establishment of"RFA" Residential Floor Area Districts in residential areas of the City. The purpose of the "RFA" Residential Floor Area District is to permit residential floor area maximums in residential zones to be higher or lower than normally permitted by this Code in areas where the proposed district will further enhance the existing scale of homes and help to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood as effectively as the residential floor area limitations established in this Code; and where the increased or decreased residential floor area maximums will be consistent with the policies and objectives set forth in the applicable Community Plan. B. Establishment of the District. The procedures set forth in Section 12.32 S of this Code shall be followed, however each "RFA" Residential Floor Area District shall include only properties in the RA, RE, RS, or R1 zones. The district shall not generally be less than 100 acres in area. The precise boundary of a district may be adjusted for 15 Page 491 urban features such as topography, freeways or streets/highways- Boundaries shall be along street frontages and shall not split parcels. An "RFA" Residential Floor Area District may encompass an area, which is designated, in whole or in part, as a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone and/or Specific Plan. The "RFA" Residential Floor Area District shall include contiguous parcels, which may only be separated by public streets, ways or alleys or other physical features, or as set forth in the rules approved by the Director of Planning. Precise boundaries are required at the time of application for or initiation of an individual district. C. Development Regulations, The Department of Building and Safety shall not issue a building permit for a residential structure within an "RFA" Residential Floor Area District unless the residential structure conforms to the regulations set forth in a specific "RFA" Residential Floor Area District. The development regulations for each "RFA" Residential Floor Area District shall be determined at the time the district is established. The development regulations shall enhance the character of the district. Sec. 21. The provisions of this ordinance shall sunset two years from the effective date of this ordinance, unless the City Council votes by resolution to extend these provisions. 16 Page 492 Sec. 22. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and have it published in accordance with Council policy, either in a daily newspaper circulated in the City of Los Angeles or by pasting for ten days in three public places in the City of Los Angeles: one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall; one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall East; and one copy on the bulletin board located at the Temple Street entrance to the Los Angeles County Hall of Records. I hereby certify that this ordinance was passed by the Council of the City of Los Any %by v to of not less than two-thirds of all of its members, at its meeting of �a2008 KAREN E. KALFAYAN, City Clerk By Deputy Approved MAY 1 Mayor Approved as to Form and Legality ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO, City Attorney Pursuant to Charter section 559,1 q disapprove this ordinance on behalf of the �f City Planning Commission and recommend By that it not be adopted ..... S ARON 1�DORF CARDENAS May 6,200B AssisVnt City Attorney See;Taed report. DateA� 0 � S.G Goldberg Director of Plannina File No(s). CF 06-1293;CPC 2007-0106-CA MAReal Prop_En%�_Land Use%and Use\Sharon Cardenas\OrdinanceslPLUM Mansionizatlon Qrd.doc 17 Page 493 DECLARATION OF POSTING ORDINANCE Z, MARIA C. RICO, state-as follows: I am, and was at all times hereinafter mentioned, a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and a Deputy City Clerk of the City of Los Angeles, California. ordinance No. 179883 - Amending and adding various sections to the Los Angeles Municipal Code to establish new regulations for all single-family residential zoned properties (RA, RE, RS, and Pl) not located in a Hillside Area or Coastal. Zone - a copy of which is hereto attached, was finally adopted by the Los Angeles City Council on May 6, 2008, and under the direction of said City Council and the City Clerk, pursuant to Section 251 of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles and Ordinance No. 172959, on May 20, 2008 I posted a true copy of said ordinance at each of three public places located in the City of Los Angeles, California, as follows. 1) one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall; 2) one copy an the bulletin board located at the Main Street entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall East; 3) one copy on the bulletin board located at the Temple Street entrance to the Hall of Records of the County of Los Angeles . Copies of said ordinance were posted conspicuously beginning on m2, 0, 2008 and will be continuously posted for ten or more days . I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this 20th day of May 2008 at Los Angeles, California. Maria C. Rico, Deputy City Clerk Ordinance Effective Date: June 29, 2008 Council File No. 06-1293 Rev,(2 21106) Page 494 #w 6 0 ® fl # #~ Prepared by the City ofLos Angeles—Deparinrent of City Plarnring Verification of Existing Residential Floor Area In order to ensure the timely processing of permit applications for relatively minor construction activity, the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance includes two methods of verifying existing Residential Floor Area. Use Tax Assessor Data—Remodels&Additions/New Structures of 1,000 sq-ft or,Less For remodels and additions, or construction of new structures, which are 1,000 sq-ft or smaller the square footage of the existing structures shall be assumed to be the same as the building square footage shown on the most recent Los Angeles County Tax Assessor's records at the time the plans are submitted to the Department of Building and Safety and a plan check fee is paid_ In order to use this square footage, remodels must retain at least 50% of the perimeter length of the contiguous exterior walls and 50% of the roof of existing structures. The 1,000 sq-ft limit is a cumulative value which will need to be tracked over time. Clarification: When the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor building square footage information includes multiple structures, those areas shall be added together to make up the total existing square footage_ In order to ensure that an applicant discloses the total number of structures on a property, staff should verify the submitted site plan against the most recent aerial photograph available on ZIMAS. When other structures are present on a lot, a site plan should also include any accessory structures on a lot with information regarding their size, but do not need to be detailed floor plans and elevations. As-Built Plans Required—Major Remodels,Additions/New Structures > 1,000 sq-ft, &All New Construction The applicant shall be required to submit a complete set of fully dimensioned plans of all the structures on the lot, prepared by a licensed architect or engineer, with Residential Floor Area calculations as part of an application for a building permit when: 1. Any work goes beyond the 1,000 sq-ft cumulative limit for additions or new construction; or 2. Any work that involves the demolition of more than 50% of the perimeter length of the contiguous exterior walls and more than 50% of the roof of existing structures_ As is currently the case, new construction on a vacant lot or a lot where all structures have been demolished shall always be required to submit a complete set of fully dimensioned plans. As-Built Plans Optional The Tax Assessor method does not preclude an applicant from opting to submit a complete set of fully dimensioned plans of all the structures on the lot, prepared by a licensed architect or engineer, with Residential Floor Area calculations done as defined in the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance for any project, if they wish to do so. What Are The New Residential Floor Area Limitations? The new Residential Floor Area limitations can be found in Subsection C "Area (Development Standards)" of each Single-Family Zone. The Floor Area limitations for properties on which this ordinance does not apply (located in a Hillside Area or Coastal Zone) will continue to be limited by Section 12.21.1 of the LAMC. Page 49age 5 2 of 7 BASELME MANSIONIZATIONORDINANCE. Prepared by ilrc Gi y ofLosAngeles-Deparlinenr of City Planning The maximum Residential Floor Area (RFA) contained in all building and accessory building shall not exceed the following limits: Zone Lot Size Maximum RFA(%of Lot Size) R1 5,000 sq-ft min. 50% Lots ? 7,500 sq-ft 45%or3,750 sq-ft, whichever is greater IRS 7,500 sq-ft min_ 45% Lots ? 9,000 sq-ft 40%or 4,050 scl-ft, whichever is greater RE9 9,000 sq-ft min. 40% Lots ? 15,000 sq-ft 35%or 6,000 sq-t, whichever is greater RE71 11,000 sq-ft min. 400/6 Lots ? 15,000 sq-ft 35%or 6,000 sq-ft whichever is greater REi5 15,000 sq-ft min. 35% RA 17,5D0 sq-ft min. 25% Lots ? 20,000 sq-ft 20%or 5,000 sq-ft, whichever is greater RF20 20,000 sq-ft min. 35% RE40 40,000 sq-ft min. 35% 20%Residential Floor Area Bonus An additional 20% of the maximum residential floor area for the subject lot shall be allowed if at least one of the following the methods listed below is utilized. Only one 20% bonus is permitted per property. When an R1 lot is smaller than 5,000 sq-ft the bonus is increased to 30%. Figure 1--Proportional Stories Method Proportional Stories Method — The total residential floor area of each story other than the base floor in a multi-story building _ does not exceed 75% of the area of the base floor. What is the Base Floor? That story of a main building, at or above grade, which is not considered a basement, FirstFloor/Base Floor and which has the greatest number of square-feet confined within the exterior second Floor(75%) walls. When attached covered parking is at the same story as the base floor, that area is included in the base floor for the purposes of massing. However, patios with a solid roof are not counted. All levels within 4 vertical feet of each other shall count as a Note: This figure is intended to illustrate the Proportional Stories Method in a simple manner,and is one of many second-floor configurations that could single story. comply with this provision. Page 496 age 3 of 7 I P� i T 0 M 1-4ful 03�m 9 El !TCC�R . Prepared by the City of Los Angeles—Aeprrinrenl of 007 PI¢nreing Figure 2.1—Front Facade Stepback Method Front Facade Step6ack__Method — The ---------------------- cumulative length of the exterior walls facing the front lot line, equal to a minimum of 25% of the building width shall be stepped back a distance of at least 20% of the building depth from a plane parallel to the front lot L line. o •••• Facing Front Lot Line a What is the Building Width? 0 The building width shall be the greatest N distance between the exterior walls of the building measure parallel to the lot width. Building Width What is the Building Depth? The building dept shall be the greatest distance between the exterior walls of the building measured parallel to the lot depth. Figure 2.2—Front Facade Stepback Method on Irregular-Lots What is Facing the Front Lot Line? All exterior walls that intersect a plane parallel to the front lot line at 45 degrees or less shall be considered to be facing the front I lot line. � n m What about Curved Front Lot Lines? 21]%Stepback Plane When the front lot line is not straight, a line --- ------��^ --- connecting the points where the side lot lines N and the front lot line intersect shall be used. Building Width ••••r Facing Front Lot Line Front Yard -/" Parallel Plane What about Through-Lots? When through-lots have two front yards, the Stepback shall be provided along both front lot lines. Page 4 of 7 Page 497 u` r t al f � � oe Prepared by the Ciry ofLasAngeles--De_parttnent of`Citp Planning Figure 3—Lot Depth&Lot Width on Recta ngularShaped Lots What is the Lot Depth? Rear Lot Line The horizontal distance between the front and Midpointbetween rear lot lines measured in the mean direction of Side Lot Lines the side lot lines. Lot Width I Lot Depth ID What is the Lot Width? _ T m r- v The horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth at I otDeptht a point midway between the front and rear lot i fines. Midpoint between Side Lot Lines Green Building Method — This method is only Front Lot Line available for new construction. In order to qualify, a project must be in "substantial Figure 4—Lot Depth&Lot Width on IrreguEarShaped Lots compliance" with (also referred to as "meeting Rear Lot Line the intent of" in the Citywide Green Building Midpoint between Ordinance) the U.S. Green Building Councils j Side Lot tines (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and I Lot Depth Environmental Design (LEED') for Homes program at the"Certified" level or higher. J jEn In order to submit an application to the Department of Building and Safety for a building f IID ermit licant will need to obtain Midpoint of 17 + the a pp ottJepth authorization from the Department of City I Midpoint between Planning. Planning staff will work with the I Side Lot Lines applicant and their USGBC-contracted LEED' for Homes Provider in order to determine that Front Lot Line the project has been registered with the LEED for Homes Program, and that the project will meet the requirements for a target certification at the "Certified" level or higher. In order to obtain authorization from the Department of City Planning, the applicant shall provide: 1. Documentation that the project has been registered with the USGBC's LEED' for Homes Program, and that the required fees have been paid; 2. A preliminary checklist from a USGBC-contracted LEED° for Homes Provider, which demonstrates that the project can be registered with the LEED® for Homes Program with a target of certification at the "Certified" or higher level; 3. A signed declaration from the USGBC-contracted LEED° for Homes Provider stating that the plans and plan details have been reviewed, and confirms that the project can be registered with the LEED® for Homes Program with a target certification at the "Certified" or higher level; and 4. A complete set of plans stamped and signed by a licensed architect or engineer that include a copy of the preliminary checklist and signed declaration identified in Subparagraphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph and identify the measures being provided for LEED' Certification. Each plan sheet must also be signed by a Page 5 of 7 Page 498 NUM Prepared by the City of Los Angeles—Department of City Plannilrg USGBC-contracted LFED® for Homes Provider verifying that the plans are consistent with the submitted preliminary checklist. The Department of Building and Safety shall refer applicants to the Department of City Planning prior to issuance of a building permit to obtain a sign-off on a Clearance Summary Worksheet in order to verify the project compliance with the originally approved plans. If changes are made to the project, the applicant shall be required to submit a revised set of plans, including all other required documents, with the revisions necessary to make the project in substantial compliance with the requirements for LFED°for Homes Certification. What Are The New Height Limitations? The maximum height of structures depends on what Height District a property is in and whether it is a sloped roof (25% slope or greater) or a flat roof(less that 25% slope). The following table is a breakdown of the regulations: Height Districts Zone Max.Height 1 1 L 1 VL 1 XL 1 ss, R1 Sloped Roof(�25%) 33 ft 33 ft 33 ft 30 ft la ft One-Family Flat Roof(<25%) 28 ft 28 ft 28 ft 28 ft 18 ft Zone Max.Stories: n/a 6 3 2 1 RS Sloped Roof(�:25%) 33 ft 33 ft 33 ft 30 ft 1 B it Suburban Zone Flat Roof(<25%) 28 ft 28 ft 2B ft 28 It 18 ft Max.Stories: n/a 6 3 2 1 RE9 Sloped Roof(?25%)_ 33 ft 33 ft 33 ft 30 ft 18 ft Residential Flat Roof(<25%) 28 ft 28 it 28 ft 28 it 18 ft Estate Zone Max.Stories: n/a 6 3 2 1 REl1 Sloped Roof(>_25%) 36 ft 36 ft 36 ft 30 ft 18 ft Residential Flat Roof(<251/6) 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 18 R Estate Zone Max.Stories: n/a 6 3 2 1 RE75 Sloped Roof(2:25%} 36 ft 36 ft 36 ft 30 ft 18 it Residential Flat Roof(<25%) 30 ft 30 It 30 ft 30 it 18 ft Estate Zone Max.Stories: n/a 6 3 2 1 RA Sloped Roof(?25%) 36 ft 36 ft 36 ft 30 ft 18 ft Suburban Zone Flat Roof(<25%) 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 18 ft Max.Stories: n/a 6 3 2 1 RE20 Sloped Roof(>_251/6) 36 ft 36 ft 36 ft 30 ft 18 ft Residential Flat Roof(<25%) 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 18 ft Estate Zone Max.Stories: n/a 6 3 2 1 RE40 Sloped Roof(?251/6) 3b it 36 ft 36 ft 30 ft 18 ft Residential Flat Roof(<25%) 30 it 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 18 ft Estate Zone Max.Stories: n/a 6 3 2 1 The`'I SS"Single-Story Height District was created by the Baseline 11Man5iDnization Ordinance. As of this date,the 1 SS Height District has not been applied to any properties;June 12,2008. Page 6 of 7 Page 499 Prepared by the City of LoxAngeles—Departazent of Cite Planning The 25% roof slope is a Southern California standard which is also commonly referred to as the 3:12 slope. This slope can be expressed as a ratio of 1 foot of vertical rise for every 4 feet of horizontal distance. In order to determine what the minimum height of the standard gabled roof, as measured from the top- plate of the building wall, simply divide the horizontal distance of the wall by 8. When a roof is made up of a combination of roof slopes, the portions of the structure with a roof slope less than 25% will be considered flat and as a result be required to comply with the lower height. What About Projects Which Do Not Meet These New Requirements? Any project which cannot meet the requirements established in the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance shall be referred to the Department of City Planning for the appropriate entitlements. An applicant can apply for a Zoning Administrator Adjustment for an increase of up to 10% beyond the new Residential Floor Area limits. For example, the Residential Floor Area limit for a 5,000 sq-ft R1 lot will be increased to 2,750 sq-ft, or 3,300 sq-ft when a structure is built utilizing the 20% Residential Floor Area bonus. When a project requires an increase of more than 10% to the Residential Floor Area limit it shall require a Variance. Last Updated 6/24/2008 Page 7of7 Page 500 Hillside Design Review (Appeal ) DRC2019-00975 May 5 , 2021 Project Overview Project: An appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a request to construct a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence along with an attached 771 square foot garage and 374 square feet of patios and porches on the 15,430 square foot project site. Entitlements: Appeal DRC2019-00975 Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244 Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 Zoning Designation: Low (L) Residential District Overlay District: Hillside Overlay (HO) District General Plan Designation: Low CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 00' in= Background • The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 13, 2019. At that meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to return to a future meeting with a resolution denying the project. • The Planning Commission denied Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244 and Minor Exception DRC18-00473 on December 11 , 2019 ; • The City Council held a public hearing to review the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission decision on February 19, 2020; • At that meeting, the City Council recommended that the applicant work with the other Camino Predera property owners to come up with a mutually amicable solution and consider reducing the size of the house by 10 percent and to increase the side yard setbacks to reduce the overall massing of the house; • To date, the applicant has not made any changes to the plans since last reviewed by the City Council. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WI u M pro J. F G�a� W Historic Fate 5b CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r Development Requirements Requirement Proposed Compliant? Front Yard Setback 37 feet 57 feet Yes Side Yard Setbacks 5 and 10 feet 5 and 10 feet Yes Rear Yard Setback 20 feet 85 feet Yes Lot Coverage 40 percent 32 percent Yes Building Height Overall 30 feet 30 feet Yes Building Height at Curb 10.5 feet Face Retaining Wall Height 4 feet max 5 feet Yes Cut/Fill 1 5 feet 11 .5* Feet Yes *Grading in Excess of 5 feet Requires Planning Commission Approval GAMING PR�DERA E rlC a %I Gll R9.GU7ER SID 4L 5 7' Site Plan 6 �s n 5' 10' _ � awa art ue q 3 4q '1 #X y X d � y —J 85' E.I CITY { 21 SM,y ss� ss OF ♦ • CUCAMONGA PROZCT SLE ENVELOPE 13ID-D 1 mi .►---��- -iiir�ii ��iiiiir�- ----------►�--►- .. . . . . ... . . . . . ------------------------- iiiiil EEL �i�� -_� �.- ---r--� 1-►--------►►-- -►-------�1 9]r �-��'__ -irl �i��i ►►_i!�_■1���!u� Z7J�4��ii i��� �I,�- ,- . . ` _,.,I�� KAMA TO7-F-hw-ftm,SEER ,IIIIII f. .:. O FRONT • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r BIALVING ENVELOPE ■ •- 1BULDiNG ENVELOPE - • 3 J��rr�rr► .. Jrrlrrlrrrrrrrrlrrl�irrlrrl► - Jai �-ii-��►i--ii-► OUT FOAM M"ORK UMMUVOS Qum�rym �����a�►������������ rrorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnrnr- ������rr►�rr�u�_ _ ■..��—r�---�����---_► rnnnnnnnnnnnnn�` `a_ �---��—o®--►.�� ����������������_� annrrrrrrnrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr■�'_drrr��grrrr .-������rrsrrlrrl�rr�l�l :�������—������►__ .nrnrrLrrLrrnrrLrrLrrnn�"_.nnnnesannnr■r_ ►�����®--���� a r1 S i'r�i fcrrrrrr� �________: -Ill�lllll�lllllll�llll�llll��lm!!_ =_11111111111�111111 w�r*A"-AS _n E El El CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r EULDING s. 1 F'RaECT FILE .- 1 s------r_ - - 11111�IIIL1lllillll��- -- ----�-___.r_- 1® EAST ELEVATION sa EAST ELEVATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r aUILDING ENVELOPE 0 129650 r 7 —-------- ---13ULDING ENVELOPE d 1268.0 �I I 5ADING ENV ------------ I I In'eR CZ CTLE D BHGKE' F HN H5 e � cart ne RacaH� euxc r'eaxS I I Cc'OARMLL I I I I I I I I I I I I � `I � se ea[cr W$ CL�iAli1' I I L i LA WaPA N-r ___________ ------------ MIBRWK PGP MEP LEm WEST ELEVATION 9aH�.a RLL 19T ------------- NGMG evaaf.l3Y-}9 I I I I I I I I ` I I I � I i } � I 4 n1. WEST ELEVATION mum S 1 -.:r>aa=�.� ,.mac.•.� _ _ •� - - �r��r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r .Ey r M r As • sidewalk • north • of • Predera • ol to]MGM I ................... CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r City Council Core Values • The project as proposed does not promote the Council's core value of seeking and respectively considering all public input as the applicant has not followed the Council's direction related to the house size and massing based on concerns raised by the community. Staff Recommendation That the City Council deny Appeal DRC2019-00975 and uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244 and Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 for the following reasons: • Project Conflicts with Intent of Hillside Design Guidelines: The project is proposed at the minimum side setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, which conflicts with the intent of Hillside Design Section 17. 122.020.D.2.a, which explicitly encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures; • Project Is Incompatible with Existing Neighborhood: The size/massing of the proposed residence is out of character with the exiting residences along Camino Predera; • Project is Inconsistent with General Plan: General Plan Policy LU-2.4 promotes "complementary infill development. . .that contributes positively to the surrounding neighborhood." Based on the comments received by the neighborhood, the proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of this General Plan policy. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision (DRC2021- 00104) to Approve Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016 — Saurabh Patel — An Appeal of a Planning Commission Approval of a Request to Construct a 3,300 Square Foot Single-Family Residence with Two Separate Attached 2-Car Garages Totaling 1,063 Square Feet on a Vacant Property of 15,601 Square Feet (0.36-Acre) within the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District Located at 8005 Camino Predera — APN: 0207-631-06. The Project Qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-036) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: • Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Planning Director approved Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016 on January 25, 2021, and the approval was appealed on February 3, 2021, within the 10-day appeal period. The Planning Commission heard the appeal on March 10, 2021 and recommended that staff return to the next Commission meeting with a Resolution of Approval of DRC2020-00016. On March 24, 2021, the Planning Commission approved the Resolution of Approval of DRC2020-00016. The Planning Commission decision was appealed on April 1, 2021, within the 10-day appeal period. APPEAL: The letter included with the appeal of DRC2020-00016, dated April 1, 2021 (Exhibit A), requests that the City Council consider the following: 1. That the City Council recognizes and agrees to the importance of a lower profile for houses approved on Camino Predera, similar to the three houses approved since 2017. 2. That the City Council recognizes and agrees to the importance of compatibility. 3. That the City Council recognizes and agrees to the importance of consistency. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Page 501 The project is for the construction of a 3,300 square foot single-family residence with two separate attached 2-car garages totaling 1,063 square feet. The vacant 15,601 square foot project site is located on the south side of Camino Predera and south of Red Hill Country Club Drive, in the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District. The downslope lot has a total grade change of approximately 51 feet from the north to south property lines. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land Low Residential Low L Residential District* North Single-Family Residences Low Residential Low L Residential District* South Multi-Family Development Mixed-Use Mixed-Use MU District East Single-Family Residence Low Residential Low (L)Residential District* West Vacant Land Low Residential Low L Residential District* *Hillside Overlay District ANALYSIS: Staff asserts that the project as approved by the Planning Director and confirmed by the Planning Commission is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, the Development Code and the existing development along Camino Predera. Staff addresses each of the comments raised in the letter of appeal as follows: Lower Profile: The maximum permitted height within the Hillside Overlay District is 30 feet above finished grade. Development Code section 17.11.020.D.2 states that the design of the structure should give consideration to lot size and configuration to minimize the appearance of overbuilding and the blocking of views. The project has a maximum height of 25 feet-3 inches as measured from finished grade and a maximum height of 13 feet as measured above the top of curb on Camino Predera. The Development Code does not include a maximum height as measured from the top of curb. The adjacent house to the east is approximately 9 feet taller than the approved project. The most recent house to be completed along the south side of Camino Predera is approximately 14 feet above top of curb. While the two most recent Hillside Design Review approvals along the south side of Camino Predera have had a lower building height as measured above top of curb, that height was based on topography, architectural style, and owner preference. There is no requirement or policy for a maximum building height as measured above top of curb. Compatibility: The subject lot is part of Tract 10035 which was approved by Rancho Cucamonga City Council in March 1985 and comprises a total of 38 lots. As of 2019, 21 lots within the tract had been developed, with 3 more lots having been approved for development as recent as 2018 and 2019. Generally, the average size of houses in Tract 10035 has increased from 3,128 square feet in the 1980s to 4,237 square feet in the 2010s. The habitable portion of the approved residence is 3,300 square feet,which in keeping with existing development along Camino Predera and includes 10 and 15-foot side yard setbacks, above the required 5 and 10-foot side yard setbacks, increasing view opportunities as seen from Camino Predera. Consistency: The Planning Director's decision was based on the project's consistency with the Development Code. Development Code Section 17.16.140 (Hillside Development Review) states that the Planning Director shall be the approving authority for Hillside Development Reviews. The Page 502 only exceptions to this requirement are when excavation/fill exceeds 5 feet in depth, at which point a project would require Planning Commission review, or if a related entitlement is necessary as part of the project scope which requires Planning Commission review. In this case, the project complies with each of the related Development Code requirements for projects within the Hillside Overlay District as shown in the following table: Proposed Project Development Code Compliant? Building Height (measured 25 Feet-3 Inches 30 Feet (maximum) Yes from finished grade) Front Building Setback (measured from the curb at 54 Feet 37 feet (+/- 5 feet) Yes Camino Predera) (minimum) Side Building Setbacks (measured from the side 10/15 Feet 5/10 Feet (minimum) Yes property lines) Rear Building Setback (measured from the rear 97 feet 20 Feet (minimum) Yes property line) Excavation (depth) Less than 5 feet 5 Feet (maximum) Yes Retaining Wall Height 3 Feet 4 Feet (maximum) Yes Lot Coverage (maximum) 16.8 Percent 40 Percent (maximum) Yes Planning Director Approval: The Planning Director's original approval was based on the project's compliance with the intent and regulations of the Development Code for lots within the Hillside Overlay District as stated in the director's approval letter (Exhibit A), and which are summarized as follows: 1. The proposed single-family residence complies with all applicable development standards for the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District. 2. The residence was designed in compliance with Section 17.122.020.D.2 of the Development Code including stepping the building pads to follow the existing slope and the use of hip roofs oriented in the same direction as the natural slope. The building mass is broken up through the use of multiple wall plane changes and the incorporation of decks on the side and rear elevations. The residence will be painted earth tone colors, as recommended in the Hillside Design Guidelines, and will be in keeping with the existing residences along Camino Predera, which include a variety of architectural styles and themes. The two-car garage on the upper level faces Camino Predera, with a second side entry two- car garage located on the lower level, accessed by a curving driveway with an up to 20 percent grade. Section 17.122.020.C.1.d. of the Development Code states that driveways with grades up to 20 percent are permitted when they are aligned with the natural contours Page 503 of the lot and are necessary to achieve site design goals. The driveway to the lower garage follows the existing grade of the lot and places the additional garage space below street level, thereby reducing the massing of the residence as seen from Camino Predera. 3. The project complies with the intent of the Hillside Overlay District, which seeks to facilitate appropriate development of hillside areas. The project site is a downslope lot with an elevation change of approximately 35 feet from the north to south property lines. The proposed grading design limits cut and fill to the greatest extent possible. Fill is limited to 27.8 cubic yards and cut is limited to 21 cubic yards. The residence is stepped with the existing grade and includes a garage on the lower level, reducing the overall massing of the structure as seen from Camino Predera. Earthwork is limited to the area necessary to construct the residence and access driveway, with the rear yard is left mostly undisturbed. The proposed design does not require Variances or Minor Exceptions, and the overall size of the residence is in keeping with the more recent residences constructed along Camino Predera. 4. The design provisions for development in the Hillside Overlay District as described in Section 17.122.020 - Hillside Development requires that residences in the Hillside Overlay District be designed to fit within a 30-foot high building "envelope". The applicant has provided two north-south and two east-west cross-sections with building envelopes demonstrating compliance with the 30-foot height requirement. 5. Although there is no "view preservation" requirement in the Development Code. the applicant has designed the proposed house in a manner that minimizes view obstructions. The residence has a maximum height of 13 feet when measured above top of curb on Camino Predera. Additionally, in conformance with Section 17.122.020.D.2. of the Development Code, the proposed house has side yard setbacks of 10 and 15 feet to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding, Le minimize the visual massing of the house and minimize view obstructions. 6. The proposed grading design limits earthwork to 6.8 cubic yards of fill, with the majority of the cut/fill necessary to construct the driveway and the lower side entrance garage. The foundation of the residence is stepped with the existing grade, with the upper pad at an elevation of 1,303 feet and the lower pad at an elevation of 1,294, in conformance with Section 17.122.020.D.1.a of the Development Code to terrace the building to follow the slope. 7. Section 17.122.020.G.1.J.ii of the Development Code permits up to 4-foot high retaining walls downslope from the residence. The height of the proposed retaining walls for the project is below the 4-foot height limit within the Hillside Overlay District. These retaining walls are necessary to construct the driveway, the foundation of the house, and retain soil along the side property lines. Each of the retaining walls will be constructed of tan split face block. 8. The proposed landscaping is designed to comply with Section 17.122.020.F of the Development Code, including the use of drought-tolerant landscaping to protect slopes from erosion and the planting of shrubs to soften the views of the downslope elevations. The project is not within the High Fire Hazard Zone or a wildland-urban interface area. The proposed landscaping also complies with the front yard landscape requirements, including reducing hardscape to less than 50 percent of the front yard area. Page 504 Summary: The appeal is not merited based on the Planning Directors determination that the project complies with each of the development requirements of the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Development Overlay District. The proposed residence will have a maximum height of 13 feet above the curb face on Camino Predera and will be of similar size to the residential development in the area. Environmental Determination: Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures which covers the construction of single-family residences in a residential zone. The project scope is to construct a single-family residence on a vacant, residentially zoned lot. Staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Director has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on her own independent judgment, concurs with the staff's determination of exemption. FISCAL IMPACT: The project site currently is assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the City's annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The project proponent also will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the proposed project. The following types of services that these impact fees would support include the following: library services, transportation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The project promotes the Council's core values of building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere. The proposed single-family residence will provide much-needed housing in the City and develop a vacant lot which was originally approved for subdivision (TT10035) on March 25, 1981. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on April 19, 2021. On April 21, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners (173 property owners) within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No correspondence has been received in response to these notices. EXHIBITS: Attachment 1 - Letter of Appeal Dated April 1, 2021 Attachment 2 - Planning Director Approval Letter Dated January 25, 2021 Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Appeal Staff Report Dated March 10, 2021 Attachment 4 - Draft Resolution of Approval of Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016 Page 505 Subject: Appeal of Hillside Design Review DRC2O2O-00016-Saurabh Patel To: Mayor Dennis Michael, Mayor Pro Tern Lynne Kennedy, and Council Members Ryan Hutchison Kristine Scott and Sam Spagnolo From: Red Hill residents and neighbors: Massey, Snedeker, Weber, Buguet, Dera, Sandford, Agraso Alamat, Reyes, Scott, Nosrat, McNinch and Waddell's Date: April 1, 2021 Please consider this to be an official appeal regarding the HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2O2O-00016-SAURABH PATEL project. The following points should be considered: 1. To request the City Council recognize and agree to the importance of a Lower Profile than has recently been approved for this project. This is necessary in order to continue the standard of projects that have been approved since 2017 on Camino Predera by the Planning Commission and City Council, and necessary to protect the integrity of the Red Hill Community. 2. To request that the City Council recognize and agree to the importance of Compatibility.This is necessary to insure that this project and future projects are able to occur together without conflict. 3. To request that the City Council recognize and agree to the importance of Consistency. This is necessary to provide the same requirements and Conditions of Approval as previous projects. Please note, we as appellants are requesting the customary City Council meeting to be held in Council Chambers as is being afforded Mr. Bardos with his appeal to City Council, which has been almost one year now. We understand if the accommodation will have to wait until the city offices are once again open to the public due to Covid, however, being in your presence gives us a better opportunity to present our case in more natural surroundings. The cost of the appeal alone ($3,206) should warrant such consideration. Sincerely, the Appellants: Lynn and Renee Massey Tom and Doris Snedeker Erick and Catherine Weber Chuck and Suzanne Buguet Danny Dera Scott and Lisa Sandford Chris and Lisa Agraso Rakan and Maria Alamat Tom and Alona Reyes Jim and Renee Scott Christopher and Irina Nosrat Bill and Susan McNinch Robert and Suzanne Waddell Please make the point of contact: Renee Massey r� (909) 560-2345 Email: reneemass1952@yahoo.co Page 506 Attachment 1 CITY OF ♦ . A • • 10500 Civic Center Drive I Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91 730 1 909.477.2700 1 www.CityofRC.us i January 25, 2021 Saurabh Patel 8659 Red Oak Street, Suite Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00016 — SAURABH PATEL — A request to construct a 3,300 square foot single-family residence with two separate attached 2-car garages totaling 1.063 square feet on a vacant property of 15,601 square feet (0.36-acre) within the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District located at 8005 Camino Predera—APN: 0207-631-06. The project qualities as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Dear Mr. Patel: The Hillside Design Review process for the above-described project has been successfully completed and approval has been granted based upon the following findings and conditions. Thank you for your participation and cooperation during this review process. Environmental Determination.- 1. Prior to any action being taken for this request the Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures which covers the construction of single-family residences in a residential zone. The project scope is to construct a single-family residence on a vacant, residentially zoned lot. Staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Director has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption. and based on her own independent judgment, concurs with the staffs determination of exemption. Protect Description: 1. The applicant proposes constructing a single-family residence on a vacant property in the Low (L) Residential District, Hillside Overlay District, located at 8005 Camino Predera - APN: 0207-631-06. 2. The 15,601-square foot vacant project site is located on the south side of Camino Predera. The property's dimensions are approximately 80 feet along the north and south property lines, and approximately 195 feet along the east and west property lines. The downslope lot has an elevation of 1,315 feet as measured at the curb face along the north property line, and an elevation of 1,280 at the south property line, for a total grade change of 35 feet from the north to south property lines. The street improvements have been installed along Camino Predera, except for street trees and parkway landscaping. 3. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land Low Residential Low L Residential District North Single-Family Residences Low Residential Low L Residential District South Multi-Family Development Mixed-Use Mixed-Use MU District Page 507 Attachment 2 APPROVAL LETTER ,HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2020-00016—SAURABH PATEL January 25, 2021 Page 2 East Single-Family Residence Low Residential Low (L)Residential District West Vacant Land Low Residential Low L Residential District 4. The proposed 'single-family residence complies with all applicable development standards for the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District as shown in the table below: Proposed Project Development Code Compliant? Building Height (measured from finished grade) 25 Feet-3 ]riches 30 Feet (maximum) Yes Front Building Setback (measured 37 feet(+1- 5 feet) Yes from the curb at Camino Predera) 54 Feet (minimum) Side Building Setbacks (measured 10115 Feet 5/10 Feet(minimum) Yes from the side property lines) Rear Building Setback (measured Yes from the rear property line) 97 feet 20 Feet{minimum) Excavation (depth) Less than Z feet 5 Feet.(maximum) Yes Retaining Wall Height 3 Feet 4 Feet(maximum) Yes Lot Coverage:(maximum) 16.8 Percent 40 Percent (maximum) Yes: 5. The proposed 3,300-square foot residence is comprised of two stories of living area along with a 541 square foot side entrance garage located below the first story(ground level)of the house.The 1,612 square foot first story (ground level) includes the main living area, a bedroom, along with a 521-square foot two- car garage. The:1,688-square second story includes 3 bedrooms and loft. 6. The 'proposed residence has a Mediterranean design theme, which includes the use of a clay tile roof, smooth troweled stucco finish, cast stone window and door surrounds, wrought iron accents, and decorative garage doors. The residence was designed in compliance with Section 17.122.020.D.2 of the Development Code including stepping the building pads to follow the existing slope and the use of hip roofs oriented in the same direction as the natural slope. The building mass is broken up through the use of multiple wall plane changes and the incorporation of decks on the side and rear elevations. The residence will be painted earth tone colors, as recommended in the Hillside Design Guidelines, and will be in keeping with the existing residences along Camino- Predera, which include a variety of:architectural styles and themes. The two-car garage on the upper level faces Camino Predera, with a second side entry two-car garage located on the lower ,level; accessed by a curving driveway with an up to 20 percent grade. Section 17.122.020.C.1.d. of the Development Code states that driveways with grades up to 20 percent are permitted when they are aligned with the natural contours of the lot'and are necessary to achieve site design goals. The driveway to the lower garage follows the existing grade of the lot and places the additional garage space below street`level, thereby reducing the massing of the iresidence as seen from Camino Predera. Page 508 APPROVAL LETTER HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2020-0001.6—SAURABH PATEL January 25, 2021 Page 3 7. The project complies with the intent of the Hillside Overlay District, which seeks to facilitate appropriate development of hillside areas. The project site is a downslope lot with an elevation change of approximately 35 feet from the north to south property lines. The proposed grading design limits cut and fill to the greatest extent possible. Fill is limited to 27.8 cubic yards and cut is limited to 21 cubic yards. The residence is stepped with the existing grade and includes a garage on the lower level, reducing the overall massing of the structure as seen from Camino Predera. Earthwork is limited to the area necessary to construct the residence and access driveway, with the rear yard is left mostly undisturbed. The proposed design does not require Variances or Minor Exceptions, and the overall size of the residence is in keeping with the more recent residences constructed along Camino Predera. 8. The design provisions for development in the Hillside Overlay, District as described in Section 17.122.020 - Hillside Development requires that residences in the Hillside Overlay District be designed to fit within a 30-foot high building "envelope". The applicant has provided two north-south and two east-west cross- sections with building envelopes demonstrating compliance with the 30-foot height requirement. 9. Although there is no"view preservation"requirement in the Development Code. the applicant has designed the proposed house in a manner that minimizes view obstructions. The residence has a maximum height of 13 feet when measured from above the top of curb at Camino Predera.Additionally, in conformance with Section 17.122.020.D.2. of the Development Code, the proposed house has side yard setbacks of 10 and 15 feet to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding, 1.e minimize the visual massing of the house, and minimize view obstructions. 10.. The proposed grading design limits earthwork to 6.8 cubic yards of fill, with the majority of the buttfill necessary to construct the driveway and the lower side entrance garage. The foundation of the residence is stepped with the existing grade,with the upper pad at an elevation of'1,303 feet and the lower pad at an elevation of 1,294, in conformance with Section 17.122.020.D.1.a of the Development Code to terrace the building to follow the slope. 11. Section 17.122.020.G.1.J.ii of the,Development Code permits up to 4-foot high retaining walls downslope from the residence. The height of the proposed retaining walls for the project is below the 4-foot height limit within the Hillside Overlay District. These retaining walls are necessary to construct the driveway, the foundation of the house, and retain soil along the side property lines. Each of the retaining walls will be constructed of tan split face block. 12. The proposed landscaping -is designed to comply with Section 17.122.020.F of the Development Code, including the use of drought-tolerant landscaping to protect slopes from erosion and':the planting of shrubs to soften the views of the downslope elevations. The project is not within,the High Fire Hazard Zone or a wildland-urban interface area. The proposed landscaping also complies with the front yard landscape requirements, including reducing hardscape to less than 50 percent of the front yard area. Design Review Committee: Pursuant to Section 17.16.140 of the Development Code, the Planning Director is the approving authority for Hillside Development Review application. Prior to Planning Director review and action, Hillside Development Review applications are reviewed by the Design Review Committee. This Committee reviews a proposed .project's architecture and site planning and then provides recommendations to the Planning Director for consideration. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee.on January 19, 2021 (Oaxaca, Williams, Smith). The Committee received staffs report and comments from the applicant and the general public. Public comments received in support of the project focused on the project's compliance with the requirements of the Development Code and the appropriateness of the design within the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Public comments received in;opposition to the project focused on the height of the structure in relation to-the adjacent curb face, potential loss of privacy, and the potential impact on views from neighboring properties. Page 509 APPROVAL LETTER HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2020-00016 -- SAURABH PATEL January 25. 2021 Page 2 Committee member Oaxaca noted that the City does not have a view protection ordinance. He noted that the Development Code states that the height of a building (house) shall not unduly block views and that the design of the house shall minimize the blocking of views. Committee member Williams stated that a building height of 9 to 10 feet (above the curb face on Camino Predera) may be more appropriate. Staff noted that due to the "downslope" condition of the property, the height of the house was about 13 feet above the curb face of the street. Both Committee members otherwise felt that the applicant had made significant changes to the project during the design review process. They supported the design and layout of the proposed residence. The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Director for review and action. Findings of Approval: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use designation of the project site is Low Residential. The Low residential designation is intended for the development of detached, low-density residences on individual lots. The project is for the development of a single-family residence on an existing residential lot. 2. The proposed project is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Development Code states that the Low (L) Residential District is for the development of single-family residential Uses with a minimum lot size of 7.200 square feet and a maximum residential density of 4 units per gross acre. The project site is an existing 15,601-square foot vacant lot that was intended for the development of a single-family residence. 3. The proposed project complies with the applicable provisions of the Development Code, including building setbacks, building height, lot coverage, grading limitations, and design. The proposed house is within the minimum required setbacks, height limit, and lot coverage of the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District. Grading is nearly balanced with 6.8 cubic yards of fill needed to construct the driveway and the pad of the house. The massing of the house is designed to "blend" with the existing grade in conformance with Section17 22,020(D)(1)(a) of the Development Code. 4. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed house consistent and compatible with the houses in the surrounding area. The size of the house is consistent with that of existing houses along Camino Predera. This project is approved subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Please note that conditions may specify completion of certain plans or work prior to issuance of building permits. This decision shall be final following a 10-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission Secretary, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by a $1,685 appeal fee. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, by phone at (909) 774-4316 or by email at tabe.vanderzwaagAcityofrc.us. Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT lifi�./X--Ja #1 Anne McIntosh. AICP Planning Director Attachment: Conditions of Approval Page 510 Conditions of Approval RANCHO C[ICAMONCA Community Development Department Project #: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR - Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: --- 020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Approval is granted to construct a 3,300 square foot single-family residence with two separate attached 2-car garages totaling 1,063 square feet on a vacant property of 15,601 square feet (0.36-acre) within the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District located at 8005 Camino Predera —APN 0207-631-06. Standard Conditions of Approval 2. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 3. 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. 4. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval. and al[ 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. 5. 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. 6. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence. durability, and design consistency. 7. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein and the Development Code regulations. www.CityofRC.us Printed 1,125/2021 Page 511 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR - Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: --- 020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Planning- Department Standard Conditions of Approval 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 12. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. www.CityofMus Printed:1/25/2021 Page 2 of 8 Page 512 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR- Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: -- 020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 16. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to. soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq: ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 17. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted: for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 18. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 19. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 20. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 21. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department rof Fish and, Wildlife 'Notice of Determination fee in the amount of $50.00. 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. 22. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special.Conditions 1. Have a registered civil engineer revise City Drawing # 922 for the, improvement(s) listed above prior to building permit issuance (plan check fees apply) Standard Conditions of Approval 2. Prior to any work being performed in Public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a Engineering Construction Permit (separate from Building Permits) shall be obtained from the Engineering Service Department in addition to any other permits required. 3. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street :trees: "All improvements within the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans." if there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern. Printed:1I2512021 www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 8 Page 513 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR-Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: --- 020763106-0000' Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 4. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Drive Appr. Street Trees 5. 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 (typically Sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be -per the public .landscape improvement plans. Street Name Camino Predera Botanical Name Lagerstroemia indica Common Name Crape Myrtle (Muskogee), Min. Grow Space 20' OIC Spacing Size standard trunk Qty. 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. 6. 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. 7. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 8. 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. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions www.Q1yofRC.us Printed:1/25/2021 Page 4 of 8 Page 514 Project M DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR- Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: - 020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT; 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 a site specific soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the California Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at the time of Plan Check Submittal. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers per the CBC and Current RCFPD Ordinance. Grading Section Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 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. 7. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 8. '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. Printed:112512021 www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 8 Page 515 Project M DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR - Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: ---020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 9. 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 5 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. 10, 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 CBC1804.31CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.21CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1..2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 11. Prior to, issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from the adjacent property owner(s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set. 12. The conceptual grading and drainage plan is showing' driveway slopes exceeding 10%. Therefore, prior to issuance of a grading permit, the permitted grading plan set shall show driveway profiles for the circular driveway from the street curb line to the garage door(s).. 13. It shall be the 'responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 14. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage acceptance easements(s) from adjacent downstream property owner(s) or discharge flows in a natural condition (concentrated flows are not accepted) and shall provide the Building and Safety Official a drainage study showing the proposed flows do not exceed the existing flows prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 15. 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. Printed:112512029. wwmCityofRC.us Page B of 8 Page 516 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR- Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: --- 020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 16. 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. 17. This application for storm water quality management Alan purposes may be considered a non-priority project. Therefore, prior to issuance of any building permit or Engineering Services Department issued right of way permit the land owner with the applicant shall file a Non-Priority Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) with the Building and Safety Department. The applicant may contact Matthew Addington, Associate Engineer, at (909) 477-2710, extension 4202. This project is required to prepare a non-priority WQMP project as the following requirement has been met: i) For areas less than 2,000 square feet of impervious area, the development will be considered a non-priority project and a WQMP document is not required, unless the project is for the outdoor storage of hazardous materials or other materials which may require a pre-treatment of. the storm water runoff which will require that a non-priority WQMP document is prepared, including but not limited to, vehicle fueling operations; ii) For significant re-development projects proposing impervious areas of 2,000 square feet to 4,999 square feet and new development projects proposing impervious areas of 2,000 square feet to 9,999 square feet the following criteria will require a non-priority WQMP document to be prepared: a. For all new and significant redevelopment projects; b. If the project is part of a common area of development, a non-priority WQMP document shall be prepared; c. If the proposed development is a commercial project the City will determine if activities may impact the water quality, and if impacts are determined to affect the water quality a non-priority WQMP document will be prepared; d. All industrial projects will require a non-priority WQMP document to be prepared. 18. RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES — CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE — Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.2 (Storm water drainage and retention during construction) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code: Projects which disturb less than one (1) acre of soil and are not part of a larger common plan of development which in total disturbs one acre or more, shall manage storm water drainage during construction. In order to manage storm water drainage during construction, one or more of the following measures shall be implemented to prevent flooding of adjacent property, prevent erosion and retain soil runoff on the site. 1. Retention basins of sufficient size shall be utilized to retain storm water on the site. 2. Where storm water is conveyed to a public drainage system, collection point, gutter, or similar disposal method, water shall be filtered by use of a barrier system, wattle or other method approved by the enforcing agency (City of Rancho Cucamonga). 3. Compliance with a lawfully enacted storm water management ordinance. Printed;1125l2021 www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 8 Page 517 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR - Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: ---020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 19. RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES — CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE' -- Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.3 (Grading and Paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code: Construction plans shall indicate how the site grading or drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering building. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Swales. 2. Water collection and disposal systems. 3. French drains. 4. Water retention gardens. 5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater recharge. Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path. 20. 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". www.CityofRC.us Printed:1l2512021 page 8 of 8 Page 518 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDED DATE: March 10, 2021 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL DRC2021-00035 — RENEE MASSEY — An appeal of a Planning Director approval of a request to construct a 3,300 square foot single-family residence with two separate attached 2-car garages totaling 1,063 square feet on a vacant property of 15,601 square feet (0.36-acre) within the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District located at 8005 Camino Predera —APN: 0207-631-06. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the applicant's appeal and direct staff to return to the Planning Commission with the appropriate Resolution. PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Planning Director approved Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016 on January 25, 2021. The approval was appealed by the appellant on February 3, 2021 within the 10-day appeal period. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The 15,601-square foot vacant project site is located on the south side of Camino Predera. The property's dimensions are approximately 80 feet along the north and south property lines, and approximately 195 feet along the east and west property lines. The downslope lot has an elevation of 1,315 feet as measured at the curb face along the north property line, and an elevation of 1.280 at the south property line, for a total grade change of 35 feet from the north to south property lines. The street improvements have been installed along Camino Predera, except for street trees and parkway landscaping. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land Low Residential Low L Residential District North Single-Family Residences Low Residential Low L Residential District South Multi-Family Development Mixed-Use Mixed-Use MU District East Single-Family Residence Low Residential Low (L)Residential District West Vacant Land Low Residential Low L Residential District Attachment 3 Page 519 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATON OF APPEAL DRC2021-00035 —RENEE MASSEY March 10, 2021 Page APPEAL: The letter, prepared by the appellant and included with the appeal of DRC2020-00016, dated February 3, 2021, outlines the following concerns related to the approved project: 1. That the project was not forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and decision. 2. That a neighborhood meeting was not conducted for the project. 3. That precedent has been set by the approval of other recent projects with lower building profiles (height) along Camino Predera. 4. That the balcony/decks on the subject house potentially impact the privacy of the adjacent residences. 5. That the Conditions of Approval for the project require the planting of street trees, potentially impacting views. ANALYSIS — RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S COMMENTS: Planning Commission Review: Development Code Section 17.16.140 (Hillside Development Review) states that the Planning Director shall be the approving authority for Hillside Development Review applications. The only exceptions to this requirement are 1) when excavation (cut) or fill of soil that is proposed with the grading of the project site exceeds 5 feet in depth and/or 2) if a related entitlement such as a Variance for a technical standard, e.g. building setback or lot coverage, is necessary as part of the project scope. In those circumstances, the Planning Commission is the approving authority. In this case, the subject project complies with each of the related Development Code requirements for single-family residential development in the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District as shown in the following table: Proposed Project Development Code Compliant? Building Height (measured from finished 25 Feet-3 Inches 30 Feet (maximum) Yes grade) Front Building Setback Yes (measured from the curb 54 Feet 37 feet (+/- 5 feet) (minimum) at Camino Predera) Side Building Setbacks Yes (measured from the side 10/15 Feet 5/10 Feet (minimum) property lines) Rear Building Setback Yes (measured from the rear 97 feet 20 Feet (minimum) property line) Excavation (depth) Less than 5 feet 5 Feet (maximum) Yes Page 520 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATON OF APPEAL DRC2021-00035— RENEE MASSEY March 10, 2021 Page Retaining Wall Height 3 Feet 4 Feet (maximum) Yes Lot Coverage (maximum) 16.8 Percent 40 Percent (maximum) Yes Neighborhood Meeting: The Development Code does not require neighborhood meetings to be conducted as part of the development review process. It has been Planning Department policy to recommend that applicants hold a neighborhood meeting for certain types of development review applications such a residential subdivisions, shopping centers, and industrial buildings. The applicant determined that they did not wish to have a neighborhood meeting for the project. Staff notes to the Commission that these meetings provide the applicant the opportunity to inform others of the project. The meetings themselves do not function in any required advisory role to the approving authority. Building Height: The maximum permitted height within the Hillside Overlay District is 30 feet above finished grade. Development Code section 17.11.020.D.2 states that the design of the structure should give consideration to lot size and configuration to minimize the appearance of overbuilding and the blocking of views. The approved project has a maximum height of 25 feet-3 inches as measured from finished grade and a maximum height of 13 feet as measured above the top of curb on Camino Predera. The Development Code does not include a maximum height as measured from the top of curb. The adjacent house to the east is approximately 9 feet taller than the approved project. The most recent house to be completed along the south side of Camino Predera is approximately 14 feet above top of curb. While the two most recent Hillside Design Review approvals along the south side of Camino Predera have had a lower building height as measured above top of curb, that height was based on topography, architectural style, and owner preference. There is no requirement or policy for a maximum building height as measured above top of curb. Balcony/Decks: The approved project includes a 406 square foot first-floor deck on the south elevation, off of the living room; an 85 square foot second-floor deck on the east elevation, off of a loft; and a 92 square foot second-floor deck on the south elevation of the second floor, off of the master bedroom. The two smaller decks each include solid-walled railings and provide similar views as a standard window. The Development Code does not include a restriction on the size_ or location of balconies and decks provided that they comply with the maximum lot coverage for the entire lot and building setbacks. There is also no City policy limiting second story balconies and decks related to potential privacy concerns. Street Tree Planting: Tract Map 10035, of which the project site is Lot 6, includes a condition of approval requiring the installation of street trees, i.e trees along the public right-of-way. The Engineering Department's condition of approval included with the approved project is a reiteration of the original street planting requirement. Staff notes to the Commission that the planting of street trees, when they are absent along the street frontage, is a standard condition for all new development. ANALYSIS—DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE: Design Review Committee: Pursuant to Section 17.16.140 of the Development Code, the Planning Director is the approving authority for Hillside Development Review applications. Prior to Planning Director review and action, Hillside Development Review applications are reviewed Page 521 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATON OF APPEAL DRC2021-00035— RENEE MASSEY March 10, 2021 Page by the Design Review Committee. This Committee reviews a proposed project's architecture and site planning and then provides recommendations to the Planning Director for consideration. The -project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on January 19, 2021 (Oaxaca, Williams, Smith). The Committee received staff's report and comments from the applicant and the general public. Public comments received in support of the project focused on the project's compliance with the requirements of the Development Code and the appropriateness of the design within the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Public comments received in opposition to the project focused on the height of the structure in relation to the top of curb, potential loss of privacy, and the potential impact on views from neighboring properties. Committee member Oaxaca noted that the City does not have a view protection ordinance. He noted that the Development Code states that the height of a building (house) shall not unduly block views and that the design of the house shall minimize the blocking of views. Committee member Williams stated that a building height of 9 to 10 feet (above the top of curb on Camino Predera) may be more appropriate. Staff noted that due to the "downslope" condition of the property, the height of the house was about 13 feet above the top of curb of the street. Both Committee members otherwise felt that the applicant had made significant changes to the project during the design review process. They supported the design and layout of the proposed residence. The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Director for review and action. Planning Director Approval: The Planning Director's approval of the subject project on January 25, 2021 was based on the project's compliance with the intent and regulations of the Development Code for lots within the Hillside Overlay District as stated in the director's approval letter (Exhibit A), and which are summarized as follows: 1. The proposed single-family residence complies with all applicable development standards for the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District. 2. The residence was designed in compliance with Section 17.122.020.D.2 of the Development Code including stepping the building pads to follow the existing slope and the use of hip roofs oriented in the same direction as the natural slope. The building mass is broken up through the use of multiple wail plane changes and the incorporation of decks on the side and rear elevations. The residence will be painted earth tone colors, as recommended in the Hillside Design. Guidelines, and will be in keeping with the existing residences along Camino Predera, which include a variety of architectural styles and themes. The two-car garage on the upper level faces Camino Predera,with a second side entry two- car garage located on the lower level, accessed by a curving driveway with an up to 20 percent grade. Section 17.122.020.C.1.d. of the Development Code states that driveways with grades up to 20 percent are permitted when they are aligned with the natural contours of the lot and are necessary to achieve site design goals. The driveway to the lower garage follows the existing grade of the lot and places the additional garage space below street level, thereby reducing the massing of the residence as seen from Camino Predera. Page 522 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATON OF APPEAL DRC2021-00035 —RENEE MASSEY March 10, 2021 Page 5 3. The project complies with the intent of the Hillside Overlay District, which seeks to facilitate appropriate development of hillside areas. The project site is a downslope lot with an elevation change of approximately 35 feet from the north to south property lines. The proposed grading design limits cut and fill to the greatest extent possible. Fill is limited to 27.8 cubic yards and cut is limited to 21 cubic yards. The residence is stepped with the existing grade and includes a garage on the lower level, reducing the overall massing of the structure as seen from Camino Predera. Earthwork is limited to the area necessary to construct the residence and access driveway, with the rear yard is left mostly undisturbed. The proposed design does not require Variances or Minor Exceptions, and the overall size of the residence is in keeping with the more recent residences constructed along Camino Predera. 4. The design provisions for development in the Hillside Overlay District as described in Section 17.122.020 - Hillside Development requires that residences in the Hillside Overlay District be designed to fit within a 30-foot high building "envelope". The applicant has provided two north-south and two east-west cross-sections with building envelopes demonstrating compliance with the 30-foot height requirement. 5. Although there is no "view preservation" requirement in the Development Code, the applicant has designed the proposed house in a manner that minimizes view obstructions. The residence has a maximum height of 13 feet when measured above top of curb on Camino Predera. Additionally, in conformance with Section 17.122.020.D.2. of the Development Code, the proposed house has side yard setbacks of 10 and 15 feet to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding, 1.e minimize the visual massing of the house and minimize view obstructions. 6. The proposed grading design limits earthwork to 6.8 cubic yards of fill, with the majority of the cut/fill necessary to construct the driveway and the lower side entrance garage. The foundation of the residence is stepped with the existing grade, with the upper pad at an elevation of 1,303 feet and the lower pad at an elevation of 1,294, in conformance with Section 17.122.020.D.1.a of the Development Code to terrace the building to follow the slope. 7. Section 17.122.020.G.1.J.ii of the Development Code permits up to 4-foot high retaining walls downslope from the residence. The height of the proposed retaining walls for the project is below the 4-foot height limit within the Hillside Overlay District. These retaining walls are necessary to construct the driveway, the foundation of the house, and retain soil along the side property lines. Each of the retaining walls will be constructed of tan split face block. 8. The proposed landscaping is designed to comply with Section 17.122.020.E of the Development Code, including the use of drought-tolerant landscaping to protect slopes from erosion and the planting of shrubs to soften the views of the downslope elevations. The project is not within the High Fire Hazard Zone or a wildland-urban interface area. The proposed landscaping also complies with the front yard landscape requirements, including reducing hardscape to less than 50 percent of the front yard area. Page 523 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATON OF APPEAL DRC2021-00035—RENEE MASSEY March 10, 2021 Page 6 FISCAL IMPACT: The project site currently is assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the City's annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The project proponent also will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the proposed project. The following types of services that :these impact fees would support include the following: library services, transportation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services. COUNCIL GOAL(S)ADDRESSED: The project promotes the Council's core values of building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere. The proposed single-family residence will provide much-needed housing in the City and develop a vacant lot which was originally approved for subdivision (TT10035) on March 25, 1981. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on February 24, 2021. On that same date, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners (146 property owners) within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No correspondence has been received in response to these notices. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Planning Director Approval Letter Dated January 25, 2021 Exhibit B - Full Set of Plans Exhibit C - Staff Report TT10035, Resolution of Approval 81-34 and Standard Conditions for Original Tentative Map Exhibit D - Letter of Appeal Dated February 3, 2021 Exhibit E - Design Review Committee Comments and Minutes Dated January 19, 2021 Page 524- Nio 10500 CVvic Center Ur.ve kcmho Cucamonga,CA 91730 1 909.477.2700 1 www,GtyofRC.us TAIIPF— January 25, 2021 Saurabh Patel 8659 Red Oak Street, Suite 1 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT; HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00016 — SAURABH PATEL — A request to construct a 3,300 square foot single-family residence with two separate attached 2-car garages totaling 1.063 square feet on a vacant property of 15,601 square feet (0.36-acre) within the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District located at 8005 Camino Predera—APN: 0207-631-06. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Dear Mr. Patel: The Hillside Design Review process for the above-described project has been successfully completed and approval has been granted based upon the following findings and conditions. Thank you for your participation and cooperation during this review process. Environmental Determination: 1 Prior to any action being taken for this request. the Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303— New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures which covers the construction of single-family residences in a residential zone The project scope is to construct a single-family residence on a vacant, residentially zoned lot. Staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Director has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on her own independent judgment, concurs with the staffs determination of exemption Proiect Description 1 The applicant proposes constructing a single-family residence on a vacant property in the Low (L) Residential District, Hillside Overlay District, located at 8005 Camino Predera - APN 0207-631-06 2. The 15.601-square foot vacant project site is located on the south side of Camino Predera. The property's dimensions are approximately 80 feet along the north and south property lines, and approximately 195 feet along the east and west property lines. The downslope lot has an elevation of 1,315 feet as measured at the curb face along the north property line, and an elevation of 1,280 at the south property line, for a total grade change of 35 feet from the north to south property lines The street improvements have been installed along Camino Predera, except for street trees and parkway landscaping. 3 The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows. Land Use General Plan Zonln Site Vacant Land Low Residential Low L Residential District North Single-Family Residences Low Residential Low L Residential District _ South Multi-Family Development Mixed-Use Mixed-Use MU District Exhibit A Page 525 APPROVAL LETTER ,HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2020-00016--SAURABH PATEL January 25,2021 Page 2 East Single-Family Residence- Low Residential Low QResidentlal District West Vacant Land Low Residential Low Q Residential District 4. The proposed 'single-family residence complies with all applicable development•.standards for the Low(L) Residential District-and the Hillside Overlay District as shown in the table below: Proposed Project Development Code -Compliant? Building Height(measured from 25 Feet-3 Inches 30 Feet(maximum) Yes finished grade) Front Building Setback (measured 37 feet(+/-5 feet) Yes from the curb at Camino Predera) 54 Feet (minimum) Side Building Setbacks(measured Yes from the side property lines) 1fl115 Feet 5110'Feet(minimum)' Rear Building Setback(measured Yes, from the rear property line) g7 feet 20 Feet{minimum) Excavation (depth) Less than,5 feet 5 Feet,(maximum) Yes Retaining;Wall Height 3 Feet 4 Feet(maximum) Yes: Lot Coverage,(maximum) 16.8 Percent 40,Percent(maximum), Yes. 5. The proposed 3,300-square foot residence is comprised of two stories of living area along with a 541 square foot side entrance garage located below the first story(ground level)of the house.The 1,612 square foot first story (ground level) includes the main living area, a bedroom, along with a 521-square foot two- car garage. The.1,fi88-square second story includes 3 bedrooms and loft. ,6. The proposed residence has a Mediterranean design theme, which includes.the use of a clay tile roof, smooth troweled stucco finish, cast stone window and door surrounds, wrought iron accents, and decorative garage doors. The residehce was designed in'compliance with Section 17.122.020.D.2 of the 'Development Code including stepping the building pads to-follow the existing slope and the use of hip roofs oriented in the same direction as the natural slope. The building mass is broken up through the use of multiple wall.plane changes and the'incorporation of decks on the side and rear elevations. The residence will be painted earth tone colors, as recommended in the Hillside Design Guidelines, and will be in keeping with the existing residences along Camino-Predera, which include a variety of architectural styles and themes. The two-car garage on the upper level faces Camino Predera, with a_second side entry two-car garage located on the lower.level; accessed by a curving driveway with an up to 20 percent grade. Section 17A22.02O.C:1.d. of'the Development Code states that driveways with grades up to 20 percent are permitted when-they are aligned with the natural contours of the lot,and are necessary to achieve site design goals. The driveway to the lower garage follows the existing- grade of the lot--and places the additional garage space below street level, thereby reducing,the massing of the residence as seen from Camino Predera. Page 526 APPROVAL LETTER HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2020-0001.6--SAURABH PATEL January-25, 2021 Page 3 7. The project complies with the intent of the Hillside Overlay District, which seeks to facilitate appropriate development of hillside areas. The project site is a downslope lot with an elevation change of-approximately 35 feet from the north to south property lines. The proposed grading design limits cut and fill to the greatest extent possible. Fill is limited to 27.8 cubic .yards and cut is limited to 21 cubic yards. The residence is stepped with the existing grade and includes a garage on the lower level, reducing-the overall massing of the structure as'seen from Camino Predera. Earthwork is limited to the.area necessary to construct the residence and access driveway,-with the rear yard is left mostly undisturbed. The proposed design does not require Variances,or Minor Exceptions,and the overall size of the residence is in keeping with the more recent residences-constructed along Camino Predera. 8. The design provisions for development'in the Hillside Overlay. District as described in Section 17.122.020 - Hillside Development requires-that residences in the Hillside Overlay District be designed to fit within a 30-foot high building-"envelope". The applicant-has provided two north-south and two east-west cross- sections with building envelopes demonstrating compliance with the 30-foot height requirement. 9. Although there is.no"view preservation"requirement in the Development Code. the applicant has designed the proposed house in a manner that minimizes view obstructions. The residence.has a maximum height of 13 feet when measured from above the top of curb at Camino Predera.Additionally, in conformance with Section 17.122.020.D.2. of the Development Code, the proposed house has•side yard setbacks of 10 and 15 feet to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding, i.e minimize the visual massing of the house, and minimize view obstructionb. 10.. The proposed grading design limits earthwork to 6.8 cubic yards of fill, with the majority of the cutlfll necessary.to construct the driveway and the lower side entrance garage. The foundation of the residence is stepped with the existing,grade, with the•upper pad at an elevation of'1,303 feet and the lower pad at an elevation of.,1,294, in conformance with,Section 17.122.020.D.1.a of the Development Code to terrace the building.to follow the slope. 11. Section 17.122.020.G.1.J.11 of the,Development,Code permits up to 4-foot high retaining walls downslope from,the residence. The height of the proposed retaining walls for the project.is below the 4-foot height limit within the Hillside Overlay District. These retaining walls are necessary to construct the driveway,the foundation of'the house, and retain soil along the side property lines. Each of the retaining walls will be constructed of tar! split-face block. 12. The proposed landscaping-is designed to comply with Section 17.122.020.1= of the Development Code, including the use of drought:tolerant landscaping to protect slopes from erosion and`.the planting of shrubs to soften the views of the downslope elevations. The project is not within.the High Fire Hazard Zone or-a willdland-urban interface area. The proposed landscaping also complies with the front.yard landscape requirements, including reducing hardscape to less than 50 percent-of the front yard area: Design Review Committee: Pursuant to Section 17.16.140 of the Development Code, the Planning Director is the approving authority for Hillside Development Review application. Prior to Planning Director review and action, Hillside Development Review applications are -reviewed by the Design Review Committee. This Committee- reviews a proposed .projects architecture and site planning and then .provides recommendations to the Planning Director .for consideration. The project was reviewed by the Design'Review Committee.on January 19, 2021 (OaXaca, Williams, Smith). The Committee received staffs report and comments from the applicant and the general public..Public comments received in support of the,project'focused on the project's compliance with the requirements of the Development Code and the appropriateness of the design within the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Public comments received in-iopposition to,the project focused on the height of the structure in relation.to;the adjacent curb face, potential foss of privacy, and the.potential'impact on views from neighboring properties. Page 527 APPROVAL LETTER HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2020-00016— SAURABH PATEL January 25. 2021 Page 2 Committee member Oaxaca noted that the City does not have a view protection ordinance. He noted that the Development Code states that the height of a bui#ding (house) shall not unduly block views and that the design of the house shall minimize the blocking of views. Committee member Williams stated that a building height of 9 to 10 feet (above the curb face on Camino Predera) may be more appropriate. Staff noted that due to the "downslope" condition of the property, the height of the house was about 13 feet above the curb face of the street. Both Committee members otherwise felt that the applicant had made significant changes to the project during the design review process. They supported the design and layout of the proposed residence. The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Director for review and action. Findings of Approval: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use designation of the project site is Low Residential. The Low residential designation is intended for the development of detached, low-density residences on individual lots. The project is for the development of a single-family residence on an existing residential lot. 2. The proposed project is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Development Code states that the Low(L) Residential District is for the development of single-family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and a maximum residential density of 4 units per gross acre. The project site is an existing 15.601-square foot vacant lot that was intended for the development of a single-family residence. 3. The proposed project complies with the applicable provisions of the Development Code, including building setbacks, building height. lot coverage, grading limitations, and design The proposed house is within the minimum required setbacks, height limit, and lot coverage of the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District. Grading is nearly balanced with 6.8 cubic yards of fill needed to construct the driveway and the pad of the house. The massing of the house is designed to "blend" with the existing grade in conformance with Section 1722.020(D)(1)(a) of the Development Code. 4. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed house consistent and compatible with the houses in the surrounding area The size of the house is consistent with that of existing houses along Camino Predera This project is approved subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Please note that conditions may specify completion of certain plans or work prior to issuance of building permits This decision shall be final following a 10-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission Secretary, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by a $1.685 appeal fee If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, by phone at (909) 774-4316 or by email at tabe�vanderzwaag(a).atyofrc us Sincerely. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Anne McIntosh, AiCP Planning Director Attachment: Conditions of Approval Page 528 Conditions of Approval RANCHO Community Development Depertmnt Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR - Patel Residence Camino Predera Location. -- - 020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Plannin_q Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Approval is granted to construct a 3,300 square foot single-family residence with two separate attached 2-car garages totaling 1,063 square feet on a vacant property of 15,601 square feet (0.36-acre) within the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District located at 8005 Camino Predera —APN 0207-631-06. Standard Conditions of Approval 2. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 3. 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. 4. 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 sealedlstamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. 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. 6 Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence. durability. and design consistency. 7. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program. and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein and the Development Code regulations www.CityofRC us PnntiA 1125f2021 Page 529 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR-Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: ---020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 8. On comer 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. - 11. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 12, Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation,transplanting, and trimming methods. 13.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. 14. 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. 15.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. www.CityofRC.us P�Inted:1l2512021 Pale 2 or e Page 530 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR- Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: --.0207631,06-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 16.All private slopes in, excess -of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in, vertical, height -and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to. soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon .or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope 'area, add appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height ,and 2:1 or greater slope shall also, Include -one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. #t. .of. slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in :staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 17.Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted, for Planning Director review and approval prior to .issuance of Building Permits. These. criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 18. Trees shall be planted .in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 19.All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be'coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 20. Landscaping and irrigation snail be designed -to conserve water through the principles of water .efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 21.The applicant shall be required to ,pay Califomia Department of Fish and, Wildlife 'Notice of Determination fee in the amount of $5Q.00. 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. 22.Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not.. issued or approved use has not commenced within-5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. Enaineerina SerVlces Department Please be advised of the following Special-Conditions 1. Have a registered civil engineer revise City Drawing # 922 for the, improvement(s) listed 'above prior to building permit issuance (plan check.fees apply) Staridard•Conditions of Approval 2. Prior to any work being performed 'in Public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a Engineering Construction 'Permit (separate from Building Permits) shall be obtained from the Engineering Service Department in-addition to any other permits required. 3. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street ;trees: "All improvements within the public right-of-way., including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans." 'If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern. www.CityofRC.us Printed:!l2512021 - Page 3 of 8 Page 531 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR-Patel Residence-Camino Predera Location: ---020763106-0000' Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF'THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Engineering Services Department `Standard Conditions of Approval 4. Construct,the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Drive Appr. Street Trees 5. 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 (typically Sheet 1):' Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be ,per the public .landscape improvement plans. Street Name Camino Predera Botanical Name Lagerstroemia indica Common Name Crape Myrtle(Muskogee), Min.-Grow Space 20'O/C Spacing Size ' standard trunk Qty. 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. 6. 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. 7. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 8. Street trees, a minimum of 15-galIon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions www.CilyofRC.us Printed::V25l2D2f Page 4 of 8 Page 532 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR-Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: --•-020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- 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 a site specific soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the California 'Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at. the time of Plan Check- Submittal. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers per the CBC and Current RCFPD Ordinance. Grading Section Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Prior to issuance of •a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. Standard Cdnditions of Approval 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 Califomia 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. 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 details) showing the perimeter wall(s)to be constructed offset from the,property line. 7. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 8. '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 cdrrent adopted California Building Code. www.GityofRC.us Printed:112512021 Pages of 8 Page 533 Project M DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR-Patel Residence Camino:Predera Location: —-020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditlons of Approval 9. 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•Buiiding'Inspector, b) The grading contractor shall :call into the City of Rancho 'Cucamonga Building and Safety Departmerit 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 sdbmit 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 Solis 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. 10. 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 CBC1804.31CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.21CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1..2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 11. Prior to issuance of a grading perrhit, the applicant shall obtain a: signed and notarized letter from the adjacent property owner(s). for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be scanned and pasted onto 'the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title sheet or a detail sheet of the grading:and drainage plan set, 12.The conceptual grading and drainage plan is showing' driveway slopes exceeding 10%. Therefore, prior to issuance of a grading permit, the permitted grading plan- set shall .show driveway profiles for the circular driveway from-the street curb line to the garage door(s).. 13. It shall be the -responsibility, of the applicant to acquire any required off-site- drainage easements ,prior to the issuance of a:greding permit. 14, It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage acceptance easements(s) from adjacent downstream property owner(s) or discharge flows in a natural condition (concentrated flows are not accepted) -and shall provide the Building and Safety Official a drainage study showing the proposed flaws -do not exceed the existing flows prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 15. 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. Printed 1125l2021. www.CltyofRC.us Page 6 of a Page 534 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR-Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: —- 020763108-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Gradina Section Standard Conditions of Approval 16. 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. 17.This application for storm water quality management plan purposes may be considered a non-priority project. Therefore, prior to issuance of any building permit or Engineering Services Department issued right of way permit the land owner with the applicant shall file a Non-Priority Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) with the Building and Safety Department. The applicant may contact Matthew Addington,Associate Engineer,at(909)477-2710, extension 4202. This project is required to prepare a non-priority WQMP project as the following requirement has been met: i) For areas less than 2,000 square feet of impervious area, the development will be considered a non-priority project and a WQMP document is not required, unless the project is for the outdoor storage of hazardous materials or other materials which may require a pre-treatment of,the storm water runoff which will require that a non-priority WQMP document is prepared, including but not limited to,vehicle fueling operations; Ei) For significant re-development projects proposing impervious areas of 2,000 square feet to 4,999 square feet and new development projects proposing impervious areas of 2,000 square feet to 9,999 square feet the following criteria will require a non-priority WQMP document to be prepared: a. For all new and significant redevelopment projects; b. If. the project is part of a common area of development, a non-priority WQMP document shall be prepared; c. If the proposed development is a commercial project the City will determine if activities may impact the water quality, and if impacts are determined to affect the water quality a non-priority WQMP document will be prepared; d. All industrial projects will require a non-priority WQMP document to be prepared. 18. RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES — CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE -- Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.2 (Storm water drainage and retention during construction) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code: Projects which disturb less than one (1) acre of soil and are not part of a larger common plan of development which in total disturbs one acre or more, shall manage storm water drainage during construction. In order to manage storm water drainage during construction, one or more of the following measures shall be implemented to prevent flooding of adjacent property, prevent erosion and retain soil runoff on the site. 1. Retention basins of sufficient size shall be utilized to retain storm water on the site. 2. Where storm water is conveyed to a public drainage system, collection point, gutter'or similar disposal method, water shall be filtered by use of a barrier system, wattle or other method approved by the enforcing agency(City of Rancho Cucamonga). 3. Compliance with a lawfully enacted storm water management ordinance. www.CityofRC.us Printed;1125I20221 Page'?of S Page 53.5 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR-Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: ---020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL. OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 19. RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES — CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE' -- Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.3 (Grading and Paving)of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code: Construction plans shall indicate how the site grading or drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering building. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited to,the following: 1. Swales. 2. Water collection and disposal systems. 3. French drains. 4. Water retention gardens. 5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater recharge. Exception:Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path. 20. 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". www.CityafRC.us Printed;1/25/2021 Page 8 of 8 Page 536 Q no SITE DATA SUMMARY: NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR: 5PDKAFTINQ C-OM , SANBERNARDINOCOUNTY Saurabh Patel ACCESSOR'S MAP BOOK 0207 PAGE 63 SP DraRing LOT 16.TRACT NO.10036MB179M-M 8005 Camino Predera 8659 Red Oak St. LPaasxalrP�.r Lo ASSESSORS 156a15SQ NUMBER 0207�31-0s-ooao Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Suite I TOPOGRAPHY:SLOPE Rancho Cucamonga,Ca. OCCUPANCY (CBC2019) :Ra1UGARAGE 91730 ZONING:1,Single Fare Residen0al (9Gg) 257-7547 SPRINKLERED-DEF DFIRESPRINKLERSYSTEMSUBMITIAL SHEETINOEX: CONSTRUCTION (CRC2019):TYPEV-B ARCHITECTURAL: ema11Ta6�5pdaPo0g.cam FLOOR AREA SUMMARY: (Proposed) TA SITE PLAN,VICINITY MAP,SHEET INDEX \aF 6O NEW CONSTRUGTION OF A 5 BEDROOM 3.5 BATH TWO A1.1 FLOOR&FRAMING PLAN SP DRAFTING STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WITH KITCHEN,Rrki,DINING A1.2 ROOM 1 WINDOW I DOOR SCHEDULES % ROOM LIVING ROOM,LAUNDRY,LOFT,EXCERCISE ROOM AI,3 SPARE .\y % ��, eniAr araEElmEts 94ZMGARAGE A1.4 ROOF PLAN vc ruoEl wwpu 1ST FLOOR AREA PROPOSED:1511.82S.F. y' A'0""""' 2NDFLOORAREAPROPOSED:1686.13S.F. A1.5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OF WE Ixm�a�gs�EEI TOTAL AREA:3299.95 S.F. A1.6 ENVELOPE/SECTION / LEI PeavinNr 2-UPPER GARAGE AREA PROPOSED:521.12 S.F. CF1.0 CUT&FILL Salsrahh Fatal % TM99= r 2-CARLOWERGARAGEAREAPROPOSED:541,44S.F. t ti ]-wfEl2s:oxruoa DP1.0 CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN P.c°:;",ssEcno�n ra TOTAL GARAGE AREA:1062.56 S.F. DP1.1 CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN Q �QF% , •�ea� FRONT PORCH:77.00 S.F. (SECTION/DETAILS) Ch �O/r �$ 1 COVERED BALCONY IN REAR:405.83 S.F. LSI.O LANDSCAPE PLAN I, - Al to tivr. •�� fi �Qp LOT COVERAGE AND SO.FT.COVERAGE: LOS LINE OF SIGHT VIEW CD S� PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE-16.8%MAXIMUMALLOWED40% R.1 RENDERINGS PROPOSED 2,615.77 SO.FT.LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM ALLOWED 6,240,6 S. U pti 6 �'�• y ��� , HARDSCAPE COVERAGE: PROPOSED HARDSCAPE:2034 S.F. TOTAL FRONT YARD AREA:4086 S.F. W LL.I() PROPOSED HA AE OZ OweuE -49,7% rlBlder Saurabh Palel 8659 Red Oak St Q ED O m Suite I e-• n! .times ; 15�4 Rancho Cucamonga,Ca.9173D Q L y (909) 257-7547 email:rob@spdrafdng.com O U N Prsorasen.*nelwNNuw ~, 9 `� ,� Designer:SP Drafting:Saurabh Patel = Z D � W1 B'PREC161ON BLOC% in OPwnuwc SEEPAGE aPf.l SECnOx ��``• I�rOBww�v S6 to Rod Oak St SHEET INDEX s Ui tel I�ENri1 1 s.' � Rancho Cucamonga,Ca.9173D 2 0 Qy ¢0 rruroGEG swuLw e sEE�ssEcnGN oa (909j 257.7547 emal:Fob@spdrafting.com �' a`- Z 6•IyeEg5laN aLGClt ¢ eEE SH OGw 8]CT1 �.,• ry F = U e CWAEa51ME"TP[XN]T.a2LO10i25C10 N tri 9 ey',•�` 'e,� vIA4]1Ew011f 6EWERfiISENEIf] P < OZ 210 Q Sia V Q d 1� (0 Co R' V- nsa. roject SiteP and 9�i � Laea6on Revisions Date 6L �O \ , S 4'y •o'er DR C2020-MID 2JIM Rekw L 3rd Revlm af27r= `F•�J' I b� PzDNrIZ 4Ih RWN 11ION2020 ioWPMnwe 4'� e4 EI -0a,�arEx�wnx c+le ([ua%^RRr all FvSibC i(tEt510RExNf < �9•• �, �Q' ° a00rNLL8Lw Date: 11117I2020 Job No: LEI PILrPER1YIRE a Drawn: 6PPEL1510M eLOOC e a CVSN FA514[I6 PFRM1./]EDSOYbE10 "" rHw° / Yaw.eLEYmnlsEr�ln FasEf�rr Checked: SEEPM£al.]9EG� / 10 4 { NOFSe ,F�q2 ROE p ap Scale: AS NOTED 77.73TOPOFGRATE TE TABLE 17.36.010DEV.STANDARDS RESIDENTIAL ZONE L i Sheet Title: DROP INLET 74.7tl FL16'PVCPIPE N^a+ 2oxeL Pxwceo s VICINITY MAP, FF YW ]T s. SHEET INDEX, 1"TEItIORswE sfmn ,alrrr &SITE PLAN Exhibit E WEE,�N w1 w+EwwE +air +ux 41 Sheet No, xw,�nux euMe+ClimGIT{EINELLKp ae 2.^S .. LU%aNL tt1POP CUPS HeGNT NONE I]-0' Y T.1 SITE PLAN SCALE:1116"=1'-0' 3 VICINITY MAP 1 Page 537 spvKA1=nNG.CoM SP Drafting 8659 Red Oak St. Suite I Rancho Cucamonga,Ca. 91730 (909 267.7647 emaik @spdrof6rg.com SP DRAFTING .rr tR' rx MI' 6+P ItlS S+ aurath Pate sa G Ch O 0 O r O Q ~ T i co ' r I • � ------- + -- p © $ -- W w C7 ca) Q Lnu O 3 rqqTM I �A 4-8 A ~. .=� O "Z5. O OI `"'a r LL W z U 0 o �z I $o O a I I O �'q^ co I ©© "{ Revisions Date rr nw s,r DR=264MIO 2MUM0 rrr rr ,T+ ra r bdpvvLe' 526 m ET+ KEYNOTES: 3rd R.A- 62TIM20 - 401 R.I. 111p5202p Z2Y Y7 - � �emwe�,w2c wKaEtiaraweoaE 31r1 CONCFEiE SVB ONGRIDE Date: 1111712020 ❑3 wolopw.sEE l+anvxsa�oue.EEE r ur Job No: ❑4 uooR.seEmoasr„EunF,sEa is Drawn: i� Checked: .mwcs9 i .E..wP�,oE.Emo or>m Scale: AS NOTED ❑6 E"�AEown�olaEcnoli pE raavEv slwv�+or aE� .na,�Tlw�„�oo�sE11�,�p.µo:;1�1.E� Ir�EOT$ Shoot Tile; IUVE hELOPE NOI IOE%OEFO KPEE FOOT N RE SE SIIm,' reCO'tla�e s.�m�w,i°1Ea Exr.raalunvlea mm� -wuwwpvews. FLOOR PLAN WALL SYMBOL LEGEND: IIs:w3..PanwuE�IaoasTumwr,E'ae 0 Sheet No, BEM 2.,MEFpN8,W5Ai 1E•0.4 4w p .{W,3y ,+EW ExEF{IERgN STWSAT,E-O.0 - ---. A1.1 e PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN Scale:118'=11-D' 3 PROPOS`D 2ND FLOOR PLAN Scale:ll8"=1'-0' 2 GARAGE BELOW I Scale:118'=T-0" Page 538 ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE WINDOW SCHEDULE DOOR SCHEDULE i f, ROOM NAPE FCOORIawrE WA[L CERWG PEMAAISS NOS OI G FRAIffi CONST. FACDIGIFI[+I5H RFINARNS NO R OGNImHG LLGMrORCONSTCRiYL G[A33 5PDP�RF t1NLY.GOM Q INOMMIJ O 1N0N15U11} IeSr[6G[,rrTMEL5I�V. FACBiO IFPA3H MiF.o FNPMe REMARKS SP Drafting .•MGE.Wt , na-wfr. a, rc.se _ .rcrem.o.s„ > sSdPi°'Rwac.u..]fasr of wm[revdu5s vunrrm[.cues - vrY 8859 Red Oak St. flVINY/1a5 I • 5 Yewir. ES a oyy 1 wMhl FACraR'!F V^JfSt a,sgAR Is'.aC WA r! ld.fd .SPl[19i�.l.r.{r..T. SFIId PNaIED ]a.�.1 eRf fAadw6 Suite I wa.5nn p❑. e . w rase 'WOf^r'm' °�10Si m rLRIAm..L • vm Rancho Cucamonga.Ca. aasErnaz 0.� e a b Yv.rcwss °11501''A6E"1029 b PA.fr sc-wamfw fwtm 9173Q vurtav],as [ s ss rc.rc Rwic� iwe�"'[nawaa610y'w1501"R'�°'T"[a�ecma y ifa.ra �`�''g'w (909f 257-7547 .mvrm[acuss RrGwTt nal El GlA5f.6�tlY01dIX/A H]Y3C01f b Pd.0 Nvnl> .�io'1&'W ML email:ra6@spdraAing.com IrY]vIReGY nsS �S /❑ rear. ar fY'•Te pjKgm .+c[rm'naw Wr.T��] p rA,rY �rx,umasorn P• wa �a,rovna. a raLrr. le rre.ra sn +•orrora.rncewos an rrR SP DRAFTING GASEr Y,ai S� • rr LFr. W i¢e.Te 6rL P.er,EalwRSKRRars - riL �r+Mi OR ro, Anae s a reur. a]n,nw t � YrArr. stow�en+r d 5 a E4VGr rn, d • � fe I.FF. iFJWEFE�eKEIY [arum : Q 0 4Arr. M aura, Pate ed a _ uurractasErrmx � 5 . awor. °s p wtnm . a Ch u.atTra awtbaa. EI '❑ ❑o . rear. I vucEs 1. T T� t~-' uurmc_oraaurma 0 []r rrrArr. f m as w os oe t � eEcnoaN ace : . 5 e ra.lr. rp rwcraRr radsF `\ Q eErleoau.mT , OS © raur. ;� •. �`'• (� �PgOb 00 ] . OS �. fPLlr. e' ` A.m a . s . rdArr. acre sear ra L l J D�� L c arRrnr r IT) a ur. r so-ExrEiasRoom e[wlRor�wssDWRIM U3 I -a 5 a rvwrr. GENERAL NOTES: m w m w O w oa Q Z a[tl[.21] L•Ix,avrovrs S,�ILfALTID[rGRF,amosR,br..m aru:nrims. Q a Au oTcrmRxvaornwssr�mv,astueE r�+[tPz]a rERmc,rrocu,rfRT,Arro NCX419 T-NrJ.CENERCYREWFE6rtnfrm rTMatMMp4 iruaussw+oauaRanuuucrroReecEEorseuueracnFouf+EueNrs � 0.¢ � L TRE,RROTE]FVRARYIJBEI d5F1Aw9 g1Y[Tm01rr[RISr REWNpI SI,E4[]T 0 YNiL i/1N.M5CEt1[CNINSrEF]IGO.+REIED. ® RR ® ® V S Nlwl"W nV.rrr-IR.6.�n OREQI4 IOa+I.a[A[Ep.Eug IusrurcrsTecrrsFra wrR � Q, � Q V O L riFwvnrrawureeTOR darFcc.Sr $ o Q �z KEYNOTES: �Q/�r C5 Q rtnox�5 o uoe]rp trae,ra V J 00 �j ILIRD,vaOa RaaR �' owosFvmcrEE owwcvuwew Revisions Date o [ Ee 2W R2 v0-00010 21 uma •❑woar[FrME4 2rd Review M2020 Srp Review 0I27I2a20 wut,umcERn[z GENERAL NOTES: Rhft lew '71105I2020 arv7ns[weaum.rataaca..sEA[mn�mvxx[Eo - - +..u]Exs>:.aon000Rsro[wvaobrt.r�wT[¢Rrss�rsFxsoarReonar �j Vl CYP81M BaN13-IaiOaRaAi.iFA,E11.iolwtnm OIR,TFrF51plW5£.L L nl ETIErrOR OOaReauowMOawr sNwu NFFI ORETGEFOTd•e.1C,CFC:FrEAO"I FERraw,w GENERAL NOTES: Date: icsn>:au .FFrteu+oarv,�owas. 11/1712020 x wcussum GiAaxosrw=[+�roRrxrfenceeuaocne REoulmx�rrr L ULM1FFrY1MNLlfi]MOrbsIM'Rvr LEG�S9 P.E•�GEe uma /}SLR [p6GlI GFAA[G]G[R19]r'IiFl51NE➢iPLYT�r[9 an,�Iccaar�ssxw.EeraRr•�mm[Ecec,:Re �T� �' b�rm°i` `I�,'�"� Job No: msA,a ara,naESrfv,d, s.THEVN[H•W aeFr[rsrgoe[uorssuuuwreE[m�rwwtYi tRurn�T�7artsxwnm:Frin� ,wHowoos laaaR OR TxE PxTwwR rmFswu xm�[nRET[uxraowrHr rams[rtusra[n.remmEo Drawn: a sca TuW OESRar SR'P.SOJERT,t=1A.mnp OR OC[CrC R3,rap rmrraaa�¢mrs: Chucked., 1• �.Ra'610r4�0 �CAeA�OTIERIWIV MEaNu1CONF0AYTD14E to sarsEsnvra..auooRs,ACTroE[rAraxevAsx�oorxxumTNEeotm[[s�ormrTaDDO. W scale: AS NOTED EWFPFa wRHAIATCN.wa RaEIaBOLTIR,'/aPEiUTEo FRGY1NE WISiOL DE.<7 WLT M a c1�11A]{no"'4R0EaoR bra Sheet Title: IC NALIR41FAitFAFAe[OfDegt50J21RPEAlFFF 0.03rGTl OOORSSWLl14YEd0E.LB0.T AS]ERnElSR•AR•.R{r SCHEDULES I< p00itTT0%OFn'006JNABr�WdrN11GW6e0aR50WL6EQ.EFC-tE OONSTRUCIRb rRJMfrW BTA.ABaEr Sheet No. ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE WINDOW SCHEDULE 2 DOOR SCHEDULE 1 Page 539 5FPKAFTiNa.GoM SP Drafting 8659 Red Oak St. Suite I Rancho Cucamonga,Ca. 91730 (9q 257-7547 —--------------------------------------------------------- ema�l:mb@spdra%ng.com SP DRAFTING ------------...... p- KEYNOTES: 2.8 FASCIA BOARD < EXTERIOR WALL LINE BELCW,Tvp' CD Uj LU(9 2 TH.F—I PIECE CLAY—�TILE EL CAWN0 BLEND 0 7—p :2 UNDERtAYMENT:2-LAYERS 156 ROOF FIBERGLASS FELT.MIN. ED U.S. :3 3:12 FE-11 FD F111 < Wo ❑ 3:12 A 00 0 3.12 3:12 0 0 < F1 (-)2-- 2 D L) ATTIC VENT LEGEND: LO Z El < 6 312 C:) 2 I OKAGINS EXHAUST VENT ------------------------- ReyWons Date INTAKE VENT DRC2020-M 6 2)13020 2r6RovieW 5=020 3:12 3:12 FIRST FLOOR ROOF LINE Ord R";: jW27r= 4(h RvI Itosmo 2 SECOND FLOOR ROOF LTNE ------- EXTERIOR WALL LJNE BELOW ---- --- -------- ----------- Data: 1111712020 - ---------- -- ----------- Job Nv Drawn: Checked: Scale: AS NOTED, Sheet Tile: ROOF PLAN Sheet No. 8 *ROOF PLAN SCALE:1/4"=1'-O" 7 A1.4 Page 540 5PDfZM=; tNC-r.GOM 4 1 KEYNOTES: SP DraRing VV TrnE � o7BBLLE�Mp ,MW. 8659 Red Oak St. .3 1❑ FELT UERI.A IRGlJ153 1 trMlallatmno roc s a a naocar ante Suite I im manuiarureri:arnrm� s p 8 10 1 ❑2 F&w Fnl�nELn Rasleha 91730 Cucamonga,Ca. tz i' 1� t • ❑ (909j 257.7547 1 �. t 3 TfESTucco ITTN avExIATxEI x:sMooTHmoweL �,Sy, emai:rab&pdraPong.wm / e00R,5EE OO"RSCIiE➢. At7 SP GRAFTING 10 8 � � © aplwcuucEoar+.sEE"oaRscxe",e � ------- no, e ®®®® e � O 9 ❑� O}NGe+SR00FVF.NT I,II„L/•I•II,I,II I 2 CAST STONE FOAM TRW MOUNOALLWINEOWSPT$l e00R5 eunTc ara6 Patel 5 1O CASTSTONEF" TRIMUNOEREAVES Co EAST ELEVATION ti NOTATION fr 4 11 btc TTve IRON RALM t 1 c— a 1© AtIET RAMPG 0 ]0 U 1 3 / € 3 1 O LLI Z F-T-711 11M, . n Q 1LIl 1l�ll 16d1 = 00 a� z e Wg :E O V O F Y U V 3 8 Lo Z Q O !el SOUTH ELEVATION ° W7FV ELEVATION i c 7 OF X TALL PRECISION 158'OF 6'TALL PRECISION fO Revisions Data LOCK WITH STUCCO BLOCK WITH STUCCO 22nR �"rz 024 d s 2020 FINISH FINISH 4R vW: t 020 Date: 1111712020 Job No; Drawn: Checked: Scale: AS NOTED Sheet Title: ELEVATIONS 1 SECTION NORTH TO SOUTH BLOCKwALL ELEVATION Sheet ND. 0 N EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1I8"=1'-0" A1.5 Page 541 11117/2020 m z < r- m8 3 '7 0 rn c/) m z DEE Tj � a � � s f H HH 0 ... ...........--------- 0 > ----------- f r- m Irs I r. 55 M NEW CONaTRUCTON Kft m< z SAURABH PATEL 0 m 3 E F. � CD zmL* a; 8005 CAMINO PREDERA R 1 z RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 z z m Owner 1 Builder - no n sP KA> lNC(.GOM ri TWP ppp5 x r IMPERVIOUS SUMMARY; n e»E RETP�i(w0ofieOC�KWALL PaoPoserav IJ om TM eeacxwiui SITE AREA: 75,e01.5 SO,FT. SP Dreft(ng al . Q 8659 Red Oak St. EAsaxo plr AY Epsrueoowvewar TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA SUMMARY] Suite I Rancho Cucamonga,Ca. j xan fE j (P) HOUSE FOOTPRINT (ROOF AREA) -3263.16 SO.FT. 91730 (P) DRIVEWAY AND FRONY YARD NARDSCAPE-2,974A2 SO.FT. (90) 257-7547 SECTION E-E (P) REAR HARDSCAPE-426.39 SQ.FT. emal:rob@5pdrafdng.com �! TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA: e,m.55 SQ.FT. `\ �j/"'• SECTION C-C SP DRAFTING LOT COVERAGE: PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE-17.495 / / ts+ 04 tEiiGn 90'-PPAGE DP v, JECRCHFf 0( mm.nasrwm+cwwE NOTES: / ,fir r Q smAaurau� -PEReus>E�oEVEEOPMENr:a)rxnvaPaaoE�tr~ssca7aaErE-�Tlu�sf�e SauTabhAa181 / i �S4 � �Ot1�.eWVEw'M1T / CD AI]L4rCE%r ltti gep+pSEppr,EwM1r M LEGEND ti Qp o^ 0 ; ��' ' �L\ __�._._EwSnwa sEWEn wurviwolwTEfal ,g�C - .er(q NOq[PfTANll1O 'E) (E)O IOR VUIiM1GE[-.I.OPO '�,I�FGRM1eEf�ttNIM1a7AfE maPE, U D-D — PIIePO$Ef)FLOYINNE nOfOFFfa£YOeE Y x..aOPEPRpPosfn /y P I w �, yc$' zxawPe� �zaao�E fwra7ewoe Q taM %X• / , �. - 5s PrOPeSFDnmvEwAY [FNIEH IIkE < W0 •-. ii+• CC W G R'�% ' _ PROPOSE➢E SECTION F-F 0. it •.:•.. .. - _ g� -- EARTHWORK QUANTITIES:GUT&FILL 00 � FILL-27.8 YDS CUT-21.0 YDS 0 0 ¢p O s" SOUTHMCAUFORWAFDISON p� UU _ -� ewm usrwurc vers r+sT.rxoasmm `'�" DwnerBui7tlar,5aurabn Palel 6i �.�r'. �.+r,:_M - _ v�nueEe win)n EEwen EnsEevrt SO CAL GAS 8659Red 0ak5L zo Cz '+� - J•3rvwEry', ' 1e_4 M0,427-ZOO Sude] Q .X ... ¢Ican CUCAVIONGAVAMEYWATEROISTRICT -w � 909 � _ . _ RanUu Cu[ac+ua]a,Ca.91730 (J, o _r___ `- 0 ( )257-7547 emabobQspdraf)ing.cam �-- SPECTRUM Ue 7ar.,SP rhaR; :Saveabh Pa10 &DCK WIJL(a-0'Nnf - -- - - - - �;,. �aa_, -•./ 88M924357 BW9 RM C.k SL FRB50'M 6911 NICATIONS SRarKho Gucampga Ca 91739 R@YISIMIS D8i@ VOCATION Y' ♦.'67,' Rq ' DIRECT TV (9091257.7547 emdRmL�spdraMng.Ean ' DRL2020-0W76 2173R024 .''s,�:' _ :A. 11• 944 an-6754t+o � '- _ � '%� / HUGHE$NET Surveyrr.Jim Coe Pl55673 2WROw 612R02P JOCOLEkd A55DCIATESINC, _._ .•'f 5cwi - 877464-W63 RVEYI 3rd Rolm 81=2020 �I� 1v�.s'• �s a,T •r"'r TRASH LAND SU NG 41h Ravlew 11105f2= Y Ske sd - _ ♦: ,g: JOC MD5URVERYINGDAOLCOM __ -� S)1RRT-1 DISPOSAL 909 797 2074 OFFICE 3 I.awbe^ ws7wOeaeorgtoauuw -J 889.987.5717 - 9516608"0 CELL .�,4 ur,mnTac7aEEsroRfeum '''tom !- = Dale: 11117)2020 ¢w � `�,• s;ip• z.P.T.tep.snt (f:7 EJ,rea7onv�vrt P(.srErt % TZ ,�f/ EnSt1N06E'rE1+aNMI�+ONTEFKEtEVA i7ee (SNCCD) Job No: I E7 B1A6 \ annexe aEw[rtPwaa¢xT a [E)Ga8R1000wi}PSLI EO(CC" Drawn! J.^ [mIG RiWlx.e,C9C x5r2,31 Checked: PER pl tae'eT8 2x�MA�w.rPean—erlmE Scale: AS NOTED !,-' to eE aewro,muPan cerstaucTlou vuaEs 3 nntoVm�urTc s H Sheet Title: MICHWRK CITY OF RAN0WCUCAseQN$�A p�T s Na+00/BEIEV.-rsomv (.�Jrt CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND NON-PRIORITY WOMP OF IMPERIOVIOUS AREA OF UNDER 99139 S.F. DRAINAGE PLAN Sheet No. VICINITY MAP 4 r-'."--.,C-�`" .�-„n '''=r _ -�___�_.�w� _ DP1.0 CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANT 2 DRAINAGE DETAIL Z Page 543 SPDKAFTINC-T.CO,M 30, SP Drafting r� 8659 Red Oak St. 3' � •f ~~ ' — Rancho Cucltamonga.Ca. �� 91730 (90�SECTION F-F'EAST PL RETAINING WALL � -mb@, 257d547 '�'ma°' ', ema8:rv4�spdratting.com 48 '�" \ SP DRAFr[NG 3 SECTION G-G EAST TO WESTALONG DRRIEWAY RETAWING WALL Saurahh ate! ce7 /,--� SECTION A-A Q U w LU z .� W O In z------- �._-� d 13 ¢ L I oQoz '� zcog '•y ReNslans Date B SECTION e-6 DRC20204OO19 71Ea2020 { 2nd Review E120020 y 31d Ftf- Bp1=2 eview 0 ,.d Mh R 771A9=0 so r Data: 1 i11 T12020 Job No: GENERALNOTES m..,�ew, a...we�.woe.e.asm.«h.,ue�asa..d.�..wmw.,mi,.a.uameu�..,aewa.,.rwa.�gWp�p.�um.arr Drawn: I19S4.,M1.bd-'e Y®Ib d.waet,Gs9 ea.9e(y9n.rv..,9y.tlw.h.W+Y m.loim�uapn.erC.�.^Vn9nVY.�q cabvL�c,mia - .ave�s•.�... Checked: Fs�w.rmn tler.rY..iaurcar w'p..4e.f Me. b3 m+1 d�HM 10YA[x4vA.banw.wdwv'N E.w�slN bs.u. e,,..y,,..�eo-.9...,,a..,w�.•.,..:. r.c�a�e�w.mwne,�e�mrn�9,.,..�.azB.�....rw,wwaw. Scdfe: AS NOTED �1ae04ml �.n.,.1e1a °,weal c .9'w'+ew�."°.'uma."m�°i�° n+9�u.n•i�a..m .rw,.y.me..rn ay.ea... srleetrUe: arcz+ea o a.�w.Wa.e.We .aa.�.r�arn..ac.aaa.ahaa�ae m.°du"m�uiwW°a DRAINAGE 1 SECTION A ese vn0.9,f++J�[Gu mrl lime ,tifpryq.mn.nm�sW..p.vwl.AM1bmYdrrnr u.FNtlwMeti,9.l9,Re.,w 69 �J�lb.patl.4- pwl.mwhe�i awltla�i.iP..'�edr,eNvlT.lr•1.41,etlwV�llba.5e�n.s�Yot�m•uinge115�mn7 Sheet No. :=�w...e c=+P ° """' °"°se.,a..w,r,w.amn.ca.n„ai.,.ow■r.a..e.,,ar,.,.",.c..ea.e..n....,, N CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN SECTIONS SCALE: 118"=1'-0" 1 DP 1.1 Page 544 J sPD!SAFFmNG.GOM SLOPE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS (sEENOTEa3) +_•_*••* " s�`, eee�mm m , ,M AREA SUMMARY LANDSCAPE SUMMARY: SP Drafting a•,s�uLonsmEErmEEs 8659 Red Oak SL A--886 S.F. B=193 S.F. FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE RAMO SUfte I Erwor+w,ree HARDSCAPE (MAX,) -2,034.7 SO.FF. (49.7%) wwreo�v`eP`i vano�ce7 FAIR SLOPE PINlaND LANDSCAPE (MIN.) 1.440.O SQ.FT. (36.7%) RanC�1091C3310nga,Ga. PIAl,1 NAME REQ. PROVIDED aEo. PROVIDED 99730 REOLOREMENT$ Df:CORATNEHARDSCAPE(MAX,) -030.FT. (o%) (969) 257-7$47 I-SGAit250SF. LANTANASGAL 4 7 1 3 NOTES em9:tob@spdraf8ng.com w / 4 f•i GALl100 S.F- PROSTRATE ,axusr Pe ro:rtnecroam,uL cauaLr vnmxMc sEc.n�a,el tet yam !� 12 2 3 MYOPORUMIGAL 9 +aec.n,+u vntF IFES,GeK[u4L�t, E evuFxs sTeNo•ana. SP DRAFTING 'y CSC r-1s GAL 1150 SA OVEEN PALM 6 6 1 t 15 GAL �+��M�ryy,�q Sbp.brluen}a•Iagrxl+rN,e•Iry ryyaV�nata eia6sscun2l Nlb kninYrvim, �� ba•uPd•gym eppvpl•wywdtm bnroai 4vl5bP.0a+i•aw Nap.awti G� +0] .eFSLdFE bw pre�atl„�A WIs��N�•�Cd�,br¢mn I�m��4�tn04�+b�tl aw�_al�owaa. V sau e yea rx, . oas,ive:awie.ge:%avm`w9.'.".,.v"'e�a` :wiwsr'tw ,0 PLANTLEGEND SaOrabh Patel �O9 ^� l�!& SYMBOL COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SIZE om e' O Ot Ef Cr] �0/, o L1— �tr�ti O J a OVEENPALM SYAGRUSROMWOFFW2A ,sgal r /� •.e CP U L NTANA LANTANA CAMARA sow J Q 19! s paupa e[gpt t.l.L q aFrumgwnu lTfJXiI PRDSTRATEMYOPOROM MYOPoRUFd PAfLVIFOLNM t8y �Z •� Q LU O m 9•r 2` (E)PaOFLRTr EX%STNG TREE I..L Q- 4i G '� q•m. = O V N 3 b � C �O O maaa++e:*rrcanr�sr.,a�ar�+e,a O •., +,u.acwomsFvan aa•suvn o j R,wre LANDSCAPE LEGEND V '+�. s �� • �. LE_1 (E)GRADEFORDRANAGE(SLOPE) Q� 2% -PROPOSED GRADE FOR DRAINAGE(SLOPE) Y Q CD [fl CIO il PROPoSEDGLOCI(WALLIRETAININGWAL.L ✓ •� PROPOGEDCOtlTOURLINE ♦� �� RerislDns Date ti CONO)T)ONSOF APPROVAL _•�, ORC2020-00016 213f2020 2nd Rwl- 51 M020 a daell" W712020 A�n..rrwe r nv,ue ree+e wbw:,.a. �� 41h Revim 1,IOSJ2020 rpra!� Ntlbmi+ao evmvM p 0•ea�MaEORa to tlnwra�aw.u.rtw•W ( ,� � . s•eav`rr'�e.:ore.:an+w.w�"�'e..av��.a�•wabvmyoa vcrtarxwmx r`R�'��� GJ Hans O/(FbNe�I.M�[S,'da.,lgl9lRWNae+pn.ems+e v Game vbove 'b m.tk•ev.— I„Nw ;` Date: 1111712020 MO•'/.+rrilhlwYCCDrnerh�• r.�aYLbntWN IMi���tl Nenr. _ Job No: {�^+d+l..�a^➢smnar.araibimae,4+�erP� Drawn: Lu,,, w- 77.73TOPOF GRATE Checked' DROP INLET 74.70 FL 1 VPVC PIPE Scale: AS NOTED a•,,,, G.oP e„_ SheetTrdo: LANDSCAPE x c�2 PLAN Sheet No. o *a.ar+uo.�e.rawa�aw.rtxwana +ao..w�v. LS1.0 osa.aae..anm bN+�wper v�ae,�r..va,wr. = LANDSCAPE PLAN Page 545 40 SF'OKA $,COM _ SP Drafting .• * 8659 Red Oak St. Sane I eINEOEawNraENDEreNas Rancho Cucamoga,Co. L�of s1DNr iocAnan A-A •' .-' . L E OF SIORT LOCAnON M 91730 • • _ • sEc DFF�Am Faos (901 257-7547 • PROPOSED DFVELopwx email:rob�sgdrdtt ng.com ONFOFWf RENOERMA -~ • SP DRAFTING MAP OF LINE OF SITE LOCATIONS uNs ayscN LoeAnoN a• L:NEO SJCH".O:a'lt)�a� ' � `"'- Saorabh Patel ------- - --- -- --------- ------------ —14- 4 Q) Q �sscnonsa W W oLLI O CZ aas m LOU Q CD wv) �� RENDERING A Revisions Date auEwN�>Frw+r DRL2020"16 211=020 u�oc s�r�rsw 21-d R.A. Y2V2e20 31a R-n O. ✓fit,7ri= 4th RevWm 11I0ti/2020 roc cvrNO PREOFA� - Data: 1 1 0 71202 0 o Job No -- .. ..,.. .. ... .- Drawn: m LINE OF SIGHT FRONT ELEVATION VIEW Checked: Scale: AS NOTED Sheet Title: HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT RENDERED VIEWS Sheet No. RENDERING B LOS HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT VIEW Page 546 z m z + Q rn z i� z G) w m m m m y � � C m k Elt i x" LJ t 1� ff NEW CONSTRUC710N FOR m omoMZ 7 = m m SAURABH PATES ro wm n 8005 CAMINO PREDERA mz m RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 = � z t z j ?age 547 my a Owner/ Builder 3 CITY OF RANCHO CUC. ONG& �4 GAO C`ICAj 7 STAFF REPORT P . r O O DATE: March 25, 1981 v -� a 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Otto Kroutil , Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10035 THE DEVELOPERS - A residential subdivision of 15.7 acres of land into 38 custom lots in the R-1-12 zone, located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of Calle Corazon - APN 207-101-37 and 207-092-10 BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval of a 38 lot, 15.7 acre custom lot subdivision, generally located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of Calle Corazon (Exhibit "A") . The project site is currently vacant, and slopes south and southeasterly with a maximum relief of about 100 feet. The site has a moderate growth of grass, weeds, shrubs, and some trees. Along the southeast boundary, the site abuts the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and tracks. The proposal has been reviewed as a custom lot subdivision by the Growth Management Review Committee in accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance, and received a point rating in excess of the required threshold. However, the conceptual grading plan has not yet been cleared by the Grading Committee due to several concerns and issues described in this report. ANALYSIS: The proposed custom lot subdivision, shown on Exhibit "A" is consistent with both Interim and Proposed General Plan Land Use designations of Low Density Residential . The surrounding land uses and zoning are described as follows. LAND USE ZONING Site Vacant R-1-12 North Single Family R-1-12 East Railroad, Vacant F-P South Railroad, Vacant A-P and R-1 West Multi-Family, Condos R-3-T The subdivision map has been prepared in accordance with the State Sub- division Map Act and the City`s Subdivision Ordinance. The basic street pattern has been predetermined, to a degree, by the existence of Camino Predera on the north. A secondary access is needed which most logically Exhibit C ITEM F Page 548 TT 10035 Staff Report -2- March 25, 1981 should occur off Red Hill Country Club Drive in the northwest portion of the site. Further, due to the substantial grades the subdivision designs are rather limited. As requested by Staff, a topographic model has been prepared by the applicant for the Com- mission' s review. Since this Tract Map was filed, the applicant has worked closely with Staff to resolve a number of concerns. However, in spite of a substantial effort to resolve potential problems, the following areas of concern remain to be resolved, and should be addressed by the Commission: 1 . Grading - The applicant is proposing substantial lz to 1 fill slopes on lots 2 through 9 on the down-side of the proposed street, as well as moderate 2 to I fill slopes on several lots on the up-side. Staff is concerned with the future develop- ment of lots 1 through 9; as can be easily seen on the topo- graphic model the nature of the grade would necessitate split- level construction with garages possibly located within the front yard setbacks (Exhibit "C" ). Should this subdivision be approved, Staff would recommend that appropriate restrictions be recorded with the subdivision map which would enable the Commission and/or the Design Review Committee to retain strict control over the development of each of these parcels. In addition, the grading plan should also be revised to eliminate slopes in excess of 2 to 1. 2. Geologic Hazards - Due to the site' s proximity to the inferred location of the Red Hill Fault the project site is located with- in the Special Study Zone. According to the proposed General Plan Public Health and Safety Super Element, restrictions which apply within State designated Fault Special Studies zones also apply to the City adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault. As required, a report prepared by a certified engineering geologist. has been prepared and submitted to the City (Exhibit "D") . The report concludes that no faults, active or potentially active, were observed in exploratory trenches or are known to exist 'withixi the subject site. Tha Red ' Hill Fault is' 'inferred to pass some 750 - feet south- erly of the site. The report further concludes that the Page 549 TT 10035 Staff Report -3- March 25, 1981 probability of ground surface rupture is considered remote. However, it is recommended that a condition be placed on the map to require the Building Official to critically review each units structural integrity and if necessary, require increased structural standards. 3. Landscape Maintenance - Appropriate provisions should be made for the disposition and maintenance of areas adjacent to the two existing single family residences on Red Hill Country Club Drive which are not needed for right-of-way purposes. Available options include: a. Extra wide parkways with low maintenance landscaping and inclusion of such areas in a landscape maintenance district. b. Transfer of ownership of the unneeded areas to the adjacent property owners, if they so desire. c. Inclusion of the two areas in lots 1 and 38. This option does not appear practical due to potential maintenance problems. The transfer of ownership option appears to be preferable, however, should the adjacent property owners refuse the left-over areas, inclusion of the areasin a maintenance district is recommended. Also attached for your review is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Pending satisfactory resolution of the grading and seismic .safety issues described in this report, the issuance of a Negative Declaration, with appropriate mitigation measures, would be appropriate. CORRESPONDENCE: The tentative map has been advertised as a public hearing item in the Daily Report newspaper. In addition, approximately 70 public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed subdivision. To date, no correspondence has been received. Page 550 TT 10035 Staff Report -4- March 25, 1931 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to receive all public comments. If, after such hearing, it is felt that the areas of concern raised by Staff have been resolved to the Commission's satisfaction, the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval , with conditions, would be appropriate. Res ectfully su itted, ARR HOG A it annex BKH:OK:cd Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Tract Map Exhibit "C" - Cross Sections Exhibit "D" - Geologist's Report Initial Study, Part I Resolution of Approval Conditions of Approval Page 551 y bl !mot I li 1i - o AEU MILL"- -A + I� wmwu. e�w. � ` �aart�llLL 4Lo i Y ippl vo S r - 1.-7..LL_WIrM1 e� W WG ARfLow AA1+OW wtlin sw+N fir, 4 V NORTH CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAl�IOltirCsA TITLE: OL#ii7Y �ld� PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT:- SCALE= 41-d Page 552 ac`e,r rrr � 1 lb.wT•�'. r � ' adu .-�-/- •a.pw ea' �,/ 'i{Jr [�_'"^� � � �f' n '1 I :./ �.�' .ram-+ �• - -..a,.r�r a.p.aa• 'fir �1 +� - a 'C..S .,f� /•✓`_� �'.� :�' r — .ram :�:�+•,•'r:: Y'•j �..' "+�•� ,r�'7j ' /� ' I! a � ,,Y �`+i. �IVr� . �-' D5:� `.+ �. /_• Y-y Tr•� lfF,. .1� J'r / }! 11 '.r. •� ham. r.: -�nrm an �, r.;'� 'r', �" �r :�•�/J ter- �p•Y r� .1'•� rr/ r'�>,i. .f,''.lr r�r� 10 JAIL ,IY'+ ` ••.. + I ti/MR.�c"' a � a� �{,'-. �_- :9' f—_gd• ,`.�T��� fo-•r .n: r I / !.� ',r.//,f`°!�r' �" 1 �:S �,':`•5. ,w� ems• •+ �' �-- ,� � '�... ��/��/ •/ '� •� r}�. �r 1 �\` t '�:-- .:.:- -^�- ,• :.fro ,;-_ �+. �I� y./ /�� Y �a%` .•1 �� � -jcVl.. ,��1.,\t,�� i•• ti • \.".I _�... Imo•,r�//� - a" Y- / j "4 I°r; .t �rri !3!• ,.� 1�% - ^�{/y •a f RK� rMR ��'f / / i-_-- - m If a a.IB! 1 Ail"-• _ - i'-•:r�i'� ✓'[�_ .• fe! w.l4t Ma, rof�lua eerc�ruw,Later, 0 6a. i., �.k.`". .�,� � •�:�. �� '\ ll ;J' vr�slrlea r.++ca�meet beci,w. --=-fir' �_•�ice. .�, �.11i ii {� ,v%�°' "s%j wh= -' Tentative Tract No. 10035 �! ' - / .� l i1�3 ".�i _ t�I 'JO W7� FqT�Q'!�!!1► 99.4 - Page 553 W� x...t� !bn■, . Rom'•tYwl x•Ir raY[/ i \ rxrlr lYwd i M•., _oxs aF'K a.l.• ■n•rir7 • A .� ` MI•M�Y+'�wr•a• - 1� _ _—_ l rl,Nlli 1•xY VYl�YfF,�Ro aY+W 14iJ rxwHxr� ' QIC=`1p N.Qk�Mr t'i �.._�-. aa �1, '�� r • «�n....r wl.rrlr,ll•n✓r.......Mn.w r,,:nr,..l•r Y.f.! TYrrtr• • r - -' ' -- t •Ar•aYli l�r W xM1Y ir•A+x f 11r.c w,.+tv,y/.,n., },,, pR+^�•'. / r to 1•t� ,+{4r •tif.u.aor..lr..nl.la+..w...r�. Ixa••.�y1,tWta•Yr M�•Rr NrfMM I ■ Il,wr1►Y•••Ir xIll M1s x{r.xrl ns•xrl Vn. -.-•..... -__ rrrxr, . r wxaln frurr.IY IY'r ry Atxl••IMi••rr W■ �+ �41 --•f 6.nl,e. 7 al4/WW lirr MIIaLxa tl�w w,n a•.rxw ItY ,n�Hla ■ 111lr■'17W Ivx/Gl.Id•p•xa.Wr aUM1,i.M1 �= rrrar W ICM Y ■ .!M Nrtt•f I I,�w•rti•'art 1 p_ 11 1 w t -nJ I ■I' i �) IIr eft I ■ 1 ep nrl�e.■er�w o :j— S� °� 1• —P• ` .••xa ,rl 1 •��_. E .n Im■.• ,'j r. ra rrrtoif" 3�• ~ .� �'-ti ` ���� f' / �, av+ (•a• .R �..i1 �°r� I,r. t �"'•'� Y ll � s'� �' - '� ''�' •✓ '�`tE �� r ��1+.' i.ye�• . 10, W LA AX I /'� 4R �`•" �2 � Q'! 1 � e Iw.tiv•rim i /fr 1. 1 ! /• fff J/� ,.. �.�Ja r•G.■^ �// 91fpf>IYIrxQ I •I i / / �. ', % +1+4 ', j r . ' vq walnrai taly.patr 1P ffff „ / l.•• fcs..cr�ucu�.r,n qprrw J1 i+ 1 ■ *%.—r—'� F-�-1 + l � / •j �4' "��%/ ti7a+fl..ri,wur�p�,wrt■tm ' ./ �rF.7■ ///� fw••lrt.C�,#Kwn,■ vow 1 f I 4 � ' .♦-6 � �^ �•/�� ' /� .r=' '• i�/ ..� f7»/■rrww 1� � 1 ' t � ' � % �','� ��" I mm'icl.r.aa�mr w fm..e w.�i•1 o tii pM r4 r /'! � At' I I �IJ I I � .1• ' � + /.. •-• - 1 ✓ ! �' �� i;.•, I wsr�+rurlea.tw nnrn I a ^ J � 1 .r M ' 1 '{• * / �,�/ - �' / �! nr•ra.:=.a.a rar...w rwrRsr.lt>.. \ ' •,' 1 +�,�� t '++_ ,.,. 1. / ' �'� -- - � ,'• ;;, i .�I{�, Tentative Tr c o. 10035 /�\///�\\ 1 f 1 I` I`j\y I{4{ •� f`(}J1 I fry _ �-�I��� / i - le ar c.rnba..,. w IDf* I aaer I Q T maerm Page 554 ----------- `r 1 j 4A I �E r � r�....rwwrtrrrr , •rrr r..ti� f i n��, r K, • 09 � t dd . � • Ex�Sr FIND 00 1 r-wrawwrwwww.� . j 10 1 4AR M i 6R�F,4/BR -_ FIN 19H MACE • G•G CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION EXI11BIT.- G Page 555 Baseline Consultants Inc. 15307 M I N N ES OT A AVE. :SOILS ENGINEERING-ENGI14fEERING GEOLOGY j PARAMOUNT, CALIF. 90723 (213) 633-6152 August 27, 1980 Project No. 611-080 Action Engineering Consultants 5402-A Commercial Drive Huntington Beach, California 92649 Subject Reference : Tentative Tract 10035 Rancho Cucamonga 3 California i Gentlemen: This is to report the results of a geology and seismicity study of the above referenced property. According to the State i of California Special Studies zone Maps, the subject property is not within an area suspected to be underlain by traces of an active earthquake fault, however, known or inferred faults are reported to pass near the site. In order to determine whether a trace of a fault is present in the near surface soils, an explora- tory trench was excavated across the site, and the earth materials encountered were carefully examined and Logged. Orientation of the trench was made in order to intercept any suspected trace at nearly right angles to the trench. Plate 1 depicts the location of the site relative to general topography, nearby streets and i E landmarks, while Plate 2 presents a graphic log of the earth E materials encountered in the trench. GEOGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGIC SETTING i The property is situated on the south flank off ea Hill, at Page 556 �, Action Engineering -2- 611-080 an average elevation of 1300 feet above sea level. As disclosed by the exploratory trench, numerous outcrops, and reference to published geologic literature, the site is immedi- ately underlain by deposits of older alluvium and fanglomerates. These deposits are reported to overlie a thick Tertiary sedimentary section and granitic basement rocks at depth. FAULTS Major earthquake faults known to exist in southern California are shown on Plate 3. Table One lists faults considered "active", that is, faults which break all formations , including alluvium, have an observable topographic expression, and have undergone movement accompanied by earthquakes during historic time, or have been so designated as active by the State of California, Division of Mines and Geology. No faults , active or ,potentially active were observed in the exploratory trenches or are known to exist within the subject property. No faults, offset strata, or indications of post ground movement were apparent in the natural earth materials as exposed in the trenches. The Red Hill fault is reported to pass some 750 feet southerly of the site. No traces of this fault or any other were encountered in the near surface deposits of the subject property. SEISMICITY Tables One and Plate 3, attached, have been developed from various sources to show the distance to known active and potentially Page 557 Action Engineering -3- 611-080 active faults in southern California considered pertinent to the site. The sources of information include prominent textbooks.!on geology and seismicity, state and county publications, as well as data disseminated by both public and private agencies involved with earthquake measuring and monitoring. While not all sources agree on all items due to the "state of the art" at the present time, the tables and plates included in this report are believed to present a fair and reasonable evaluation of the available data. Plotted or estimated epicenters of recorded larger magnitude earthquakes, which have taken place in southern California since 1769 , are presented on Plate 3. The major and most recent reference concerning the geology of the area, "Geologic Hazards in South- western San Bernardino County, California" , 1976, C.D.M.G. Special Report 113, indicate that the maximum credible rock accelerations to be anticipated at the site earthquakes in the vicinity of South- western San Bernardino County are generated by a 8.5 magnitude earthquake or the San Andreas fault, 0. 40g, generated by a 7. 5 magnitude earthquake on the San Jacinto fault, 0. 41g, and generated by a 6.5 magnitude earthquake on the Cucamonga fault, 0 .55g. Distanges from the site to known major faults are presented on Table I. Groundwater Reference to published literature indicates that groundwater levels are in excess of 50 feet below the site surface. Page 558 Action Engineering -4- 611-0 8 0 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS Liquefaction: Ground failure due to liquefaction is considered highly unlikely since groundwater lies at a depth below which liquefaction can occur. The near surface soils do not appear to be subject to liquefaction even if saturated. Earthquake Induced Landslides : No existing landslides which could be reactivated by earthquake forces are present on the site. No imminent slides were observed on the subject property or on immediately adjacent properties. Tsunamis: The site is located approximately 50 miles from the ocean, at an elevation of 1300 feet above sea level, which precludes it from the effects of a seismic sea wave. Seiches: No inland bodies of water, which would be subject to seiching, are located in the vicinity of the site. CONCLUSIONS Because no faults are presently known to exist beneath the site, the probability of ground surface rupture is considered remote. It is concluded that the proposed site development is feasible from the engineering geology point of view. Respectfully submitted, BASELINE CONSULTANTS chard P. Cousineau, CEG 32 RPC/jm (8) Action Engineering Page 559 1 Wilson Q 1 �lf, Banyan Banyan � ■ wwYwwYr�■ �1 to ■ 0. 19th 00 c E toi to E 40 pip ' ■ Base Line101,040 v 00 = i� ■ do h ■ ���• �� mwmia�a�ammm;m■ / do Imo' ■ � ��'r �� Foothill w �� ■ Imd dO 1 �I �I ■ 1 1 do Aff4W ,1.0' on 1 1 1 Bth ,i rYwww wiww F m fith C C +: Ip Q) m 4th U r'a�a�o c b ICp�e J3 m x may v c'o = a x NORTH CITY OF ITEM r RANCHO CLUAMONGA TITLE: G u f� PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE. � Page 560 RESOLUTION NO. 81-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10035 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 10035, hereinafter "Map" submitted by The Developers, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a custom lot subdivision of 15.7 acres of land in the R-1-12 zone, located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of Calle Corazon - APN 207-101-37 and 207-092-10 into 38 lots, ,regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action 'on March 25, 1981; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 10035 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Page 561 Resolution No. 81-14 Page 2 (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 10035, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Prior to final map recordation, appropriate provisions shall be made for the disposition and/or maintenance of areas adjacent to the two existing single family residences on Red Hill Country Club Drive which are not needed for right-of-way purposes. Such provisions shall be approved by the City Engineer and the City Planner. 2. If this tract is to be developed as a custom lot subdivision, the precise design and placement of all structures on all lots shall be subject to approval by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Appropriate restrictions to this effect shall be recorded along with the final map. 3. The Building Official shall critically review the structural integrity of each unit in this tract as it relates to seismic safety. If, in the opinion of the Building Official , additional structural elements are needed, then they shall be so required. ENGINEERING DIVISION 4. Prior to final map recordation, the precise alignment of Camino Predera at Red Hill Country Club Drive shall be revised to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. Installation of a stormdrain system from existing inlet at Red Hill Country Club Drive to the existing inlet structure at Cucamonga Creek Channel including dedication of easements shall be required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. All existing easements lying within the future right-of- way are to be quit claimed or delineated as per the City Engineer's requirements, prior to recordation of the tract map. 7. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of any existing utility facility that would affect construction. Page 562 Resolution No. 81-34' Page 3 8. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 9. Private drainage easements with improvements for cross lot drainage where required shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. 10. Sewage for lots 1-21 shall be accomplished in common and maintained by C.C. & R. 's by the developer prior to the release of all improvement bonds for the tract or other alternatives to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Building Official . APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �+ BY: C.�~ -L mot• t-.�'"��C Richard Dahl , Chair an ATTEST: r Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary •of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of March, 1981 by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka, Tolstoy, King, Rempel , Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Page 563 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS Subject: --T,- Applicant: . - r} Location: - " ?.: Those items checked are conditions of approval . APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Site Development 1. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Division and the conditions contained herein. 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all conditions of approval shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permi-ts. V' 3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect—at time of Building Permit.- issuance. L-`4 4. The developer shall provide all lots with adequate sideyard area for Recreation Vehicle storage pursuant to City standards. 5. Mail boxes, in areas where sidewalks are required, shall be installed and located by the developer subject to approval by the Planning Division. 6. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a 6 foot high masonry wall with view obstructing gates pursuant to City standards. Location shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 7. If -dwellings ;;re ,to be constructed in an area designated by the Foothill Fire Districts as "hazardous", the roof materials must be approved by the - Fire Chief and Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. A sample of the roof material shall be submitted to the Planning Division for--review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 9. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated, shielded from vier and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning and Building Divisions. !/10. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Page 564 11. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height and method of shielding. No lighting shall adversely affect adjacent properties. 12. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be solar heated. — 13. Texturized pedestrian pathways across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings with open spaces and recreational uses. 14. All trash pick up shall be for individual units with all recepticals kept out of public view from private and public streets. 15. Standard patio cover plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner and Building Official prior to occupancy of the first unit. 16. All buildings numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 17. Solid core exterior doors, security dead bolts and locks shall be installed on each unit in this project. 18. Security devices such as window locks shall be installed on each-unit. 19. All units within this development shall be preplumbed to be adapted for a solar water heating unit. 20. Energy conserving building materials and appliances are required to be .i-ncorporated into this project to include such things as but not limited to reduced consumption shower heads, better grade of insulation, double paned windows, extended overhangs, pilotless appliances , etc. 21. This development shall provide an option to home buyers to purchase a solar water heating unit. 22. Emergency secondary access shall be provided to this tract to the satisfaction of the Foothill Fire Protection District. 23. Local and Master Planned Equestrian Trails shall be provided throughout the tract in accordance with the Equestrian Trail Plan for Alta Loma. A detailed equestrian trail plan indicating widths , maximum slopes, physical condition, fencing and weed control in accordance with City equestrian trail standardc,•s hall be- submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to approval and recordation of the final map. 24. This tract shall form or annex to a maintenance district for maintenance of equestrian trails. — Page 565 25. This project shall provide percent of affordable housing and/or rents, in conformance with General Plan .housing policies and the housing criteria defined in the Growth Management Ordinance. Affordability shall be determined by current market rates rents and median income levels . at the time of construction of the project. Proof of this provision - shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to finalizing building permits and occupancy of the units. _ B. Parking and Vehicular Access -- 1. All parking lot landscaped islands shall have a minimum inside dimension of 4' and shall contain a 12" walk adjacent to parking stall . 2. Parking lot trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size. , 3. All two-way aisle widths shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. 4. Emergency access shall be provided', maintenance free and clear, a minimum of 24 feet wide at all times during construction in accordance with Foothill Fire District requirements. 5. All parking spaces shall be double striped. 6. All units shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 7. Designated visitor parking areas shall be turf blocked. _ 8. The C.C. & R. 's shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principle source of transportation for the otilner. 9. No parking shall be permitted within the interior cirulation aisle other than in designated visitor parking areas. C.C. & R. 's shall be developed by the applicant and submitted to the City Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. C. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Existing trees shall be retained wherever possible. A master plan of existing trees showing their precise location, size and type shall be- completed by the developer. Said plan shall take into account the proposed grading and shall be required to be submitted to and approved by the Piannin,g Division prior to approval of the final grading plan. Page 566 _K—. 3. Existing Eucalyptus trees shall be retained wherever possible and shall be trimmed and topped at 30 . Dead, decaying or potentially dangerous trees shall be approved for removal at the descretion of the Planning Division during the review of the Master Plan pf Existing On-Site Trees. Those trees which are approved for removal may be required to be replaced on a -tree-for-tree basis as provided by the Planning Division. 4. Street trees, a minimum of 15 gallon size or larger, shall be installed in accordance with the Master Plan of street trees for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and shall be planted at an average of every 30' on interior streets and 20' on exterior streets. 5. A minimum of 50 trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within the development; 20%-24" box or larger, 70'-15 gallon, and 1090-5 gallon. 6. All landscaped areas shall :be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. ✓'7. All slope banks in access bf five (5) feet in vertical height shall and are 5:1 or greater slopes be landscaped and irrigated in accordance with slope planting requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Such slope planting shall include but not be limited to rooted ground cover and appropriate shrubs and trees. All such 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 of the slops shall be completed by the Planning Staff' to determine that it is in satisfactory condition. In the case of custom lot subdivisions, all such slopes shall be seeded with native grasses upon completion of grading or an alternative method of erosion control satisfactory to the Bui.ldtng ,Official . Irrigation on custom lot subdivisions shall be provided to germinate the seed and to a point 6 months after germination. t/' 8. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be fully maintained by a homeowners association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of maintenance--shall be submitted to the City pri-or to issuance of building permits. 9. The front yard landscaping, and an appropriate irrigation system, shall _ be installed by the developer in accordance with submitted plans. 10. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 11. A minimum of specimen size trees shall- be planted within the project. 12. Special landscape features such as mounding, alleivial rock, speciman size trees, and an abundance of landscaping is required along Page 567 D. 5i ns 1. Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed in conformance with the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of such signs. 2. A uniform sign program for this development shall. be submitted to the-- Planning Division for their review and approval prior to issuance of Building permits. 3. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are not approved with this approval and will require separate sign review and approval . E. Additional Approvals Required 1. Director Review shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 2. Director Review shall be accomplished prior to recordation of the final subdivision map. 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of Zone Change and/or Variance/Conditional Use Permit 4. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of month s) -a t which time the Planning Commission may add or delete conditions or revoke the Conditional Use Permit. 5. The developer is required to obtain the following signed statement by .p,urchasers of homes which have a private or public equestrian trail on or adjacent to their property. In purchasing the home located on Lot Tract , on I have read the C.C. & R. 's and understand that.said Lot is subject to a mutual re- ciprocal easement for the purpose of allowing equestrian traffic to gain access. Signed Purchaser Said statement is to be filed by the developer with the City prior to occ"ancy. 1/6. Prior to approval and recordation of the final map, or prior to issuance of building permits, when no subdivision map is involved , written certification from all affected School Districts, shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development which states that adequate school facilities are or will be capable of accormodating students generated by this project. Such letter of certification must have been issued by the School District within sixty (60) days prior to the final map approval in the case of the subdivision map or issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. Page 568 V' 7. Prior to approval and recordation of the final map, or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district, that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project, shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within sixty (60) days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. For projects using septic tank facilities allowable by the Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board and the City, written certi- fication of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained and submitted to the City. V 8. This approval shall become null and void if the tentative subdivision map is not approved and recorded or building permits issued when no map is involved, within twelve (12) months from the approval of this project unless an extension has been granted by the Planning Commission. V' 9. This subdivision was not submitted as a total development package and is required to reapply for a point rating relative to the design section of the Growth Management Ordinance prior to final approval and recordation of the map if the subdivision is going to be developed as tract homes. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: F. Site Development - ,✓1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of approval 'of this project. 1/ 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Foothill District Fire Chief that water supply for fire protection is available. f/ 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to an existing unit(s) , the applicant shall pay development fees `at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fee. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the esztablished rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: Systems Development Fee, Drainage Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. S. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within one year from the date of project approval . !� 6. Street names and addresses shall be provided by the building official . Page 569 7. Dwelling units shall be constructed with fire retardant material and non-combustible roof material . 8. All corner dwellings shall have the building elevation facing the street upgrade with additional wood trim around windows and wood siding or plan-ons where appropriate. G. Existing Structures I. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for property line clearances considering use, area and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings. 2. Existing building(s) shall be made to comply with current Building and Zoning regulations for the intended use or the building shall be demolished. 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with appropriate grading practices and the Uniform Plumbing Code. H. Grading Yf 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the — approved conceptual grading plan. _Z2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. t/4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning, Engineering- and Building Divisions and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. . j APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:I. Dedications and Vehicular Access Dedications shall be made by final map of all interior street rights-of-way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following missing rights-of-way on the following streets : additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on Page 570 3. Corner property line radius- will be required per City standards. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress to and egress from shall be dedicated as follows: 5. Reciprocal easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels over private roads, drives, or parking areas. 6. Adequate provisions shall be made for the ingress, engress and internal circulation of any trucks which will be used for delivery of goods to the property or in the operation of the proposed business. J. Street Improvements y 1. Construct full street improvements.'including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. ` 1/ 2. Construct the following missing improvements including, but not limited to: CURB & A.C. SIDE- DRIVE STREET A.C. WHEEL STREET NAME GUTTER PVMT. WALK APPR. LIGHTS OVERLAY CHAIR RAMPS OTHER . 1,,/ 3. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, an encroachment permit and fees shall be obtained from the City Engineer' s Office, in addition to any other permits required. 4. Street improvement plans approved by the City Engineer and prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be required, for all street improvements , prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. _ 5. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City-='Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the p-ublic " improvements, prior to recording of the map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. V 6. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of-the City Engineer, prior to occupancy. 1/ 7. Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed per the requirements of the City Engineer. Page 571 K. Drainage and Flood Control 1. The applicant will be responsible for construction of all onsite drainage facilities required by the City Engineer. 2. Intersection drains will be required at the following locations: 3. The proposed project falls within areas indicated as subject to flooding under the National Flood Insurance Program and is subject to the provisions of the program and City Ordinance No. 24. 4. A drainage channel and/or flood protection wall will be required to protect the structures by diverting sheet runoff to street. 5. The following north-south streets shall be designed as major water carrying streets requiring a combination of special curb heights, commercial type drive approaches, roiled street connections, flood protection walls, and/or landscaped earth berms and rolled driveways at property line. L. Utilities - !f I. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground including utilities along major arterials less than 12 KV. - � 2. Utility easements shall be provided to the specification of the serving utility companies and the City Engineer. ,r 3. .. Developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing public utilities, as required. -+ 4. Developer shall be responsible for the installation of street lighting in accordance with Southern California Edison Company and City standards. _1! 5. Water and sewer system plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD) , Foothill Fire District and the ,Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance form CCW D will be required prior to " recordation. b. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other Interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be .received i=rom them. M. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows : A. Caltrans for: B. County Dust Abatement required prior to issuance of a grading permit) LAC. San Bernardino County Flood Control District D. Other: <1.r1}�:.'1 =ram '': -ram- .j - V-5"/ -- VZ,00 . � Page 572 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners Association, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, shall be recorded with this map and a copy provided to the City. _ a` 3. Prior to recordation, a Notice of Intention to form Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Council. The engineering costs involved in Districts Formation shall be borne by the developer. 4. Final parcel and tract maps shall conform to City standards and procedures. Page 573 . J e//-'oF R4y�yoG' oNG Su ��e o� Ucllecelq� _Subject: Appeal of Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016-Saurabh Pat 20Ck �1 TO., Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission �FD 4 'From: Red Hill residents and neighbors: Massey,Sriedeker,Weber, Buguet, Dera,Agra't5 111V Alamat and Reyes Date: February 3, 2021 Please consider this to be an official appeal regarding the HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020- 00016-SAURABH PATEL project. The following points should be considered: 1. To request the Commission recognize and agree to the importance of a lower profile than has recently been approved for this project. This is necessary in order to be consistent with projects that have recently been approved on Camino Predera by the Planning Commission and City Council. The precedent is documented as follows: a). Semler Protect-DRC2015-00604 (Lot#4 on the south side of Camino Predera and currently under construction). The residence ranges from 4 to 8 feet above curb height, due to the falling grade of Camino Predera. (DRC 11/14/2017) b).Galvan Protect-DRC2016-00672 (Lot#35 on the North side of Camino Predera).A revised application, due to an appeal, resulted in a modification that reduced the highest point of the house by 5 feet. (Resolution No.18-131) This created a sight line which was previously denied to the northern neighbor directly behind the Galvan project. c). Dera Project DRC2018-0452(Lot 93 on the South side of Camino Predera and currently under construction). The residence is .7 feet below the adjacent street curb and is well below the existing residences on the north side of Camino Predera. (Staff Report 3/13/2019) d). Bardos Project - DRC2018-00473 (Lot 013 on the South side of Camino Predera pending appeal by applicant). The current plans show the project with a height above curb at 10 feet 6 inches. Staff did not support the project due to building size, massing,width and setbacks, and "staff feels that the applicant could further reduce the roof height." (Staff report 1111312019)..The Planning Commission denied the application due to staffs' recommendation. Mr. Bardos appealed the decision to City Council and has requested to be physically present but, due to Covid,that scheduled date is yet undetermined. At the DRC meeting on January 19, 2021, Ms. Williams stated her preference for a 9' or 10' street profile for discussion by the Planning Commission for this project. She was led to believe that she had no option other than to recommend approval by staff of the proposed street profile,which is inconsistent with authority granted to DRC. 2.To request that the Council recognize and agree to the importance of Compatibility. The project, as submitted, presents a view balcony across the rear of the structure on the 2°d level as well as a view deck on the downhill east side of the structure.The 1 V view deck located next to the Loft area could present nuisance and privacy concerns with the adjacent residenfial neighbor and is incompatible with a reasonable expectation of such privacy. That concern was expressed by the neighbor at the DRC Zoomed meeting on January 19, 2021. Exhibit D Page 574 • . I� 3.To request that the Council recognize and agree to the importance of Consistency. a).The staff has included as part of the Conditions of Approval, the planting of City Street Trees that have not been required of other downhill slope structure approvals. This was raised by Mr. Oaxaca at the DRC meeting as he felt it was"an issue" and stated they can grow 30 to 40 feet in height. b).We object to the fact that for this project,the Neighborhood Meeting was never held,which has consistently been part of the process since 2016. Also, the required DRC did not occur prior to City staff approval,and the subsequent DRC was held post-approval. We feel DRC was presented in such a manner as to deter the DRC Planning Commission members from being able to route the item to the full Planning Commission. Due to the error by staff,the project design should have been reviewed by DRC and forwarded to the full Planning Commission for consideration and action as determined appropriate: Please note,we as appellants are requesting the customary Planning Commission meeting held In Council Chambers as is being afforded Mr. Bardos with his appeal to City Council.We understand if the accommodation will have to wait until the city offices are once again open to the public. Please review this Information and we look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, Lynn and Renee Massey Tom and Doris Snedeker Erick and Catherine Weber Chuck and Suzanne Buguet Danny Dera Chris and Lisa Agraso Rakan and Maria Alamat Tom and Alona Reyes Please make the point of contact: Renee Massey 8088 Camino Predera Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 (909)560-2345 Email: reneemass1952@yahoo.com Page 575 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Tabe van der Zwaag January 19, 2021 HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00016 -- SAURABH PATEL — A request to construct a 3,300 square foot single-family residence with two separate attached 2-car garages totaling 1,063 square feet on a vacant property of 15,601 square feet (0.36-acre) within the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District located at 8005 Camino Predera — APN: 0207-631-06. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303—New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Site Characteristics: The 15,601-square foot vacant project site is located on the south side of Camino Predera in the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District. The property's dimensions are approximately 80 feet in width along the north and south property lines, and approximately 195 feet in depth along the east and west property lines. The downslope lot has an elevation of 1,315 feet as measured at the curb face along the north property line, and an elevation of 1,280 at the south property line, for a total grade change of 35 feet from the north to south property lines. The street improvements have been installed along Camino Predera, except for street trees and parkway landscaping. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land Low Residential Low (L) Residential District North Single-Family Residences Low Residential Low (L) Residential District South M017Family Development Mixed-Use Mixed-Use MU District East Single-Family Residence Low Residential Low (L) Residential District West Vacant Land Low Residential Low (L) Residential District Pro'ect Overview: The applicant proposes constructing a 3,300 square foot single-family residence with two attached 2-car garages totaling 1,063 square feet on a vacant property in the Low (L) Residential District located at 8005 Camino Predera -APN: 0207-631-06. Architecture: The proposed residence has a Mediterranean design theme, which includes the use of a clay tile roof, smooth troweled stucco finish, cast stone window and door surrounds, wrought iron accents, and decorative garage doors. The residence was designed in compliance with the Hillside Design Guidelines (Section 17.122.020.D.2), including stepping the building pads to follow the existing slope/terrain of the subject property and the use of hip roofs oriented in the same direction as the natural slope. The building mass is broken up through the use of multiple wall plane changes and the incorporation of decks on the side and rear elevations. The residence will be painted earth tone colors, as recommended in the Hillside Design Guidelines, and will be in keeping with the existing residences along Camino Predera, which include a variety of architectural styles and themes. The two-car garage on the upper level faces Camino Predera, with a second side entry two-car Exhibit E Page 576 DRC COMMENTS HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00016—SAURABH PATEL January 19, 2021 Page 2 garage located on the lower level, accessed by a curving driveway with an up to 20 percent grade. Hillside Development Standard 17.122.020.C.1.d. states that driveways with grades up to 20 percent are permitted when they are aligned with the natural contours of the lot and are necessary to achieve site design goals. The driveway to the lower garage follows the existing grade of the lot and places the additional garage space below street level, thereby reducing the massing of the residence as seen from Camino Predera and limiting view obstructions. The proposed single-family residence meets or exceeds all applicable technical development standards for the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District, as shown in the table below: Proposed Project Development Code Compliant? Building Height 25 Feet-3 Inches 30 Feet YES Building Height (Top 13 Feet 30 Feet YES of Curb) Front Setback 54 Feet 37 feet (+/- 5 feet) YES Side Setbacks 10/15 Feet 5/10 Feet YES Rear Setback 97 feet 20 Feet YES Building Separation 20 feet N/A YES Excavation Less than 5 feet 5 Feet YES Retaining Wall 3 Feet 4 Feet YES Street Facing Garage 1 Double N/A YES Lot Coverage 16.8 Percent 40 Percent YES House Square Feet 3,300 Square Feet Lot Coverage YES Garage Square Feet 1,062 Square Feet Lot Coverage YES Porch/Patio SF 483 Square Feet Lot Coverage YES Grading and Site Planning: The proposed grading design limits earthwork import to 6.8 cubic yards of fill, with the majority of the cut/fill necessary to construct the driveway and the lower side entrance garage. The foundation of the residence is stepped with the existing grade, with the upper pad at an elevation of 1,303 feet and the lower pad at an elevation of 1,292, in conformance with Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.1.a to terrace the building to follow the slope. Retaining walls are below the 4-foot height limit for hillside lots and are necessary to construct the driveway, the foundation of the house, and along the side property lines. Each of the retaining walls will be constructed of tan split face block. Hillside Development Section 17.122.020.G.1.J.ii permits up to 4-foot high retaining walls downslope from the residence. Page 577 DRC COMMENTS HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00016—SAURABH PATEL January 19, 2021 Page 3 The proposed landscaping is designed to comply with Hillside Development Section 17.122.0201, including the use of drought-tolerant landscaping to protect slopes from erosion and the planting of shrubs to soften the views of the downslope elevations. The project is not within the High Fire Hazard Zone or a wildland-urban interface,area. The proposed landscaping also complies with the front yard landscape requirements, including reducing hardscape to less than 50 percent of the front yard area. Hillside Overlay District Compliance: The project complies with the intent of the Hillside Overlay District, which seeks to facilitate appropriate development of hillside areas. The project site is a downslope lot with an elevation change of approximately 35 feet from the north to south property lines. The proposed grading design limits cut and fill to the greatest extent possible with fill limited to 27.8 yards and cut to 21 yards. The residence is stepped with the existing grade and includes a garage on the lower level, reducing the overall massing of the structure as seen from Camino Predera. Earthwork is limited to the area necessary to construct the residence and access driveway, with the rear yard is left mostly undisturbed. The proposed design does not require any Variances or Minor Exceptions to allow for deviations from technical requirements of the Development Code, and the overall size of the residence is in keeping with the more recent residences constructed along Camino Predera. Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.1.e requires that residences in the Hillside Overlay District be designed to fit within a 30-foot high building envelope. The applicant has provided two north- south and two east-west cross-sections with building envelopes demonstrating compliance with the 30-foot height requirement. The Development Code does not include a view preservation ordinance. However, the applicant has designed the residence to be sensitive to the potential for view obstructions as seen from Camino Predera. The residence has a maximum height of 14 feet above top-of-curb. Additionally, in conformance with Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2., the residence has increased side yard setbacks to 10 and 15 feet to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding and to minimize view obstructions. Staff Comments Through multiple rounds of review, the applicant has modified the plans to address staff comments related to architecture, site planning, and technical issues. The original plan submittal was for a 3,956 square foot two-story residence with generic architecture, a 715 square foot three-car garage on the first floor, and a 540 square foot unfinished basement. The original side yard setbacks were 7 feet along the east property line and 13 feet along the west property line. The final design before the Design Review Committee is for a 3,300 square foot two-story residence with a Mediterranean design theme. The three-car garage has been modified to a two-car garage, with a second side entrance garage on the lower level. The side yard setbacks have been increased to 10 feet along the east property line and 15 feet along the west property line. With the changes outlined above, staff supports approval of the proposed single-family residence. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. None Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Page 578 DRC COMMENTS HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00016—SAURABH PATEL January 19, 2021 Page 4 Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend that the Planning Director approve Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016. Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner Members Present: Staff Coordinator: Mike Smith, Principal Planner Attachments: Exhibit A: First Submittal Plans Dated January 9, 2020 Exhibit B: Final Submittal Plans Dated November 19, 2019 Exhibit C: Public Comment(CB), COA and Exhibits Exhibit D: Public Comment(SP), Approval Letter and Site Plans Page 579 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Design Review Committee Meeting Agenda January 19, 2021 MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 p.m. A. Call to Order The meeting of the Design Review Committee was held on January 19, 2021, The meeting was called to order by Mike Smith, Staff Coordinator, at 7 00pm. Design Review Committee members present: Francisco Oaxaca, Diane Williams, Mike Smith. Staff Present: Sean McPherson. Senior Planner: and Tabe van der Zwaag. Associate Planner. B. Public Communications Mike Smith opened the public communication and, after noting there were no public comments, closed public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2021. Motion by Williams, second by Oaxaca Motion carried 3-0 to adopt the minutes as presented. D. Project Review Items D1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-01017-- MARTHA SCHACHT FOR CHAGO TORTAS AHOGADAS - A request for site plan and architectural review of a 2,456 square foot restaurant with an attached 858 square foot office area on a 24.189 square foot parcel of land in the Mixed Use (MU) District and Foothill Boulevard Overlay District Subarea 1 at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road at 88269 Foothill Boulevard; APN: 0207-113-23 and 24. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 (construction of small structures). Staff provided a brief presentation of the project and stated that the project was well designed and recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission for final review and action. Note: the applicant and her client were not present to discuss the project nor were there any members of the public in attendance that commented on this project. The Committee took the following action: X Recommend approval to PC/PD. Page 580 D2. HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020.00016 --SAURABH PATEL—A request to construct a 3,300 square foot:single-family residence with two separate attached 2-car garages totaling 1,063 square feet on a vacant property of 16,601 square feet (0.36-acre) within the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District located at 8005 Camino Predera --APN; 0207-631-06. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303—New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Staff provided a presentation of the project related to the proposed single-family residence. Staff informed the Committee members that the project conformed with all of the applicable development requirements for the Hillside Overlay District. Staff also stated that through multiple rounds of review, the applicant had modified the plans to address staff comments related to architecture, site planning and technical issues. These changes included enhancing the design of the residence, reducing the size of the residence by 656 square feet, and increasing the side yard setbacks of the residence to 10 and 15 feet. The applicant addressed the Committee and outlined how the project complied with or exceeded all of the related Development Code requirement for development within the Hillside Overlay District. The applicant stated that Design Review Committee should review the project and make recommendations to the Planning Director based on the four findings outlined Development Code Section 17.16.040 (Hillside Development Review). The Committee opened the meeting for public comment and received approximately comments from 4 individuals in support of the project and comments from 5 individuals who raised concerns about the design/technical details of the project. The comments in support of the project focused on the project's compliance with the Development Code requirements related to hillside development and the appropriateness of the design within the context of the surrounding neighborhood. The comments opposed to the project focused on the height of the structure in relation to the adjacent curb face, potential loss of privacy due to a deck located on the east side and rear of the structure, and the future,potential of view loss due to required street trees along the public right-of-way. The Staff Coordinator informed the Committee that their responsibility was to review the design and layout of the project and provide a recommendation to the Planning Director, who would make the final determination on the project In response to a comment from the public related to view loss, Committee member Oaxaca stated that the City does not have a view protection ordinance and that the Development Code ohly includes guidelines that state that the height of the building shall not unduly block views and that the design of a structure shall minimize the blocking of views. Committee member Williams stated that a building height of 9 to 10 feet may be more appropriate and asked staff about the progress of the proposed new design guidelines for Camino Predera. Staff informed Committee member Williams that the design guidelines have been placed on hold due to the Covid 19 Pandemic. Committee members felt that the applicant had made significant changes to the project during the design review process and that they supported the design and layout of the proposed residence. The Committee members recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Director for final review and action. The Committee took the following action: X Recommend approval to PCIPD. Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes—January 19, 2021 Page 2 of 3 Final Page 581 D3. MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00138 - GRANT ROSS FOR ORBISI7-ELEVEN -A request for site plan and architectural review of a new commercial building and service station located on a parcel addressed 8768 Archibald Avenue in the General Industrial (GI) District; APN: 0209-032-35. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332 - In-Fill Development Projects. Staff provided a presentation of the project proposing the construction of a new 6,600 square foot convenience storelrestaurant building and 14-pump service station proposed to be located at the southwest comer of Archibald Avenue and 9th Street on a parcel that was partially vacant and partially improved with an existing-10,000 square foot multi-tenant commercialfindustrial building. At the meeting, staff provided a brief presentation highlighting the architectural design of the proposed project, as well as.highlighting aspects of the site design and layout. Staff noted that the project included a 2-lot tentative parcel map, and that the above-noted existing multi-tenant commerciallindustrial building would remain on one of the new parcels. Staff noted that 3 existing parking spaces.would be demolished as part of this projec4 and that a shared parking agreement shall be required as a condition of approval Staff noted that the design of the building included a tri-colored metal band which may or may not be illuminated. Staff sought the DRC's recommendation on whether this feature should be illuminated. Staff noted that the proposed project meets all relevant development standards. The applicant also provided a brief PowerPoint presentation that highlighted the architectural and site design aspects of the project. The applicant also explained certain elements of the function of the business. DRC members deliberated and discussed the project. Commissioner Williams inquired as to whether neighboring residents might be impacted if the proposed tri-colored metal -band was illuminated. Staff informed the Commissioner that at two neighborhood meetings, as it relates to architecture, a couple residents did express concerns about site lighting. Commissioner Oaxaca expressed a desire'to see the tri- colored band illuminated as well, as long as it did not adversely impact residents. The committee members expressed appreciation to the applicant and developer and recommended that this item be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review and action. The Committee took the following action: IN Recommend approval to PC/PD. E. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 9:05pm. Respectfuily submitted, • E' eth Thvrnhii[ Executive Assistant, Planning Department Approved: DRC meeting on February 2, 2021. Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes-January 19, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Final Page 582 •fs �rya rU�q� March 1, 2021 �'Yr © � 20� aAIGA CJ T Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission /y1G March 10, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. RE: Appeal of Hillside.Design.Review DRC2020-00016-8aurabh Patel Dear Commissioners: We are in support of the.project; DRC2020-00016,--Saurabh Patel and request that the Commission deny the appeal filed on February 3,.2021 by appellants, Lynn and Rene Massey, Appellants advance three (3) major contentions in their appeal. The first is the necessity-of this Commission to recognize and agree that it is r. important to LOWER THE PROFILE. We do believe that Mr. Patel'has•done that already. Asa matter of fact, he'has done rriore.than.lowered.the,profile; he is strictly compliant with the code, and in some instances exceeded compliance. 17.16.140 of the Development Code states that the purpose of the Hillside Development Review process is'to provide "...a mechanism to review development proposals-in sensitive hillside.areas with the••intentto minimize the adverse.effects of grading and to provide for the safety and benefit the welfare°of the citizens of the city while allowing for reasonable develo meet o.tire land." The "precedent" cited by appellants is no precedent at all. 'Each of the four (4) projects cited—and not yet built--have unique topography,which by its very nature requires a unique.approach to the design. However, appellants seem to desire that all houses on the'southside of Camino Predera -be subterranean... below curb, and all look alike from the street--- meaning all you could see from the street would-be roofs. Not only would this appearance-reduce the value of each ,of these properties and impede any view they might have but it would surely,produce an unattractive visual of a row of roofiines and,-solar panels. Such a lower profile is clearly undesirable and most importantly not "reasonable development of the land." To require applicants who have purchased a hillside lot at a-premium price, to build a subterranean home is highly.unreasonable. In fact its unreasonableness is Exhibit F v Page 583 Planning Commission (Appeal) -2- March 1, 2021 D RC2020-00016-Sa u ra bh Patel apparent by the fact that no one has built on the southside of Camino Predera in over 13 years----our house, 8045.Camino Predera, was the.last of five (5) constructed on the southside of Camino Predera---all 14' or more above curb. That's REASONABLE! Additionally, the General Plan (Policy LU-2.4) makes clear that it "...encourages th.e development of vacant residential lots where they are largely surrounded by other residential development to maximize efficient use of existing infrastructure and to meet housing demands." Unfortunately, there are a few residents of Camino Predera who evidently'do not believe in that policy, as they have done more to discourage development of the south side of Camino Predera than one can imagine through intimidation, harassment and objections to reasonable development. Again, one only need look atthe result: no houses built in 13 plus years. Appellants' second point requests that this body recognize and agree to the importance of COMPATIBILITY. The argument set forth in support claims that a "reasonable expectation" of privacy is implicated because a proposed view deck on Mr. Patel's house COULD, as the argument goes, PRESENT NUISANCE AND PRIVACY CONCERNS with the-adjacent neighbor" and therefore is "incompatible with a reasonable expectation of privacy. "This argument is fallacious. Moreover, the general rule in California provides no automatic right to preserve . the status quo with respect to LIGHT, AIR, VIEWS AND PRIVACY. If a property owner has a neighbor on any side of his/her property, there is ALWAYS the potential for impinging on another neighbor's light, air, views and/or privacy. The appellants' third contention is asking the Planning Commission Members to recognize and agree to the importance of CONSISTENCY. Under this heading, the appellants want you to believe that since a Neighborhood Meeting (not required) was NOT HELD AND THE DRC meeting (required) was held out of sequence, this invalidates the current position of the staff and planning director. This is absurd. We have, for the past three 3 years, vociferously voiced our objection to the neighborhood meetings. After attending many, in our view, there is nothing Page 584 Planning Commission (Appeal) -3- March 1, 2021 DRC2020-00016-Saurabh Patel positive that has come from these meetings. We have observed, and been the subject of, ridicule, ad hominem attacks, threats and increased acrimony among neighbors. The probability of violence has also increased when one only need listen to the tone in some of the neighbors' comments. These meetings are neither neighborly nor productive. The public, and the neighbors, have an opportunity to view any applicant's plans by going into the planning department, attend the DRC meetings and/or attend the Planning Commission Meetings. Neighbors should not be pitted against each other; but that is precisely what happens at these neighborhood meetings ----_- and that has been CONSISTENT. Mr. Patel has complied with all the rules, regulations and codes applicable to build his house on his lot. Mr. Patel's plans have been subjected to much scrutiny and reviewed and approved by the Planning Department, Hillside Design Review Committee and Planning Director. It is now, and has always been, in the province of the members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's departments, committees, commissions and council--who--should be the ones making the decisions regarding the desired and appropriate infill development of land in our 'city----not the neighborhood. This is what we truly hope, Commissioners, you recognize and agree. Sincerely, John and Jane Adams 8045 Camino Predera Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 605-3312 iadamsrancho@gmail.com Page 585 Kirit and Gita Patel Vacant lot owner on Camino Predera Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 � 909-948-5908j 3/3/202I `����f' � a Re: Response to appeal of DRC2020-00016 dated February 3, 2021 We are writing this letter in support of Saurabh Patel's project. Saurabh Patel has met all the requirements of the development code based on the Planning Directors Approval letter. The applicant has already provided a lower street profile as compared to the current Hillside Development Code. The request to further lower the building height is unreasonable. The applicant has provided a 17 feet reduction of top of curb height. Saurabh Patel's home is considerably designed which alleviates view sharing concerns. The design will add value to the community and has great curb appeal. We believe the planning commission should endorse the Approval of the Planning Director and deny the appeal made on February 3, 2021. The proposal of the single family home complies with the applicable provision of the Development Code. Please feel free to contact us for any questions or concerns. Thank you. N"W anW,"Palm ga" Kirit and Gita Patel Page 586 Saurabh Patel 8659 Red Oak St Suite I ', r Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 �� Phone: (909)257-7547 t ®�av Email: rob@spdrafting.com * 921 4 3/3/2021 e: Response to appeal of DRC2020-00016 dated February 3 *I* R p pP rY , 2021 This letter is in response to the appeal of the Planning Director's approval for DRC2020-00016. On January 19, 2021 the Design Review Committee (Williams, Oaxaca, and Smith) all agreed and recommended the Planning Director approve my project. On January 25, 202.1,Anne McIntosh,the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved my project. The proposed home is a 3,300 square foot single family residence at 8005 Camino Predera,Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730. The appellants' first request is to lower the street profile to maintain"consistency" of Camino Predera. The appellants are requesting to reduce the top of curb height to 10 feet. This request is not only unreasonable, but it is contradictory to maintaining "consistency" of the neighborhood. The top of curb heights for the existing residences on the south side of Camino Predera of Tract 10035 are as follows: • 7957 Camino Predera 28.2 feet from top of curb • 7967 Camino Predera 30.5 feet from top of curb • 7979 Camino Predera 29.5 feet from top of curb • 7997 Camino Predera 22.0 feet from top of curb (The house east of my proposed project.) • 8045 Camino Predera 14.0 feet from top of curb My proposed project is 13 feet from top of the curb. The average existing top of curb height on the south side of Camino Predera is 24.84 feet. The allowable top of curb height per code is 30 feet from finish grade. I have provided a 56.67%reduction of the top of curb height. My proposed house is 9 feet lower than 7997 Camino Predera which is directly east of my proposed residence. In addition,the existing tree line along the south side of Camino Predera will be obstructing the line of sight view from North to South regardless of the request to lower my building height. Based on the existing top of curb heights along the south side of Camino Predera, it is evident I have notably reduced my street profile to be sensitive to the community's view concerns. I have attached the Exhibit 1. "Top of Curb Analysis" for Tract 10035 which illustrates all existing top of curb heights are significantly higher than my proposed project. The City and I have worked together to address,the.building height, side setback, front setbacks and massing. My proposed project is designed to be thoughtful to view sharing.by greatly increasing both side setbacks and reducing the street profile. There are no "view preservation" requirements in the Hillside Development code mentioned by Mr. Oaxaca on January 19;-2021 in the Design Review Committee Zoom meeting. Page 587 The street profile for each project should be addressed based on each property's existing topography. The drawing on page DP 1.0 (Exhibit 2) shows the project is consistent with the current Hillside Development code to minimize the amount of grading. In addition, my projects front setbacks have been markedly increased to an additional 17 feet to lower the building profile to be considerate to the appellants concerns. The massing of my residence blends with the existing grade per Section 17.22.020(D)(1)(a) of the Development Code. The appellants' second request states the decks on my property are not compatible. The properties on both sides of my proposed project (8045 Camino Predera and 7997 Camino Predera) have rear facing decks and windows facing my property/backyard as well, which poses the same privacy concerns. The Hillside Development Code does not have any regulations or requirements which prevents deck or window placement. My proposed project is compatible with the current residences along Camino Predera. Many of the homes along Camino Predera either have large windows or decks facing both North and South. The appellants final claim states,the Planning Department is not consistent in the approval process regarding the city street trees. When Tract 10035 was originally approved, the conditions were set forth to provide street tree landscaping along Camino Predera (see Exhibit 3 attached). The street trees provide a uniform look to adhere to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Municipal code 17.56.050 General landscape development standards. The Planning Department and Planning Director have done an excellent job in ensuring the plans are approved to the Hillside Development code. My project is consistent with the City's General Plan and significantly exceeds the minimum code requirements of the Hillside Development Code. The City and 1 have made a tremendous amount of progress since the initial application for my project, which led to the approval of my project on January 25, 2021. In good faith, I strongly encourage the commissioners to uphold the Planning Directors approval for my single family residence and deny the appeal.The information and exhibits provided clearly demonstrate how my project surpasses the minimum code requirements and addresses the community's concerns regarding view, building design and landscape requirements. My proposed development is consistent and compatible with the existing home along Tract 10035. My proposed project will create further merit and worth to the Camino Predera neighborhood. I have put forth a great and considerate amount of time and effort in designing a beautiful Mediterranean home for my family and I to reside which meets the requirements per the Hillside Development Code. My family and I look forward to building our dream home in this unique location. Please feel free to contact me for any questions or concerns. Thank you. Saurabh Patel Saurabh Patcl Page 588 EXHIBIT 1 TOP OF CURB ANALYSIS TRACT 10035 Tract 'II 10035 R6°" R4°`N°` d 70C Building LOTS Adtlresx H.l 1ght ht 1 VACANT LOT ON SOu H 2 VACANT LOT ON SOUTH 3 VACANT LOT ON SOUTH 4 VACANT LOT ON SOUTH S VACANT LOT ON SOUTH 6 VACANT LOT ON SOUTH 7 VACANT LOT ON SOUTH 8 VACANT LOT ON SOUTH 9 VACANTIOTONSOUTH ® 10 VACANTtarmSOUTH ® Arr _ / 11 VACAN73AT ON 10l TH p ® `F 12 W45 CAMINO PRECERA 140 FT K •� /'/®J �e 13 VACANT LOT ONSOUTH ,29® ®. 14 IVACAN7 LOT ON SOUTH rX / ® 7 15 VACANT L0TCN SOUTH x A ! e 6 / 16 VACANT LOT ON SOUTH 5 17 7997 CAMIN PRECERA 22.0 FT 18 VACANT LOT ON SOUTH 3 ® !' 4D' 1 19 7979 CAMINO PRE9fRA 29 S R + 13 20 7967 CAM I NO PREOERA 30.5 FT • 2 21 7957 CAMINO PRECERA 28.2 FT .yy a 22 17966 CAMINO PRECERA 51.5 P r� J 23 7978 CAMINO PREOLRA 46.5 FT 1Q 26 8736 Pq EOEggR 27.O1 1 A ® q 25 8728 PgFOERA CT 10AFT 2 9 �• ® 7 V 26 6720PAEOERAc1 37.4 PT G 27 8714 PREpERA Cr 37.OR 3 4 5 V 28 8715PREOERAC 42.O FT 79 Wdl PRECERA CT 86.6 FT 3p ja725 CAMINO PRECERA 34.5 FT 31 8034 CAMINO PREOERA 43.5 FT 32 8044[AMINO PRECERA 45.5 FT 33 W54 CAMINO PREOERA 49.5 FT AM 34 H062CINO PRECERA 55O FT 35 VACANT LOT ON NORTH 36 8072 CAMINO PRECERA 33,1 FT 37 SOSO CAMINO PREOFRA 30,0 FT 38 E088 CAMINO PREUERA 26,2 F7 02/04/2020 Page 589 -�' EXHIBIT 2 _z . �PDRAF=rNICr COM IMPERVIOUS SUMMARY: " SITE AREA: 15.601.5SO.FT. SPOf8f1111g 8659 Rod Oak SL TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA SUMMARY: Sui101 i .. Rancho Cucamonga,Ca. / (P) HOUSEFOOTPRiNT(ROOFAREA)-3253.16SO,FT. 91730 / (P)DRIVEWAY AND FRONYYARDRARDSCAPE-2.976.62S2FT. (9991 257.7547 SECTION E-E % (P)REAR MDSCAPE-426LS 80.Fr. �SC1a y" TOTAL Rv10US 53O.Fr. j sP DRAPTINa SECTION GC LOTCOVERAGE: • ' // C ^'°'Suer ' PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE-17.4% 22. uu,w°.T,wea,w.c xalcs: � % •6 _ Q em.aur.,,y.,� ....,..°.a°.�awE�,wr..xir�,u°w,...,w.6..�r,w,°,..r saran —SECTION SECTION D-D _ __• .� 0 . H wwz b SECTION F-F d a¢ EARTHWORK QUANTITIES:CUT FILL m 00 FILL-27.8YOS W zV 3 CUT-21.OYDS © �0 0 s1� - .... MMERN CADFcmN ECCWOP VZ ew.a w,ee yrwen 69 O5R4 Oxn<9uN�-swnen Peet a �U M c�uoac�i a+2v0anvw.Ev wAr6Rusmror aess R.a owsk 4 �y „� FEW Wrmimp OCa 911]a :. .riasao cowl¢sr-ser wnecroanr y,.n aD 5°ECTAYIA a.rq,.r SPOral5rq Say.jl,reex a�a92�351 E659RW Oak6l. • fRON10:R xuuux�rmr.5 e,ynl Rerlaima De:a . .�� —. � ,•... . °or CT W R.,awcxa�v+.r�.otrw war2a+se twsl m-ls.r � owaaQoawu anvn2s ..%: :ff %�% aM.ic.aag4ssua,TEa uo, ama P°vna1R07°ox rs,n awur°,¢•.ry ♦1 •••O1• �••�`• aNymmCPMS& lry mrwrr ,ns•eCln •-.. :' ... _ r' aaaearal,l estseseuoo i 4 adm M1. ':'' •lr � Dem: `i 1111712020 f• .y'r.� ,.w.,w,,.,.,.wu,.+um ...r IeR c.w..,nun. Jab No: �...... uw.e.w.. wcsnomn Drawn: Cheri, T ter'$E9F'ae'„"�•T,®'°°.'r"" `nu"". Sc&s: A9 NOTED Sew rae: ?} cxw:xn'xo NON•PR10R(TY WOMP OF IMPERIOVIOUS AREA OF UNDER 9999 S.F. oRAIWEPLM YtcwnvrJAP g:`R�-lY-�,=�'_�;:��_a'_•"s�• z CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 2 DRAINAGE DETAIL DpI•0 Pe Page 590 s�Q4�N� �un.�ad Page 591 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Van der Zwaag,Tabe Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 3:23 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: FW: Support letter from Kirit and Gita Patel Camino Predera Attachments: Response to Appeal Letter_Kirit_Gita_Patel_SIGNED.pdf From: Rob Patel<rob@spdrafting.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 3:15 PM To:Van der Zwaag,Tabe<Tabe.VanderZwaag@cityofrc.us> Subject:Support letter from Kirit and Gita Patel Camino Predera ARNING:The sender of this email could not be validated and may not match the person in the "From" field. CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Attached is a support letter from Mr. and Mrs. Patel. They own the lot directly west of my proposed project. Thank you Rob Patel SP Drafting 8659 Red Oak St. #I Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 Phone :(909) 257-7547 www.spdrafting.com Page 592 Kirit and Gita Patel Vacant lot owner on Camino Predera Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 909-948-5908 3/3/2021 Re: Response to appeal of DRC2020-00016 dated February 3, 2021 We are writing this letter in support of Saurabh Patel's project. Saurabh Patel has met all the requirements of the development code based on the Planning Directors Approval letter. The applicant has already provided a lower street profile as compared to the current Hillside Development Code. The request to further lower the building height is unreasonable. The applicant has provided a 17 feet reduction of top of curb height. Saurabh Patel's home is considerably designed which alleviates view sharing concerns. The design will add value to the community and has great curb appeal. We believe the planning commission should endorse the Approval of the Planning Director and deny the appeal made on February 3, 2021. The proposal of the single family home complies with the applicable provision of the Development Code. Please feel free to contact us for any questions or concerns. Thank you. 1%14'Ga"Ill4°gdla-Maki Kirit and Gita Patel Page 593 Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: FW: Response to Appeal DRC2020-00016 Hearing on 3/10/21 From: McIntosh, Anne <Anne.Mclntosh@cityofrc.us> Sent:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 3:11 PM To:Thornhill, Elizabeth<Elizabeth.Thornhill@citVofrc.us> Subject: FW: Response to Appeal DRC2020-00016 Hearing on 3/10/21 FYI. He sent this directly to the Commissioners as you can see. From: Rob Patel <rob@spdrafting.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 3:06 PM To: Williams, Diane <Diane.Williarns@cityofrc.us>; Oaxaca, Francisco<Francisco.0axaca@cityofrc.us>;Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>; Guglielmo, Tony<Tony.Guglielmo@cityofrc.us>; Morales,Tony <Tony.Mora les@cityofrc.us>; Dopp, Bryan <Bryan.Dopp@cityofrc.us>; Van der Zwaag, Tabe <Tabe.VanderZwaag@cityofrc.us>; McIntosh, Anne <Anne.Mclntosh@cityofrc.us> Subject: Response to Appeal DRC2020-00016 Hearing on 3/10/21 WARNING: The sender of this email could not be validated and may not match the person in the"From" field. CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Ladies and Gentlemen, I have attached a copy of my response to appeal letter along with 3 exhibits. Please let me know if you have any questions. I am open to discussing any questions or concerns anyone may have in regards to my project. Thank you Rob Patel SP Drafting 8659 Red Oak St. #I Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 Phone :(909) 257-7547 www.si)d rafting.corn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: summary of DRC2020-00016 Hearing on 1/19/21 @ 7 p.m From: "Rob Patel" <rob(aspdrafting.com> Date: Mon, January 11, 2021 12:33 pm To: "diane.williams@cityofrc.us" <diane.williams(d)cityofrc.us>, "Francisco.Oaxaca@cityofrc.us" <Francisco.Oaxaca(acityofrc.us>, "Michael Smith" <Michael.Smith cit ofrc.us>, "tony.guglielmo@cityofrc.us" <tony.guglielmo(&cityofrc.us>, "tony.morales@c,ityofrc.us" <tony.morales(&cityofrc.us>, "Bryan.Dopp0)cityofrc.us" <Br an.Do cit ofrc.us> 1 Page 594 My name is Saurabh Patel. I am proposing to develop a single family home at 8005 Camino Predera. (DRC2020-00016) I wanted to reach out to all of you so you all can see how diligently I have worked with the City to exceed the minimum requirements for the Hillside Design review. I have worked with Tabe Van Der Zwaag, the planner, on 4 sets of plan check corrections adjusting my drawings each time over the course of the year 2020. I have reduced my building height, increased my side setback and decreased the size of my residence. I have carefully designed the home to reduce the amount of grading as per the hillside development code as well. I have thoroughly gone through section 17.122.020 in order to minimize the impact, share the view, reduce massing which the current Hillside code already accounts for. In order to satisfy any and all the issues that the neighbors may have I have exceeded the requirements of the proposed Camino Predera regulations that were NOT approved on 1/22/2020, My current plans reflect a top of curb height is 13', side setbacks of 10' and 15' and a 3,300 square foot home. The size of my home is considerably smaller than the average size home that has been constructed after the year 2000. The current adopted code allows for a building top of curb height of 30', side setbacks of 5' and 10' and size of home to be a maximum lot coverage of 6,240 square feet. An important item I wanted the City and design review committee to note is that the row of trees on the south side of the property will be obstructing more view than the proposed single family residence. Reducing the building height, decreasing the square foot of home or further narrowing the residence would have no benefit on any neighbors view since the trees would already be obstructing the line of sight as they sit taller than my proposed building.. In conclusion you can see that I have exceeded the minimum development code. The row of trees on the south side of the property affects more of the view than my proposed residence. In addition, the City had approved my proposed plans on 12/17/2020 which they rescinded on 1/6/2021 after noting that the design review committee had not been conducted for the project. I have attached a copy of the plans, and the approval letter dated 12/17/2020. Please feel free to reach out to me via email or phone to discuss any specific questions you may have about this project. I hope you can see the effort and time that I have put forth to satisfy and exceed all development code requirements for this project. Thank you for your time. Rob Patel SP Drafting 8659 Red Oak St. #I Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 Phone :(909) 257-7547 www.spdrafting.com z Page 595 RESOLUTION NO. 21-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND. APPROVING HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00016,A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 3,300 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH TWO SEPARATE ATTACHED 2-CAR GARAGES TOTALING 1,063 SQUARE FEET ON A VACANT PROPERTY OF 15,601 SQUARE FEET (0.36-ACRE) WITHIN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED AT 8005 CAMINO PREDERA;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0207-631-06. A. Recitals. 1. Saurabh Patel filed an application for the approval of Hillside Design Review DRC2020- 00016, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Hillside Design Review request is referred,to as "the application." 2. According to Development Code Section 17.1,6.140.E1, the Planning Director was the approval authority-for Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016 because the proposed project requires less than five feet of cut/fill. 3. On- January 19, 2021, the Design Review Committee reviewed .DRC 2020-00016 and recommended Planning-Director approval of the application. 4. On January 25, 2021, the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved Design Review DRC2020-00016 and made find ings'supporting that decision. 5. On February 3, 2021, Renee Massey ("Appellant"), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Director's decision approving the application. 6. On March 10,2021,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and directed staff to return to ,the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting with a resolution upholding the Planning Director's decision regarding Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016,denying appeal DRC2021-00035, and making the findings of support thereof. 7. On March 24, 2021,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted this Resolution upholding the Planning Director's decision regarding Hillside Design Review DRC2020- 00016 and denying appeal DRC2021-00035, based on the following evidence and findings. 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW,THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all-of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon all available evidence presented to this Commission during the Page 596 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-17 HDR DRC2020-00016 —SAURABH PATEL MARCH 24, 2021 Page 2 above-referenced public hearing on March 24, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The project is for the construction of a 3,300 square foot single-family residence with two attached garages totaling 1,063 square feet on a 15,601 square foot lot within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District at 8005 Camino Predera; and b. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land Low Residential Low L Residential District North Single-Family Residences Low Residential Low L Residential District South Multi-Family Development Mixed-Use Mixed-Use MU District East Single-Family Residence Low Residential Low (L)Residential District West Vacant Land Low Residential Low L Residential District C. The project complies with each of the related Development Code requirements for projects within the Hillside Overlay District as shown in the following table: Proposed Project Development Code Compliant? Building Height (measured 25 Feet-3 Inches 30 Feet (maximum) Yes from finished grade) Front Building Setback Yes (measured from the curb at 54 Feet 37 feet (+/- 5 feet) (minimum) Camino Predera) Side Building Setbacks Yes (measured from the side 10115 Feet 5110 Feet (minimum) property lines) Rear Building Setback Yes (measured from the rear 9.7 feet 20 Feet (minimum) property line) Excavation (depth) 4 feet-6 inches 5 Feet (maximum) Yes Retaining Wall Height 3 Feet 4 Feet (maximum) Yes Lot Coverage (maximum) 16.8 Percent 40 Percent (maximum) Yes 3. Based upon all available evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of fact set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.The General Plan Land Use designation of the project site is Low Residential. The Low Residential designation is for the Page 597 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-17 MDR DRC2020-00016 — SAURABH PATEL MARCH 24, 2021 Page 3 development of detached, low-density residences on individual lots. The project is also within the Hillside Overlay District whichwas developed to allow for the reasonable development of hillside areas while minimizing the adverse effects of grading, protecting environmentally sensitive areas, and providing for public health and safety. The project is for the development of a single-family residence which was designed in accord with the Hillside Overlay District to limitthe negative impacts of grading and to reduce view impacts.. General Plan Policy LU-2.4 encourages the development of vacant residential lots where they are largely surrounded by other residential development to maximize efficient use of existing infrastructure and to meet housing demand. The vacant,project site is largely surrounded by existing development and the proposed single-family residence is compatible with the single-family development in the surrounding area. b. The proposed project is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Low (L) Residential Distract is for the development of single-family residences on lots with a minimum area of 7,200 square feet. The application is for the development of a single-family residence on a.15,601 square foot lot.The project site is also within the Hillside Overlay District which seeks to minimize the negative impacts of grading while allowing for the reasonable development of land. This has been accomplished through the reduction of earthwork to less than 5 feet of cut and fill (4 feet-6 inches proposed), stepping the foundation of the house with the natural grade, and limiting.view impacts by lirniting:.the height of the structure above the face of the curb (13 feet)and greatly increasing the setbacks beyond the minimum requirements (10 and 15 feet proposed vs. 5'and,1,0 feet required). C. The proposed project complies with the applicable provisions of the Development Code.The project complies with the development standards for the Low(L) Residential Development District including building setbacks, building height, lot-coverage, grading,limitations, and design. The project also complies with the development standards and the intent of the Hillside Overlay Distract, including reducing earthwork to less than 5 feet of cut or fill, stepping the foundation with the existing grade, and reducing the overall massing of the structure as seen from Camino Predera. The earthwork was limited ;to the area necessary to construct the residence and access driveway. The proposed house has a cohesive architectural design theme and the design features are carried around to each elevation. The building height is 13 feet above the Camino Predera curb face and the side yard setbacks are 10 and 15 feet(beyond the 5-and 10-foot setback requirement)to reduce view impacts. d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or-improvements in the vicinity. The proposed residence'is of similar size, configuration, and layout to other residential developments along Camino Predera. The project was designed to reduce impacts on the surrounding area including reducing earthwork and limiting view impacts as seen from Camino Predera by reducing the height of the structure above the adjacent curb face and increasing.the side yard setbacks beyond the minimum requirement. The construction of a single-family home on a single-family residential zoned parcel is in keeping with the intent of the development code and the residential community.The proposed single-family home also promotes the continuous improvement of the residential neighborhood with the development of the existing vacant parcel,which is more than adequate in size to accommodate the single-family home as proposed. The proposed home will also connect to existing infrastructure, including all necessary utilities,further keeping the single-family use consistent and complementary with the surrounding properties. A previously approved subdivision tract map was designed to allow the construction of single-family development along Camino Predera, and the proposed home is meeting the intent of the subdivided parcels. Therefore, the construction of the home as proposed is unlikely to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Page 598 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-17 HDR DRC2020-00016 --SAURABH PATEL MARCH.24, 2021 Page 4 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby upholds the Planning Director's approval of Hillside Design Review'DRC2020- 00016 and denies Appeal DRC2021-00035, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2O21 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary 1,Anne McIntosh,AICP, Secretary of the Planning ommission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of March 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GUGLIELMO, OAXACA, DOPP, MORALES, WILLIAMS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: OAXACA ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Page 599 Conditions of Approval RANCHO CLJCANEOIVGA Community Development Department Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR - Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: --- 020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL. OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Approval is granted to construct a 3,300 square foot single-family residence with two separate attached 2-car garages totaling 1,063 square feet on a vacant property of 15,601 square feet (0.36-acre) within the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District located at 8005 Camino Predera—APN 0207-631-06. Standard Conditions of Approval 2. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 7. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein and the Development Code regulations. www.CityofRC us Printed:311112021 Page 600 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR- Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: --- 020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning De artment Standard Conditions of Approval 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 12. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected. with a construction barrier in accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in. place and new locations ,for transplanted trees shall be. shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. w„w.ctyofRc.u5 Printed:3/11/2021 Page 601 Page 2 of 8 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR- Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: --- 020763106-0000 Project Type. Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 16. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. 1n addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be Installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 17. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to 'issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 18. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent. to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 19. All .walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. if located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 20. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through. the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 21. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination fee in the amount of $50.00. 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. 22. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. Engineering Services Department Please.be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Have a registered civil engineer revise City Drawing # 922 for the -improvement(s) listed above prior to'building permit issuance.(plan check fees apply) Standard Conditions of Approval 2. Prior to any work being performed in Public right-of-way, -fees shall be paid and a Engineering Construction Permit (separate from Building Permits) shall be obtained from the Engineering Service Department in addition to any other permits required. 3. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: "All improvements within :the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans." If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern. Printed:3/11/2021 www.CityofRC.us page 3 of B Page 602 Project#: DRC2020-00016 ,Project Name: EDR - Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: --- 020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development.Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval, 4. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Drive Appr. Street Trees 5. 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 (typically Sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Street Name Camino Predera Botanical Name Lagerstroemiia indica Common Name Crape Myrtle (Muskogee), Min. Grow Space 20' O/C Spacing Size standard trunk Qty. 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. 6. 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. 7. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 8. 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. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following.Special Conditions www.CityofRC.us Printed:3/11/2021 Page d of 8 Page 603 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR- Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: --- 020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL.OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: 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 a site specific soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the California Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at the time of Plan Check Submittal. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers per the CBC and Current RCFPD Ordinance. Grading Section .Please be advised of the following Special.Conditions 1. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 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. 7. The Grading and Drainage, Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 8. 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. printed:311 1l2421 www.CltpfRC.us Page 5 of B Page 604 Project M DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR- Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: --- 020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section_ Standard Conditions of Approval 9. 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. 10. 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 CBC1804.31CRC 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. 11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from 'the adjacent property owner(s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set. 12. The conceptual grading and drainage plan is showing driveway slopes exceeding 10%. Therefore, prior to issuance of a grading permit, the permitted grading plan set shall show driveway profiles for the circular driveway from the street curb line to the garage door(s). 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 14. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage acceptance easements(s) from adjacent downstream property owner(s) or discharge flows in a natural condition (concentrated flows are not accepted) and shall provide the Building and Safety Official a drainage study showing the proposed flows do not exceed the existing flows prior to the. issuance of. a grading or building permit. 15. 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. Printed:3111/2021 www.Ci yofRC.us Page 6 of 8 Page 605 Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR- Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: --- 020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 16. 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. 17. This application for' storm water quality management plan purposes may be considered a non-priority project. Therefore, ,prior to issuance of any building permit or Engineering Services Department issued right of way permit the land owner with the applicant shall file .a Non-Priority Water Quality Management Plan .(WQMP) with the Building and Safety Department. The applicant may contact Matthew Addington, Associate Engineer, at(909) 477-2710, extension 4202. This project is required to prepare a non-priority WQMP project as the following requirement has been met: i) For areas less than 2,000 square feet of impervious area, the development will be considered a non-priority project and a WQMP document is .not required, unless the project is for the outdoor storage of hazardous materials or other materials which may require a pre-treatment of the storm water runoff which will require that a non-priority WQMP document is prepared, including but not limited to, vehicle fueling operations; ii) For significant re-development projects proposing impervious areas of 2,000 square feet to 4,999 square feet and new development projects proposing impervious areas of 2,000 square feet to 9,999 square feet the following criteria will require a non-priority WQMP document to be prepared: a. For all new and significant redevelopment projects; b. If the project is part of a common area of development,. a non-priority WQMP document shall be prepared; c. If the proposed development is a commercial project the City will determine if activities may impact the water quality, and if impacts are determined to affect the water quality a non-priority WQMP document will be prepared; d. All.industrial projects will require a non-priority WQMP document to be prepared. 18. RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES -- CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE — Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with, Section 4.106.2 (Storm water drainage and retention during construction) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code: Projects which disturb less than one (1) acre of soil and are not part of a 'larger common plan of development which in total disturbs one acre or more, shall manage storm water drainage during construction. In order to manage storm water drainage during construction; one or more of the following measures shall be implemented to prevent flooding of adjacent property, prevent erosion and retain soil runoff on the site. 1. Retention basins of sufficient size shall be utilized to retain storm water on the site. 2. Where storm water is conveyed to a public drainage system, collection point, gutter or similar disposal method, water shall be filtered by use of a barrier system, wattle or other method approved by the.enforcing agency (City of Rancho Cucamonga). 3. Compliance with a lawfully enacted storm water management ordinance. www.CiryofRC.us Printed:311112U21 Page 7 of 8 Page 606 I` Project#: DRC2020-00016 Project Name: EDR - Patel Residence Camino Predera Location: . --- 020763106-0000 Project Type: Hillside Development Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 19. RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES — CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE — Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.3 (Grading and Paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code: Construction plans shall indicate how the site grading or drainage system will manage ail surface water flows to keep water from entering building. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Swales. 2. Water collection and disposal systems. 3. French drains. 4. Water retention gardens. 5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater recharge. Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path. 20. 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". www.CityofRC.us Printed:3111I2021 .Page 8 of 8 Page 607 RESOLUTION NO. 21-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00016, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 3,300 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH TWO SEPARATE ATTACHED 2-CAR GARAGES TOTALING 1,063 SQUARE FEET ON A VACANT PROPERTY OF 15,601 SQUARE FEET (0.36-ACRE) WITHIN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED AT 8005 CAMINO PREDERA; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN: 0207-631-06. A. Recitals. 1. Saurabh Patel filed an application for the approval of Hillside Design Review DRC2020- 00016, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Hillside Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. According to Development Code Section 17.16.140.E1, the Planning Director was the approval authority for Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016 because the proposed project requires less than five feet of cut/fill. 3. On January 19, 2021, the Design Review Committee reviewed DRC 2020-00016 and recommended Planning Director approval of the application. 4. On January 25, 2021, the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved Design Review DRC2020-00016 and made findings supporting that decision. 5. On February 3, 2021, Renee Massey ("Appellant"), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Director's decision approving the application. 6. On March 10, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and directed staff to return to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting with a resolution upholding the Planning Director's decision regarding Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016, denying appeal DRC2021-00035, and making the findings of support thereof. 7. On March 24, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted this Resolution upholding the Planning Director's decision regarding Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016 and denying appeal DRC2021-00035, based on the following evidence and findings. 8. On May 5, 2021, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted this Resolution upholding the Planning Commission's decision regarding Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016 and denying appeal DRC2021-00104, based on the following evidence and findings. 9. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the Page 608 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 21-XX HDR DRC2020-00016 — SAURABH PATEL May 5, 2021 Page 2 City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above- referenced public hearing on May 5, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The project is for the construction of a 3,300 square foot single-family residence with two attached garages totaling 1,063 square feet on a 15,601 square foot lot within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District at 8005 Camino Predera; and b. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land Low Residential Low L Residential District North Single-Family Residences Low Residential Low L Residential District South Multi-Family Development Mixed-Use Mixed-Use MU District East Single-Family Residence Low Residential Low (L)Residential District West Vacant Land Low Residential Low L Residential District C. The project complies with each of the related Development Code requirements for projects within the Hillside Overlay District as shown in the following table: Proposed Project Development Code Compliant? Building Height (measured 25 Feet-3 Inches 30 Feet (maximum) Yes from finished grade) Front Building Setback Yes (measured from the curb at 54 Feet 37 feet (+/- 5 feet) (minimum) Camino Predera) Side Building Setbacks Yes (measured from the side 10/15 Feet 5/10 Feet (minimum) property lines) Rear Building Setback Yes (measured from the rear 97 feet 20 Feet (minimum) property line) Excavation (depth) 4 feet-6 inches 5 Feet (maximum) Yes Retaining Wall Height 3 Feet 4 Feet (maximum) Yes Lot Coverage (maximum) 16.8 Percent 40 Percent (maximum) Yes Page 609 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 21-XX HDR DRC2020-00016 — SAURABH PATEL May 5, 2021 Page 3 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use designation of the project site is Low Residential. The Low Residential designation is for the development of detached, low-density residences on individual lots. The project is also within the Hillside Overlay District which was developed to allow for the reasonable development of hillside areas while minimizing the adverse effects of grading, protecting environmentally sensitive areas, and providing for public health and safety. The project is for the development of a single-family residence which was designed in accord with the Hillside Overlay District to limit the negative impacts of grading and to reduce view impacts. General Plan Policy LU-2.4 encourages the development of vacant residential lots where they are largely surrounded by other residential development to maximize efficient use of existing infrastructure and to meet housing demand. The vacant project site is largely surrounded by existing development and the proposed single-family residence is compatible with the single-family development in the surrounding area. b. The proposed project is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Low (L) Residential District is for the development of single-family residences on lots with a minimum area of 7,200 square feet. The application is for the development of a single-family residence on a 15,601 square foot lot. The project site is also within the Hillside Overlay District which seeks to minimize the negative impacts of grading while allowing for the reasonable development of land. This has been accomplished through the reduction of earthwork to less than 5 feet of cut and fill (4 feet-6 inches proposed), stepping the foundation of the house with the natural grade, and limiting view impacts by limiting the height of the structure above the face of the curb (13 feet) and greatly increasing the setbacks beyond the minimum requirements (10 and 15 feet proposed vs. 5 and 10 feet required). C. The proposed project complies with the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project complies with the development standards for the Low (L) Residential Development District including building setbacks, building height, lot coverage, grading limitations, and design. The project also complies with the development standards and the intent of the Hillside Overlay District, including reducing earthwork to less than 5 feet of cut or fill, stepping the foundation with the existing grade, and reducing the overall massing of the structure as seen from Camino Predera. The earthwork was limited to the area necessary to construct the residence and access driveway. The proposed house has a cohesive architectural design theme and the design features are carried around to each elevation. The building height is 13 feet above the Camino Predera curb face and the side yard setbacks are 10 and 15 feet (beyond the 5- and 10-foot setback requirement) to reduce view impacts. d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed residence is of similar size, configuration, and layout to other residential developments along Camino Predera. The project was designed to reduce impacts on the surrounding area including reducing earthwork and limiting view impacts as seen from Camino Predera by reducing the height of the structure above the adjacent curb face and increasing the side yard setbacks beyond the minimum requirement. The construction of a single- family home on a single-family residential zoned parcel is in keeping with the intent of the development code and the residential community. The proposed single-family home also promotes the continuous improvement of the residential neighborhood with the development of the existing Page 610 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 21-XX HDR DRC2020-00016 — SAURABH PATEL May 5, 2021 Page 4 vacant parcel, which is more than adequate in size to accommodate the single-family home as proposed. The proposed home will also connect to existing infrastructure, including all necessary utilities, further keeping the single-family use consistent and complementary with the surrounding properties. A previously approved subdivision tract map was designed to allow the construction of single-family development along Camino Predera, and the proposed home is meeting the intent of the subdivided parcels. Therefore, the construction of the home as proposed is unlikely to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures which covers the construction of single-family residences in a residential zone. The project scope is to construct a single-family residence on a vacant, residentially zoned lot. Staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs with the staff's determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's approval of Hillside Design Review DRC2020- 00016 and denies Appeal DRC2021-00104, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Page 611 5/5/2021 CCM: ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR ITEM G2. Saurabh Patel 8659 Red Oak St Suite I Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Phone: (909) 257-7547 Email: rob@spdrafting.com 4/28/2021 Re: Response to appeal of DRC2020-00016 dated April 1, 2021 This letter is in response to the appeal of the Planning Commission decision on 3/10/2021 to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Director's approval for DRC2020-00016. The proposed project is a 3,300 square foot single family residence at 8005 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730. On January 19, 2021 the Design Review Committee (Williams, Oaxaca, and Smith) all agreed and recommended the Planning Director approve my project. On January 25, 2021, Anne McIntosh, the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved my project. On 3/10/2021 a public hearing was held due to a group of local residents appealing my project. Their appeal was denied and the Planning Director's approval of my project was upheld. Again, now for the second time, the appellants' are appealing my project to City Council for the exact same three reasons, which were already denied at the Planning Commission hearing. It is on public record that the Planning Commission concluded the appeal against my project has no merit because my design already met and exceeded the Hillside Development Code. The appellants' first appeal is to lower the street profile to maintain "consistency" of Camino Predera. The appellants' are requesting to reduce the top of curb height to 10 feet. This request is not only unreasonable, but it is contradictory to maintaining "consistency" of the neighborhood. The approximate top of curb heights for the existing residences on the south side of Camino Predera of Tract 10035 are as follows: 7957 Camino Predera 28.2 feet from top of curb 7967 Camino Predera 30.5 feet from top of curb 7979 Camino Predera 29.5 feet from top of curb 7997 Camino Predera 22.0 feet from top of curb (The house east of my proposed project.) 8045 Camino Predera 14.0 feet from top of curb Page 612 My proposed project is 13 feet from top of the curb. The average existing top of curb height on the south side of Camino Predera is 24.84 feet. The allowable top of curb height per code is 30 feet from finish grade. I have provided a 56.67% reduction of the top of curb height. My proposed house is approximately 9 feet lower than 7997 Camino Predera which is directly east of my proposed residence. In addition, the existing tree line along the south side of Camino Predera will be obstructing the line of sight view from North to South regardless of the request to lower my building height. Based on the existing top of curb heights along the south side of Camino Predera, it is evident I have notably reduced my street profile to be sensitive to the community's view concerns. I have attached Exhibit 1. "Top of Curb Analysis" for Tract 10035 which illustrates all existing top of curb heights are significantly higher than my proposed project. The City and I have worked together to address the building height, side setback, front setbacks and massing. My proposed project is designed to be thoughtful to view sharing by greatly increasing both side setbacks and reducing the street profile. There are no "view preservation" requirements in the Hillside Development code mentioned by Mr. Oaxaca on January 19, 2021 in the Design Review Committee Zoom meeting. The appellants' request to use projects approved after 2017 by the Planning Commission and City Council is not a reasonable request. The Planning Commision and/or City Council is not a requirement for all projects and would go against the Municipal Code of Rancho Cucamonga. The street profile for each project should be addressed based on each property's existing topography. The drawing on page DP1.0 (Exhibit 2) shows the project is consistent with the current Hillside Development Code to minimize the amount of grading. In addition, my project's front setbacks have been markedly increased to an additional 17 feet to lower the building profile to be considerate to the appellants concerns. The massing of my residence blends with the existing grade per Section 17.22.020(D)(1)(a) of the Development Code. The appellants' second appeal to the Planning Commission stated that my project is not "compatible". The properties on both sides of my proposed project (8045 Camino Predera and 7997 Camino Predera) have rear facing decks and windows facing my property/backyard as well, which poses the same privacy concerns. The Hillside Development Code does not have any regulations or requirements which prevents deck or window placement. My proposed project is compatible with the current residences along Camino Predera. Many of the homes along Camino Predera either have large windows or decks facing both North and South. There is no conflict in compatibility with my approved project. The only conflicts I see are the appealents' lack of understanding of the Hillside Development Code, the Page 613 appleants' list of unreasonable demands to deliberately delay Planning Departments approval and finally the appellants' rhetoric to deter any development on Camino Predera. 1 have followed the Hillside Development Code and received approval from the Planning Director, Design Review Committee and Planning Commissions on the appeal of my project. The appellants final claim states, the Planning Department is not consistent in the condition of approval. I feel that the City has been consistent in following the same conditions of approval that have been approved on this block and within the City. The Planning Department and Planning Director have done an excellent job in ensuring the plans are approved to the Hillside Development code. My project is consistent with the City's General Plan and significantly exceeds the minimum code requirements of the Hillside Development Code. The City and I have made a tremendous amount of progress since the initial application for my project, which led to the approval of my project on January 25, 2021. In good faith, I strongly encourage the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision which denied the appellants' appeal and upheld the Planning Directors approval of my project. The information and exhibits provided clearly demonstrate how my project surpasses the minimum code requirements and addresses the community's concerns regarding view sharing, building design and landscape requirements. My proposed development is consistent and compatible with the existing homes along Tract 10035. My proposed project will create further merit and worth to the Camino Predera neighborhood. I have put forth a great and considerate amount of time and effort in designing a beautiful Mediterranean style home for my family and I to reside which meets the requirements per the Hillside Development Code. My family and I look forward to building our dream home in this unique location. Please feel free to contact me for any questions or concerns. Thank you. Saurabh Patel Saurabh Patel Page 614 O N O -P N O N O v �a N 0 ` ° K © O O oO.y > c: 00 oij � N � W .L O O Z W ( , r U) W W W W W W N N N U) 00 V m to A W N O 1p 00 V m N ND0VOl N + O NNN �W 00 00 < 00 W 00 W 00 Oo 00 OD Oo m 00 V V V V V < V < < < < 00 < < < < < < < < < < G D d o O O D o O o o J J J J J V V 1p l0 1p tp lD D D D D D O D D D D D D D D D D D �- OG 00 V n m lli a W N F+ N N N W V m lf� m V n n n n n A n n n n n fl f"1 f'1 f"1 (1 (l o- m O N D N A A A in to A O m m m m J V �o D J D D D D �' D D D D D D D D D D D D D z n n n n n v c v c c n n n n ^ z n z z z z n z z z z z z z z z z z D D D D D 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 W 5 m m m o o n o 0 0 0 SEE; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 Z 2 Z 2 2 Z Z Z Z 2 � Z O O O Q O O O O O D D D D O O O O O O v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a Z z Z z z z z z Z Z Z Z z z Z z lz T T T Z T T T T S ~ ~ S A m m O N N N M N N w w w N N N VI N O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p 0 O O O O O O O O O O — C A C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C A D D D 2 D D D D D D D D D D x 2 S 2 S D 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x 0 N W A W W W A W W W N A N N W N N 2 m O W tNi� tp A m N J J O J m W O 1p N A ry 0 . N O F+ O In to to In O O O A O O {A N� N In lA O O W n y o w Page 615 i i I 11/1712020 n < cf) z > Dr fmYl 8 z SW \ z \ n " o Ar m /acP aJ, Z jji 1i sl A a \ •sro !� 'g O Ogg, z °, Rc m m o = '3. '��� `. 71 Ln ! �9 zo xo s= F is c oA� -p;�pw�Wgcm000 mm� 0 T m om=mm r llm 00Da:, o3< >a mepN o<ooN� mo m m m m m -7 mo mA -0 >amm " C ooyo 5 C \ a o CJcf)cl)CJ T P o ��0 N j gA z C z > mzz m C D = YA D z c �aoy > � m n3v"E Q a .. m<O m o Dm o < U) w�Dm ` Am D _ c C s o 0 , r= w �`orn`o`-oamm�--prnmvi y v. � °'�Ci00o Q�o—CQ Qo sf o y f oA o mom wd>> m= prow d - N D O v 2 (J o o(fii"' o b o a o s Q 3 - NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR: o 22° x = o App� SAURABH PATEL N o ocno 8005 CAMINO PREDERA o Zo� o o _N�� o co 5 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 Z e6 z 9 N _ — A m ` "� Owner/Builder 3 s TJ 1 � ' L w t 1 1 y l � 1 tii 0 �j"P�,u l��r 11,11i 11 I D i { o { i D r. ®f Page 617 5/5/2021 CCM: ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR ITEM G2. DATE: March 08, 2021 TO: Tabe van der Zwaag,Associate Planner FROM: Samiee-Camino Predera Vacant lot owner, (4 parcels,APN:0207-641-06-0000 to 09), Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730. SUBJECT: Response to Appeal for DRC2021-00035-RENEE MASSEY We have reviewed the appeal letter dated 02/03/2021 and City recommendation letter for appeal items and we are in support of the proposed development per approval 01/25/2021 for construction of a single- family residence. It is our understanding that the design review committee reviews proposed project architectures and site planning prior to provide recommendations to the Planning Director for consideration.The above appeal serves only as interruption to the project process for permit and construction. We request the above appeal to be denied and we all move forward and welcoming a new development in our neighborhood which will enhance the appearance of our community. Sincerely Submitted, Sam+e� nec dev@vahoo.com 909-374-0453 Page 618 5/5/2021 CCM: ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR ITEM G2. Kirit and Gita Patel Vacant lot owner on Camino Predera Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 909-948-5908 3/3/2021 Re: Response to appeal of DRC2020-00016 dated February 3, 2021 We are writing this letter in support of Saurabh Patel's project. Saurabh Patel has met all the requirements of the development code based on the Planning Directors Approval letter. The applicant has already provided a lower street profile as compared to the current Hillside Development Code. The request to further lower the building height is unreasonable. The applicant has provided a 17 feet reduction of top of curb height. Saurabh Patel's home is considerably designed which alleviates view sharing concerns. The design will add value to the community and has great curb appeal. We believe the planning commission should endorse the Approval of the Planning Director and deny the appeal made on February 3, 2021. The proposal of the single family home complies with the applicable provision of the Development Code. Please feel free to contact us for any questions or concerns. Thank you. d�"dawd 16da Jul Kirit and Gita Patel Page 619 i z) iA axt i7aGl1 Tw "% colcuponewoe : c kucoL &Ive i. : :T teen e.-L From: "chuck charlesjoseph.biz" <chuck@charlesioseph.biz> Date: May 5, 2021 at 8:15:08 AM HST Subject:Agenda Item G2 Analysis Mayor and Council: Attached for your review and information is a Comparative Review Analysis of the Patel design when compared to the Bardos design. Your review will determine that the Bardos and Patel design have a number of similar design characteristics. Many of those are called out as the basis for rightfully denying the appeal by Bardos, yet appear ignored with the Patel design that has been appealed by the neighbors. Despite an approximate one-year hiatus, Bardos has not reached out to the neighbors concerning his design as intended by Council when they originally continued the item. Patel has closely followed the lead of Bardos and has not had any interaction with the neighbors and declined to communicate with the neighbors and declined to meet to discuss what are relatively minor concerns presented by the neighborhood. For a person who claims that he wants to be part of the neighborhood, his actions speak volumes to the contrary. We have been very consistent with seeking reduced profiles for development of vacant lots on the downhill side of Camino Predera for quite a number of years and predating the acquisition of these vacant lots by individuals having development interest. We want and support responsible development of these last remaining hillside view shed lots. We ask that they respect the Red Hil, characteristics of sharing view opportunities with profiles that are complimentary to the hillside and compatible with the neighborhood. Allowing single story 14' profiles to be built on these lots will have a very detrimental impact on the neighborhood's character. The City has been supportive of our collective efforts to preserve the nature and quality of this unique hillside in the past. We are hopeful that the City Council will be supportive with what we believe are a couple of minor concerns with the Patel design as presented. A lot of the conflict that has been encountered with this design could have been avoided had the applicant been more transparent and communicative with the neighbors. I am certain that could occur in this case, given the opportunity to address and resolve the concerns as has been done in the past. I remain available in the event you have any questions concerning the attachment or the foregoing. Thanks for your help with this. Please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity should you have any questions or need of additional information or assistance with this matter. Thanks, Chuck Buquet, President Charles Joseph Associates 8816 W. Foothill Blvd. #103-376 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Office (909) 481-1822 Page 620 AGENDA ITEM G2 DRC2021-00104 I have carefully reviewed and analyzed the City staff reports and supporting materials for both appeals. Despite a number of project similarities and issues, staff has understandably recommended denial of the appeal filed by Bardos, yet is recommending denial of the neighborhood appeal of the Patel design approval. The CC resolution provides Building Size/Massing as a denial basis for Bardos. It also states that Bardos massing could be mitigated by increasing the front setback, thus reducing the overall height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera and/or modifying the roof design to reduce the height of the roof peak. (What we also suggested for Patel design, Semler, Galvan and Bardos projects) Bardos total square footage: 5,263 square feet. Patel total square footage: 5,024 square feet. Bardos street profile at center of lot: 10.5 feet. Patel street profile at center of lot: 13 feet. Patel Cut/Fill Discrepancies (No Change From Original Building Footprint) Unoccupied Basement Version 11/2019 Exhibit Fill: 46.5 Cubic Yards 11/2019 Exhibit Cut: 33.0 Cubic Yards Total: 79.5 13.5 Net * Unverified Lower Level 2 Car Garage/Driveway Version 11/2020 Exhibit Fill: 27.8 Cubic Yards 11/2020 Exhibit Cut: 21.0 Cubic Yards Total 48.8 6.8 Net * Unverified The CC resolution also provides General Plan Compatibility as an issue with Bardos project not meeting the intent of General Plan Policy LU-2.4, as the project is out of character with the size and massing of the existing single-family homes in the neighborhood. The City Council finds that increasing growth in average house size, including the proposed project, correlates to the neighborhood concerns about maintaining the neighborhood's character. Based on foregoing, the same would be applicable to the Patel design. The Patel design is only 239 square feet smaller than the Bardos design, and for what is a three level structure. Resolution also states that Section 17.122.020.D.2.a of the Municipal Code provides that the "design of the structure shall give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views.". Based on foregoing, the same would be applicable to the Patel design. A 13 Page 621 foot center of lot street profile will certainly block views and greatly diminish any realistic opportunity for view sharing with the profile and design as currently proposed. Regrettably, lot development proponents and City staff not familiar with the history of the Camino Predera lots make reference to and rely on assumptions made by the existing (Adams Family) and Schneider (Weber) residences. The Schneider (Weber) residence was what raised our concern with the development profile of these hillside lots and prompted the original appeal of the now(Adams) design in 2004. Patel using the Weber house profile and Bardos using the Adams house as justification of their project design, mass and street profile are respectfully unwarranted and comparatively apples to oranges. Also, the Patel house will actually be considerably larger in mass and overall profile than the Weber house, despite the representations of the applicant. Both projects as presented to the City have very similar building scale, mass and street profile characteristics. Respectfully, the small differential does not warrant or justify the staff recommendation for denial of the neighborhood appeal of the Patel design after recommending denial of the similar Bardos design. The Patel design should be rejected by the City Council for the same reasons and basis listed in the Bardos denial resolution. Regrettably, Patel has employed every measure possible with this approval process to not have to interact or share information with the neighborhood for what are relatively minor concerns presented by the neighbors. ,a. ,y t' .S ti y f R± mz Page 622 Hillside Design Review (Appeal ) DRC2021 -00104 May 5 , 2021 Project Overview Project: — An appeal of a Planning Commission approval of a request to construct a 3,300 square foot single-family residence with two separate attached 2-car garages totaling 1 ,063 square feet on a vacant property of 15,601 square feet. Entitlements: Appeal DRC2021 -00104 Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016 Zoning Designation: Low (L) Residential District Overlay District: Hillside Overlay (HO) District General Plan Designation: Low CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 00, 8661 $559 a r r°,C' } •' 7989 - e��c r f �s77s Y\ f C fKV16. I m 8C34 aazs 8022- sss ac2a ri ROM1M1 ` , 8076 •,, �t-f"ir. �`/�r •l..e sc2a 602s � W` '' 80x6 ti 8027. t ti _ 6054 r..: , _ ''• 1 ' 8030 14 1;'_�� •8033' rr 1 J 8032 ; 8031 a03a� 0 a03a q Q j 6049 � `��C 8040, 8042 ytiT '8056 1 ' 884i �07 L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r ALl .WAY -_ �.._. s 7`'� � _ .:•F''t.. -. � .. a Street View Project Site Looking Southeast ...a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r Background • The Planning Director approved Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016 on January 25, 2021 . The approval was appealed by the appellant on February 3, 2021 , within the 10-day appeal period; • The Planning Commission heard the appeal on March 10, 2021 and recommended that staff return to the next Commission meeting with a Resolution of Approval of DRC2020-00016. On March 24, 2021 , the Planning Commission approved the Resolution of Approval of DRC2020-00016; • The Planning Commission decision was appealed on April 1 , 2021 , within the 10- day appeal period. Appeal The letter included with the appeal of DRC2020-00016, dated April 1 , 2021 , requests that the City Council consider the following: • That the City Council recognizes and agrees to the importance of a lower profile for houses approved on Camino Predera, similar to the three houses approved since 2017; • That the City Council recognizes and agrees to the importance of compatibility; • That the City Council recognizes and agrees to the importance of consistency. Analysis Lower Profile: • The maximum permitted height within the Hillside Overlay District is 30 feet above finished grade with consideration given to lot size and configuration to minimize the appearance of overbuilding and the blocking of views; • The project has a maximum height of 25 feet-3 inches as measured from finished grade and a maximum height of 13 feet as measured above the top of curb on Camino Predera; • The adjacent house to the east is approximately 9 feet taller than the approved project. The most recent house to be completed along the south side of Camino Predera is approximately 14 feet above top of curb; • The two most recent Hillside Design Review approvals along the south side of Camino Predera have had a lower building height as measured above top of curb, that height was based on topography, architectural style, and owner preference. Analysis Compatibly: • As of today, 21 lots within the tract had been developed, with 3 more lots having been approved for development. Generally, the average size of houses in Tract 10035 has increased from 3, 128 square feet in the 1980s to 4,237 square feet in the 2010s. • The habitable portion of the approved residence is 3,300 square feet, which in keeping with existing development along Camino Predera and includes 10 and 15-foot side yard setbacks, above the required 5 and 10-foot side yard setbacks, increasing view opportunities as seen from Camino Predera. Analysis Consistency: • Development Code Section 17. 16. 140 (Hillside Development Review) states that the Planning Director shall be the approving authority for Hillside Development Reviews; • The only exceptions to this requirement are when excavation/fill exceeds 5 feet in depth, at which point a project would require Planning Commission review, or if a related entitlement is necessary as part of the project scope which requires Planning Commission review; • In this case, the project complies with each of the related Development Code requirements for projects within the Hillside Overlay District; • The Planning Director's original decision was based on the project's consistency with the Development Code. Proposed Project Development Code25 Feet-3 Inches 30 Feet (maximum) Yes Compliant? Building Height (measure Yes Yes 10/15 Feet 5/10 Feet (minimum) Yes 97 feet 20 Feet (minimum) Yes from finished grade) Front Building Setback (measured from the curb at Camino Predera) Side Building Setbacks (measured from the side property lines) Rear Building Setback (measured from the rea property line) Excavation (depth) Less than 5 feet - Retaining Wall Height3 Feet 4 Feet . Yes Lot Coverage (maximum) . : Percent Percent CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r Site Plan ■ ' f-'5I iurn STREW TRMS 4 E*Ta I_AL MWE: LhG=K—RDEMN IRUrA 4 �r� LFE# HT PSI P4 SAY EE IrFMiTWQCCE4 LE aAOEk�s.SSE "-0r f�R��./ sEr:Pvte�E xTsaEcnolT o-o � ■ y � C! .P CPoVEH FROKSM FLOCK 77 EE��YfII��11 L. FErANh4W1LLL{7�HI} RI-'LL�,. ..�. W PPIlCBIROfJT[1C,CK 'F DCSfgn'E LENGTH OF WJLL4 S' iSFL EEERKE0P1.1 EECTIOH {G}RITOPeRTV Lpe *r FROPME6 E W LL NP 6 PTTlpyOH SLG,GK [EI FRSSCEEFOoERN NLLLNL R� TT(r!CL4Kx�e Od[ f to.ib LEN3T %�LE1T1NHEF� CT10 o-0 LENGTH CF N}uL 91' ?' 9EE PAAE FI.5 EECTI7N Ql. 41'!�tr J2fr 6MfPER Rmc'xT"I sc 's• f�J S le LET }# PE H6 EEVON THI LFE #r �,�* P� tt]fd= ROfI F RM I LE W TM 47� A LENSTM,7M M-B-4M r ' o +E}PRCPEATYL14E FR9P'✓SEO Ef WJ1L t LVrA Eo9THB11 PEAIx9T.�2X.dM,B V PFIEpEION EL€CIL —ME MD-SE-W - N,u RlCGO Le RCTN 1'6}LL m' EEf xTa SEOTIO 77 55 FI CITY OF ♦ • CUCAMONGA 4 a :- Li 0 II r■� Ils�ll■ I�l■l�� Do PIP 7 o � Cr �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r rr r r _ Ob�r _ =;iiiir:lf'::. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111111111Ifflllllll,� r � Il.. ``IN �1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r LE UNE 4F SIGHT W CAMN a ...�..l�..Y...�'.•�..,_,.,. UFE OF SIGHT LOt+.iION A,S --------------------------------------------- __ �.. ,.- _- -� ----- -__ _--___ t.. i§ CITY 9ECilON 93 � OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Recommendation • Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA $l DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director Flavio Nunez, Management Analyst II SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of the Draft 2021-2022 Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant CDBG Program. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive comments on the draft 2021-2022 Action Plan for the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. 2. Approve the 2021-2022 Action Plan and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to submit the plan and any necessary amendments to the plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 3. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate, execute, and amend contracts with subrecipients or professional service providers as necessary to implement the CDBG projects identified in the 2021-2022 Action Plan. 4. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute, amend, and submit to HUD all plans and documents necessary to administer the 2021-2022 CDBG programs. BACKGROUND: The City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopted the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan on April 15, 2020, which described the City's housing and community development needs and strategies to address those needs over five years using HUD entitlement grant funds. The 2021-2022 Action Plan is the second of five annual plans implementing the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Strategic Plan Goals to invest annual allocations of CDBG funds from HUD. As part of its responsibility in receiving these funds, the City must prepare and submit an annual Action Plan outlining the proposed uses of CDBG funds to address the priorities in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. To comply with HUD regulations, the 2021-2022 Action Plan must be submitted to HUD on or before May 14, 2021. ANALYSIS: For the 2021-2022 program year, the City will receive $1,054,780 of CDBG funds to be allocated to eligible activities. The program activities listed below will be implemented from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022. Page 623 Public Service Activities City of Rancho Cucamonga: Farmer's Market $17,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga: CASA $12,000 Northtown Housing Community Development: Senior Food Banks $16,500 Northtown Housing Community Development: Kids School Meals $8,617 City of Rancho Cucamonga: Jane Penny LINK $4,100 City of Rancho Cucamonga: Recreation, Health and Wellness Activities $10,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga: Graffiti Removal $15,000 YMCA: Senior Transportation $20,000 House of Ruth: Domestic Violence Services and Protection $10,000 Family Service Association: Senior Nutrition $15,000 Foothill Family Shelter: 120-Day Stepping Stones Program $15,000 Inland Valley Hope Partners: Food Security/ Family Stabilization $15,000 Sub-Total: $158,217 Capital Activities City of Rancho Cucamonga: Housing Rehabilitation Program $375,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga: Housing Rehabilitation Administration $62,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga: Sidewalk Grinding & Wheelchair Ramps $45,700 City of Rancho Cucamonga: TBD $202,907 Sub-Total: $685,607 Program Administration Activities CDBG Program Administration $190,956 Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board: Fair Housing Services $20,000 Sub-Total: $210,956 TOTAL 2021-2022 CDBG PROGRAM $1,054,780 The City is currently implementing the projects and activities included in the 2020-2021 Action Plan. As of this report, all projects that are able to continue during COVID-19 are underway and in line with the five-year Strategic Plan Goals outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act, approval of the draft 2021-2022 Action Plan are categorically exempt from environmental review. Before the commitment or release of funds for each of the proposed projects, HUD requires that the environmental impact of all activities outlined in the Action Plans be assessed and documented according to applicable program regulations. An appropriate environmental review will be prepared for each approved activity prior to entering into an agreement with any entity to receive CDBG funds. Page 2 Page 624 FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no impact to the City's General Fund as a result of the approval of the 2021- 2022 Annual Action Plan. The City is eligible to funding from HUD as a CDBG Entitlement City to administer the proposed activities in the Action Plan. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Consideration and approval of the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan supports the City Council's core value of providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all. The planning and delivery of community services and infrastructure improvements as part of the Annual Action Plan will ensure that financial resources are available to support the various services the City provides to all Rancho Cucamonga stakeholders. ATTACHMENT: Attachment 1 —2021-2022 Annual Action Plan Page 3 Page 625 RANCHO CUCAMONGA Annual Action Plan FY 2021-2022 Draft Public April -fr M D G A5�OCIATFS•ItiC This page intentionally left blank City of Rancho Cucamonga i 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 627 Table of Contents Tableof Contents ....................................................................................................................................ii VersionHistory .......................................................................................................................................iii ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................................- 1 - AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)...............................................................- 1 - PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies—91.200(b).............................................................................- 6 - AP-10 Consultation—91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(I) ..........................................................................- 7 - AP-12 Participation—91.105, 91.200(c) ........................................................................................- 15 - ExpectedResources.........................................................................................................................- 25 - AP-15 Expected Resources—91.220(c)(1,2) .................................................................................- 25 - Annual Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................- 29 - AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives...............................................................................................- 29 - AP-35 Projects—91.220(d) ...........................................................................................................- 31 - AP-38 Project Summary................................................................................................................- 32 - AP-50 Geographic Distribution—91.220(f).....................................................................................- 35 - AffordableHousing ...........................................................................................................................- 36 - AP-85 Other Actions—91.220(k)...................................................................................................- 36 - Program Specific Requirements ........................................................................................................- 38 - AP-90 Program Specific Requirements—91.220(I)(1,2,4)...............................................................- 38 - Action Plan Tables Table 1 —Strategic Plan Summary.......................................................................................................- 3 - Table 2— Responsible Agencies..........................................................................................................- 6 - Table 3 - Agencies, groups, organizations who participated................................................................- 13 - Table 4 - Other local / regional /federal planning efforts .....................................................................- 13 - Table 5—Citizen Participation Outreach ............................................................................................- 24 - Table 6 - Expected Resources— Priority Table ...................................................................................- 26 - Table7—Goals Summary.................................................................................................................- 29 - Table 8 - Project Information .............................................................................................................- 31 - Table 9 - Geographic Distribution ......................................................................................................- 35 - City of Rancho Cucamonga ii 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 628 Version History No. Summary of . .- Published Draft for Public Comment: 4/1/21 Sent to HUD for Approval: 5/15/21 1 Conducted Public Hearing: 5/5/21 Approved by HUD: TBD Original 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan. City of Rancho Cucamonga iii 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 629 Executive Summary AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(h) 1. Introduction On April 15, 2020, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopted the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan which described the City's housing and community development needs, strategies and activities to address those needs over a five-year period using entitlement grant funds provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The 2021-2022 Action Plan is the second of five annual plans implementing the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Strategic Plan goals via the investment of annual allocations of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from HUD. The Action Plan identifies available resources, annual goals, projects, and activities for the period beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022. The City receives CDBG funds from HUD on a formula basis each year, and in turn, awards grants and loans to nonprofit, for-profit, or public organizations for programs and projects in furtherance of this Plan. The CDBG program provides for a wide range of eligible activities for the benefit of low- and moderate-income Rancho Cucamonga residents, as discussed below. In addition, the City is a member of the San Bernardino County HOME Consortium. The HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) is an additional HUD formula grant that provides funding to support the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable rental and homeownership housing. The County administers the program and oversees HOME activities and programs that occur in Rancho Cucamonga. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 created the CDBG Program with three primary objectives against which HUD evaluates the Consolidated Plan and the City's performance. Those primary objectives are decent housing, suitable living environments, and expanded economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons. The CDBG regulations require that each activity meet one of the following national objectives: • Benefit low- and moderate-income persons; or • Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight; or • Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency(usually the result of a natural disaster). Each year, the City certifies with the submission of its Annual Action Plan that it has given maximum feasible priority to activities, which meet the first and second objectives above. Additionally, the City certifies that no less than 70 percent of the CDBG funds received, over a three-year certification period, will be designed to benefit low- and moderate-income persons. City of Rancho Cucamonga -I- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 630 2021-2022 Program Year For the 2021-2022 program year, the City will receive $1,054,780 of CDBG funds. The 2021-2022 Action Plan allocates $1,054,780 of CDBG funds to the following program activities to be implemented from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. 2021-2022 Public Service Activities City of Rancho Cucamonga: Farmer's Market $17,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga: CASA $12,000 Northtown Housing Community Development: Senior Food Bank $16,500 Northtown Housing Community Development: Kids School Meals $8,617 City of Rancho Cucamonga: Jane Penny LINK $4,100 City of Rancho Cucamonga: Recreation, Health and Wellness Activities $10,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga: Graffiti Removal $15,000 YMCA: Senior Transportation $20,000 House of Ruth: Domestic Violence Services and Protection $10,000 Family Service Association: Senior Nutrition $15,000 Foothill Family Shelter: 120-Day Stepping Stones Program $15,000 Inland Valley Hope Partners: Food Security/ Family Stabilization $15,000 Sub-Total: $158,217 2021-2022 Capital Activities City of Rancho Cucamonga: Housing Rehabilitation Program $375,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga: Housing Rehabilitation Administration $62,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga: Sidewalk Grinding &Wheelchair Ramps $45,700 City of Rancho Cucamonga: TBD $202,907 Sub-Total: $685,607 2021-2022 Program Administration Activities CDBG Program Administration $190,956 Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board: Fair Housing Services $20,000 Sub-Total: $210,956 TOTAL 2021-2022 CDBG PROGRAM $1,054,780 City of Rancho Cucamonga -2- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 631 2. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan HUD's Community Planning and Development (CPD) Outcome Performance Measurement Framework classifies objectives in three (3) categories: decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunity. In consideration of community input as well as the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, the Strategic Plan identifies five (5) high priority needs to be addressed through the implementation of activities with four (4) Strategic Plan goals. The high priority needs include: • Preserve the supply of affordable housing • Equal access to housing opportunities • Public services for low- and moderate-income residents • Improve public facilities and infrastructure • Address material and architectural barriers to accessibility for elderly persons and severely disabled adults Consistent with HUD's national goals for the CDBG program to provide decent housing opportunities, maintain a suitable living environment and expand economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents, the priority needs listed above will be addressed over the next five years through the implementation of CDBG funded activities aligned with the following measurable goals included in the Strategic Plan section of this Plan: Goal Name Category Need(s)Addressed Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Fair Housing Affordable Equal access to housing 2,000 people Services Housing opportunities Non-Housing Public services for low- 2 Public Services Community and moderate-income 5,000 people Development residents Affordable 3 Housing Affordable Preserve the supply of 100 owner housing Preservation Housing affordable housing units Improve public facilities Public Facilities Non-Housing and infrastructure 15 public facilities 4 and Infrastructure Community Improvements Development Address barriers to 25,000 people accessibility Table 1 —Strategic Plan Summary City of Rancho Cucamonga -3- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 632 3. Evaluation of past performance The City is currently implementing the projects and activities included in the 2020-2021 Action Plan. As of this writing, all projects and activities are underway. The investment of HUD resources during the 2015-2019 program years resulted in measurable accomplishments that contributed to positive outcomes for Rancho Cucamonga residents. Together with other federal, state and local investments, HUD resources allowed the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its partners to: • Preserve and improve the existing housing stock and ensure equal access through rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing units; • Provide fair housing services to residents; • Provide healthy meals to residents; • Provide transportation services to seniors; and • Provide homelessness prevention and assistance services to residents. While the City and local partners were able to successfully implement the activities listed above during the last five (5) years, there were insufficient resources to fully address the level of need identified in the last Consolidated Plan. 4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process The Consolidated Plan regulations at 24 CFR Part 91 provide the citizen participation and consultation requirements for the development of the Consolidated Plan. Chief among those requirements is the need to consult with the Continuum of Care (CoC) to address homelessness, Public Housing Authorities (PHA), business leaders, civic leaders and public or private agencies that address housing, health, social service, victim services, employment, or education needs of low-income individuals and families, homeless individuals and families, youth and/or other persons with special needs. This qualitative input was combined with a quantitative analysis of demographic, housing and socioeconomic data to develop the strategic plan that reflects the housing, community and economic development needs and priorities for the City of Rancho Cucamonga over the next five years. In accordance with the City's Citizen Participation Plan, residents and stakeholders were able to participate in the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan through surveys, community meetings and public hearings. Efforts were made to encourage participation by low- and moderate-income persons, particularly those living in areas where HUD funds are proposed to be used, and by residents of predominantly low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Efforts were made to encourage the participation of minorities and non- English speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities. The consultation process included representatives of the CoC, PHA, and other specified groups who completed surveys, provided local data, and assisted the City to ensure practical coordination of strategies to maximize impact and to avoid duplication of effort. City of Rancho Cucamonga -4- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 633 5. Summary of public comments In the development of the Action Plan, the City solicited applications from various non-profit organizations and City Departments for the provision of fair housing services, public services and community and economic development projects. The draft 2021-2022 Action Plan was made available for public review and comment from April 1, 2021 to May 5, 2021. The City Council convened a public hearing on May 5, 2021 to receive comments on the Action Plan. Comments received during the public review period and at the Public Hearing are provided in "Appendix A" of this document. 6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them All comments and views received by the City in the development of the Action Plan were accepted and taken into consideration in the development of the Action Plan. 7. Summary The 2021-2022 Action Plan addresses each of the four (4) Strategic Plan Goals from the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan by allocating a total of$1,054,780 in CDBG funds towards eligible activities that are to be implemented from July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022. Activities submitted for consideration in response to any solicitation of Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process must conform with one (1) of the four (4) Strategic Plan strategies and the associated action-oriented, measurable goals in order to be considered to receive CDBG funds. City of Rancho Cucamonga -5- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 634 PR-05 Lead 9 Responsible Agencies — 91.200(b) 1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for the administration of each grant program and funding source. Agency Role Name Department/Agency CDBG Administrator Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department Table 2—Responsible Agencies Narrative The City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Department is the lead agency responsible for the administration of the CDBG program. The City contracted with MDG Associates, Inc. to prepare the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan. In the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, MDG Associates, Inc. developed and implemented a comprehensive citizen participation and consultation process and conducted a needs assessment and market analysis to identify levels of relative need regarding affordable housing, homelessness, special needs, and community development. This information was gathered through consultation with public officials and local agencies, public outreach and community meetings, review of demographic and economic data, and housing market analysis. In the implementation of the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan and each of the five (5) Annual Action Plans, the Planning Department shall be responsible for all grants planning, management and monitoring duties necessary to comply with HUD regulations and City policy. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department Flavio Nunez, Management Analyst II 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 774-4313 City of Rancho Cucamonga -G- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 635 AP-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(h), 91.2150) 1. Introduction The City of Rancho Cucamonga consulted with representatives from multiple agencies, groups, and organizations involved in the preservation of affordable housing and the provision of services to low- and moderate-income residents, including but not limited to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and homeless persons. To facilitate the consultation process, the City solicited feedback through the following methods: • Survey of residents and stakeholders (web-based and paper-surveys) • Individual stakeholder consultations • Community meetings • Public hearings • Receipt of written comments To gather the greatest breadth and depth of information, the City consulted with a wide variety of agencies, groups and organizations concerning the housing, community and economic development needs of the community. Each of the agencies, groups or organizations invited to consult and participate in the planning process is represented in Table 3. The input received from these consultations helped establish and inform the objectives and goals described in the Strategic Plan. Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction's activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(I)). The City recognizes the importance of careful coordination and alignment among various service providers to maximize the effectiveness of the CDBG programs. As a result, during the development of the Consolidated Plan, the City consulted with organizations that provide assisted housing, health services and other community-focused programs. Outreach efforts included surveys, invitations to community meetings, and follow-up in-person interviews where appropriate. The City further recognizes the importance of continued coordination and alignment during the upcoming five-year planning period with these organizations and agencies. The City will reinforce these partnerships through the implementation of the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process for CDBG funds each year and through technical assistance provided to subrecipients. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness San Bernardino County's homeless Continuum of Care (CoC) is comprised of a network of public, private, faith-based, for-profit, and non-profit service providers who utilize several federal, state and local resources City of Rancho Cucamonga -7- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 636 to provide services for homeless people. The region's municipalities, including the City of Rancho Cucamonga, also provide resources for services that assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless. The non-profit and faith-based community plays a key role in the current CoC system. Hundreds of agencies throughout the County provide programs ranging from feeding the homeless on the street to creating permanent supportive housing opportunities. These services are available to homeless families with children, and single men and women. The non-profit and faith-based community also serves special needs populations, such as victims of domestic violence, veterans, the disabled and youth. The CoC guides the development of homeless strategies and the implementation of programs to end homelessness throughout the region. The City provided a detailed questionnaire to the CoC to identify the CoC's perceived needs in the county and its objectives to address the needs of different homeless persons populations, specifically chronically homeless families and individuals, families with children, veterans, unaccompanied youth and persons at risk of homelessness. Following the delivery and response to this questionnaire, the City followed up with the CoC to clarify existing needs and objectives and understand opportunities for collaboration and coordination during the five-year planning process. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s)of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS The City of Rancho Cucamonga does not receive ESG funds. City of Rancho Cucamonga -8- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 637 2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities 1 Agency/Group/Organization San Bernardino County Housing Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Public Housing Authority What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Needs Assessment Consultation? Public Housing How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted via and what are the anticipated outcomes of the personal call, emails outreach, data consultation or areas for improved coordination? validation and the web-based survey. 2 Agency/Group/Organization Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board (IFHMB) Agency/Group/Organization Type Service— Fair Housing Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Needs Assessment Consultation? Market Analysis How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach, the web-based survey and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). 3 Agency/Group/Organization San Bernardino County Department of Behavioral Health Agency/Group/Organization Type Publicly funded institution/System of care What section of the Plan was addressed by Public Health Consultation? How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach and the web-based survey. consultation or areas for improved coordination? 4 Agency/Group/Organization YMCA Agency/Group/Organization Type Services—Children Services - Seniors What section of the Plan was addressed by Non-Housing Community Development Consultation? How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach, the web-based survey and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). 5 Agency/Group/Organization House of Ruth Agency/Group/Organization Type Services—Victims of Domestic Violence What section of the Plan was addressed by Non-Homeless Special Needs Consultation? City of Rancho Cucamonga -0- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 638 How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach, the web-based survey and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). 6 Agency/Group/Organization Family Service Association Agency/Group/Organization Type Services— Health Services - Seniors What section of the Plan was addressed by Non-Housing Community Development Consultation? How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach, the web-based survey and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). 7 Agency/Group/Organization Foothill Family Shelter Agency/Group/Organization Type Services— Homeless Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by Homeless Needs— Families with Children Consultation? Homeless Needs—Chronically Homeless How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach, the web-based survey and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). 8 Agency/Group/Organization Inland Valley Hope Partners (SOVA) Agency/Group/Organization Type Homeless Needs— Families with Children (at risk of homelessness) What section of the Plan was addressed by Non-Housing Community Development Consultation? How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach, the web-based survey and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). 9 Agency/Group/Organization Inland Regional Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services— Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by Non-Housing Community Development Consultation? How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach and the web-based survey. consultation or areas for improved coordination? 10 Agency/Group/Organization Foothill AIDS Project Agency/Group/Organization Type Services— Persons with HIV/AIDS What section of the Plan was addressed by Non-Housing Community Development Consultation? How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach and the web-based survey. consultation or areas for improved coordination? City of Rancho Cucamonga -10- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 639 11 Agency/Group/Organization San Bernardino County Homeless Partnership Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by Homelessness Strategy Consultation? Homeless Needs—Chronically Homeless Homeless Needs— Families with Children Homeless Needs—Veterans Homeless Needs— Unaccompanied youth How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach and the web-based survey. consultation or areas for improved coordination? 12 Agency/Group/Organization Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Agency/Group/Organization Type Business and Civic Leaders What section of the Plan was addressed by Economic Development Consultation? Market Analysis How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach and the web-based survey. consultation or areas for improved coordination? 13 Agency/Group/Organization Chaffey College Agency/Group/Organization Type Services— Education Services - Employment What section of the Plan was addressed by Non-Housing Community Development Consultation? How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach and the web-based survey. consultation or areas for improved coordination? 14 Agency/Group/Organization Rancho Cucamonga City Manager's Office Agency/Group/Organization Type Services— Health What section of the Plan was addressed by Non-Housing Community Development Consultation? How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach, the web-based survey and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). 15 Agency/Group/Organization Rancho Cucamonga Unified School District Agency/Group/Organization Type Services—Children Services— Education What section of the Plan was addressed by Non-Housing Community Development Consultation? City of Rancho Cucamonga -11- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 640 How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach and the web-based survey. consultation or areas for improved coordination? 16 Agency/Group/Organization Inland Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP) Agency/Group/Organization Type Services— Employment Regional Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by Non-Housing Community Development Consultation? Economic Development How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach and the web-based survey. consultation or areas for improved coordination? 17 Agency/Group/Organization San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board Agency/Group/Organization Type Services— Employment What section of the Plan was addressed by Economic Development Consultation? How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach and the web-based survey. consultation or areas for improved coordination? 18 Agency/Group/Organization Inland Empire Regional Broadband Consortium Agency/Group/Organization Type Services— Broadband Advocates What section of the Plan was addressed by Broadband Needs Consultation? How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach and the web-based survey. consultation or areas for improved coordination? 19 Agency/Group/Organization FEMA Agency/Group/Organization Type Emergency/Floodplain Management What section of the Plan was addressed by Hazard Mitigation Consultation? How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach and the web-based survey. consultation or areas for improved coordination? 20 Agency/Group/Organization Northtown Housing Development Agency/Group/Organization Type Services—Seniors Services—Youth What section of the Plan was addressed by Non-Housing Community Development Consultation? City of Rancho Cucamonga -12- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 641 How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach, the web-based survey and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). 21 Agency/Group/Organization Heritage Farmer's Markets Agency/Group/Organization Type Services— Health and Wellness Economic Development What section of the Plan was addressed by Non-Housing Community Development Consultation? How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted The organization was consulted by email and what are the anticipated outcomes of the outreach, the web-based survey and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). Table 3-Agencies,groups,organizations who participated Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting The City maintains a list of agencies, organizations and other stakeholders that have expressed an interest in City's CDBG programs and invited representatives from each entity to participate at multiple points in the planning process. All agencies were strongly encouraged to attend the community meetings and participate in surveys. Any agency or organization that was not consulted and would like to be included in the City's list of stakeholders, the agency or organization may contact the Planning Department at 909-477-2750. Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the Organization goals of each plan? San Bernardino Consultation with San Bernardino County indicates the Continuum of Care County City's public service strategy in this Consolidated Plan is consistent with the CoC's strategies. City of Rancho Cucamonga 2014- City of Rancho Strategic Plan goals are consistent with Housing Element 2021 Housing Element Cucamonga policies and goals. Coordination with the San Bernardino County Community San Bernardino County San Bernardino Development and Housing Department shows this HOME Consortium County Consolidated Plan is consistent with the HOME consortium's strategies and goals. Table 4-Other local/regional/federal planning efforts City of Rancho Cucamonga -13- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 642 Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan (91.215(I)) To enhance coordination among the CoC, public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies, the City invited each of these entities to provide input on the needs of the community in the development of this Consolidated Plan. The Planning Department works with subrecipients of CDBG funds to ensure a coordinated effort among service agencies in the region to address the needs of Rancho Cucamonga residents, including but not limited to, chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, unaccompanied youth, and persons who were recently homeless but now live in permanent housing. To promote economic opportunities for low-income residents, the City coordinates with subrecipient social service agencies, businesses and housing developers to ensure that where there are job opportunities for low-income people in connection with HUD-assisted projects, information is disseminated through appropriate channels consistent with the objectives of Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968. City of Rancho Cucamonga -14- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 643 AP-12 Participation — 91.105, 91.200(c) 1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation The City established and followed a process for the development of the five-year Consolidated Plan that included broad participation from the community. These activities were coordinated and implemented by the Planning Department. To assist in the identification of priority needs in the City, a survey was prepared and distributed to residents of the City to solicit resident input in the prioritization of needs related to community services, community facilities, infrastructure, neighborhood services, special needs services, businesses and jobs, and housing. The surveys were available online and were also made available at various public facilities. Two community meetings to discuss the housing and community development needs in the community were held on September 19, 2019 and October 19, 2019. At each step in the process, the City was careful to ensure that low- and moderate-income residents, members of minority groups, agencies involved in the provision of services to these populations, and others who are directly impacted by the programs and activities supported by the Consolidated Plan programs had the opportunity to be actively involved. Two public hearings were held at different stages in the development of the Consolidated Plan. The first public hearing before the Rancho Cucamonga City Council on September 18, 2019 focused on the Citizen Participation Plan. The second public hearing was held on April 15, 2020 before the Rancho Cucamonga City Council to receive comments on the draft 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan, and 2020-2024 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. During the preparation of the 2021-2022 Action Plan, the City made the draft Action Plan available for public review and comment from April 1, 2021 to May 5, 2021. Residents were invited to review the draft Action Plan and to attend the virtual Public Hearing on May 5, 2021 or submit written comments concerning the projects and activities in the Action Plan. City of Rancho Cucamonga -15- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 644 Citizen Participation Outreach Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of comments URL (If Order Outreach Outreach Response/attendance Comments received not accepted and reasons applicable) 1 Newspaper Non- Newspaper ad No comments were No comments were Not applicable. Ad targeted/broad published on August received. received. community 16, 2019 in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin announcing the availability of the draft Citizen Participation Plan for a 30-day public review and comment period to include a public hearing before the Rancho Cucamonga City Council on September 18, 2019. City of Rancho Cucamonga -10- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 645 Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of comments URL (If Order Outreach Outreach Response/attendance Comments received not accepted and reasons applicable) 2 Public Minorities A public hearing was No comments were No comments were Not applicable. Hearing held before the received. received. Non-English Rancho Cucamonga Speaking - City Council on Specify other September 18, 2019 language: Any to receive input on other language the draft Citizen Participation Plan. Persons with This meeting took disabilities place prior to the publication of the Non- draft 2020-2024 targeted/broad Consolidated Plan for community public review and comment. Residents of Public and Assisted Housing City of Rancho Cucamonga -17- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 646 Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of comments URL (If Order Outreach Outreach Response/attendance Comments received not accepted and reasons applicable) 3 Flyers Non- The 2020-2024 No comments were No comments were Not applicable. targeted/broad Consolidated Plan received. received. community flyer was disseminated in paper and electronic formats, in both English and Spanish, announcing two Community Meetings to receive input on the preparation of the City's 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and the 2020-2021 Action Plan. 4 Public Minorities Publicly-noticed Residents in All comments were Not applicable. Meeting Community Meeting attendance accepted. Persons with on September 19, received a disabilities 2019 at 6:00 p.m. at presentation on the Central Park— 11200 Consolidated Plan Non- Base Line Road. and discussed targeted/broad housing and community community development needs Residents of with Planning Public and Department Staff. Assisted Housing City of Rancho Cucamonga -Is- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 647 Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of comments URL (If Order Outreach Outreach Response/attendance Comments received not accepted and reasons applicable) 5 Public Minorities Publicly-noticed Residents in All comments were Not applicable. Meeting Community Meeting attendance accepted. Persons with on October 19, 2019 received a disabilities at 10:00 a.m. at the presentation on the RC Family Resource Consolidated Plan Non- Center—9791 Arrow and discussed targeted/broad Route. housing and community community development needs Residents of with Planning Public and Department Staff. Assisted Housing City of Rancho Cucamonga -19- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 648 Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of comments URL (If Order Outreach Outreach Response/attendance Comments received not accepted and reasons applicable) 6 Internet Non- The 2020-2024 The purpose of the All survey responses were Not applicable. Outreach targeted/broad Consolidated Plan survey was to allow accepted. community Survey was available all residents and online and in paper stakeholders the format at various City opportunity to facilities from provide their September 17, 2019 assessment of the to November 26, level of need in 2019. The City Rancho advised residents and Cucamonga for a stakeholders of the variety of housing, availability of the community and survey via email to economic stakeholders, posting development on the City website, activities. Facebook, Nextdoor, announcements at In total, 470 City Council residents and meetings, and during stakeholders the Community completed the Meetings. survey. City of Rancho Cucamonga -20- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 649 Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of comments URL (If Order Outreach Outreach Response/attendance Comments received not accepted and reasons applicable) 7 Newspaper Non- Newspaper ad No comments were No comments were Not applicable. Ad targeted/broad published on March received. received. community 12, 2020 in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin announcing the availability of the draft 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, draft 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan, and draft 2020-2024 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing for a 30-day public review and comment period to include a public hearing before the Rancho Cucamonga City Council on April 15, 2020. City of Rancho Cucamonga -21 - 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 650 Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of comments URL (If Order Outreach Outreach Response/attendance Comments received not accepted and reasons applicable) 8 Public Minorities Public hearing before No comments were No comments were Not applicable. Hearing the Rancho received. received. Non-English Cucamonga City Speaking - Council on April 15, Specify other 2020 to receive language: Any comments on the other language draft 2020-2024 Analysis of Persons with Impediments to Fair disabilities Housing, 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Non- and draft 2020-2021 targeted/broad Annual Action Plan community prior to adoption and submission to HUD. Residents of Public and Assisted Housing City of Rancho Cucamonga -22- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 651 Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of comments URL (If Order Outreach Outreach Response/attendance Comments received not accepted and reasons applicable) 9 Newspaper Non- Notice of the 30-day To be completed To be completed after 30- Not applicable. Ad targeted/broad public review and after 30-day review day review and comment community comment period for and comment period. the draft 2021-2022 period. Action Plan. The public notice invited interested residents to review the draft documents. Residents were also invited to a public hearing to provide oral comments before the Rancho Cucamonga City Council on May 5, 2021. City of Rancho Cucamonga -23- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 652 Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of comments URL (If Order Outreach Outreach Response/attendance Comments received not accepted and reasons applicable) 10 Public Minorities Public hearing before To be completed To be completed after 30- Not applicable Hearing the Rancho after 30-day review day review and comment Non-English Cucamonga City and comment period. Speaking - Council on May 5, period. Specify other 2021 at 7:00 p.m. to language: Any receive comments on other language the draft 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan Persons with prior to adoption and disabilities submission to HUD. Non- targeted/broad community Residents of Public and Assisted Housing Table 5—Citizen Participation Outreach City of Rancho Cucamonga -24- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 653 Expected Resources AP-15 Expected Resources — 91.220(c)(1,2) Introduction The projects and activities included in the 2021-2022 Action Plan are based on resources that are reasonably anticipated to be available to the City from federal, state, local and private sources from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. The actual resources available to support activities during the implementation of the remainder of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan may vary significantly due to factors outside of the City's control. For example, HUD formula grant allocations are subject to change each year based on a number of factors such as the amount of the national appropriation, changes in ACS population data applied to the CPD grant formulas, statutory changes to the CPD grant formulas, the addition or removal of entitlements receiving a particular CPD grant and the availability of reallocated funds. Additionally, state, local and private resources will vary significantly depending on the economic conditions. For the 2021-2022 Program Year, the City has been informed by HUD that it will receive $1,054,780 of CDBG funds. City of Rancho Cucamonga -25- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 654 Anticipated Resources Expected Amount Available Year 2 Expected Amount Program Source of Uses of FundsAnnual g Prior Year Total: Available Narrative FundsAllocation: $ Income: $ Resources: $ $ Remainder of - • • ConPlan The expected amount Acquisition available for Admin and Planning the remainder CDBG public - Economic Development $1,054,780 $0 $0 $1,054,780 $3,164,340 of the federal Housing Consolidated Public Improvements Plan period Public Services assumes level funding in future years. Table 6-Expected Resources—Priority Table City of Rancho Cucamonga -2G- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 655 Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied As a City with substantial housing and community development needs, Rancho Cucamonga needs to leverage its CDBG entitlement grants with a variety of funding resources in order to maximize the effectiveness of available funds. The City's former Redevelopment Agency was the City's primary non-federal source of leveraged funds. With the elimination of the City's Redevelopment Agency, the City's ability to leverage federal funds has been substantially reduced. Since the initial planning and programming of these resources, the Planning Department has worked closely with other City departments as well as County, State, and Federal partners to identify other available resources authorized through the CARES Act, the Small Business Administration (SBA), and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that may be leveraged to maximize the impact of the CDBG and CDBG-CV resources. Federal Resources • Continuum of Care (CoC) Program • HUD Veterans Affairs supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) • Supportive Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) • Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811) • Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) • Youthbuild • Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program State Resources • State Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program • Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods Program (BEGIN) • CalHome Program • Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) • Housing Related Parks Grant • CaIHFA Single and Multi-Family Program • Mental Health Service Act (MHSA) Funding Local Resources • San Bernardino County Homeless Partnership (SBCHP) • Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino (HACSB) • Southern California Home Financing Authority (SCHFA) Funding • San Bernardino County Continuum of Care Program City of Rancho Cucamonga -27- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 656 Private Resources • Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program (AHP) • Community Reinvestment Act Programs • United Way Funding • Private Contributions HOME Matching Requirements The City of Rancho Cucamonga does not receive HOME funds as part of its entitlement allocation. The amount of matching, is therefore, not applicable for the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan In December 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld Assembly Bill 1X 26, which barred Redevelopment Agencies from engaging in new business and provided for their windup and dissolution. In the last five years, the elimination of the Redevelopment Agencies has resulted in the loss of a crucial resource for the development and preservation of affordable housing. This was the most significant public policy change impacting affordable housing and residential investment. While there are mechanisms whereby certain affordable housing assets are tied to the former Redevelopment Agencies (Successor Agencies) that may be utilized today, these resources are finite and scarce. As such, any land or property necessary to address the needs in the Consolidated Plan would need to be acquired using HUD grant funds or other resources. Discussion Assuming continued level funding of the CDBG programs, the City expects to utilize approximately $5.1 million of CDBG funds and program income during the five-year period beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2025 to achieve the goals of the Strategic Plan. More specifically, it is anticipated that $2 million of this will be spent on affordable housing preservation to ensure low- and moderate-income residents continue to have access to decent housing. Assuming continued level funding of the CDBG program, the City expects to spend approximately $2.2 million on community development, public facilities and infrastructure improvements that promote a suitable living environment. Lastly, approximately $1 million are anticipated to be invested in public services for low- and moderate-income residents between July 2020 and June 2025. City of Rancho Cucamonga -28- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 657 Annual Goals and Objectives AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives Goals Summary Information Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator Order Year Year Area Fair Housing Affordable Ensure equal access 1 Services 2021 2022 Housing Citywide to housing $20,000 Other: 375 people opportunities Citywide& Provide public Non-Housing Public service activities other 2 Public Services 2021 2022 Community L/M Census services for low-and Tract Block moderate-income $158,217 than low/mod income housing Development benefit: 1,000 people Group residents Affordable Housing Affordable Preserve the supply of Homeowner housing 3 Preservation 2021 2022 Housing Citywide affordable housing $437,000 rehabilitation: 25 housing units Improve public Public Facilities and Non-Housing facilities and Public facility or infrastructure 4 Infrastructure 2021 2022 Community Citywide infrastructure $248,607 activity other than low/mod Improvements Development income housing benefit: 16,330 Address material people barriers to accessibility 5 Program Planning 2021 2022 Other Citywide All $190,956 Other: 1 and Administration Table 7—Goals Summary City of Rancho Cucamonga -20- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 658 Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Fair Housing Services Goal Affirmatively further fair housing choice through the provision of fair housing education, Description counseling, anti-discrimination and landlord-tenant mediation services. 2 Goal Name Public Services Goal Provide public services for low- and moderate-income residents including, but not Description limited to, those concerned with health, fitness, nutrition, education, transportation and recreation for children, youth and families living in Rancho Cucamonga. Additionally, services for special needs populations such as senior services, support for those experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless, as well as victims of domestic violence. 3 Goal Name Affordable Housing Preservation Goal Preserve the quality of existing affordable housing stock occupied by low- and Description moderate-income households through housing rehabilitation activities. 4 Goal Name Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements Goal Improve City of Rancho Cucamonga public facilities and infrastructure to benefit low- Description and moderate-income people or those presumed under HUD regulations to be low-and moderate-income such as elderly people and disabled adults as well as residents of low- and moderate-income housing. This strategy includes the improvement of sidewalks and wheelchair ramps to address materials barriers to accessibility. 5 Goal Name Program Planning and Administration Goal CDBG program planning and administration. Description City of Rancho Cucamonga -30- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 659 AP-35 Projects — 91.22O(d) Introduction To address the high priority needs identified in the Strategic Plan to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will invest CDBG funds in projects that provide fair housing services, provide public services to low- and moderate-income residents, preserve affordable housing and improve the City's public facilities and infrastructure. Together, these projects will address the housing, community and economic development needs of Rancho Cucamonga residents-particularly those residents residing in the low- and moderate-income areas. Projects Project 1 Fair Housing Services 2 Public Services 3 Affordable Housing Preservation 4 Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements 5 CDBG Administration Table 8-Project Information Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs Based on the Strategic Plan, the City is allocating 100 percent of its CDBG funds (excluding CDBG administration) for program year 2021-2022 projects and activities that benefit low- and moderate-income people. Due to the nature of the projects and activities to be undertaken, investments in projects concerning public services may be limited to the CDBG low- and moderate-income areas while other projects and activities benefit low- and moderate-income limited clientele and are available citywide. The primary obstacles to meeting the underserved needs of low- and moderate-income people include lack of funding from federal, state and other local sources, the high cost of housing that is not affordable to low- income people and the lack of availability of home improvement financing in the private lending industry. To address these obstacles, the City is investing CDBG funds through the 2021-2022 Action Plan in projects that provide loans to low- and moderate-income homeowners for home improvements, provide public services to low- and moderate-income residents, and improve public facilities and infrastructure. City of Rancho Cucamonga -31- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 660 AP-38 Project Summary Project Summary Information 1 Project Name Fair Housing Services Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Fair Housing Services Needs Addressed Ensure equal access to housing opportunities Funding CDBG: $20,000 Description Affirmatively further fair housing choice through the provision of fair housing education, counseling, anti-discrimination, and landlord-tenant mediation services. Target Date 6/30/2022 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit Approximately 375 people will benefit from this activity from the proposed activities Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board: Fair Housing Services (375 people) - $20,000 2 Project Name Public Services Target Area Citywide & L/M Census Tract Block Groups Goals Supported Public Services Needs Addressed Provide public services for low- and moderate-income residents Funding CDBG: $158,217 Description Provide public services for low- and moderate-income residents including senior citizens, families and youth including but not limited to those concerned with food, essential services, transportation, health and domestic violence services. Target Date 6/30/2022 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit Approximately 1,000 people will benefit from this activity. from the proposed activities Location Description Citywide & L/M Census Tract Block Groups City of Rancho Cucamonga -32- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 661 Planned Activities Foothill Family Shelter: 120-Day Stepping Stones Program provides short-term housing and supportive services for homeless individuals (85 people) - $15,000 SOVA: Food Security and Family Stabilization Program provides emergency food and supportive services to residents (275 people) - $15,000 House of Ruth: Domestic Violence Services and Prevention Program (105 people) - $10,000 Family Service Association: Senior Nutrition Program (500 people) - $15,000 YMCA: Senior Transportation (90 people) - $20,000 Northtown Housing Community Development: Senior Food Bank (250 people) - $16,500 Northtown Housing Community Development: Kids School Meals (30 people) - $8,617 CMO: Farmer's Market Program (80 people) -$17,000 CMO: Cocinando con Amigos Saludables y Alegres (CASA) or the Cooking with Healthy and Happy Friends Program provides bilingual cooking and nutrition classes (150 people) - $12,000 CSD: Jane Penny LINK for Seniors Program provides services for ill, isolated, and homebound seniors (25 people) - $4,100 CSD: Recreation, Health, and Wellness Activities Program provides access to a variety of recreation and wellness programs (75 people) - $10,000 PW: Graffiti Removal Program - $15,000 3 Project Name Affordable Housing Preservation Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Affordable Housing Preservation Needs Addressed Preserve the supply of affordable housing Funding CDBG: $437,000 Description The City has an existing Housing Rehabilitation Program geared towards the preservation of the quality of existing affordable housing stock occupied by low- and moderate-income households. Target Date 6/30/2022 City of Rancho Cucamonga -33- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 662 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit Approximately 25 housing units will be rehabilitated resulting in 25 low- and moderate-income households benefiting from the proposed activity from the proposed activities Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Housing Rehabilitation Program (25 housing units/20 households) - $375,000 Housing Rehabilitation Administration -$62,000 4 Project Name Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements Needs Addressed Improve public facilities and infrastructure; Address material barriers to accessibility Funding CDBG: $248,607 Description Improve City of Rancho Cucamonga sidewalks and wheelchair ramps to benefit the elderly and disabled adult residents. Target Date 6/30/2022 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit Approximately 16,333 elderly and disabled adults will benefit from this activity. from the proposed activities Location Description Citywide Planned Activities PW: Sidewalk Grinding and Wheelchair Ramps (16,333) -$45,700 ED: TBD - $202,907 5 Project Name Program Planning and Administration Target Area Citywide Goals Supported All Needs Addressed All Funding CDBG: $190,956 Description Overall administration of the CDBG program which includes preparation and submission of the Annual Action Plan and the CAPER, IDIS data entry, provision of technical assistance, monitoring of all projects, and overall fiscal management. Target Date 6/30/2022 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit N/A from the proposed activities Location Description Citywide Planned Activities City of Rancho Cucamonga: CDBG Program Administration - $190,956 City of Rancho Cucamonga -34- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 663 AP-50 Geographic Distribution — 91.220(f) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed During the 2021-2022 program year, assistance will be primarily directed to activities that serve low- and moderate-income residents citywide. During the program year, three (3) public service activities in the Action Plan rely on the established low- and moderate-income area. Those are the CDBG-eligible portions of the Graffiti Removal Program, the Farmer's Market Program as well as the CASA, or Cooking with Healthy and Happy Friends project. The low- and moderate-income census tract/block groups are shown on the map included in Figure 26 of Section SP-10 of the Consolidated Plan.According to data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) provided in HUD's eCon Planning Suite, the City is considered an "exception grantee" with an exception percentage of 37.13. This percentage represents the minimum percentage of low- and moderate- income persons that must reside in the service area of an area benefit activity for the activity to be assisted with CDBG funds. Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds Citywide 94.8% CDBG Target Areas 4.2% Table 9-Geographic Distribution Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically For the 2021-2022 program year, the City will invest $1,054,780 of CDBG funds that will benefit low- and moderate-income people throughout the City. Of this amount, approximately$44,000, or 4.2 percent, of all resources will be invested in projects that exclusively benefit residents of the L/M Income Census Tract/Block Groups. Due to the nature of the projects and activities to be undertaken, investments in projects and activities such as Graffiti Removal and the Farmer's Market are generally limited to the eligible low- and moderate-income areas, while other projects and activities that benefit low- and moderate-income limited clientele are available citywide. Discussion The City is allocating 100 percent of its non-administrative CDBG funds for program year 2021-2022 to projects and activities that benefit low- and moderate-income people throughout the City of Rancho Cucamonga. City of Rancho Cucamonga -35- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 664 Affordable Housing AP-05 Other Actions — 91.22O(k) Introduction In the implementation of the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan, the City will invest CDBG resources to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs, foster and maintain affordable housing, reduce lead-based paint hazards, reduce the number of poverty-level families, develop institutional structure, and enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies. Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The primary obstacles to meeting the underserved needs of low- and moderate-income people include lack of funding from federal, state and other local sources, and the high cost of housing that is not affordable to low-income people. To address these obstacles, the City is investing CDBG funds through the 2021-2022 Action Plan in projects that provide assistance to low- and moderate-income residents. To address underserved needs, the City is allocating 100 percent of its non-administrative CDBG investments for program year 2021-2022 to projects and activities that benefit low- and moderate-income people or people presumed under HUD regulations to be low- and moderate-income. Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing In the implementation of the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan, the City will invest CDBG funds to preserve and maintain affordable housing through the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Housing Rehabilitation Program that will provide grants and deferred loans to low- and moderate-income owners of single-family housing. Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards The Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X)emphasizes prevention of childhood lead poisoning through housing-based approaches. To reduce lead-based paint hazards, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Home Improvement Program will conduct lead-based paint testing and risk assessments for each property assisted that was built prior to January 1, 1978 and will incorporate safe work practices or abatement into the scope of work as required to reduce lead-based paint hazards in accordance with 24 CFR Part 35. Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families The implementation of CDBG activities meeting the goals established in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan- Strategic Plan and this Annual Action Plan will help to reduce the number of poverty-level families by: • Supporting activities that preserve the supply of decent housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income households City of Rancho Cucamonga -30- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 665 • Supporting a continuum of housing and public service programs to prevent and eliminate homelessness • Supporting public services for low- and moderate-income residents In addition to these local efforts, mainstream state and federal resources also contribute to reducing the number of individuals and families in poverty. Federal programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and Head Start provide a pathway out of poverty for families who are ready to pursue employment and educational opportunities. Additionally, in California, the primary programs that assist families in poverty are CaIWORKs, CalFresh (formerly food stamps) and Medi-Cal. Together, these programs provide individuals and families with employment assistance, subsidy for food, medical care, childcare and cash payments to meet basic needs such as housing, nutrition and transportation. Other services are available to assist persons suffering from substance abuse, domestic violence and mental illness. Actions planned to develop institutional structure The institutional delivery system in Rancho Cucamonga is high-functioning and collaborative—particularly the relationship between local government and the nonprofit sector comprised of a network of capable non- profit organizations that are delivering a full range of services to residents. Strong City departments anchor the administration of HUD grant programs and the housing, community and economic development activities that are implemented by the City support and enhance this existing institutional structure. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will collaborate with affordable housing developers and nonprofit agencies receiving CDBG funds through the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan to ensure that the needs of low- and moderate-income residents are met as envisioned within the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan - Strategic Plan. Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies To enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies, the City will continue consulting with and inviting the participation of a wide variety of agencies and organizations involved in the delivery of housing and supportive services to low- and moderate-income residents in Rancho Cucamonga. Discussion In the implementation of the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan, the City will invest CDBG resources to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs, foster and maintain affordable housing, reduce lead-based paint hazards, reduce the number of poverty-level families, develop institutional structure and enhance coordination between public and private social service agencies. City of Rancho Cucamonga -37- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 666 Program Specific Requirements AP-90 Program Specific Requirements — 91.220(I)(1,2,4) Introduction In the implementation of programs and activities under the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will follow all HUD regulations concerning the use of program income, forms of investment, overall low- and moderate-income benefit for the CDBG program. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(I)(1) Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out. 1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 0 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan. 0 3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0 4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan 0 5. The amount of income from float-funded activities 0 Total Program Income: 0 Other CDBG Requirements 1. The amount of urgent need activities 0 2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income. Overall Benefit -A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds 100.00% is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. City of Rancho Cucamonga -38- 2021 Annual Action Plan Page 667 Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG ) Program Draft 2021 -2022 Annual Action Plan Public Hearing May 5 , 2021 TOPICS - E M M --I• Background • Resources 6 • Action Plan 0000 RANCHO • Recommendation CUCAMONGA All-America City NATIONAL CIVIC LEACUP-, �r 2o2o BACKGROUND The Community Development Block ENToF Grant ( CDBG ) Program is °¢P II II N°C6 z administered by the U . S . Q * IIIIIIII Department of Housing and Urban e Development ( HUD) . 9eA" °E\J ' ° HUD provides the annual grant on a formula basis to Cities like Rancho Building Better Neighborhoods RANCHO Cucamonga to carry out eligible CUCAMONGA housing , community and economic All-America development activities . NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUI__, 2 o 2 o AAMIL 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Fair Housing Services 2020-2021 Action Pla 2 021 -2022 Action Plan Public Facilities 2020-2024 and Infrastructure Consolidated Public Services Improvements Plan 2022-2023 Action Plan 2023-2024 Action Plan ANCHO Affordable Housing Preservation CUCAMONGA rj 2024-2025 Action Plan NATIONAL CIVIC LFAGUE All-America Ciq 20V20 RESOURCES :8 Fair Housing Services ($20, 000) •,�j�j� Public Services ($ 158,217) CIDBG Grant $ 17054, 780 Affordable Housing Preservation ($437,000) RANCHO CUCAMONGA Public Facilities and Infrastructure kslftd � Improvements ($248,607) All-America City NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUE 1 I 0 2 0 2 0 ACTION PLAN OVERVIEW Administration ■Administration ■Public Services Capital Public Services ■Capital Improvements Improvements RANCHO CUCAMONGA All-America city NATIONAL CIVIC LEACUI-- 2 0 T 2 0 CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE NOFA • Written public notice • Direct emails to non-profit organizations • • Applicant technical assistance • Received 14 applications • 9 service providers Applications • 1 Fair Housing application (mandatory) Received • Panelists: 4 City staff RANCHO • Reviewed based on eligibility, need, organizational capacity, funding amount requested and C U CAMO N GA Eligibility proposed accomplishments bikil Reviewf__�_ All-America city NATIONAL CIVIC LEAC UP- 20 20 PROPOSED CDBG ACTIVITIES - ' $210,956.00 • City of Rancho Cucamonga: CDBG Program Administration ($190,956.00) • Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board: Fair Housing Services ($20,000.00) — 375 people $ 15 8,217.00 • City of Rancho Cucamonga: Farmer's Market ($17,000.00) — 80 people • City of Rancho Cucamonga: CASA ($12,000.00) — 150 people • City of Rancho Cucamonga: Jane Penny LINK ($4, 100.00) — 65 people • City of Rancho Cucamonga: Scholarship Assistance Program ($10,000.00) — 100 people • City of Rancho Cucamonga: Graffiti Removal ($15,000.00) — 7,000 people in low-mod area • YMCA: Senior Transportation ($20,000) — 90 seniors • House of Ruth: Domestic Violence Services and Protection ($10,000.00) — 105 people • Family Service Association: Senior Nutrition ($15,000.00) — 527 people • Foothill Family Shelter: 120-Day Stepping Stones ($15,000.00) — 85 people • SOVA: Food Security and Family Stabilization ($15,000.00) — 275 people • Northtown Housing and Community Development: Senior Food Bank ($16,500.00) — 270 people • Northtown Housing and Community Development: Kids School Meals ($8,617.00) — 40 people RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ $685,607 City of Rancho Cucamonga: Housing Rehabilitation Program ($437,000) — 25 housing units NAT�ONAL CIVIC LEACiLJk� All-America RCity -• City of Rancho Cucamonga: Sidewalk Grinding & Wheelchair Ramps ($45,700) — 16,330 people �NAL • City of Rancho Cucamonga: TBD ($202,907) 20V20 0 Wjjj4qU RECOMMENDATION NEXT STEPS RANCHO CUCAMONGA bcdA All-America City NATIONAL CIVIC LEACUP-, 2 o 2 o Conduct a public hearing to receive comments on the draft 2021 -2022 Action Plan for the use of CDBG funds Approve the 2021 -2022 Action Plan and authorize the submittal of the plan and any necessary documents to HUD RANCHOSubmit approved Action Plans to HUD before May 1CUC , ` ' 021 , deadline NATIONAL CIVIC LEACUP-, All-America M 2 0 2 0