Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/09/01 - Regular Agenda PacketMayor L. Dennis Michael Mayor Pro Tem Lynne B. Kennedy Members of the City Council: Ryan A. Hutchison Kristine D. Scott Sam Spagnolo CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 1, 2021 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730  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 909­774­2023. Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV­3). CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.   TRI­COMMUNITIES ROOM  ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael                         Mayor Pro Tem 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), TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932, RANCHO CUCAMONGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT GROUP, RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274, FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES AND FIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES GROUP – (CITY/FIRE) 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: PEPE’S INC. V. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5:20CV02506JGBSP – (CITY) D4.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12467 BASE LINE 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) D5.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ­ ANTICIPATED LITIGATION; SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9: 1 CASE; THE CITY HAS RECEIVED ONE LETTER FROM ONE ENTITY THREATENING LITIGATION IN CONNECTION WITH A GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT.  THE LETTER IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE. – CITY D6.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF CHERRY AVENUE JUST NORTH OF THE I­15 FREEWAY, IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER DD004461­01­03; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS); REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. – (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. REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL:Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott, and Spagnolo A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA B. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONS B1.Presentation of Certificates of Recognition Presented to John and Brenda Neilon for their Dedication and Commitment to the Community. B2.Presentation of Certificate of Recognition Recognizing Sheriff’s Services Specialist Gloria Huerta for 16 Years of Service with the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (Promoted to Public Information Officer for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department). B3.Presentation of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the City’s 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 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 without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion. Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion with the City Council consent calendar. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1.Consideration of Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meetings of July 7, 2021. D2.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi­Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $1,861,997.35 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (No Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $4,109,922.24 Dated August 09, 2021 Through August 22, 2021. (CITY/FIRE) D3.Consideration to Approve the Use of a Cooperative Contract Through Sourcewell Awarded to Genuine Parts Company DBA Napa Auto Parts to Furnish Aftermarket Vehicle Parts and Supplies, Equipment, Products, or Services for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2021/2022, and Authorize the Use of Future Renewals as Awarded Through Sourcewell, Funded by Various Citywide Account Numbers in Accordance with the Adopted Fiscal Year Budgets. (CITY/FIRE) D4.Consideration to Award a Contract to AMG & Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $16,389,050, Plus a Project Contingency of $945,220, and Authorization of an Appropriation in the Amount of $2,834,270 for the Design­Build of Fire Station 178. (CITY/FIRE) D5.Consideration of the Purchase of Electrical Parts in an Amount Not to Exceed $115,000. (CITY/FIRE) D6.Consideration of Amendment No. 6 to Contract CO 17­143 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Park Mowing and Facility Landscape Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $652,110 (City) and $73,880 (Fire). (CITY/FIRE) D7.Consideration of a Resolution Waiving the Collection of Certain Inspection, Permit, and Special Services Fees for Fiscal Year 2021­22. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2021­027) (FIRE) D8.Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $19,220 from the Municipal Utility Fund (Fund 705) for the Fire Station 3 ­ SCE Exit to RCMU Project. (CITY) D9.Consideration to Continue the Existing Local Emergency Due to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID­19) Pandemic. (CITY) D10.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting (CO# 19­196) for Development Code Consulting Services in the Amount of $155,630 and Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $155,630 from the Community Development Technical Services Fund. (CITY) D11.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020­030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for LMD 4R Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $486,890. (CITY) D12.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020­029 with Landscape West Management Services, Inc. for LMD 2 Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,200,000. (CITY) D13.Consideration of Amendment No. 3 to Contract CO 18­030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance of LMDs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 Parkways, Paseos, and Medians in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,009,780. (CITY) D14.Consideration of Amendment No. 4 to Contract CO 16­262 with BrightView Landscape Services for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for PD­85 Parks in an Amount Not to Exceed $266,990. (CITY) D15.Consideration of Amendment 4 to Contract CO 17­140 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance on Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard Medians in an Amount Not to Exceed $266,470. (CITY) D16.Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 17­142 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance on General Fund and LMD 3B Parkways in an Amount Not to Exceed $875,680. (CITY) D17.Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 16­148 with BrightView Landscape Services for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for Landscape Maintenance District 1 Parks in an Amount Not to Exceed $294,150. (CITY) D18.Consideration of Amendment No. 11 to Contract CO 2012­009 with BrightView Landscape Services for Maintenance of Parkway, Paseo, and Median Landscapes within Landscape Maintenance Districts 1 and 5 in an Amount Not to Exceed $273,870. (CITY) D19.Consideration of a Contract with Alfaro Communication Construction, Inc., in an Amount of $222,780 Plus 10% Contingency, Issuance of a Purchase Order to Onward Engineering for On­ Call Construction Inspection Services, and Appropriations from the MSRC Air Pollution Reduction and AB2766 Air Quality Improvement Funds for the EV Chargers at Various Locations Project. (CITY) D20.Consideration of Approval and Execution of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Chris Hyun for Property Generally Located on the Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue. (CITY) D21.Consideration to Accept Animal Care & Adoption Center ­ Roof Maintenance & Repair Project as Complete, file a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Bonds for Contract No. 2021­078. (CITY) D22.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Grant Application for the Rubberized Pavement Program from CalRecycle. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­094) (CITY) D23.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Attestation of Veracity for the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and Power Content Label. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­095) (CITY) D24.Consideration of a Resolution Rescinding Resolution 2021­084 Approving SUBTPM20164 and Approving a Revised Resolution, and Conditions, which Replaces and Supersedes Resolution 2021­084. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­093) (CITY) E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) ­ SECOND READING/ADOPTION F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) ­ CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1.Consideration of Resolution Nos. 2021­096 and 2021­097 and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance Nos. 983, 984 and 985, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending, 1) The 2010 General Plan to Amend the Land Use Element to Add Three New Zoning Designations Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, and Redesignate 62 Parcels from Their Existing Land Use Designations to One of the New Land Use Designations. (DRC2021­ 00281), 2) Title 17 (Development Code) of the Municipal Code to Establish Three New Zoning Districts Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, Establish Development Standards and Permitted Uses for Each New Zoning District, and Remove 8 Parcels from the Haven Avenue Overlay and 1 Parcel from the Industrial Commercial Overlay. (DRC2021­ 00282), 3) A Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone 41 of the 62 Parcels Within the City to One of the Three New Zoning Districts. (DRC2021­00283), 4) An Amendment to the Terra Vista Planned Community to Rezone 13 of the 62 Parcels to the New Urban Corridor Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Corridor Zoning District. (DRC2021­00284), 5) An Amendment to the Victoria Planned Community to Rezone 6 of the 62 Parcels Within the Specific Plan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021­00285), and 6) An Amendment to the Town Square Master Plan to Rezone 2 of the 62 Parcels Within the Master Plan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021­ 00286). An Addendum to the 2010 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) Has Been Prepared for This Project. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2021­096 & 2021­097) (ORDINANCE NOS. 983, 984 & 985) (CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1.COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) I2.INTER​AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least seventy­two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California; 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91739; 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) 477­2700. 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 “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.” Page 1 MayorL. Dennis MichaelMayor Pro TemLynne B. KennedyMembers of the CityCouncil:Ryan A. HutchisonKristine D. ScottSam Spagnolo CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAREGULAR MEETING AGENDASeptember 1, 202110500 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCILHOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY­ SUCCESSOR AGENCY – PUBLICFINANCE AUTHORITYCLOSED 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 CouncilChambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive.  It Is the Intent to conclude the meeting by 10:00 p.m. unlessextended by the concurrence of the City Council.  Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can befound at www.cityofrc.us or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 909­774­2023.Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV­3).CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.  TRI­COMMUNITIES ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael                        Mayor Pro Tem 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 ANNOUNCEMENTSD. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSIOND1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCESDIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONSWITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (RCCEA), TEAMSTERSLOCAL 1932, RANCHO CUCAMONGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT GROUP, RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274, FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES AND FIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES GROUP – (CITY/FIRE) 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: PEPE’S INC. V. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5:20CV02506JGBSP – (CITY) D4.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12467 BASE LINE 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) D5.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ­ ANTICIPATED LITIGATION; SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9: 1 CASE; THE CITY HAS RECEIVED ONE LETTER FROM ONE ENTITY THREATENING LITIGATION IN CONNECTION WITH A GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT.  THE LETTER IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE. – CITY D6.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF CHERRY AVENUE JUST NORTH OF THE I­15 FREEWAY, IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER DD004461­01­03; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS); REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. – (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. REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL:Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott, and Spagnolo A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA B. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONS B1.Presentation of Certificates of Recognition Presented to John and Brenda Neilon for their Dedication and Commitment to the Community. B2.Presentation of Certificate of Recognition Recognizing Sheriff’s Services Specialist Gloria Huerta for 16 Years of Service with the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (Promoted to Public Information Officer for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department). B3.Presentation of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the City’s 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 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 without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion. Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion with the City Council consent calendar. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1.Consideration of Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meetings of July 7, 2021. D2.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi­Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $1,861,997.35 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (No Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $4,109,922.24 Dated August 09, 2021 Through August 22, 2021. (CITY/FIRE) D3.Consideration to Approve the Use of a Cooperative Contract Through Sourcewell Awarded to Genuine Parts Company DBA Napa Auto Parts to Furnish Aftermarket Vehicle Parts and Supplies, Equipment, Products, or Services for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2021/2022, and Authorize the Use of Future Renewals as Awarded Through Sourcewell, Funded by Various Citywide Account Numbers in Accordance with the Adopted Fiscal Year Budgets. (CITY/FIRE) D4.Consideration to Award a Contract to AMG & Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $16,389,050, Plus a Project Contingency of $945,220, and Authorization of an Appropriation in the Amount of $2,834,270 for the Design­Build of Fire Station 178. (CITY/FIRE) D5.Consideration of the Purchase of Electrical Parts in an Amount Not to Exceed $115,000. (CITY/FIRE) D6.Consideration of Amendment No. 6 to Contract CO 17­143 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Park Mowing and Facility Landscape Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $652,110 (City) and $73,880 (Fire). (CITY/FIRE) D7.Consideration of a Resolution Waiving the Collection of Certain Inspection, Permit, and Special Services Fees for Fiscal Year 2021­22. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2021­027) (FIRE) D8.Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $19,220 from the Municipal Utility Fund (Fund 705) for the Fire Station 3 ­ SCE Exit to RCMU Project. (CITY) D9.Consideration to Continue the Existing Local Emergency Due to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID­19) Pandemic. (CITY) D10.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting (CO# 19­196) for Development Code Consulting Services in the Amount of $155,630 and Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $155,630 from the Community Development Technical Services Fund. (CITY) D11.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020­030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for LMD 4R Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $486,890. (CITY) D12.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020­029 with Landscape West Management Services, Inc. for LMD 2 Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,200,000. (CITY) D13.Consideration of Amendment No. 3 to Contract CO 18­030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance of LMDs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 Parkways, Paseos, and Medians in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,009,780. (CITY) D14.Consideration of Amendment No. 4 to Contract CO 16­262 with BrightView Landscape Services for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for PD­85 Parks in an Amount Not to Exceed $266,990. (CITY) D15.Consideration of Amendment 4 to Contract CO 17­140 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance on Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard Medians in an Amount Not to Exceed $266,470. (CITY) D16.Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 17­142 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance on General Fund and LMD 3B Parkways in an Amount Not to Exceed $875,680. (CITY) D17.Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 16­148 with BrightView Landscape Services for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for Landscape Maintenance District 1 Parks in an Amount Not to Exceed $294,150. (CITY) D18.Consideration of Amendment No. 11 to Contract CO 2012­009 with BrightView Landscape Services for Maintenance of Parkway, Paseo, and Median Landscapes within Landscape Maintenance Districts 1 and 5 in an Amount Not to Exceed $273,870. (CITY) D19.Consideration of a Contract with Alfaro Communication Construction, Inc., in an Amount of $222,780 Plus 10% Contingency, Issuance of a Purchase Order to Onward Engineering for On­ Call Construction Inspection Services, and Appropriations from the MSRC Air Pollution Reduction and AB2766 Air Quality Improvement Funds for the EV Chargers at Various Locations Project. (CITY) D20.Consideration of Approval and Execution of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Chris Hyun for Property Generally Located on the Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue. (CITY) D21.Consideration to Accept Animal Care & Adoption Center ­ Roof Maintenance & Repair Project as Complete, file a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Bonds for Contract No. 2021­078. (CITY) D22.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Grant Application for the Rubberized Pavement Program from CalRecycle. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­094) (CITY) D23.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Attestation of Veracity for the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and Power Content Label. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­095) (CITY) D24.Consideration of a Resolution Rescinding Resolution 2021­084 Approving SUBTPM20164 and Approving a Revised Resolution, and Conditions, which Replaces and Supersedes Resolution 2021­084. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­093) (CITY) E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) ­ SECOND READING/ADOPTION F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) ­ CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1.Consideration of Resolution Nos. 2021­096 and 2021­097 and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance Nos. 983, 984 and 985, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending, 1) The 2010 General Plan to Amend the Land Use Element to Add Three New Zoning Designations Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, and Redesignate 62 Parcels from Their Existing Land Use Designations to One of the New Land Use Designations. (DRC2021­ 00281), 2) Title 17 (Development Code) of the Municipal Code to Establish Three New Zoning Districts Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, Establish Development Standards and Permitted Uses for Each New Zoning District, and Remove 8 Parcels from the Haven Avenue Overlay and 1 Parcel from the Industrial Commercial Overlay. (DRC2021­ 00282), 3) A Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone 41 of the 62 Parcels Within the City to One of the Three New Zoning Districts. (DRC2021­00283), 4) An Amendment to the Terra Vista Planned Community to Rezone 13 of the 62 Parcels to the New Urban Corridor Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Corridor Zoning District. (DRC2021­00284), 5) An Amendment to the Victoria Planned Community to Rezone 6 of the 62 Parcels Within the Specific Plan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021­00285), and 6) An Amendment to the Town Square Master Plan to Rezone 2 of the 62 Parcels Within the Master Plan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021­ 00286). An Addendum to the 2010 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) Has Been Prepared for This Project. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2021­096 & 2021­097) (ORDINANCE NOS. 983, 984 & 985) (CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1.COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) I2.INTER​AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least seventy­two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California; 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91739; 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) 477­2700. 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 “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.” Page 2 MayorL. Dennis MichaelMayor Pro TemLynne B. KennedyMembers of the CityCouncil:Ryan A. HutchisonKristine D. ScottSam Spagnolo CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAREGULAR MEETING AGENDASeptember 1, 202110500 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCILHOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY­ SUCCESSOR AGENCY – PUBLICFINANCE AUTHORITYCLOSED 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 CouncilChambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive.  It Is the Intent to conclude the meeting by 10:00 p.m. unlessextended by the concurrence of the City Council.  Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can befound at www.cityofrc.us or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 909­774­2023.Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV­3).CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.  TRI­COMMUNITIES ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael                        Mayor Pro Tem 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 ANNOUNCEMENTSD. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSIOND1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCESDIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONSWITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (RCCEA), TEAMSTERSLOCAL 1932, RANCHO CUCAMONGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENTGROUP, RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274, FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES ANDFIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES GROUP – (CITY/FIRE)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 OFRANCHO 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: PEPE’S INC. V. CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OFCALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5:20CV02506JGBSP – (CITY)D4.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12467 BASE LINE ROAD IDENTIFIED AS PARCELNUMBERS 1090331030000, 1090331040000, 1089581040000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHNGILLISON, CITY MANAGER REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ANDJOSEPH FILIPPI, JOSEPH FILIPPI WINERY AND VINEYARDS; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS.– (CITY)D5.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ­ ANTICIPATED LITIGATION; SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURETO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9: 1CASE; THE CITY HAS RECEIVED ONE LETTER FROM ONE ENTITY THREATENING LITIGATIONIN CONNECTION WITH A GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT.  THELETTER IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE. – CITYD6.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF CHERRY AVENUEJUST NORTH OF THE I­15 FREEWAY, IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER DD004461­01­03;NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAAND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS); REGARDING PRICEAND TERMS. – (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. REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL:Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott, and Spagnolo A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA B. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONS B1.Presentation of Certificates of Recognition Presented to John and Brenda Neilon for their Dedication and Commitment to the Community. B2.Presentation of Certificate of Recognition Recognizing Sheriff’s Services Specialist Gloria Huerta for 16 Years of Service with the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (Promoted to Public Information Officer for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department). B3.Presentation of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the City’s 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 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 without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion. Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion with the City Council consent calendar. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1.Consideration of Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meetings of July 7, 2021. D2.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi­Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $1,861,997.35 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (No Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $4,109,922.24 Dated August 09, 2021 Through August 22, 2021. (CITY/FIRE) D3.Consideration to Approve the Use of a Cooperative Contract Through Sourcewell Awarded to Genuine Parts Company DBA Napa Auto Parts to Furnish Aftermarket Vehicle Parts and Supplies, Equipment, Products, or Services for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2021/2022, and Authorize the Use of Future Renewals as Awarded Through Sourcewell, Funded by Various Citywide Account Numbers in Accordance with the Adopted Fiscal Year Budgets. (CITY/FIRE) D4.Consideration to Award a Contract to AMG & Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $16,389,050, Plus a Project Contingency of $945,220, and Authorization of an Appropriation in the Amount of $2,834,270 for the Design­Build of Fire Station 178. (CITY/FIRE) D5.Consideration of the Purchase of Electrical Parts in an Amount Not to Exceed $115,000. (CITY/FIRE) D6.Consideration of Amendment No. 6 to Contract CO 17­143 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Park Mowing and Facility Landscape Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $652,110 (City) and $73,880 (Fire). (CITY/FIRE) D7.Consideration of a Resolution Waiving the Collection of Certain Inspection, Permit, and Special Services Fees for Fiscal Year 2021­22. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2021­027) (FIRE) D8.Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $19,220 from the Municipal Utility Fund (Fund 705) for the Fire Station 3 ­ SCE Exit to RCMU Project. (CITY) D9.Consideration to Continue the Existing Local Emergency Due to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID­19) Pandemic. (CITY) D10.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting (CO# 19­196) for Development Code Consulting Services in the Amount of $155,630 and Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $155,630 from the Community Development Technical Services Fund. (CITY) D11.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020­030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for LMD 4R Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $486,890. (CITY) D12.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020­029 with Landscape West Management Services, Inc. for LMD 2 Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,200,000. (CITY) D13.Consideration of Amendment No. 3 to Contract CO 18­030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance of LMDs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 Parkways, Paseos, and Medians in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,009,780. (CITY) D14.Consideration of Amendment No. 4 to Contract CO 16­262 with BrightView Landscape Services for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for PD­85 Parks in an Amount Not to Exceed $266,990. (CITY) D15.Consideration of Amendment 4 to Contract CO 17­140 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance on Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard Medians in an Amount Not to Exceed $266,470. (CITY) D16.Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 17­142 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance on General Fund and LMD 3B Parkways in an Amount Not to Exceed $875,680. (CITY) D17.Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 16­148 with BrightView Landscape Services for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for Landscape Maintenance District 1 Parks in an Amount Not to Exceed $294,150. (CITY) D18.Consideration of Amendment No. 11 to Contract CO 2012­009 with BrightView Landscape Services for Maintenance of Parkway, Paseo, and Median Landscapes within Landscape Maintenance Districts 1 and 5 in an Amount Not to Exceed $273,870. (CITY) D19.Consideration of a Contract with Alfaro Communication Construction, Inc., in an Amount of $222,780 Plus 10% Contingency, Issuance of a Purchase Order to Onward Engineering for On­ Call Construction Inspection Services, and Appropriations from the MSRC Air Pollution Reduction and AB2766 Air Quality Improvement Funds for the EV Chargers at Various Locations Project. (CITY) D20.Consideration of Approval and Execution of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Chris Hyun for Property Generally Located on the Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue. (CITY) D21.Consideration to Accept Animal Care & Adoption Center ­ Roof Maintenance & Repair Project as Complete, file a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Bonds for Contract No. 2021­078. (CITY) D22.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Grant Application for the Rubberized Pavement Program from CalRecycle. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­094) (CITY) D23.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Attestation of Veracity for the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and Power Content Label. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­095) (CITY) D24.Consideration of a Resolution Rescinding Resolution 2021­084 Approving SUBTPM20164 and Approving a Revised Resolution, and Conditions, which Replaces and Supersedes Resolution 2021­084. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­093) (CITY) E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) ­ SECOND READING/ADOPTION F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) ­ CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1.Consideration of Resolution Nos. 2021­096 and 2021­097 and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance Nos. 983, 984 and 985, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending, 1) The 2010 General Plan to Amend the Land Use Element to Add Three New Zoning Designations Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, and Redesignate 62 Parcels from Their Existing Land Use Designations to One of the New Land Use Designations. (DRC2021­ 00281), 2) Title 17 (Development Code) of the Municipal Code to Establish Three New Zoning Districts Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, Establish Development Standards and Permitted Uses for Each New Zoning District, and Remove 8 Parcels from the Haven Avenue Overlay and 1 Parcel from the Industrial Commercial Overlay. (DRC2021­ 00282), 3) A Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone 41 of the 62 Parcels Within the City to One of the Three New Zoning Districts. (DRC2021­00283), 4) An Amendment to the Terra Vista Planned Community to Rezone 13 of the 62 Parcels to the New Urban Corridor Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Corridor Zoning District. (DRC2021­00284), 5) An Amendment to the Victoria Planned Community to Rezone 6 of the 62 Parcels Within the Specific Plan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021­00285), and 6) An Amendment to the Town Square Master Plan to Rezone 2 of the 62 Parcels Within the Master Plan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021­ 00286). An Addendum to the 2010 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) Has Been Prepared for This Project. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2021­096 & 2021­097) (ORDINANCE NOS. 983, 984 & 985) (CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1.COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) I2.INTER​AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least seventy­two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California; 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91739; 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) 477­2700. 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 “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.” Page 3 MayorL. Dennis MichaelMayor Pro TemLynne B. KennedyMembers of the CityCouncil:Ryan A. HutchisonKristine D. ScottSam Spagnolo CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAREGULAR MEETING AGENDASeptember 1, 202110500 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCILHOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY­ SUCCESSOR AGENCY – PUBLICFINANCE AUTHORITYCLOSED 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 CouncilChambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive.  It Is the Intent to conclude the meeting by 10:00 p.m. unlessextended by the concurrence of the City Council.  Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can befound at www.cityofrc.us or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 909­774­2023.Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV­3).CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.  TRI­COMMUNITIES ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael                        Mayor Pro Tem 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 ANNOUNCEMENTSD. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSIOND1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCESDIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONSWITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (RCCEA), TEAMSTERSLOCAL 1932, RANCHO CUCAMONGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENTGROUP, RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274, FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES ANDFIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES GROUP – (CITY/FIRE)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 OFRANCHO 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: PEPE’S INC. V. CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OFCALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5:20CV02506JGBSP – (CITY)D4.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12467 BASE LINE ROAD IDENTIFIED AS PARCELNUMBERS 1090331030000, 1090331040000, 1089581040000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHNGILLISON, CITY MANAGER REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ANDJOSEPH FILIPPI, JOSEPH FILIPPI WINERY AND VINEYARDS; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS.– (CITY)D5.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ­ ANTICIPATED LITIGATION; SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURETO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9: 1CASE; THE CITY HAS RECEIVED ONE LETTER FROM ONE ENTITY THREATENING LITIGATIONIN CONNECTION WITH A GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT.  THELETTER IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE. – CITYD6.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF CHERRY AVENUEJUST NORTH OF THE I­15 FREEWAY, IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER DD004461­01­03;NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAAND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS); REGARDING PRICEAND TERMS. – (CITY)E. RECESS – Closed Session to Recess to the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the CouncilChambers at City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M.COUNCIL CHAMBERSPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEROLL CALL:Mayor MichaelMayor Pro Tem KennedyCouncil Members Hutchison, Scott, and SpagnoloA. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDAB. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONSB1.Presentation of Certificates of Recognition Presented to John and Brenda Neilon for their Dedicationand Commitment to the Community.B2.Presentation of Certificate of Recognition Recognizing Sheriff’s Services Specialist Gloria Huerta for16 Years of Service with the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (Promoted to PublicInformation Officer for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department).B3.Presentation of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from theGovernment Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the City’s 2020 Comprehensive AnnualFinancial Report.C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONSMembers of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, SuccessorAgency, and Public Finance Authority. This is the time and place for the general public to addressthe Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public FinancingAuthority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits theFire 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 ProtectionDistrict, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Councilmay 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 theMayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to beaddressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to themembers 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 anyactivity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of thebusiness portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topiccontained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for thesebusiness items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of theagenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour periodmay 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 without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion. Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion with the City Council consent calendar. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1.Consideration of Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meetings of July 7, 2021. D2.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi­Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $1,861,997.35 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (No Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $4,109,922.24 Dated August 09, 2021 Through August 22, 2021. (CITY/FIRE) D3.Consideration to Approve the Use of a Cooperative Contract Through Sourcewell Awarded to Genuine Parts Company DBA Napa Auto Parts to Furnish Aftermarket Vehicle Parts and Supplies, Equipment, Products, or Services for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2021/2022, and Authorize the Use of Future Renewals as Awarded Through Sourcewell, Funded by Various Citywide Account Numbers in Accordance with the Adopted Fiscal Year Budgets. (CITY/FIRE) D4.Consideration to Award a Contract to AMG & Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $16,389,050, Plus a Project Contingency of $945,220, and Authorization of an Appropriation in the Amount of $2,834,270 for the Design­Build of Fire Station 178. (CITY/FIRE) D5.Consideration of the Purchase of Electrical Parts in an Amount Not to Exceed $115,000. (CITY/FIRE) D6.Consideration of Amendment No. 6 to Contract CO 17­143 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Park Mowing and Facility Landscape Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $652,110 (City) and $73,880 (Fire). (CITY/FIRE) D7.Consideration of a Resolution Waiving the Collection of Certain Inspection, Permit, and Special Services Fees for Fiscal Year 2021­22. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2021­027) (FIRE) D8.Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $19,220 from the Municipal Utility Fund (Fund 705) for the Fire Station 3 ­ SCE Exit to RCMU Project. (CITY) D9.Consideration to Continue the Existing Local Emergency Due to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID­19) Pandemic. (CITY) D10.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting (CO# 19­196) for Development Code Consulting Services in the Amount of $155,630 and Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $155,630 from the Community Development Technical Services Fund. (CITY) D11.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020­030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for LMD 4R Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $486,890. (CITY) D12.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020­029 with Landscape West Management Services, Inc. for LMD 2 Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,200,000. (CITY) D13.Consideration of Amendment No. 3 to Contract CO 18­030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance of LMDs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 Parkways, Paseos, and Medians in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,009,780. (CITY) D14.Consideration of Amendment No. 4 to Contract CO 16­262 with BrightView Landscape Services for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for PD­85 Parks in an Amount Not to Exceed $266,990. (CITY) D15.Consideration of Amendment 4 to Contract CO 17­140 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance on Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard Medians in an Amount Not to Exceed $266,470. (CITY) D16.Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 17­142 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance on General Fund and LMD 3B Parkways in an Amount Not to Exceed $875,680. (CITY) D17.Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 16­148 with BrightView Landscape Services for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for Landscape Maintenance District 1 Parks in an Amount Not to Exceed $294,150. (CITY) D18.Consideration of Amendment No. 11 to Contract CO 2012­009 with BrightView Landscape Services for Maintenance of Parkway, Paseo, and Median Landscapes within Landscape Maintenance Districts 1 and 5 in an Amount Not to Exceed $273,870. (CITY) D19.Consideration of a Contract with Alfaro Communication Construction, Inc., in an Amount of $222,780 Plus 10% Contingency, Issuance of a Purchase Order to Onward Engineering for On­ Call Construction Inspection Services, and Appropriations from the MSRC Air Pollution Reduction and AB2766 Air Quality Improvement Funds for the EV Chargers at Various Locations Project. (CITY) D20.Consideration of Approval and Execution of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Chris Hyun for Property Generally Located on the Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue. (CITY) D21.Consideration to Accept Animal Care & Adoption Center ­ Roof Maintenance & Repair Project as Complete, file a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Bonds for Contract No. 2021­078. (CITY) D22.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Grant Application for the Rubberized Pavement Program from CalRecycle. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­094) (CITY) D23.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Attestation of Veracity for the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and Power Content Label. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­095) (CITY) D24.Consideration of a Resolution Rescinding Resolution 2021­084 Approving SUBTPM20164 and Approving a Revised Resolution, and Conditions, which Replaces and Supersedes Resolution 2021­084. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­093) (CITY) E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) ­ SECOND READING/ADOPTION F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) ­ CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1.Consideration of Resolution Nos. 2021­096 and 2021­097 and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance Nos. 983, 984 and 985, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending, 1) The 2010 General Plan to Amend the Land Use Element to Add Three New Zoning Designations Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, and Redesignate 62 Parcels from Their Existing Land Use Designations to One of the New Land Use Designations. (DRC2021­ 00281), 2) Title 17 (Development Code) of the Municipal Code to Establish Three New Zoning Districts Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, Establish Development Standards and Permitted Uses for Each New Zoning District, and Remove 8 Parcels from the Haven Avenue Overlay and 1 Parcel from the Industrial Commercial Overlay. (DRC2021­ 00282), 3) A Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone 41 of the 62 Parcels Within the City to One of the Three New Zoning Districts. (DRC2021­00283), 4) An Amendment to the Terra Vista Planned Community to Rezone 13 of the 62 Parcels to the New Urban Corridor Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Corridor Zoning District. (DRC2021­00284), 5) An Amendment to the Victoria Planned Community to Rezone 6 of the 62 Parcels Within the Specific Plan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021­00285), and 6) An Amendment to the Town Square Master Plan to Rezone 2 of the 62 Parcels Within the Master Plan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021­ 00286). An Addendum to the 2010 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) Has Been Prepared for This Project. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2021­096 & 2021­097) (ORDINANCE NOS. 983, 984 & 985) (CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1.COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) I2.INTER​AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least seventy­two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California; 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91739; 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) 477­2700. 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 “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.” Page 4 MayorL. Dennis MichaelMayor Pro TemLynne B. KennedyMembers of the CityCouncil:Ryan A. HutchisonKristine D. ScottSam Spagnolo CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAREGULAR MEETING AGENDASeptember 1, 202110500 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCILHOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY­ SUCCESSOR AGENCY – PUBLICFINANCE AUTHORITYCLOSED 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 CouncilChambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive.  It Is the Intent to conclude the meeting by 10:00 p.m. unlessextended by the concurrence of the City Council.  Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can befound at www.cityofrc.us or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 909­774­2023.Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV­3).CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.  TRI­COMMUNITIES ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael                        Mayor Pro Tem 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 ANNOUNCEMENTSD. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSIOND1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCESDIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONSWITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (RCCEA), TEAMSTERSLOCAL 1932, RANCHO CUCAMONGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENTGROUP, RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274, FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES ANDFIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES GROUP – (CITY/FIRE)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 OFRANCHO 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: PEPE’S INC. V. CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OFCALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5:20CV02506JGBSP – (CITY)D4.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12467 BASE LINE ROAD IDENTIFIED AS PARCELNUMBERS 1090331030000, 1090331040000, 1089581040000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHNGILLISON, CITY MANAGER REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ANDJOSEPH FILIPPI, JOSEPH FILIPPI WINERY AND VINEYARDS; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS.– (CITY)D5.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ­ ANTICIPATED LITIGATION; SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURETO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9: 1CASE; THE CITY HAS RECEIVED ONE LETTER FROM ONE ENTITY THREATENING LITIGATIONIN CONNECTION WITH A GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT.  THELETTER IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE. – CITYD6.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF CHERRY AVENUEJUST NORTH OF THE I­15 FREEWAY, IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER DD004461­01­03;NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAAND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS); REGARDING PRICEAND TERMS. – (CITY)E. RECESS – Closed Session to Recess to the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the CouncilChambers at City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M.COUNCIL CHAMBERSPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEROLL CALL:Mayor MichaelMayor Pro Tem KennedyCouncil Members Hutchison, Scott, and SpagnoloA. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDAB. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONSB1.Presentation of Certificates of Recognition Presented to John and Brenda Neilon for their Dedicationand Commitment to the Community.B2.Presentation of Certificate of Recognition Recognizing Sheriff’s Services Specialist Gloria Huerta for16 Years of Service with the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (Promoted to PublicInformation Officer for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department).B3.Presentation of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from theGovernment Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the City’s 2020 Comprehensive AnnualFinancial Report.C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONSMembers of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, SuccessorAgency, and Public Finance Authority. This is the time and place for the general public to addressthe Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public FinancingAuthority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits theFire 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 ProtectionDistrict, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Councilmay 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 theMayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to beaddressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to themembers 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 anyactivity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of thebusiness portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topiccontained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for thesebusiness items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of theagenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour periodmay 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 actedupon without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion.Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, andPublic Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion withthe City Council consent calendar.D. CONSENT CALENDARD1.Consideration of Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meetings of July 7, 2021.D2.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi­Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of$1,861,997.35 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (No Checks Issued toSouthern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $4,109,922.24 Dated August 09,2021 Through August 22, 2021. (CITY/FIRE)D3.Consideration to Approve the Use of a Cooperative Contract Through Sourcewell Awarded toGenuine Parts Company DBA Napa Auto Parts to Furnish Aftermarket Vehicle Parts andSupplies, Equipment, Products, or Services for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2021/2022, andAuthorize the Use of Future Renewals as Awarded Through Sourcewell, Funded by VariousCitywide Account Numbers in Accordance with the Adopted Fiscal Year Budgets. (CITY/FIRE)D4.Consideration to Award a Contract to AMG & Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $16,389,050,Plus a Project Contingency of $945,220, and Authorization of an Appropriation in the Amount of$2,834,270 for the Design­Build of Fire Station 178. (CITY/FIRE)D5.Consideration of the Purchase of Electrical Parts in an Amount Not to Exceed $115,000.(CITY/FIRE)D6.Consideration of Amendment No. 6 to Contract CO 17­143 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. forPark Mowing and Facility Landscape Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $652,110(City) and $73,880 (Fire). (CITY/FIRE)D7.Consideration of a Resolution Waiving the Collection of Certain Inspection, Permit, and SpecialServices Fees for Fiscal Year 2021­22. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2021­027) (FIRE)D8.Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $19,220 from the Municipal Utility Fund(Fund 705) for the Fire Station 3 ­ SCE Exit to RCMU Project. (CITY)D9.Consideration to Continue the Existing Local Emergency Due to the Novel Coronavirus(COVID­19) Pandemic. (CITY)D10.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa WiseConsulting (CO# 19­196) for Development Code Consulting Services in the Amount of$155,630 and Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $155,630 from the Community Development Technical Services Fund. (CITY) D11.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020­030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for LMD 4R Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $486,890. (CITY) D12.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020­029 with Landscape West Management Services, Inc. for LMD 2 Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,200,000. (CITY) D13.Consideration of Amendment No. 3 to Contract CO 18­030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance of LMDs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 Parkways, Paseos, and Medians in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,009,780. (CITY) D14.Consideration of Amendment No. 4 to Contract CO 16­262 with BrightView Landscape Services for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for PD­85 Parks in an Amount Not to Exceed $266,990. (CITY) D15.Consideration of Amendment 4 to Contract CO 17­140 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance on Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard Medians in an Amount Not to Exceed $266,470. (CITY) D16.Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 17­142 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance on General Fund and LMD 3B Parkways in an Amount Not to Exceed $875,680. (CITY) D17.Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 16­148 with BrightView Landscape Services for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for Landscape Maintenance District 1 Parks in an Amount Not to Exceed $294,150. (CITY) D18.Consideration of Amendment No. 11 to Contract CO 2012­009 with BrightView Landscape Services for Maintenance of Parkway, Paseo, and Median Landscapes within Landscape Maintenance Districts 1 and 5 in an Amount Not to Exceed $273,870. (CITY) D19.Consideration of a Contract with Alfaro Communication Construction, Inc., in an Amount of $222,780 Plus 10% Contingency, Issuance of a Purchase Order to Onward Engineering for On­ Call Construction Inspection Services, and Appropriations from the MSRC Air Pollution Reduction and AB2766 Air Quality Improvement Funds for the EV Chargers at Various Locations Project. (CITY) D20.Consideration of Approval and Execution of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Chris Hyun for Property Generally Located on the Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue. (CITY) D21.Consideration to Accept Animal Care & Adoption Center ­ Roof Maintenance & Repair Project as Complete, file a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Bonds for Contract No. 2021­078. (CITY) D22.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Grant Application for the Rubberized Pavement Program from CalRecycle. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­094) (CITY) D23.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Attestation of Veracity for the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and Power Content Label. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­095) (CITY) D24.Consideration of a Resolution Rescinding Resolution 2021­084 Approving SUBTPM20164 and Approving a Revised Resolution, and Conditions, which Replaces and Supersedes Resolution 2021­084. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­093) (CITY) E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) ­ SECOND READING/ADOPTION F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) ­ CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1.Consideration of Resolution Nos. 2021­096 and 2021­097 and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance Nos. 983, 984 and 985, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending, 1) The 2010 General Plan to Amend the Land Use Element to Add Three New Zoning Designations Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, and Redesignate 62 Parcels from Their Existing Land Use Designations to One of the New Land Use Designations. (DRC2021­ 00281), 2) Title 17 (Development Code) of the Municipal Code to Establish Three New Zoning Districts Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, Establish Development Standards and Permitted Uses for Each New Zoning District, and Remove 8 Parcels from the Haven Avenue Overlay and 1 Parcel from the Industrial Commercial Overlay. (DRC2021­ 00282), 3) A Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone 41 of the 62 Parcels Within the City to One of the Three New Zoning Districts. (DRC2021­00283), 4) An Amendment to the Terra Vista Planned Community to Rezone 13 of the 62 Parcels to the New Urban Corridor Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Corridor Zoning District. (DRC2021­00284), 5) An Amendment to the Victoria Planned Community to Rezone 6 of the 62 Parcels Within the Specific Plan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021­00285), and 6) An Amendment to the Town Square Master Plan to Rezone 2 of the 62 Parcels Within the Master Plan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021­ 00286). An Addendum to the 2010 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) Has Been Prepared for This Project. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2021­096 & 2021­097) (ORDINANCE NOS. 983, 984 & 985) (CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1.COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) I2.INTER​AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least seventy­two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California; 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91739; 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) 477­2700. 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 “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.” Page 5 MayorL. Dennis MichaelMayor Pro TemLynne B. KennedyMembers of the CityCouncil:Ryan A. HutchisonKristine D. ScottSam Spagnolo CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAREGULAR MEETING AGENDASeptember 1, 202110500 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCILHOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY­ SUCCESSOR AGENCY – PUBLICFINANCE AUTHORITYCLOSED 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 CouncilChambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive.  It Is the Intent to conclude the meeting by 10:00 p.m. unlessextended by the concurrence of the City Council.  Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can befound at www.cityofrc.us or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 909­774­2023.Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV­3).CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.  TRI­COMMUNITIES ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael                        Mayor Pro Tem 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 ANNOUNCEMENTSD. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSIOND1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCESDIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONSWITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (RCCEA), TEAMSTERSLOCAL 1932, RANCHO CUCAMONGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENTGROUP, RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274, FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES ANDFIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES GROUP – (CITY/FIRE)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 OFRANCHO 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: PEPE’S INC. V. CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OFCALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5:20CV02506JGBSP – (CITY)D4.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12467 BASE LINE ROAD IDENTIFIED AS PARCELNUMBERS 1090331030000, 1090331040000, 1089581040000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHNGILLISON, CITY MANAGER REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ANDJOSEPH FILIPPI, JOSEPH FILIPPI WINERY AND VINEYARDS; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS.– (CITY)D5.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ­ ANTICIPATED LITIGATION; SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURETO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9: 1CASE; THE CITY HAS RECEIVED ONE LETTER FROM ONE ENTITY THREATENING LITIGATIONIN CONNECTION WITH A GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT.  THELETTER IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE. – CITYD6.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF CHERRY AVENUEJUST NORTH OF THE I­15 FREEWAY, IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER DD004461­01­03;NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAAND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS); REGARDING PRICEAND TERMS. – (CITY)E. RECESS – Closed Session to Recess to the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the CouncilChambers at City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M.COUNCIL CHAMBERSPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEROLL CALL:Mayor MichaelMayor Pro Tem KennedyCouncil Members Hutchison, Scott, and SpagnoloA. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDAB. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONSB1.Presentation of Certificates of Recognition Presented to John and Brenda Neilon for their Dedicationand Commitment to the Community.B2.Presentation of Certificate of Recognition Recognizing Sheriff’s Services Specialist Gloria Huerta for16 Years of Service with the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (Promoted to PublicInformation Officer for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department).B3.Presentation of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from theGovernment Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the City’s 2020 Comprehensive AnnualFinancial Report.C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONSMembers of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, SuccessorAgency, and Public Finance Authority. This is the time and place for the general public to addressthe Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public FinancingAuthority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits theFire 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 ProtectionDistrict, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Councilmay 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 theMayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to beaddressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to themembers 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 anyactivity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of thebusiness portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topiccontained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for thesebusiness items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of theagenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour periodmay 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 actedupon without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion.Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, andPublic Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion withthe City Council consent calendar.D. CONSENT CALENDARD1.Consideration of Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meetings of July 7, 2021.D2.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi­Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of$1,861,997.35 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (No Checks Issued toSouthern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $4,109,922.24 Dated August 09,2021 Through August 22, 2021. (CITY/FIRE)D3.Consideration to Approve the Use of a Cooperative Contract Through Sourcewell Awarded toGenuine Parts Company DBA Napa Auto Parts to Furnish Aftermarket Vehicle Parts andSupplies, Equipment, Products, or Services for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2021/2022, andAuthorize the Use of Future Renewals as Awarded Through Sourcewell, Funded by VariousCitywide Account Numbers in Accordance with the Adopted Fiscal Year Budgets. (CITY/FIRE)D4.Consideration to Award a Contract to AMG & Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $16,389,050,Plus a Project Contingency of $945,220, and Authorization of an Appropriation in the Amount of$2,834,270 for the Design­Build of Fire Station 178. (CITY/FIRE)D5.Consideration of the Purchase of Electrical Parts in an Amount Not to Exceed $115,000.(CITY/FIRE)D6.Consideration of Amendment No. 6 to Contract CO 17­143 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. forPark Mowing and Facility Landscape Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $652,110(City) and $73,880 (Fire). (CITY/FIRE)D7.Consideration of a Resolution Waiving the Collection of Certain Inspection, Permit, and SpecialServices Fees for Fiscal Year 2021­22. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2021­027) (FIRE)D8.Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $19,220 from the Municipal Utility Fund(Fund 705) for the Fire Station 3 ­ SCE Exit to RCMU Project. (CITY)D9.Consideration to Continue the Existing Local Emergency Due to the Novel Coronavirus(COVID­19) Pandemic. (CITY)D10.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa WiseConsulting (CO# 19­196) for Development Code Consulting Services in the Amount of$155,630 and Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $155,630 from theCommunity Development Technical Services Fund. (CITY)D11.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020­030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc.for LMD 4R Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in anAmount Not to Exceed $486,890. (CITY)D12.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020­029 with Landscape WestManagement Services, Inc. for LMD 2 Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape andIrrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,200,000. (CITY)D13.Consideration of Amendment No. 3 to Contract CO 18­030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. forLandscape and Irrigation Maintenance of LMDs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 Parkways, Paseos, andMedians in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,009,780. (CITY)D14.Consideration of Amendment No. 4 to Contract CO 16­262 with BrightView LandscapeServices for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for PD­85 Parks in an Amount Notto Exceed $266,990. (CITY)D15.Consideration of Amendment 4 to Contract CO 17­140 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. forLandscape and Irrigation Maintenance on Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard Medians in anAmount Not to Exceed $266,470. (CITY)D16.Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 17­142 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. forLandscape and Irrigation Maintenance on General Fund and LMD 3B Parkways in an AmountNot to Exceed $875,680. (CITY)D17.Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 16­148 with BrightView LandscapeServices for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for Landscape Maintenance District1 Parks in an Amount Not to Exceed $294,150. (CITY)D18.Consideration of Amendment No. 11 to Contract CO 2012­009 with BrightView LandscapeServices for Maintenance of Parkway, Paseo, and Median Landscapes within LandscapeMaintenance Districts 1 and 5 in an Amount Not to Exceed $273,870. (CITY)D19.Consideration of a Contract with Alfaro Communication Construction, Inc., in an Amount of$222,780 Plus 10% Contingency, Issuance of a Purchase Order to Onward Engineering for On­Call Construction Inspection Services, and Appropriations from the MSRC Air PollutionReduction and AB2766 Air Quality Improvement Funds for the EV Chargers at VariousLocations Project. (CITY)D20.Consideration of Approval and Execution of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA)Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Chris Hyun for Property Generally Located on theNorthwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue. (CITY)D21.Consideration to Accept Animal Care & Adoption Center ­ Roof Maintenance & Repair Projectas Complete, file a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Bonds for Contract No. 2021­078. (CITY) D22.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Grant Application for the Rubberized Pavement Program from CalRecycle. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­094) (CITY) D23.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Attestation of Veracity for the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and Power Content Label. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­095) (CITY) D24.Consideration of a Resolution Rescinding Resolution 2021­084 Approving SUBTPM20164 and Approving a Revised Resolution, and Conditions, which Replaces and Supersedes Resolution 2021­084. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­093) (CITY) E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) ­ SECOND READING/ADOPTION F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) ­ CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1.Consideration of Resolution Nos. 2021­096 and 2021­097 and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance Nos. 983, 984 and 985, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending, 1) The 2010 General Plan to Amend the Land Use Element to Add Three New Zoning Designations Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, and Redesignate 62 Parcels from Their Existing Land Use Designations to One of the New Land Use Designations. (DRC2021­ 00281), 2) Title 17 (Development Code) of the Municipal Code to Establish Three New Zoning Districts Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, Establish Development Standards and Permitted Uses for Each New Zoning District, and Remove 8 Parcels from the Haven Avenue Overlay and 1 Parcel from the Industrial Commercial Overlay. (DRC2021­ 00282), 3) A Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone 41 of the 62 Parcels Within the City to One of the Three New Zoning Districts. (DRC2021­00283), 4) An Amendment to the Terra Vista Planned Community to Rezone 13 of the 62 Parcels to the New Urban Corridor Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Corridor Zoning District. (DRC2021­00284), 5) An Amendment to the Victoria Planned Community to Rezone 6 of the 62 Parcels Within the Specific Plan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021­00285), and 6) An Amendment to the Town Square Master Plan to Rezone 2 of the 62 Parcels Within the Master Plan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021­ 00286). An Addendum to the 2010 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) Has Been Prepared for This Project. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2021­096 & 2021­097) (ORDINANCE NOS. 983, 984 & 985) (CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1.COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) I2.INTER​AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least seventy­two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California; 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91739; 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) 477­2700. 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 “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.” Page 6 MayorL. Dennis MichaelMayor Pro TemLynne B. KennedyMembers of the CityCouncil:Ryan A. HutchisonKristine D. ScottSam Spagnolo CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAREGULAR MEETING AGENDASeptember 1, 202110500 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCILHOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY­ SUCCESSOR AGENCY – PUBLICFINANCE AUTHORITYCLOSED 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 CouncilChambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive.  It Is the Intent to conclude the meeting by 10:00 p.m. unlessextended by the concurrence of the City Council.  Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can befound at www.cityofrc.us or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 909­774­2023.Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV­3).CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.  TRI­COMMUNITIES ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael                        Mayor Pro Tem 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 ANNOUNCEMENTSD. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSIOND1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCESDIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONSWITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (RCCEA), TEAMSTERSLOCAL 1932, RANCHO CUCAMONGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENTGROUP, RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274, FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES ANDFIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES GROUP – (CITY/FIRE)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 OFRANCHO 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: PEPE’S INC. V. CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OFCALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5:20CV02506JGBSP – (CITY)D4.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12467 BASE LINE ROAD IDENTIFIED AS PARCELNUMBERS 1090331030000, 1090331040000, 1089581040000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHNGILLISON, CITY MANAGER REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ANDJOSEPH FILIPPI, JOSEPH FILIPPI WINERY AND VINEYARDS; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS.– (CITY)D5.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ­ ANTICIPATED LITIGATION; SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURETO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9: 1CASE; THE CITY HAS RECEIVED ONE LETTER FROM ONE ENTITY THREATENING LITIGATIONIN CONNECTION WITH A GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT.  THELETTER IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE. – CITYD6.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF CHERRY AVENUEJUST NORTH OF THE I­15 FREEWAY, IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER DD004461­01­03;NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAAND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS); REGARDING PRICEAND TERMS. – (CITY)E. RECESS – Closed Session to Recess to the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the CouncilChambers at City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M.COUNCIL CHAMBERSPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEROLL CALL:Mayor MichaelMayor Pro Tem KennedyCouncil Members Hutchison, Scott, and SpagnoloA. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDAB. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONSB1.Presentation of Certificates of Recognition Presented to John and Brenda Neilon for their Dedicationand Commitment to the Community.B2.Presentation of Certificate of Recognition Recognizing Sheriff’s Services Specialist Gloria Huerta for16 Years of Service with the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (Promoted to PublicInformation Officer for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department).B3.Presentation of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from theGovernment Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the City’s 2020 Comprehensive AnnualFinancial Report.C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONSMembers of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, SuccessorAgency, and Public Finance Authority. This is the time and place for the general public to addressthe Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public FinancingAuthority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits theFire 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 ProtectionDistrict, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Councilmay 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 theMayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to beaddressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to themembers 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 anyactivity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of thebusiness portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topiccontained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for thesebusiness items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of theagenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour periodmay 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 actedupon without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion.Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, andPublic Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion withthe City Council consent calendar.D. CONSENT CALENDARD1.Consideration of Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meetings of July 7, 2021.D2.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi­Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of$1,861,997.35 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (No Checks Issued toSouthern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $4,109,922.24 Dated August 09,2021 Through August 22, 2021. (CITY/FIRE)D3.Consideration to Approve the Use of a Cooperative Contract Through Sourcewell Awarded toGenuine Parts Company DBA Napa Auto Parts to Furnish Aftermarket Vehicle Parts andSupplies, Equipment, Products, or Services for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2021/2022, andAuthorize the Use of Future Renewals as Awarded Through Sourcewell, Funded by VariousCitywide Account Numbers in Accordance with the Adopted Fiscal Year Budgets. (CITY/FIRE)D4.Consideration to Award a Contract to AMG & Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $16,389,050,Plus a Project Contingency of $945,220, and Authorization of an Appropriation in the Amount of$2,834,270 for the Design­Build of Fire Station 178. (CITY/FIRE)D5.Consideration of the Purchase of Electrical Parts in an Amount Not to Exceed $115,000.(CITY/FIRE)D6.Consideration of Amendment No. 6 to Contract CO 17­143 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. forPark Mowing and Facility Landscape Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $652,110(City) and $73,880 (Fire). (CITY/FIRE)D7.Consideration of a Resolution Waiving the Collection of Certain Inspection, Permit, and SpecialServices Fees for Fiscal Year 2021­22. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2021­027) (FIRE)D8.Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $19,220 from the Municipal Utility Fund(Fund 705) for the Fire Station 3 ­ SCE Exit to RCMU Project. (CITY)D9.Consideration to Continue the Existing Local Emergency Due to the Novel Coronavirus(COVID­19) Pandemic. (CITY)D10.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa WiseConsulting (CO# 19­196) for Development Code Consulting Services in the Amount of$155,630 and Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $155,630 from theCommunity Development Technical Services Fund. (CITY)D11.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020­030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc.for LMD 4R Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in anAmount Not to Exceed $486,890. (CITY)D12.Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020­029 with Landscape WestManagement Services, Inc. for LMD 2 Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape andIrrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,200,000. (CITY)D13.Consideration of Amendment No. 3 to Contract CO 18­030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. forLandscape and Irrigation Maintenance of LMDs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 Parkways, Paseos, andMedians in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,009,780. (CITY)D14.Consideration of Amendment No. 4 to Contract CO 16­262 with BrightView LandscapeServices for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for PD­85 Parks in an Amount Notto Exceed $266,990. (CITY)D15.Consideration of Amendment 4 to Contract CO 17­140 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. forLandscape and Irrigation Maintenance on Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard Medians in anAmount Not to Exceed $266,470. (CITY)D16.Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 17­142 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. forLandscape and Irrigation Maintenance on General Fund and LMD 3B Parkways in an AmountNot to Exceed $875,680. (CITY)D17.Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 16­148 with BrightView LandscapeServices for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for Landscape Maintenance District1 Parks in an Amount Not to Exceed $294,150. (CITY)D18.Consideration of Amendment No. 11 to Contract CO 2012­009 with BrightView LandscapeServices for Maintenance of Parkway, Paseo, and Median Landscapes within LandscapeMaintenance Districts 1 and 5 in an Amount Not to Exceed $273,870. (CITY)D19.Consideration of a Contract with Alfaro Communication Construction, Inc., in an Amount of$222,780 Plus 10% Contingency, Issuance of a Purchase Order to Onward Engineering for On­Call Construction Inspection Services, and Appropriations from the MSRC Air PollutionReduction and AB2766 Air Quality Improvement Funds for the EV Chargers at VariousLocations Project. (CITY)D20.Consideration of Approval and Execution of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA)Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Chris Hyun for Property Generally Located on theNorthwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue. (CITY)D21.Consideration to Accept Animal Care & Adoption Center ­ Roof Maintenance & Repair Projectas Complete, file a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Bonds for Contract No.2021­078. (CITY)D22.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Grant Application for theRubberized Pavement Program from CalRecycle. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­094) (CITY)D23.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Attestation of Veracity for the RanchoCucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and PowerContent Label. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­095) (CITY)D24.Consideration of a Resolution Rescinding Resolution 2021­084 Approving SUBTPM20164and Approving a Revised Resolution, and Conditions, which Replaces and SupersedesResolution 2021­084. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021­093) (CITY)E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) ­ SECOND READING/ADOPTIONF. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S)G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) ­ CITY/FIRE DISTRICTG1.Consideration of Resolution Nos. 2021­096 and 2021­097 and Consideration of First Reading ofOrdinance Nos. 983, 984 and 985, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending, 1)The 2010 General Plan to Amend the Land Use Element to Add Three New Zoning DesignationsKnown as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, and Redesignate 62 Parcelsfrom Their Existing Land Use Designations to One of the New Land Use Designations. (DRC2021­00281), 2) Title 17 (Development Code) of the Municipal Code to Establish Three New ZoningDistricts Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, EstablishDevelopment Standards and Permitted Uses for Each New Zoning District, and Remove 8 Parcelsfrom the Haven Avenue Overlay and 1 Parcel from the Industrial Commercial Overlay. (DRC2021­00282), 3) A Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone 41 of the 62 Parcels Within the City to One of theThree New Zoning Districts. (DRC2021­00283), 4) An Amendment to the Terra Vista PlannedCommunity to Rezone 13 of the 62 Parcels to the New Urban Corridor Zoning Designation andEstablish Development Standards for the Urban Corridor Zoning District. (DRC2021­00284), 5) AnAmendment to the Victoria Planned Community to Rezone 6 of the 62 Parcels Within the SpecificPlan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for theUrban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021­00285), and 6) An Amendment to the Town Square MasterPlan to Rezone 2 of the 62 Parcels Within the Master Plan to the New Urban Center ZoningDesignation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021­00286). An Addendum to the 2010 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2000061027) Has Been Prepared for This Project. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2021­096 & 2021­097)(ORDINANCE NOS. 983, 984 & 985) (CITY)H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S)I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1.COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) I2.INTER​AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least seventy­two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California; 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91739; 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) 477­2700. 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 “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.” Page 7 July 7, 2021 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 1 of 7 July 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, July 7, 2021, in the Tapia Conference Room at the Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Sam Spagnolo , Mayor Pro Tem 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 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) D2. 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 19 04713 – (CITY) D3. 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) D4. 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) Page 8 July 7, 2021 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 2 of 7 D5. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND CIVIC CENTER DRIVE IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER 020833140; AND 020833147; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER AND MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; AND CHRIS HYUN, JRC REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CORP REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY) E. RECESS The closed session recessed at 6:29 p.m. 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 July 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 7:02 p.m. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem 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. City Attorney, James L. Markman, led the Pledge of Allegiance. City Manager Gillison announced that due to COVID-19 restrictions being lifted, all City Council meetings will be open to the public moving forward, including today’s first in-person meeting. He noted that the Public Communications portion of the meeting would be conducted in person with speaker cards as the meeting was open to the public, with many members of the public in attendance. Public testimony would no longer be taken via teleconference. A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA None. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of a Proclamation to Liliana Andriani, Outgoing Chamber of Commerce President and Recognition of Angel Jewelers being Awarded as the 2021 Small Business of Distinction in the 40th Assembly District. Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council presented a Proclamation to Liliana Andriani, Outgoing Chamber of Commerce President and Recognition of Angel Jewelers being Awarded as the 2021 Small Business of Distinction in the 40th Assembly District. Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council expressed their sincere gratitude to Ms. Andriani for her commitment and dedication to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. B2. Presentation of a Certificate of Recognition to Rancho Cucamonga Police Department Deputy Joshua Kelly for Heroically Saving the Life of an Unresponsive 10-day-old Baby. Police Chief, Ernie Perez, shared details of the heroic event and thanked Deputy Joshua Kelly for his service and commitment to the safety of the residents of Rancho Cucamonga. Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council presented a certificate of recognition to Rancho Cucamonga Police Department Deputy Joshua Kelly for heroically saving the life of an unresponsive 10-day-old baby. Page 9 July 7, 2021 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 3 of 7 B3. Presentation on Water Safety and Drowning Prevention. Patty Eickholt, Quality Improvement Nurse and Nuor Shatila, Administrativ e Assistant, presented a PowerPoint providing a water safety and drowning prevention presentation. Together they informed the community of drowning incident statistics, the ABC’s of water safety, recent community engagement efforts and shared information on a new Water Watcher Application available on mobile devices. C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS There were no public communications. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes for the Special Meetings of June 18, 2021 and June 28, 2021. D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Biweekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $1,850,275.32 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers(Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $3,482,652.14 Dated June 07, 2021 Through June 27, 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 $3,743.55 Dated June 07, 2021 Through June 27, 2021. (CITY/FIRE) D4. Consideration to Cancel the Regular Meetings of the Fire Protection District, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council on October 6, 2021. (CITY/ FIRE) D5. Consideration to Accept the Emergency Management Performance Grant Revenue in the Amount of $26,725, Awarded by the California Office of Emergency Services and Administered by the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Office of Emergency Services, Fiscal Year 2020. (CITY/FIRE) D6. Consideration of Amendment No. 7 to Contract CO 16-114 with EMCOR Services/Mesa Energy Systems for Citywide HVAC Maintenance and Repair Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $487,510 (City) and $65,700 (Fire) for FY 2021/2022. (CITY/FIRE) D7. Consideration of Amendment No. 9 to the Professional Services Agreement with Able Building Maintenance (CO13-008) for Window Cleaning Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $78,000 (City) and $5,000 (Fire) for FY 2021/2022. (CITY/FIRE) D8. Approval to Adopt an Annexation Map Showing Assessor Parcel Number 0201-043-55 (Mark Allen Hartwig, Owner) Located at 10175 Snowdrop Road, Which is Proposed to be Annexed Into CFD No. 88­1; and Approval to Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Annex Territory Referred to as Annexation No. 88-21-1 into Community Facilities District No. 88-1, Specifying Services Proposed to be Financed, to Set and Specify the Special Taxes Proposed to be Levied Within the Annexation Territory and Set a Time and Place for a Public Hearing Related to the Annexation. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2021-019) (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2021-020) (FIRE) D9. Consideration of the Purchase of One (1) RT Electric Fire Engine from Rosenbauer Minnesota, LLC in the Amount of $1,296,380. (FIRE) D10. Consideration of Amendment No. 002 to the Professional Services Agreement with Mary McGrath Architects for Conceptual Design Services for the Fire Station 178 Project in the Amount of $44,540; and Authorization to Appropriate $12,130 for the City’s Portion of the Amendment. (CITY/FIRE) Page 10 July 7, 2021 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 4 of 7 D11. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility's Physical Security Plan for 2021. (RESOLUTION 2021-062). (CITY) D12. Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $489,000 from the Law Enforcement Reserve fund for the Purchase of Fixed Position Automated License Plate Reader Cameras to be Installed at Four Intersections. (CITY) D13. Consideration to Continue the Existing Local Emergency Due to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. (CITY) D14. Consideration of Amendment No. 01 to Managed Services Agreement with Advanced Utility Systems (CO18-087) for the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility CIS Infinity Software Billing Platform. (CITY) D15. Consideration of Approval of Resolutions Ordering the Preparation of the Annual Engineer's Re ports to Initiate Proceedings to Levy Annual Assessments; Approving the Preliminary Annual Engineer's Reports; and Declaring the City Council's Intention to Levy Annual Assessments Within Landscape Maintenance District Nos. 1, 2, 3B, 4-R, 5, 6-R, 7, 8, 9, and 10; Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8; and Park and Recreation Improvement District No. PD­85 for Fiscal Year 2021/22; and Setting the Time and Place for a Public Hearing Thereon. (RESOLUTION NO’S. 2021-053, 2021-054, 2021-055, 2021-056, 2021-057, 2021-058, 2021-059, 2021-060 AND 2021-061) (CITY) MOTION: Moved by Council Member Spagnolo, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to approve Consent Calendar Items D1 through D15, with Council Member Scott abstaining from 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) No items. G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM(S) – CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve SUBTPM20164; DRC2020­00138; and DRC2020­00087 – Orbis Real Estate Partners, This Project Consists of a Request to Develop a New Commercial Building with a Service Station and Convenience Store Within the General Industrial (GI) District at the Southwest Corner of Archibald Avenue and 9th Street on Property Addressed 8768 Archibald Avenue; APN: 0209­ 032­35. The P lanning Commission’s Approval of the Project Qualified as a Class 32 Exemption Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. If the City Council Denies the Project, the Project is Exempt under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a Project which is Disapproved by the City. (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Anne McIntosh, Planning Director, who presented a PowerPoint providing the background and overview of the proposed project on 8768 Archibald Avenue. The presentation summarized the applicant’s request including allowing to split Tentative Parcel Map (TPM), Minor Design Review (MDR) construction of new building and various site improvements and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the service station, and convenience store and the City Council’s appeal. Planning Director McIntosh shared areas of ongoing concerns regarding the project including: Service Station and Convenience Store concentration in Southwest Cucamonga, hours of operation, nighttime lighting, potential for crime, limited Healthy food options not meeting expectations of Healthy RC guidelines, on-sale alcohol service at restaurant, insufficient amenities for neighbors and the orientation of the building to the back instead of Archibald. Page 11 July 7, 2021 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 5 of 7 Staff concluded by stating that the proposed project was not the right combination for the location because of the areas of concerns. Staff noted that if the applicant would like additional time to review and respond to new evidence outlined in the staff report, Council could provide that opportunity by continuing the Public Hearing item to the Regular City Council Meeting on July 21, 2021 or the City Council could continue the hearing and consider staff’s recommendation of directing staff to return on August 4, 2021 with resolutions to: deny the CUP for a convenience store, deny the CUP for a service station, deny the MDR for the structure and approve the tentative parcel map. Staff noted the receipt of one (1) letter in opposition to item G1 from Melissa Myers Ferrell. Meeting Minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2021 were distributed as additional material to item G1. Correspondence received and additional material was provided to the City Council. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing. Applicant Jonathan Shardlow, Gresham Savage, representing Orbis Real State Partners, addressed the City Council and spoke on the various 7-Eleven amenities included in the project. Mr. Shardlow noted that the orientation of the building as presented in the project renderings was designed and oriented that way because of input received at community meetings. He spoke on the impacts of the current gas station moratorium and asked the City Council for input on modifications to the project. He concluded by stating that he believes Orbis Real State Partners have proposed a project of high standards and asked for the City Council’s project approval, approval of Tenant Parcel map and asked for a continuance of the public hearing. Ten (10) public communications were made by Victoria Mageno, Mario Mageno, Rebecca Viveros, Kavin Murugan, Guadalupe Galindo, Diane Gunther, Patricia Phillips, Nanette Heart, Cory Rodgers and Ursula Garcia in opposition to item G1. Patricia Phillips submitted signed petitions in opposition of the proposed project. Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing. City Manager Gillison asked Deputy City Manager Burris to addres s the issue of left turns brought up in public communications and the turning movements related to the project area so that the community knows the City is aware of the concern. Deputy City Manager Burris informed that the City Engineer and staff have studied the intersection as part of the traffic impact analysis necessary for the project application. He noted that the Archibald intersection does have trucks and there are a number of industrial businesses in that vicinity and that City Engineers are aware of the turning movement constraints and one of the things that the project has a condition for is to essentially rebuild part of that intersection to have a 35 foot radius to accommodate truck traffic movements as well as a number of signal timing changes to help accommodate or facilitate better intersection movements to facilitate larger vehicles making turns. Council discussion ensued regarding concerns of limited healthy food options, 7-Eleven applying for an alcohol license in the future, public safety, 24-hour business operation, crime rates going up because of operating hours, equity, school proximity, loitering, community needs, community engagement, market saturation and suggested better uses of the site to address community needs such as a grocery store, sit-down restaurant, or market. City Attorney, James L. Markman reviewed options for Council’s consideration, to direct staff to prepare resolutions for the next Council Meeting to make a final decision on this matter: options include returning with one resolution denying entirety of applications or having two (2) resolutions, one denying entirety of applications with the exception of the Parcel Map, to have a separate resolution. Discussion ensued and the following motion was recommended: to bring back two resolutions, the first resolution would: deny the CUP for a convenience store, deny the CUP for a service station and deny the MDR for the structure. The second resolution would approve the tentative parcel map. Page 12 July 7, 2021 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 6 of 7 MOTION: Moved by Council Member Scott, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, directing staff to bring back two resolutions. The first resolution would: deny the CUP for a convenience store, deny the CUP for a service station and deny the MDR for the structure. The second Resolution would approve the Tentative Parcel Map. Motion carried, 4-1. Council Member Hutchison opposed. The City Council recessed at 8:59 p.m. and reconvened at 9:08 p.m. G2. Continued Public Hearing for Consideration of Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 982, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Modify Administrative Procedures within the Development Code and Establish New Zoning Districts, Amend Land Uses and Definitions and Create New Development Standards for Industrial Development within the City. This Item is Exempt from the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (DRC2021-00170). (Continued from June 16, 2021 City Council Meeting) (ORDINANCE NO. 982) (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager and Jennifer Nakamura, Management Analyst II, who presented a PowerPoint providing an overview of the proposed Industrial Code Amendment. The PowerPoint presentation included the background, environmental analysis and a summary of topics including impacts to existing uses and projects under construction, newly prohibited industrial uses, renewable power generation, General Plan consistency, environmental analysis and emergent issues. Staff noted the receipt of three (3) letters in opposition to item G2 from: Elizabeth Klebaner from Nossaman, LLP (two letters received) and Hans Van Ligten from Rutan & Tucker, LLP (one letter received). Correspondence received was provided to the City Council. City Attorney Markman provided a legal overview regarding the CEQA exemption mentioned in the correspondence received. He noted that the exemption does not apply as the letters admit that as far as what is going on in Rancho Cucamonga the City is improving the environment with no negative impacts and added that none of the letters suggest where else the projects will go to support their argument. He closed by stating that the argument presented is based out of speculation and not well founded and agrees with staff. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing. Jonathan Shardlow, Gresham Savage, representing Black Creek Group, expressed his gratitude to Planning Department staff for their good faith effort in understanding the Industrial industry. He noted that balance was achieved through staff’s outreach with the Industrial industry. He stated that he cautiously supports the standards that were presented and noted that industry partners were not in agreement. He noted that when Section 20 of Ordinance No. 982 was added he was able to gather support from the industrial industry. He closed by asking the City Council to consider reinstating Section 20 and making it a part of the Industrial Code. Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing. City Manager Gillison asked staff to address Mr. Shardlow’s concerns. Mr. Gillison noted that it hasn’t been a problem for other businesses that now require a CUP that if they go out of business and did tenant improvements and remodeled/ changed names to still have the same use. Planning Director McIntosh addressed Mr. Shardlow’s concerns and replied that historically there has not been much regulation on industrial development, requiring use permits and conditional uses to come to conformity overtime has been something that is common in Commercial and Residential Development. She added that there is an importance and value to bringing older uses and buildings into conformance when there is an opportunity. She closed by stating that the City is raising the bar by adding increased levels of review for industrial developments. Page 13 July 7, 2021 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 7 of 7 Management Analyst Nakamura noted that Conditional Use Permit processes are new and unfamiliar to the industrial industry. She stated that staff is aware of businesses wanting continuity and added that staff feels the 180 days (6 months) is a generous timeframe. She concluded by stating that reviews of the types of uses are important to ensure compatibility with the location. Council discussion ensued regarding Section 20 of the proposed Ordinance and its duplicative properties as well as impacted applicants/ projects by the proposed Development Code Amendment. MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Scott, to introduce first reading of Ordinance No. 982 by title only and waive further readings and include the amendments provided by staff adding back the emergency shelter requirements and amending the Ordinance to remove Section 20. Linda A. Troyan, MMC, Director of City Clerk Services, read the title of Ordinance No. 9 82. VOTES NOW CAST ON MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Scott, to introduce first reading of Ordinance No. 982 by title only and waive further readings and include the amendments provided by staff adding back the emergency shelter requirements and amend ing the Ordinance to remove Section 20. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. H. CITY MANAGERS STAFF REPORT(S) No items. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Scott shared that she recently presented Rancho Cucamonga resident, Eda Aparicio with a Certificate of Recognition in honor of Ms. Aparicio’s 100th Birthday. I2. INTER-AGENCY UPDATES None. J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS City Attorney, James L. Markman, informed that a settlement was reached during today’s Closed Session with Hofer Properties, LLC and noted that a copy of the settlement agreement will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s office. K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING None. L. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Michael adjourned the meeting at 9:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, __________________________________ Linda A. Troyan, MMC City Clerk Services Director Approved: Page 14 DATE:September 1, 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 $1,861,997.35 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (No Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $4,109,922.24 Dated August 09, 2021 Through August 22, 2021. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment of demands as presented. Bi-weekly payroll is $1,015,340.06 and $846,657.29 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. Weekly check register amounts are $3,900,986.29 and $208,935.95 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 15 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 8/9/2021 through 8/22/2021 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount ***AP 00012920 08/11/2021 ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC INC 2,188.26 3,282.39 5,470.65 AP 00012921 08/11/2021 FEHR & PEERS 2,735.25 0.00 2,735.25 AP 00012922 08/11/2021 HUITT-ZOLLARS INC 13,945.00 0.00 13,945.00 AP 00012923 08/11/2021 CALIF GOVERNMENT VEBA / RANCHO CUCAMONGA 25,525.26 0.00 25,525.26 AP 00012924 08/11/2021 ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC INC 92,464.93 0.00 92,464.93 AP 00012925 08/11/2021 HAMPTON YOGA 80.50 0.00 80.50 AP 00012926 08/11/2021 ILAND INTERNET SOLUTIONS 7,032.61 0.00 7,032.61 AP 00012927 08/11/2021 RCCEA 1,589.25 0.00 1,589.25 AP 00012928 08/11/2021 RCPFA 12,722.70 0.00 12,722.70 AP 00012929 08/11/2021 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF 11,409.00 0.00 11,409.00 AP 00012930 08/11/2021 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 120.00 0.00 120.00 AP 00012931 08/11/2021 U S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 9,547.61 0.00 9,547.61 ***AP 00012932 08/12/2021 AIRGAS USA LLC 1,319.21 98.46 1,417.67 AP 00012933 08/12/2021 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 2,108.05 0.00 2,108.05 AP 00012934 08/12/2021 CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC 399.80 0.00 399.80 AP 00012935 08/12/2021 CRAFCO INC 910.75 0.00 910.75 AP 00012936 08/12/2021 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 273.41 0.00 273.41 AP 00012937 08/12/2021 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 512.92 0.00 512.92 ***AP 00012938 08/12/2021 EMCOR SERVICES 33,493.50 13,065.00 46,558.50 AP 00012939 08/12/2021 HOSE MAN INC 79.21 0.00 79.21 AP 00012940 08/12/2021 KME FIRE APPARATUS 0.00 1,853.28 1,853.28 ***AP 00012941 08/12/2021 MINUTEMAN PRESS 481.97 182.96 664.93 ***AP 00012942 08/12/2021 OFFICE DEPOT 1,554.03 741.75 2,295.78 AP 00012943 08/12/2021 SUNRISE FORD 2,335.91 0.00 2,335.91 AP 00012944 08/12/2021 THOMSON REUTERS WEST PUBLISHING CORP 341.00 0.00 341.00 AP 00012945 08/18/2021 CALPINE ENERGY SERVICES LP 114,750.00 0.00 114,750.00 AP 00012946 08/19/2021 AIRGAS USA LLC 0.00 129.83 129.83 AP 00012947 08/19/2021 BIBLIOTHECA LLC 4,632.12 0.00 4,632.12 AP 00012948 08/19/2021 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 472.80 0.00 472.80 ***AP 00012949 08/19/2021 EMCOR SERVICES 18,859.00 1,594.00 20,453.00 AP 00012950 08/19/2021 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 272.55 0.00 272.55 ***AP 00012951 08/19/2021 GENERATOR SERVICES CO INC 275.00 1,084.58 1,359.58 AP 00012952 08/19/2021 OFFICE DEPOT 750.74 0.00 750.74 AP 00012953 08/19/2021 PSA PRINT GROUP 49.57 0.00 49.57 AP 00012954 08/19/2021 SUNRISE FORD 726.25 0.00 726.25 AP 00012955 08/19/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NEWS GROUP 27,262.05 0.00 27,262.05 AP 00419388 08/11/2021 AMS PLANNING & RESEARCH CORP 11,363.50 0.00 11,363.50 AP 00419389 08/11/2021 ASSI SECURITY 8,445.00 0.00 8,445.00 AP 00419390 08/11/2021 BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC 1,575.00 0.00 1,575.00 AP 00419391 08/11/2021 CAMBRIDGE SEVEN ASSOCIATES INC 17,778.00 0.00 17,778.00 AP 00419392 08/11/2021 COVETRUS NORTH AMERICA 297.43 0.00 297.43 AP 00419393 08/11/2021 COWAN, BILLY 65.00 0.00 65.00 AP 00419394 08/11/2021 DELL MARKETING LP 26,780.41 0.00 26,780.41 AP 00419395 08/11/2021 EP CONTAINER CORPORATION 8,651.57 0.00 8,651.57 AP 00419396 08/11/2021 GOLDEN OAKS VET HOSPITAL 100.00 0.00 100.00 AP 00419397 08/11/2021 HAULAWAY STORAGE CONTAINERS INC 119.84 0.00 119.84 AP 00419398 08/11/2021 HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INC 831.48 0.00 831.48 07:16:19 08/23/2021Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:1 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report:Page 16 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 8/9/2021 through 8/22/2021 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount AP 00419399 08/11/2021 ITERIS INC 30,947.66 0.00 30,947.66 AP 00419400 08/11/2021 LEONIDA BUILDERS INC 17,600.00 0.00 17,600.00 ***AP 00419401 08/11/2021 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 2,828.00 74.00 2,902.00 AP 00419402 08/11/2021 MAGELLAN ADVISORS LLC 15,120.00 0.00 15,120.00 AP 00419403 08/11/2021 NV5 INC 7,941.38 0.00 7,941.38 AP 00419404 08/11/2021 ONLY CREMATIONS FOR PETS INC 575.00 0.00 575.00 AP 00419405 08/11/2021 ORDUNO, MICHAEL 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00419406 08/11/2021 ORIEL, JASMIN 2,300.00 0.00 2,300.00 ***AP 00419407 08/11/2021 PFM ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC 12,633.19 1,169.11 13,802.30 AP 00419408 08/11/2021 REHABWEST INC 693.50 0.00 693.50 AP 00419409 08/11/2021 RIALTO ANIMAL HOSPITAL 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00419410 08/11/2021 TPLOVETS.COM 1,900.00 0.00 1,900.00 AP 00419411 08/11/2021 UTILIQUEST 280.00 0.00 280.00 AP 00419412 08/11/2021 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 1,123.50 0.00 1,123.50 AP 00419413 08/11/2021 WESTLAND GROUP INC 6,554.00 0.00 6,554.00 AP 00419414 08/11/2021 WILLDAN GROUP 4,205.00 0.00 4,205.00 AP 00419415 08/11/2021 XEROX CORPORATION 281.09 0.00 281.09 AP 00419416 08/11/2021 ACIRAS INC 9,120.00 0.00 9,120.00 AP 00419417 08/11/2021 AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE 24.58 0.00 24.58 AP 00419418 08/11/2021 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC 193.00 0.00 193.00 AP 00419419 08/11/2021 AM-TEC TOTAL SECURITY INC 943.05 0.00 943.05 AP 00419420 08/11/2021 ANIMAL CARE EQUIPMENT & SERVICES 1,139.09 0.00 1,139.09 AP 00419421 08/11/2021 ARTISTIC RESOURCES CORPORATION 1,683.38 0.00 1,683.38 AP 00419422 08/11/2021 ASSI SECURITY 5,240.00 0.00 5,240.00 AP 00419423 08/11/2021 ATLAS PLANNING SOLUTIONS 0.00 3,420.00 3,420.00 AP 00419424 08/11/2021 BAKER & TAYLOR LLC 660.68 0.00 660.68 AP 00419425 08/11/2021 BENITEZ CARBAJAL, J ISABEL 100.00 0.00 100.00 AP 00419426 08/11/2021 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM ANIMAL HEALTH USA INC 63.57 0.00 63.57 AP 00419427 08/11/2021 C V W D 938.80 0.00 938.80 AP 00419428 08/11/2021 C V W D 0.00 899.27 899.27 AP 00419432 08/11/2021 C V W D 102,208.05 0.00 102,208.05 AP 00419433 08/11/2021 CALAMP WIRELESS NETWORKS CORP 75.00 0.00 75.00 AP 00419434 08/11/2021 CALIF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK AUTHORITY 1,636,322.28 0.00 1,636,322.28 AP 00419435 08/11/2021 CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION 0.00 1,646.70 1,646.70 AP 00419436 08/11/2021 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 314.11 0.00 314.11 AP 00419437 08/11/2021 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 127.52 0.00 127.52 AP 00419438 08/11/2021 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 32.26 0.00 32.26 AP 00419439 08/11/2021 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 342.73 0.00 342.73 AP 00419440 08/11/2021 CCS ORANGE COUNTY JANITORIAL INC 142.00 0.00 142.00 AP 00419441 08/11/2021 CHAFFEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE 815.50 0.00 815.50 AP 00419442 08/11/2021 CHAMPION FIRE SYSTEMS INC 1,059.00 0.00 1,059.00 ***AP 00419443 08/11/2021 CINTAS CORPORATION #150 2,052.67 857.06 2,909.73 AP 00419444 08/11/2021 CONDOR, ALBERTO 504.00 0.00 504.00 AP 00419445 08/11/2021 CONSERVE LANDCARE LLC 26,799.88 0.00 26,799.88 AP 00419446 08/11/2021 COVETRUS NORTH AMERICA 133.11 0.00 133.11 AP 00419447 08/11/2021 DAISYECO INC 98.55 0.00 98.55 AP 00419448 08/11/2021 DANIELS TIRE SERVICE 515.58 0.00 515.58 07:16:19 08/23/2021Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:2 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report:Page 17 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 8/9/2021 through 8/22/2021 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount AP 00419449 08/11/2021 DI-JAN OVERSEAS INC 41.08 0.00 41.08 AP 00419450 08/11/2021 DIRECTV 179.99 0.00 179.99 AP 00419451 08/11/2021 EAN SERVICES LLC 0.00 4,136.02 4,136.02 AP 00419452 08/11/2021 EHUDL LLC 280.00 0.00 280.00 AP 00419453 08/11/2021 ELLIS, CHRIS 350.00 0.00 350.00 AP 00419454 08/11/2021 EXECUTIVE AUTO DETAIL 0.00 320.00 320.00 AP 00419455 08/11/2021 EXPRESS BRAKE SUPPLY INC 134.43 0.00 134.43 AP 00419456 08/11/2021 FEDERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION 0.00 780.93 780.93 ***AP 00419458 08/11/2021 FRONTIER COMM 3,394.10 1,282.79 4,676.89 AP 00419459 08/11/2021 GLOBALSTAR USA 158.49 0.00 158.49 AP 00419460 08/11/2021 GRAINGER 604.29 0.00 604.29 AP 00419461 08/11/2021 GRAPHICS FACTORY PRINTING INC 145.46 0.00 145.46 AP 00419462 08/11/2021 HAIFLEY, ROXANN 132.00 0.00 132.00 AP 00419463 08/11/2021 HDL COREN & CONE 695.00 0.00 695.00 AP 00419464 08/11/2021 HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INC 1,346.98 0.00 1,346.98 AP 00419465 08/11/2021 HUDSON AUDIO WORKS 1,200.00 0.00 1,200.00 AP 00419466 08/11/2021 HUERTA, GLORIA 33.29 0.00 33.29 AP 00419467 08/11/2021 IDEXX DISTRIBUTION INC 2,520.84 0.00 2,520.84 AP 00419468 08/11/2021 INLAND DESERT SECURITY & COMMUNICATIONS INC 58.00 0.00 58.00 AP 00419469 08/11/2021 ITRON INC 7,632.00 0.00 7,632.00 AP 00419470 08/11/2021 JOHNNY ALLEN TENNIS ACADEMY 2,284.20 0.00 2,284.20 AP 00419471 08/11/2021 KENNEDY EQUIPMENT INC 121.00 0.00 121.00 ***AP 00419473 08/11/2021 LOWES COMPANIES INC 4,513.73 1,075.03 5,588.76 AP 00419474 08/11/2021 LU'S LIGHTHOUSE INC 2,707.54 0.00 2,707.54 AP 00419475 08/11/2021 MAIN STREET SIGNS 3,221.73 0.00 3,221.73 AP 00419476 08/11/2021 MANGO LANGUAGES 11,265.45 0.00 11,265.45 AP 00419477 08/11/2021 MARK CHRISTOPHER INC 77.50 0.00 77.50 AP 00419478 08/11/2021 MARLINK INC 0.00 162.00 162.00 AP 00419479 08/11/2021 MCI 36.51 0.00 36.51 AP 00419480 08/11/2021 MEDLINE INDUSTRIES INC 1,595.39 0.00 1,595.39 AP 00419481 08/11/2021 MIDWEST TAPE 2,684.51 0.00 2,684.51 AP 00419482 08/11/2021 MORALES, ANGELA 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00419483 08/11/2021 MUTUAL PROPANE 0.00 20.00 20.00 ***AP 00419484 08/11/2021 NEARMAP US INC 20,820.00 3,180.00 24,000.00 AP 00419485 08/11/2021 ONTRAC 43.58 0.00 43.58 AP 00419486 08/11/2021 ONWARD ENGINEERING 22,010.00 0.00 22,010.00 AP 00419487 08/11/2021 PAPAZOGLU, NORAY 204.00 0.00 204.00 AP 00419488 08/11/2021 PEAT, RONALD 27.21 0.00 27.21 AP 00419489 08/11/2021 PEP BOYS 18.95 0.00 18.95 AP 00419490 08/11/2021 PINNACLE PETROLEUM INC 58,394.14 0.00 58,394.14 AP 00419491 08/11/2021 PIP PRINTING 95.90 0.00 95.90 AP 00419492 08/11/2021 POWER & TELEPHONE SUPPLY COMPANY 3,451.45 0.00 3,451.45 AP 00419493 08/11/2021 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 60.17 0.00 60.17 AP 00419494 08/11/2021 PRISTINE UNIFORMS LLC 0.00 264.00 264.00 AP 00419495 08/11/2021 PUNT CONSULTING GROUP 1,120.50 0.00 1,120.50 AP 00419496 08/11/2021 RANCHO CUCAMONGA RESERVE UNIT 134 6,000.00 0.00 6,000.00 AP 00419497 08/11/2021 SAN BERNARDINO CTY AUDITOR CONTROLLER 26,720.01 0.00 26,720.01 07:16:19 08/23/2021Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:3 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report:Page 18 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 8/9/2021 through 8/22/2021 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount AP 00419498 08/11/2021 SBPEA 2,471.33 0.00 2,471.33 AP 00419499 08/11/2021 SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 100.00 0.00 100.00 AP 00419500 08/11/2021 SHRED PROS 176.00 0.00 176.00 AP 00419505 08/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11,184.38 0.00 11,184.38 AP 00419506 08/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 446.85 0.00 446.85 ***AP 00419507 08/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1,169.41 2,728.64 3,898.05 ***AP 00419508 08/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 114,790.29 4,254.93 119,045.22 AP 00419509 08/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 6,287.50 0.00 6,287.50 AP 00419510 08/11/2021 SPENCER, NANCY 504.00 0.00 504.00 AP 00419511 08/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 11,809.96 0.00 11,809.96 AP 00419512 08/11/2021 TICKETS.COM 99.50 0.00 99.50 AP 00419513 08/11/2021 TRAVELERS HAVEN LLC 4.78 0.00 4.78 AP 00419514 08/11/2021 UNITED WAY 45.00 0.00 45.00 AP 00419515 08/11/2021 UNITY COURIER SERVICE INC 1,143.00 0.00 1,143.00 AP 00419516 08/11/2021 UNIVERSAL FLEET SUPPLY 0.00 65.34 65.34 AP 00419517 08/11/2021 UPS 66.00 0.00 66.00 AP 00419518 08/11/2021 VELOCITY TRUCK CENTERS 0.00 222.12 222.12 AP 00419519 08/11/2021 VERIZON 24.27 0.00 24.27 AP 00419520 08/11/2021 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 46.32 0.00 46.32 AP 00419521 08/11/2021 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 484.20 0.00 484.20 AP 00419522 08/11/2021 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 5,908.55 0.00 5,908.55 AP 00419523 08/11/2021 VICTOR MEDICAL COMPANY 1,012.33 0.00 1,012.33 AP 00419524 08/11/2021 VIRTUAL PROJECT MANAGER LLC 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00419525 08/11/2021 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 3,691.12 0.00 3,691.12 AP 00419526 08/11/2021 WELLS, JUDITH 42.23 0.00 42.23 AP 00419527 08/11/2021 WILSON & BELL AUTO SERVICE 269.93 0.00 269.93 AP 00419528 08/11/2021 WORLD PRECISION INSTRUMENTS INC 1,693.70 0.00 1,693.70 AP 00419529 08/11/2021 XEROX FINANCIAL SERVICES 298.38 0.00 298.38 AP 00419530 08/18/2021 & COFFEE 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 AP 00419531 08/18/2021 BIG WOK RESTAURANT INC 20,000.00 0.00 20,000.00 AP 00419532 08/18/2021 CINDERELLA'S CLOSET 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 AP 00419533 08/18/2021 FRESHLIME MARKETING SOLUTIONS INC 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 AP 00419534 08/18/2021 G & G FOOD & FUTURE LLC 20,000.00 0.00 20,000.00 AP 00419535 08/18/2021 MAVIS FOODS LLC 20,000.00 0.00 20,000.00 AP 00419536 08/18/2021 SALON YOO INC 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 AP 00419537 08/18/2021 SIGNCRAFTERS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 AP 00419538 08/18/2021 ALLEN INDUSTRIES INC 244.29 0.00 244.29 AP 00419539 08/18/2021 AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION 1,269.67 0.00 1,269.67 AP 00419540 08/18/2021 AMERICAN TRUCK BODIES & REPAIR INC 491.34 0.00 491.34 AP 00419541 08/18/2021 ARTISTIC RESOURCES CORPORATION 9,296.70 0.00 9,296.70 AP 00419542 08/18/2021 ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL INC 2,374.50 0.00 2,374.50 AP 00419543 08/18/2021 AUTO & RV SPECIALISTS INC 97.02 0.00 97.02 AP 00419544 08/18/2021 AUTO ZONE INC 7.92 0.00 7.92 AP 00419545 08/18/2021 BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 156.25 0.00 156.25 ***AP 00419550 08/18/2021 C V W D 72,819.23 890.90 73,710.13 AP 00419551 08/18/2021 CAL PERS LONG-TERM CARE PROGRAM 164.48 0.00 164.48 ***AP 00419552 08/18/2021 CALIF DEPT OF TAX & FEE ADMINISTRATION 850.37 479.80 1,330.17 07:16:19 08/23/2021Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:4 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report:Page 19 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 8/9/2021 through 8/22/2021 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount AP 00419553 08/18/2021 CALIF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK AUTHORITY 0.00 130,682.50 130,682.50 AP 00419554 08/18/2021 CHAMPION FIRE SYSTEMS INC 1,654.00 0.00 1,654.00 ***AP 00419555 08/18/2021 CINTAS CORPORATION #150 2,546.09 901.53 3,447.62 AP 00419556 08/18/2021 CITY RENTALS 250.65 0.00 250.65 AP 00419557 08/18/2021 CONVERGEONE INC 49,107.28 0.00 49,107.28 AP 00419558 08/18/2021 CORODATA MEDIA STORAGE INC 88.83 0.00 88.83 AP 00419559 08/18/2021 EIGHTH AVENUE ENTERPRISE LLC 167.01 0.00 167.01 AP 00419560 08/18/2021 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR 2,107.74 0.00 2,107.74 AP 00419561 08/18/2021 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 30.95 0.00 30.95 AP 00419562 08/18/2021 FIELDMAN ROLAPP & ASSOCIATES 2,272.68 0.00 2,272.68 AP 00419563 08/18/2021 FILM THIS INC 347.00 0.00 347.00 AP 00419564 08/18/2021 FLEETPRIDE 0.00 24.77 24.77 AP 00419565 08/18/2021 FLORES, APRIL 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 AP 00419566 08/18/2021 FOOTHILL CHAPTER ICC 80.00 0.00 80.00 AP 00419567 08/18/2021 FORTIN LAW GROUP 9,254.70 0.00 9,254.70 AP 00419568 08/18/2021 FRS ENVIRONMENTAL 675.20 0.00 675.20 AP 00419569 08/18/2021 GENETEC INC 4,460.00 0.00 4,460.00 AP 00419570 08/18/2021 GRAINGER 722.71 0.00 722.71 AP 00419571 08/18/2021 HDL COREN & CONE 4,825.00 0.00 4,825.00 AP 00419572 08/18/2021 HLP INC 183.05 0.00 183.05 AP 00419573 08/18/2021 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 336.87 0.00 336.87 AP 00419574 08/18/2021 HOYT LUMBER CO, S M 0.00 2.51 2.51 AP 00419575 08/18/2021 INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY 346.50 0.00 346.50 AP 00419576 08/18/2021 INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITATION SERVICES 5,400.00 0.00 5,400.00 AP 00419577 08/18/2021 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER 385.53 0.00 385.53 AP 00419578 08/18/2021 J J KELLER AND ASSOC INC 995.00 0.00 995.00 AP 00419579 08/18/2021 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC 248,266.90 0.00 248,266.90 AP 00419580 08/18/2021 KNIGHT LEADERSHIP SOLUTIONS 1,410.00 0.00 1,410.00 AP 00419581 08/18/2021 KOSMONT COMPANIES 13,717.50 0.00 13,717.50 AP 00419582 08/18/2021 KWALL LLC 37,500.00 0.00 37,500.00 AP 00419583 08/18/2021 MONTGOMERY HARDWARE CO 2,721.29 0.00 2,721.29 AP 00419584 08/18/2021 MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 45.21 0.00 45.21 AP 00419585 08/18/2021 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT INC 794.93 0.00 794.93 ***AP 00419586 08/18/2021 NAPA AUTO PARTS 8.26 585.38 593.64 AP 00419587 08/18/2021 NATIONAL GARAGE DOOR 0.00 360.00 360.00 AP 00419588 08/18/2021 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA 706.00 0.00 706.00 AP 00419589 08/18/2021 ORANGE LINE OIL COMPANY 1,459.39 0.00 1,459.39 AP 00419590 08/18/2021 PACIFIC UTILITY INSTALLATION INC 1,216.00 0.00 1,216.00 AP 00419591 08/18/2021 PINNACLE PETROLEUM INC 28,402.09 0.00 28,402.09 AP 00419592 08/18/2021 POSTAL PERFECT 45.00 0.00 45.00 AP 00419593 08/18/2021 PRISTINE UNIFORMS LLC 0.00 54.70 54.70 AP 00419594 08/18/2021 PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS SPECIALTIES 1,080.00 0.00 1,080.00 AP 00419595 08/18/2021 RANCHO SMOG CENTER 134.85 0.00 134.85 AP 00419596 08/18/2021 RAUL'S AUTO TRIM INC 850.00 0.00 850.00 AP 00419597 08/18/2021 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 120.20 0.00 120.20 AP 00419598 08/18/2021 RED WING BUSINESS ADVANTAGE ACCOUNT 1,924.21 0.00 1,924.21 AP 00419599 08/18/2021 SAN BERNARDINO CO AUDITOR CONT 7,243.85 0.00 7,243.85 07:16:19 08/23/2021Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:5 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report:Page 20 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 8/9/2021 through 8/22/2021 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount AP 00419600 08/18/2021 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 0.00 52.14 52.14 AP 00419601 08/18/2021 SHOETERIA INC 1,645.16 0.00 1,645.16 AP 00419602 08/18/2021 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL INC 29,614.14 0.00 29,614.14 ***AP 00419606 08/18/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11,667.19 1,587.57 13,254.76 AP 00419607 08/18/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 50.53 0.00 50.53 AP 00419608 08/18/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 51.97 0.00 51.97 AP 00419609 08/18/2021 SPINAL CENTER 158.99 0.00 158.99 AP 00419610 08/18/2021 STOTZ EQUIPMENT 326.68 0.00 326.68 AP 00419611 08/18/2021 SUPERION LLC 122,870.05 0.00 122,870.05 AP 00419612 08/18/2021 THE COUNSELING TEAM INTERNATIONAL 0.00 1,050.00 1,050.00 AP 00419613 08/18/2021 TICKETS.COM 510.47 0.00 510.47 AP 00419614 08/18/2021 TORO TOWING 150.00 0.00 150.00 AP 00419615 08/18/2021 U S LEGAL SUPPORT INC 209.12 0.00 209.12 AP 00419616 08/18/2021 U.S. BANK PARS ACCT #6746022500 14,526.68 0.00 14,526.68 AP 00419617 08/18/2021 U.S. BANK PARS ACCT #6746022500 1,124.60 0.00 1,124.60 AP 00419618 08/18/2021 U.S. BANK PARS ACCT #6745033700 6,605.00 0.00 6,605.00 AP 00419619 08/18/2021 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA INC 301.45 0.00 301.45 AP 00419620 08/18/2021 VAN SCOYOC ASSOCIATES INC 4,000.00 0.00 4,000.00 AP 00419621 08/18/2021 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.00 5,554.75 5,554.75 AP 00419622 08/18/2021 VISION SERVICE PLAN CA 10,386.53 0.00 10,386.53 AP 00419623 08/18/2021 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 1,633.63 0.00 1,633.63 AP 00419624 08/18/2021 WILSON & BELL AUTO SERVICE 1,855.75 0.00 1,855.75 AP 00419625 08/18/2021 YOUNG REMBRANDTS 130.20 0.00 130.20 AP 00419626 08/18/2021 ZHENG, ZHONG 38.26 0.00 38.26 AP 00419627 08/18/2021 ACIRAS INC 3,800.00 0.00 3,800.00 AP 00419628 08/18/2021 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC 527.00 0.00 527.00 AP 00419629 08/18/2021 ALTUM GROUP, THE 3,157.68 0.00 3,157.68 AP 00419630 08/18/2021 ARTISTIC RESOURCES CORPORATION 21,961.17 0.00 21,961.17 AP 00419631 08/18/2021 ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL INC 31,721.29 0.00 31,721.29 AP 00419632 08/18/2021 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, THE 1,750.00 0.00 1,750.00 AP 00419633 08/18/2021 CALAMP WIRELESS NETWORKS CORP 150.00 0.00 150.00 ***AP 00419634 08/18/2021 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 37,359.06 6,910.63 44,269.69 AP 00419635 08/18/2021 DATA TICKET INC 8,154.85 0.00 8,154.85 AP 00419636 08/18/2021 ECORP CONSULTING INC 0.00 5,252.50 5,252.50 AP 00419637 08/18/2021 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT 20,543.69 0.00 20,543.69 AP 00419638 08/18/2021 GAIL MATERIALS 2,065.50 0.00 2,065.50 AP 00419639 08/18/2021 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC 2,726.25 0.00 2,726.25 AP 00419640 08/18/2021 KNIGHT LEADERSHIP SOLUTIONS 1,410.00 0.00 1,410.00 AP 00419641 08/18/2021 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS 10,376.00 0.00 10,376.00 AP 00419642 08/18/2021 LISA WISE CONSULTING 8,322.50 0.00 8,322.50 AP 00419643 08/18/2021 PLACEWORKS 178,507.63 0.00 178,507.63 AP 00419644 08/18/2021 PORTO, JOSEPH 353.63 0.00 353.63 AP 00419645 08/18/2021 SIEMENS MOBILITY INC 10,832.80 0.00 10,832.80 ***AP 00419646 08/18/2021 STANLEY PEST CONTROL 1,000.00 220.00 1,220.00 AP 00419647 08/18/2021 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 0.00 5,736.08 5,736.08 07:16:19 08/23/2021Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:6 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report:Page 21 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 8/9/2021 through 8/22/2021 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount $3,900,986.29 $4,109,922.24 $208,935.95 Note: Grand Total: Total Fire: Total City: *** Check Number includes both City and Fire District expenditures 07:16:19 08/23/2021Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:7 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report:Page 22 DATE:September 1, 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:Ruth Cain, Procurement Manager Cheryl Combs, Procurement Technician SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve the Use of a Cooperative Contract Through Sourcewell Awarded to Genuine Parts Company DBA Napa Auto Parts to Furnish Aftermarket Vehicle Parts and Supplies, Equipment, Products, or Services for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2021/2022, and Authorize the Use of Future Renewals as Awarded Through Sourcewell, Funded by Various Citywide Account Numbers in Accordance with the Adopted Fiscal Year Budgets. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve the use of a cooperative contract through Sourcewell awarded to Genuine Parts Company dba Napa Auto Parts contract number #032521-GPC, to furnish aftermarket vehicle parts and supplies, equipment, products, or services for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2021/2022, and authorize staff to utilize future renewals as awarded by Sourcewell, to be funded by various citywide account numbers in accordance with the adopted fiscal year budgets. BACKGROUND: As part of routine operations, the City and Fire Protection District procure and utilize supplies, equipment, products, and services often. In order to ensure availability and control costs, the Procurement Division oversees the procurement of these supplies under managed contracts with agreed to pricing and conditions for fulfillment. Staff was advised that the current cooperative agreement utilized for supplies, equipment, products, and services with Napa Auto Parts is expiring September 6, 2021 and would not be renewed. ANALYSIS: The Procurement Division conducted research and has identified a new cooperative agreement opportunity for use by the City and Fire Protection District. The City’s current Procurement of vehicle parts and supplies, equipment, products, or services was examined, and determination was found that the use of cooperative contract provides the best value to the City and Fire Protection District. Per the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Municipal Code (RCMC), Section 3.08.070, the City may award contracts when the purchase is beneficial to the interest of the City and is from a supplier who has been awarded a specific item or items in a contract resulting from a formal competitive bid process by another governmental agency within the State of California or by the federal Page 23 Page 2 9 1 4 government within the last year. Sourcewell provides access to cooperative contracts such as the competitively bid and awarded contract with Genuine Parts Company DBA NAPA Auto Parts, which allows other agencies to participate in the contract and receive discounted volume pricing. Staff has reviewed the contract Terms and Conditions and is satisfied that they are in alignment with and meets the City and Fire Protection District’s requirements. FISCAL IMPACT: During FY 2020/2021, City and Fire Protection District purchases through NAPA totaled $31,847.61. There would be no fiscal impact beyond that which has already been budgeted in the FY 2021/2022 adopted budget. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Utilizing a cooperative agreement addresses the City Council’s Core Value of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future for all by ensuring that costs are effectively managed by providing volume discounts that the City and Fire Protection District can utilize when purchasing supplies, equipment, products, and services. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 24 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Ivan Rojer, Fire Chief Mike McCliman, Deputy Fire Chief Darci Vogel, Fire Business Manager SUBJECT:Consideration to Award a Contract to AMG & Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $16,389,050, Plus a Project Contingency of $945,220, and Authorization of an Appropriation in the Amount of $2,834,270 for the Design-Build of Fire Station 178. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Fire Board: 1. Approve the conceptual plans and specifications for the design-build of Fire Station 178; 2. Accept the design-build proposals received for Fire Station 178; 3. Award and authorize the execution of a contract for design and construction of Fire Station 178, including Additive Alternate No. 1 and No. 2, to AMG & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $16,389,050 (including an allowance of $630,346); 4. Authorize the expenditure of an additional project contingency in the amount of $945,220 (totaling 10% for allowances and contingency); and 5. Authorize an appropriation of $2,362,260 to the Fire Capital Fund (Fund 288) and $472,010 to the City Capital Reserve Fund (Fund 102). BACKGROUND: On February 17, 2016, the Fire Board approved the purchase of 3.8 acres of property located at the corner of Town Center Drive and Terra Vista Parkway for future Fire Station 178. This property is centrally located in an area of the City planned for high-density residential and large- scale office building developments. This strategic location will help maximize existing resources to better serve the central community while providing for systemwide draw-down and corresponding demands for service. On November 20, 2019, the Fire District entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Mary McGrath Architects for consulting services for Project Initiation and Program Development for Fire Station 178. This initial phase identified goals and objectives, data collection, and the scope and scale of the project with the Design Team. On August 5, 2020, the Fire Board approved contract Amendment No. 001 for Conceptual Design Build services. On July 7, 2021, the Fire Board approved contract Amendment No. 002 to expand design services to include two additive alternates. Additive Alternate No. 1 is a centralized, temperature-controlled Records Storage Building for protection and preservation of City and Fire District records. Additive Alternate No. 2 Page 25 Page 2 9 2 4 is a Solar/Battery Storage System to provide the station with its operational power and emergency power needs. The conceptual design for Fire Station 178 is a 12,176 square foot, two-story fire station that will house three (3) on-duty firefighters 24 hours per day. The station will be designed to accommodate up to seven (7) on-duty personnel in order to address potential future changes in response and staffing needs. The fire station will include the following elements: two (2) drive-through apparatus bays; one (1) back-in apparatus bay for a battalion chief vehicle or medic; apparatus support spaces including a workshop, medical storage and clean-up, turnout storage, and related janitorial facilities; public lobby, accessible restroom, and a station office; Captains’ offices and a meeting room or space for a future Battalion Chief; kitchen, dining, dayroom, and laundry room; private sleeping quarters with unisex restrooms; mechanical, electrical, communications rooms; and vertical circulation includes two (2) sets of stairs and a LULA (limited use limited application) type elevator for accessibility. ANALYSIS: Construction of Fire Station 178 will utilize the design-build process, the first time for both the City and the District. This progressive process involves a general contractor and licensed architect partnering to form a design-build team and then working collaboratively under a single contract to provide design and construction services. This process allows for a unified flow of work, greater flexibility in awarding a contract, higher quality work, and greater cost certainty with fewer change orders and delays. Statement of Qualifications On February 17, 2021, the District issued Request for Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) #20- 21/502 of Design-Build Entities for Design and Construction of Fire Station 178. On March 17, 2021, seven (7) Design-Build Entities (DBE) submitted statements of qualifications. Each DBE provided its combined qualifications to design and build Fire Station 178. An evaluation panel comprised of five (5) District and City staff evaluated each SOQ based on the following criteria, as defined in the SOQ: 20% - Project Team/Personnel 20% - Project Experience 20% - Project Approach and Organization 20% - Reference Checks 20% - Financial Strength, Safety Record and Claims Avoidance The evaluation process resulted in the selection of the following three (3) DBE teams to provide proposals for the project: AMG & Associates, Inc. Erickson-Hall Construction Morillo Construction Request for Proposals Page 26 Page 3 9 2 4 On May 9, 2021, the District issued an invite only Request for Proposals (RFP) #21/22-001 to the three (3) top ranked DBE teams to design and construct Fire Station 178. On July 13, 2021, the DBE teams submitted their proposals and were then invited to interviews on August 2, 2021. An evaluation panel comprised of two Deputy City Managers, Deputy Fire Chief of Administration and Support Services, Director of Engineering Service, and Director of Building and Safety evaluated each proposal, including information provided during the interviews. The District’s architect provided feedback to the evaluation panel as a non-voting member. Each proposal was evaluated to determine the “best value” based on the following criteria, as defined in the RFP: 25% - DBE overall experience and technical competence and specific experience and technical competence on projects of a similar nature 25% - Project Team strength and experience with projects of a similar nature 20% - Rates and Fees 15% - Proposed methods and overall strategic plan to accomplish the work in a timely and competent manner 10% - Methods for adhering to the District’s Fire Station Design Documents. 5% - Combination of the factors, including conformance to RFP requirements and format; organization, presentation, and content of the submittal; and knowledge and understanding of the State and local environment and a local presence for interfacing with RCFPD. The evaluation process resulted in the selection of AMG & Associates, Inc. The summarized proposals and evaluation scores are provided in Attachment 2. AMG & Associates’ design-build preliminary cost proposal for the fire station totaled $13,050,573 (including $519,092 contingency/allowance), Additive Alternate No. 1 (Records Storage Building) totaled $944,028, and Additive Alternate No. 2 (Solar/Battery Storage System) totaled $2,283,195. Staff recommends awarding the contract to AMG and Associates for design-build of Fire Station 178, to include both Additive Alternate No. 1 and No. 2. The total contract will be $16,389,052 (including an allowance of $630,348 for design-build and additive alternates) and an additional project contingency of $945,522 (totaling 10% for allowances and contingency). A copy of the contract is on file with the City Clerk’s Office. FISCAL IMPACT: Anticipated costs for the design-build of Fire Station 178 are estimated to be as follows: Expenditure Amount Design-Build Contract (including 4% allowance)$16,389,050 Project Contingency (6%)$945,520 TOTAL:$17,334,570 A total of $14,500,000 was budgeted in FY 2021-22 under account 3288501-5650 (Fire Protection Capital Fund) for the design-build of this project. The cost of the Records Storage Building will be split between the Fire District and the City, with the City’s share to be funded by the City’s Capital Reserve Fund in the amount of $472,010. In order to complete construction of the project, including Additive Alternate No. 1 and No. 2, a total of $2,834,270 will need to be appropriated under the following accounts: Page 27 Page 4 9 2 4 Account No.Funding Source Description Amount 3288501-5650 / 1645288-0 Fire Protection Capital Fund Town Center Fire Station 178 $2,362,260 1025001-5650 / 1645025-0 City Capital Reserve Fund Town Center Fire Station 178 $472,010 TOTAL:$2,834,270 COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This project meets our City Council core values by promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, and by providing continuous improvement through the construction of high- quality public improvements. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map Attachment 2 – RFP Result Summary Page 28 RCFPD FIRE STATION NO. 178 DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT Vicinity Map NOT TO SCALE ATTACHMENT 1 Project Site Page 29 Evaluation Factor Weight Rating Weighted Rating Rating Weighted Rating Rating Weighted Rating Rating Weighted Rating Rating Weighted Rating 1 Experience & Technical Competence 25%8 2.00 9 2.25 9 2.25 9 2.25 8 2.00 2.15 2 Project Team Experience 25%7 1.75 9 2.25 9 2.25 9 2.25 8 2.00 2.10 3 Rates & Fees 20%10 2.00 9 1.80 10 2.00 9 1.80 9 1.80 1.88 4 Methods & Strategic Plan 15%10 1.50 9 1.35 10 1.50 9 1.35 9 1.35 1.41 5 Fire Station Design Documents 10%8 0.80 8 0.80 9 0.90 9 0.90 9 0.90 0.86 6 Miscellaneous 5%9 0.45 9 0.45 9 0.45 9 0.45 9 0.45 0.45 100%TOTAL:8.5 TOTAL:8.9 TOTAL:9.35 TOTAL:9 TOTAL:8.5 8.85 Fire Station 178 Design-Build Entity Evaluation AMG & Associates, Inc. Rating Total Overall Weighted Rating Evaluator 1 Evaluator 2 Evaluator 3 Evaluator 4 Evaluator 5 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 30 Evaluation Factor Weight Rating Weighted Rating Rating Weighted Rating Rating Weighted Rating Rating Weighted Rating Rating Weighted Rating 1 Experience & Technical Competence 25%10 2.50 8 2.00 9 2.25 9 2.25 9 2.25 2.25 2 Project Team Experience 25%10 2.50 8 2.00 9 2.25 9 2.25 9 2.25 2.25 3 Rates & Fees 20%6 1.20 7 1.40 6 1.20 3 0.60 5 1.00 1.08 4 Methods & Strategic Plan 15%5 0.75 9 1.35 6 0.90 7 1.05 7 1.05 1.02 5 Fire Station Design Documents 10%7 0.70 8 0.80 7 0.70 9 0.90 6 0.60 0.74 6 Miscellaneous 5%7 0.35 7 0.35 8 0.40 9 0.45 7 0.35 0.38 100%TOTAL:8 TOTAL:7.9 TOTAL:7.7 TOTAL:7.5 TOTAL:7.5 7.72 Total Overall Weighted Rating Fire Station 178 Design-Build Entity Evaluation Erickson-Hall Construction Evaluator 1 Evaluator 2 Evaluator 3 Evaluator 4 Evaluator 5 Rating Page 31 Evaluation Factor Weight Rating Weighted Rating Rating Weighted Rating Rating Weighted Rating Rating Weighted Rating Rating Weighted Rating 1 Experience & Technical Competence 25%7 1.75 8 2.00 8 2.00 7 1.75 8 2.00 1.90 2 Project Team Experience 25%4 1.00 7 1.75 7 1.75 6 1.50 8 2.00 1.60 3 Rates & Fees 20%2 0.40 6 1.20 4 0.80 2 0.40 3 0.60 0.68 4 Methods & Strategic Plan 15%6 0.90 6 0.90 5 0.75 5 0.75 8 1.20 0.90 5 Fire Station Design Documents 10%7 0.70 7 0.70 7 0.70 9 0.90 8 0.80 0.76 6 Miscellaneous 5%5 0.25 7 0.35 8 0.40 9 0.45 6 0.30 0.35 100%TOTAL:5 TOTAL:6.9 TOTAL:6.4 TOTAL:5.75 TOTAL:6.9 6.19 Fire Station 178 Design-Build Entity Evaluation Morillo Construction Rating Total Overall Weighted Rating Evaluator 1 Evaluator 2 Evaluator 3 Evaluator 4 Evaluator 5 Page 32 AMG Erickson-Hall Morrillo Average Construction Documents and Permitting $ 510,000.00 $ 812,000.00 $ 637,000.00 $ 653,000.00 Construction Administration $ 212,500.00 $ 203,000.00 $ 352,000.00 $ 255,833.33 Subtotal $ 722,500.00 $ 1,015,000.00 $ 989,000.00 $ 908,833.33 DBE Cost for Pre-Construction Services $ 76,600.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 330,000.00 $ 172,200.00 Proposed DBE Design Fee Contingency $ 15,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 131,000.00 $ 62,000.00 Subtotal Proposed DBE Fee for All Pre-Construction Services $ 91,600.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 461,000.00 $ 234,200.00 Total Pre-Construction and Design Services $ 814,100.00 $ 1,165,000.00 $ 1,450,000.00 $ 1,143,033.33 Hard Construction Costs $ 9,438,041.00 $ 12,394,983.00 $ 13,486,000.00 $ 11,773,008.00 Allowance included $ 400,000.00 included $ 400,000.00 General Conditions/General Requirements $ 1,129,996.00 $ 1,166,400.00 $ 1,155,000.00 $ 1,150,465.33 Proposed DBE Construction Contingency $ 519,092.00 $ 698,070.00 $ 792,000.00 $ 669,720.67 Proposed DBE Fee for Construction $ 778,444.00 $ 879,568.00 $ 1,213,000.00 $ 957,004.00 Total Hard Construction Costs $ 11,865,573.00 $ 15,539,021.00 $ 16,646,000.00 $ 14,683,531.33 Performance/Payment Bonds $ 66,790.00 $ 158,460.00 $ 249,000.00 $ 158,083.33 Liability Insurance $ 165,166.00 $ 156,891.00 $ 116,000.00 $ 146,019.00 Builder's Risk $ 88,943.00 $ 27,440.00 $ 49,000.00 $ 55,127.67 Fixtures and Equipment $ 50,000.00 included $ 384,000.00 $ 217,000.00 Total DBE Other Costs $ 370,899.00 $ 342,791.00 $ 798,000.00 $ 503,896.67 Total Design-Build Preliminary Cost Proposal $ 13,050,572.00 $ 17,046,812.00 $ 18,894,000.00 $ 16,330,461.33 Design Costs $ 35,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 34,000.00 $ 31,333.33 Construction Documents and Permitting $ 65,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 32,333.33 Construction Costs $ 844,028.00 $ 870,339.00 $ 1,179,000.00 $ 964,455.67 Total Additive Alternate No. 1 $ 944,028.00 $ 910,339.00 $ 1,230,000.00 $ 1,028,122.33 Design Costs $ 15,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 158,000.00 $ 69,333.33 Construction Documents and Permitting $ 27,500.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 68,000.00 $ 38,500.00 Construction Costs $ 2,240,695.00 $ 2,610,014.00 $ 3,664,000.00 $ 2,838,236.33 Total Additive Alternate No. 2 $ 2,283,195.00 $ 2,665,014.00 $ 3,890,000.00 $ 2,946,069.67 Total Additive Alternate Cost Proposal $ 3,227,223.00 $ 3,575,353.00 $ 5,120,000.00 $ 3,974,192.00 ConstructionDesign Team (A/E, consultants, subcontractors)Design Build Entity (DBE)Additive AlternatesConstruction CostsDBE Other CostsAdditive Alternate No. 1 – Records Storage BuildingAdditive Alternate No. 2 – Solar System and MicrogridFire Station 178DBE Cost Proposal SummaryJuly 13, 2021Pre-Construction and Design Services&nbsp;&nbsp;Page 33 DATE:September 1, 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:William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Ivan Rojer, Fire Chief Neil Plummer, Facilities Superintendent Ruth Cain, CPPB, Procurement Manager SUBJECT:Consideration of the Purchase of Electrical Parts in an Amount Not to Exceed $115,000. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Directors and the City Council award the purchase of electrical parts and materials on an as-needed basis from Walters Wholesale Electric of Rancho Cucamonga, in accordance with Request for Bids (RFB) #21/22-105, in an amount not to exceed $115,000 for Fiscal Year 2021/2022. BACKGROUND: Quality electrical parts and supplies are essential in maintaining safe, functional, and premiere City and Fire facilities. These components are utilized in parking lots, internal and external building lighting systems, sport lights, and electrical distribution systems. It is critical to use quality electrical materials to sustain the City’s operations and ensure the longevity of all City and Fire facilities. Electrical parts and supplies such as lamps, ballasts, circuit breakers, and wire are required to perform repairs necessary to ensure that the City and Fire facilities are well maintained and safe for the community. ANALYSIS: The Public Works Services Department provided the Procurement Division with specifications for review and to determine the best method of procurement for electrical parts and materials. The Procurement Division prepared and posted a formal Request for Bid (RFB) #21/22-105 for the purchase of “Electrical Parts and Materials on an as Needed Basis” to the City’s automated procurement system. There were five hundred and forty (540) notified vendors, twenty-one (21) prospective bidders downloaded or reviewed the solicitation documentation, and only one (1) bid response was received from Walters Wholesale Electric. All applicable bid documentation is on file in the City’s electronic bidding system and can be accessed through the City’s web page. Page 34 Page 2 9 2 7 FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed purchase of electrical parts is within the various operations and maintenance budget line items in the approved budget for FY 2021/2022. Purchasing electrical parts directly from this this local company benefits the City as taxes collected are credited to the Rancho Cucamonga store, regardless of where the items are shipped from. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all in ensuring City and Fire District facilities are properly maintained. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 35 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Ivan Rojer, Fire Chief Jeff Benson, Parks and Landscape Superintendent SUBJECT:Consideration of Amendment No. 6 to Contract CO 17-143 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Park Mowing and Facility Landscape Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $652,110 (City) and $73,880 (Fire). (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 6 to contract CO 17-143 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc., extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $652,110 for City Facilities and $73,880 for Fire Facilities for FY 2021/2022. BACKGROUND: On June 21, 2017, the City Council accepted the bids received for park mowing and facility landscape maintenance, and awarded contract CO 17-143 to Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. The initial term of the contract was one year, with the option to renew in one (1) year increments up to a total of six (6) additional years through June 30, 2024. Currently all parks and landscapes are maintained at Service Level A. If approved, Amendment No. 6 to contract CO 17-143 will extend the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 with a 3.0% rate increase and no changes to the scope of work, service levels, or other terms and conditions. FY 2021/2022 will be the fifth year of the contract. ANALYSIS: Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. has submitted a Letter of Intent expressing their desire to continue providing service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga during FY 2021/2022 with a 3.0% rate increase. The requested increase is 2.9% below the change in the May Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Region Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. continues to meet the service needs of the City and staff recommends the City Council approve the renewal of contract CO 17-143 effective July 1, 2021 and approve the spending limit of $652,110 for City Facilities and $73,880 for Fire Facilities for FY 2021/2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 2021/2022 Adopted Budget includes $647,290 for park mowing and facility landscape maintenance in various general and special funds. The funding breakdown is shown in the following table: Page 36 Page 2 9 0 2 Account Funding Source Amount 1001319-5300 Parks Maintenance $183,930 1131303-5300 LMD 2 $98,690 1133320-5300 LMD 3B (Metrolink) $44,070 1134303-5300 LMD 4R $79,600 1137303-5300 LMD 7 $19,650 1139303-5300 LMD 9 $28,430 1140303-5300 LMD 10 $9,090 1868203-5300 CFD 2000-03 $64,950 1001318-5300 Streets Maintenance $45,000 3281529-5300 Fire Facilities $73,880 Total $647,290 The contract spending limit of $652,110 for City Facilities and $73,880 for Fire Facilities includes an additional contingency of $78,700 for unforeseen work resulting from wind events or other City related emergencies. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all while providing high quality outdoor spaces. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 37 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Ivan Rojer, Fire Chief Rob Ball, Fire Marshal Darci Vogel, Fire Business Manager SUBJECT:Consideration of a Resolution Waiving the Collection of Certain Inspection, Permit, and Special Services Fees for Fiscal Year 2021-22. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2021-027) (FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (Fire District) adopt a resolution waiving the collection of certain currently approved inspection, permit, and special services fees for Fiscal Year 2021-22. BACKGROUND: Resolution FD 13-032 requires the Fire District to complete an annual analysis of the approved fees and charges to determine if there is a current need to collect the fees and charges, in whole or in part, to meet the fiscal needs of the Fire District. This analysis is completed as part of the annual budget process. Upon completion of this analysis and presentation of findings to the Board as part of the budget request, the Board is required to direct staff, by means of a resolution, regarding the collection of fees for the current fiscal year. ANALYSIS: Pursuant to Resolution FD 13-032, staff conducted a review of currently approved fees and charges in conjunction with the preparation of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 budget. Staff determined that the existing financial condition of the Fire District is such that there does not exist a fiscal need to collect certain inspection, permit, and special services fees and charges. As such, the Fire District’s budget for FY 2021-22 was prepared without including certain inspection, permit, and special services fees and charges as projected revenue. The budget has since been approved without this projected revenue. Since the budget does not anticipate the collection of certain fees and charges, a resolution of the Board is required to approve waiving the collection of these fees and charges and direct staff to not assess the fees and charges for FY 2021-22. Consistent with the previous fiscal years, the fees that will not be collected this fiscal year are those currently approved for: Recurring inspections of facilities such as apartment buildings, hospitals, and medical care businesses. These are buildings and businesses that are regularly inspected, either by State mandate or by way of being identified as high hazard facilities, which do not require a Fire Code Operating Permit. Inspections will continue but fees will not be assessed. Page 38 Page 2 9 1 9 Fire Code Operating Permits for certain hazardous and high risk business operations that the Fire Code requires to be permitted by the local fire department. The permitting process anticipates that the business and its associated operations will be inspected on a regular basis to ensure compliance with all of the safety requirements for the particular operation or occupancy as conditioned by the permit. Inspections will continue and required permits will be issued. However, the associated permit fees will not be assessed. Certain special services when the service can be provided during normal working hours. These services include safety inspections of roofing operation, the use of tents, residential care facilities, home day care facilities, and similar operations and facility uses throughout the Fire District’s service area that require or benefit from safety oversight. The inspections will continue but the approved fees will not be assessed. Exhibit A and Exhibit B of the resolution include the full schedule of fees that will not be collected this fiscal year Fees that will continue to be collected include: Special services fees for events that take place outside of normal working hours, such as fireworks shows, events sponsored by community organizations or businesses, and generally any one-time event for which safety oversight is needed and which, due to the day and time of the required inspection, will require the Fire District to pay overtime wages for the inspection service. Special services fees such as fees for Community Facilities District (CFD) annexations and fees for false or unwanted alarms. The annexation fees cover the cost of processing annexations into the CFD and the false alarm fees are both a cost recovery means and a deterrent mechanism. Fees for Fire District supplied signs and equipment. This includes cost recovery fees for Fire District supplied padlocks that secure and provide firefighter access to gates throughout the Fire District, as well as the Fire District created signs that let firefighters know where access is obstructed, where ladder points for roof access are located, and where roof top photovoltaic systems have been installed. FISCAL IMPACT: The last full fiscal year for which approved fees and charges were assessed was FY 2012-13. At that time, the fees and charges generated approximately $750,000.00 in revenue for the Fire District. Waiving the collection of the fees and charges shown in the exhibits to the proposed resolution will allow these funds to remain with Rancho Cucamonga businesses, which is anticipated to help fund jobs, investment, and additional research and development. 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. Waiving the collection of certain inspection, permit, and special services fees is anticipated to increase the sustainability and financial viability of businesses and foster equality among businesses regardless of their size. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Resolution No. FD 2021-027 Attachment 2 – Exhibit A Attachment 3 – Exhibit B Page 39 Resolution No. 21-xxx Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. FD 21-xxx A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, WAIVING THE COLLECTION OF CERTAIN INSPECTION, PERMIT, AND SPECIAL SERVICES FEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-22. WHEREAS, Resolution No. FD 13-032 requires the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (Fire District) to complete an annual analysis of the approved fees to determine if there is a current need to collect the fees, in whole or in part, to meet the fiscal needs of the Fire District; and WHEREAS, Fire District staff completed this analysis in conjunction with preparing the fiscal year 2021-22 budgets; and WHEREAS, Fire District staff determined that there does not exist a fiscal need to collect certain fees previously approved by the Board; and WHEREAS, the Fire District budgets for fiscal year 2021-22 have been approved; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HEREBY RESOLVES, 1) To waive the collection of the Inspection and Permit fees identified in Exhibit A and to waive the collection of the Special Services fees identified in Exhibit B when those Special Services can be provided during normal work hours. 2) That all other approved fees will be assessed and collected. 3) That nothing in this Resolution shall be deemed to affect any other fees of the Fire District currently in effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2021. Page 40 Exhibit A Resolution No. FD 21-xxx Inspection Fees Apartment Building / Complex Annual Inspection Buildings with 3 or 4 units $165 Buildings with 5 to 7 units $220 Buildings with 8 units $330 Each additional dwelling unit (per unit)$11 Condominium Complex Annual Inspection $330 High Rise Building annual inspection (per hour)$110 Hotel / Motel Annual Inspection First 10 rooms $330 Each additional dwelling unit (per unit)$11 Licensed Care Facility Pre-inspection - 25 or fewer residents $50 Pre-inspection - more than 25 residents $100 Annual Inspection Home Car Facility (more than six)$220 Commercial facility - first 10 rooms $330 Commercial facility - each additional room $11 Large Family Day Care annual inspection $110 Adult / Child Care Facility (Group I-4 occupancies)$330 Private School / Large Child Care Facility (Group E occupancy) Small School - Less than 50 children $220 Large School - 50 or more children $330 Medical Facility Hospital / Nursing Home (Group I-2.1)$660 Clinic $220 Ambulatory Care Facility (group I-2.1)$330 Alternate Method Annual Inspection (per hour)$110 Permit Fees Access Control Commercial $165 Residential (requires monthly testing)$550 Aerosol Products $550 Ambulatory Health Care Facility $220 Amusement Building $275 Aviation Facility Servicing or Repair $550 Fuel Servicing Vehicles $220 Battery Charging Operation $220 Carbon Dioxide Systems Used in Beverage Dispensing $110 Cellulose Nitrate Film $330 Resolution No. FD 21-xxx Exhibit A Page 1 of 5 Attachment 2Page41 Permit Fees, continued Combustible Dust Producing Operations 5,000 square feet or less $275 5,001 to 15,000 square feet $550 More than 15,000 square feet $715 Combustible Fibers $275 Commercial Cooking Operation $220 Compressed Gases Corrosive greater than 200 cubic feet $330 Flammable greater than 200 cubic feet $330 Highly toxic - any amount $330 Inert / Simple Asphyxiant greater than 6,000 cu ft $330 Irritant greater than 200 cubic feet $330 Medical Use Gases - Less than Table 105.6.8 Portable cylinders $165 Piped system $220 Other Health Hazard greater than 650 cubic feet $330 Oxidizing / oxygen greater than 504 cubic feet $330 Pyrophoric - any amount $330 Radioactive - any amount $330 Sensitizer greater than 200 cubic feet $330 Toxic - any amount $330 Unstable reactive - any amount $330 Covered Mall Building $658 Cryogenic Fluids $330 Cutting and Welding $275 Delayed Egress $165 Dipping Operations $330 Dry Cleaning Plant Small - 1 or 2 machines $220 Medium - 3 or 4 machines $330 Large - 5 or more machines $715 Explosives Process, manufacture, store, or sell $345 Use $240 Fire Alarm Services $10/acct Fire Hydrants and Valves $165 Resolution No. FD 21-xxx Exhibit A Page 2 of 5 Attachment 2Page42 Permit Fees, continued Flammable and Combustible Liquids Class I liquids in excess of 5 gal. in a building; 10 gal. outside of a building $165 Class II or Class IIIA in excess of 25 gal. in a building; 60 gal. outside of a building $165 250 gallons or less over max allowable quantity $550 251-500 gallons over max allowable quantity $578 501-1,000 gallons over max allowable quantity $605 1,001-5,000 gallons over max allowable quantity $633 5,001-10,000 gallons over max allowable quantity $660 More than 10,000 gallons over max allowable quantity $688 Remove Class I or Class II from a UST $936 Operate tank vehicles, etc $330 Place a tank out of service $936 Change contents $550 Manufacture, Process, Blend, Refine $1,128 Dispensing at Commercial, Industrial, Gov't site $330 Dispense - Tank vehicle to fuel tank $330 Use or Operate a pipeline within a facility $743 Floor Finishing in excess of 350 sq ft with Class I or II liquids Commercial / Industrial $240 Residential $136 Fruit and Crop Ripening $550 Hazardous Materials in excess of amounts listed in Table 105.6.2 Gallons - 250 or fewer $550 Gallons - 251-500 $578 Gallons - 501-1,000 $605 Gallons - 1,001-5,000 $633 Gallons - 5,001-10,000 $660 Gallons - More than 10,000 $688 Pounds - 1,000 or fewer $550 Pounds - 1,001-5,000 $578 Pounds - 5,001-10,000 $605 Pounds - 10,001-25,000 $633 Pounds - 25,001-50,000 $660 Pounds - More than 50,000 $688 Cubic feet - 500 or fewer $550 Cubic feet - 501-2,000 $578 Cubic feet - 2,001-5,000 $605 Cubic feet - 5,001-10,000 $633 Cubic feet - 10,001-25,000 $660 Cubic feet - More than 25,000 $688 HPM Facilities $440 Resolution No. FD 21-xxx Exhibit A Page 3 of 5 Attachment 2Page43 Permit Fees, continued High Piled Combustible Storage in excess of 500 square feet 500-75,000 square feet $550 75,001-500,000 square feet $605 More than 500,000 square feet $660 Hot Work Hot Work Fixed Site $275 Hot Work Operations $220 Hot Work Program $165 Operational Permits Industrial Facility / Shop Includes all required permits; if actual fees are lower, actual fees will apply 2,500 square feet or less $240 2,501-5,000 square feet $330 5,001-15,000 square feet $550 15,001-50,000 square feet $743 More than 50,000 square feet - Actual permit fees Industrial Ovens $330 Large Family Day Care $110 Liquid- or Gas-Fueled vehicles or equipment in Assembly area or occupancy $165 LP-gas Store, Use, Handle, Dispense, Sell $220 Industrial Trucks and Equipment Only (4 cylinder maximum)$165 Cylinder Exchange only $110 Live Audience $240 Lumber Yard and/or Wood Working Plant $440 Magnesium $330 Miscellaneous Combustible Storage $220 Mobile Motor Fuel Dispensing $165 Motor Fuel Dispensing Facility - Commercial $330 Motor Fuel Dispensing Facility - Residential $110 Open Flames Open Flames and torches for paint removal $110 Open Flames and torches in a hazardous fire area $110 Open Flames and candles in Assembly and Education occupancies $110 Organic Coatings $330 Pallet Storage $275 Place of Assembly A-1 Theaters, Concert Halls, Auditoriums $440 A-2 Banquet Halls, Night Clubs, Restaurants, Taverns, Bars $330 A-3 Places of Worship, Recreation, Amusement $330 A-4 Indoor sports arenas and similar - fixed seats $440 A-5 Outdoor assembly area and/or use $660 Powder Coating $330 Private Fire Hydrant $165 Resolution No. FD 21-xxx Exhibit A Page 4 of 5 Attachment 2Page44 Permit Fees, continued Production Facility $385 Pyrotechnical Special Effects Material (see Fireworks) Pyroxylin Plastics $440 Recycling and Scrap Metal Facility $550 Refrigeration Equipment $275 Reinforced Plastics / Resin Application $330 Repair Garage Includes all required permits; if actual fees are lower, actual fees will apply 2,500 square feet or less $240 2,501-5,000 square feet $330 5,001-15,000 square feet $550 15,001-50,000 square feet $743 More than 50,000 square feet - Actual permit fees Rooftop Heliport $220 Spraying Operations $330 Stationary Storage Battery System $330 Storage of Scrap Tires and Byproducts $220 Tire Rebuilding Plant $1,128 Waste Handling Facility $550 Wood Products $440 Wrecking Yard / Junk Yard $550 Resolution No. FD 21-xxx Exhibit A Page 5 of 5 Attachment 2Page45 Exhibit B Resolution No. FD 21-xxx Special Services Fees Special Amusement Building (Haunted House) Inspection $275 Asphalt Kettle Hot Work Non-pumping and less than 150 gallons $110 Pumping or more than 150 gallons $220 Carnivals, Fairs, and Outdoor Public Assemblages $220 Commercial cooking operation at outdoor event $136 Exhibits and Tradeshows $220 Explosives / Blasting Agents - single day permit $220 Hazardous Materials Tank - Remove or Abandon $715 Liquid or gas fueled vehicles in Assembly area $165 Live Audience $220 Open Burning or Bonfire $110 Open Flames - torches for paint removal $110 Open Flames - welding, brazing, soldering, etc in wildland fire area $110 Open Flames and fires in Group A or E occupancies $110 Parade - inspection of floats $110 Recreational Fire $110 Seasonal Sales Lot $136 Tent or Temporary membrane Structure $220 Torch Applied Roof Hot Work Patch / Repair (500 sq ft or less)$110 Roof Replacement (more than 500 sq ft)$165 Exhibit B Page 1 of 1 Attachment 3Page46 DATE:September 1, 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 Trina Valdez, Utilities Operations Supervisor SUBJECT:Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $19,220 from the Municipal Utility Fund (Fund 705) for the Fire Station 3 - SCE Exit to RCMU Project. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council authorize an appropriation in the amount of $19,220 for an electric service interconnection for the Fire Station 3 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility infrastructure. BACKGROUND: On February 3, 2021, the City Council approved an amendment to Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. as the lowest responsive bidder, for construction of the Fire Station 3 – SCE Exit to RCMU Project, located at 12270 Firehouse Court in the amount of $60,975, plus a 5% Contingency. The scope of work for this Project consisted of a connection to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility’s (RCMU’s) existing distribution equipment, furnishing and installing new substructure, cabling, connections and transformer needed to interconnect to RCMU’s infrastructure. ANALYSIS: During construction of the line extension, there were several issues that were discovered that required a change order. An additional 45 linear feet of trenching and 65 linear feet of four 5” conduits were required to intercept the existing Fire Station 3 conduits and RCMU’s nearest intercept point. Additional Decomposed Granite (DG) in the parkway trail was also needed to be repaired. Because the cost of the additional work exceeded the original 5% contingency, staff is requesting an appropriation to fully fund and complete the Project. FISCAL IMPACT: An appropriation in the amount of $19,220 from the Municipal Utility Fund (Fund 705) to Account No. 1705303-5650/2036705-0 (Capital Project/Fire Station 3-Exit to RCMU) is needed to fully fund the project. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s vision for the City by ensuring the construction and maintenance of high-quality public improvements that promote a world class community. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 47 DATE:September 1, 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 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. All three levels of government continue to keep their emergency status open due to the pandemic. 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, May 5, and July 7 of 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. 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. On June 15, 2021, the state of California moved to Beyond the Blueprint for a Safer Economy which allows for the removal of personal safety requirements, including social distancing and wearing a facial covering for most scenarios involving vaccinated individuals. However, the County, State, and Federal government have kept their emergency declarations open in order to continue to respond to and recover from the pandemic. Page 48 Page 2 9 3 0 Given that the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the region and the City, there remains a need to keep the emergency 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 as long as the County, State, and Federal government continue to keep their emergency status current. 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 49 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Jennifer Nakamura, Management Analyst II SUBJECT:Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting (CO# 19-196) for Development Code Consulting Services in the Amount of $155,630 and Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $155,630 from the Community Development Technical Services Fund. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council execute Amendment No 1 to Professional Services Agreement CO 19-196 with Lisa Wise Consulting (LWC) and authorize an appropriation in the amount of $155,630 from the Community Development Technical Services Fund. BACKGROUND: On December 18, 2019 the City entered into a contract with LWC to create a zoning implementation framework and develop necessary updates to the Development Code to translate the policies of the development plan into effective, user-friendly land use and development regulations. The contract and scope of work with LWC was initiated based on ideas of how the comprehensive General Plan Update may develop before any work had begun on the plan. After nearly 18 months of outreach and development, the General Plan Update was released for public review in May, 2021. LWC was brought on early in the process to ensure that any Development Code changes needed to implement the vision, land uses, goals and policies presented in the General Plan would be prepared early, in consultation with staff and the General Plan consulting team, with the goal of adopting changes to the Development Code in a short timeframe after the General Plan is adopted. ANALYSIS: LWC has been working side by side with our General Plan consulting team through the process to better understand the land use and community character outlined in the document. Additional changes to the Development Code, not previously included in the scope of work will be needed. In addition, the City has secured grant funding from the state to develop objective design standards for new mixed use and multi-family developments and LWC will develop and incorporate those standards into the Development Code. In addition, LWC will be working to incorporate key development standards from several old specific plans, master plans and planned community documents, some of which date back to the 1980’s into the Development Code, making it easier for staff and the public to understand, interpret and implement. These activities were not included in the original contract, making an amendment to the contract necessary. The amendment to the contract will increase the total contract amount to $346,412 (including a 10% contingency). Page 50 Page 2 9 3 6 Table 1 – Contract Cost Breakdown Amount Contingency Total Original Contract $173,440 $17,344 $190,784 Amendment No. 1 $141,480 $14,148 $155,628 Grand Totals $314,920 $31,492 $346,412 FISCAL IMPACT: Staff requests an appropriation of $155,630 from the Community Development Technical Services Fund Contract Services account (1016301-5300) to fund the contract amendment and associated contingency. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The Council has identified a goal of adopting a new General Plan and Housing Element through an inclusive process by 4th quarter 2022. Developing the changes need now to the Development Code promotes the Council’s value to intentionally embracing and anticipating the future in order for the vison, goals and policies of the General Plan to be implemented with minimal lag time after adoption. ATTACHMENTS: N/A Page 51 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Jeff Benson, Parks and Landscape Superintendent Paul Fisher, Management Analyst III SUBJECT:Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020-030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for LMD 4R Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $486,890. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 1 to contract CO 2020-030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc., extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $486,890 for FY 2021/2022. BACKGROUND: On April 1, 2020, the City Council accepted the bids received and awarded contract number CO 2020-030 for “LMD 4R Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance” to Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. of Irwindale, California, effective July 1, 2020 for a one (1) year term with an option to renew in one (1) year increments up to a total of six (6) additional years through June 30, 2027. Currently all sites are maintained at Service Level A. If approved, Amendment No. 1 to contract CO 2020-030 will extend the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 with a 3.0% rate increase and no changes to the scope of work, service levels, or other terms and conditions. FY 2021/2022 will be the second year of the contract. ANALYSIS: Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. has submitted a Letter of Intent expressing their desire to continue providing service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga during 2021/2022 with a 3.0% rate increase. The requested increase is 2.9% below the change in the May Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Region Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. continues to meet the service needs of the City and staff recommends the City Council approve the renewal of contract CO 2020-030 effective July 1, 2021 and approve the spending limit of $486,890 for FY 2021/2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 2021/2022 Adopted Budget includes $429,740 in account 1134303-5300 for parkway, paseo, and median island landscape maintenance in LMD 4R. The contract spending limit of $486,890 includes an additional contingency of $57,150 for unforeseen work resulting from wind events or other emergencies. Page 52 Page 2 9 0 4 COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all while providing high quality outdoor spaces. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 53 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Jeff Benson, Parks and Landscape Superintendent Paul Fisher, Management Analyst III SUBJECT:Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Contract CO 2020-029 with Landscape West Management Services, Inc. for LMD 2 Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,200,000. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 1 to contract CO 2020-029 with Landscape West Management Services, Inc. extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $1,200,000 for FY 2021/2022. BACKGROUND: On April 1, 2020, the City Council awarded and authorized the execution of a contract for “LMD 2 Parkway Paseo and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance” with Landscape West Management Services, Inc. for a fourteen (14) month term with an option to renew in one (1) year increments up to a total of six (6) additional years. If approved, Amendment No. 1 to contract CO 2020-029, extends the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 with no rate increase and no changes to the scope of work, service levels, or other terms and conditions. ANALYSIS: Landscape West Management Services, Inc. has submitted a Letter of Intent expressing their desire to continue providing service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga during 2021/2022 with NO rate increase. Landscape West Management Services, Inc. continues to meet the service needs of the City and staff recommends the City Council approve the renewal of contract CO 2020-029 effective July 1, 2021 and approve the spending limit of $1,200,000 for FY 2021/2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 2021/2022 Adopted Budget includes $998,790 in account 1131303-5300 for parkway, paseo and median island landscape maintenance for LMD 2. The contract spending limit of $1,200,000 includes an additional contingency of $201,210 for unforeseen work resulting from wind events or other emergencies. Page 54 Page 2 9 0 8 COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all while providing high quality outdoor spaces. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 55 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Jeff Benson, Parks and Landscape Superintendent Paul Fisher, Management Analyst III SUBJECT:Consideration of Amendment No. 3 to Contract CO 18-030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance of LMDs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 Parkways, Paseos, and Medians in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,009,780. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 3 to contract CO 18-030 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc., extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $1,009,780 for FY 2021/2022. BACKGROUND: On May 16, 2018, the City Council accepted the bids received and awarded contract number CO 18-030 for landscape and irrigation maintenance of LMDs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 parkways, paseos, and medians, to Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. The initial term of the contract was one year, with the option to renew in one (1) year increments up to a total of six (6) additional years through June 30, 2025. Included in the contract is tiered pricing for Service Levels A through C as defined in the contract specifications. Routine maintenance is currently performed at Service Level A at LMD 6, LMD 7, LMD 9 and LMD 10 sites, and at Service Level B at LMD 8 sites. If approved, Amendment No. 3 to contract CO 18-030 will extend the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 with a 3.0% rate increase and no changes to the scope of work, service levels, or other terms and conditions. FY 2021/2022 will be the fourth year of the contract. ANALYSIS: Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. has submitted a Letter of Intent expressing their desire to continue providing service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga during 2021/2022 with a 3.0% rate increase. The requested increase is 2.9% below the change in the May Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Region Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. continues to meet the service needs of the City and staff recommends the City Council approve the renewal of contract CO 18-030 effective July 1, 2021 and approve the spending limit of $1,009,780 for FY 2021/2022. Page 56 Page 2 9 0 3 FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 2021/2022 Adopted Budget includes $891,240 for parkway, paseo, and median island landscape maintenance in LMDs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The funding breakdown is shown in the following table: Account Funding Source Amount 1136303-5300 LMD 6 $258,970 1137303-5300 LMD 7 $421,540 1138303-5300 LMD 8 $10,430 1139303-5300 LMD 9 $72,660 1140303-5300 LMD 10 $127,640 Total $891,240 The contract spending limit of $1,009,780 includes an additional contingency of $118,540 for unforeseen work resulting from wind events or other emergencies. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all while providing high quality outdoor spaces. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 57 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Jeff Benson, Parks and Landscape Superintendent Paul Fisher, Management Analyst III SUBJECT:Consideration of Amendment No. 4 to Contract CO 16-262 with BrightView Landscape Services for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for PD-85 Parks in an Amount Not to Exceed $266,990. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 4 to contract CO 16-262 with BrightView Landscape Services, extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $266,990 for FY 2021/2022. BACKGROUND: On November 16, 2016, the City Council accepted the bids received for landscape services and awarded contract CO 16-262 to BrightView Landscape Services for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for PD-85 Parks. The initial term of the contract was eighteen months, with the option to renew in one (1) year increments up to a total of six (6) additional years through June 30, 2023. Currently, all parks in PD-85 are maintained at Service Level C as defined by the contract specifications. If approved, Amendment No. 4 to contract CO 16-262 will extend the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 with a 3.0% rate increase and no changes to the scope of work, service levels, or other terms and conditions. ANALYSIS: BrightView Landscape Services has submitted a Letter of Intent expressing their desire to continue providing service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga during 2021/2022 with a 3.0% rate increase. The requested increase is 2.9% below the change in the May Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Region Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). BrightView Landscape Services continues to meet the service needs of the City and staff recommends the City Council approve the renewal of contract CO 16-262 effective July 1, 2022 and approve the spending limit of $266,990 for FY 2021/2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 2021/2022 Adopted Budget includes $236,270 in account 1848303-5300 for Landscape Maintenance for PD 85 Parks. The contract spending limit of $266,990 includes an additional contingency of $30,720 for unforeseen work resulting from wind events or other emergencies. Page 58 Page 2 9 0 7 COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all while providing high quality outdoor spaces. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 59 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Jeff Benson, Parks and Landscape Superintendent Paul Fisher, Management Analyst III SUBJECT:Consideration of Amendment 4 to Contract CO 17-140 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance on Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard Medians in an Amount Not to Exceed $266,470. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 4 to contract CO 17-140 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc., extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $266,470 for FY 2021/2022. BACKGROUND: On June 21, 2017, the City Council accepted the bids received for landscape and irrigation maintenance on the Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard medians, and awarded contract CO 17-140 to Mariposa Landscapes Inc. The initial term of the contract was one year, with the option to renew in one (1) year increments up to a total of six (6) additional years through June 30, 2024. Currently all sites on the Haven and Foothill medians are maintained at Service Level B. If approved, Amendment No. 4 to contract CO 17-140 will extend the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 with a 3.0% rate increase and no changes to the scope of work, service levels, or other terms and conditions. FY 2021/2022 will be the fifth year of the contract. ANALYSIS: Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. has submitted a Letter of Intent expressing their desire to continue providing service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga during FY 2021/2022 with a 3.0% rate increase. The requested increase is 2.9% below the change in the May Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Region Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. continues to meet the service needs of the City and staff recommends the City Council approve the renewal of contract CO 17-140 effective July 1, 2021 and approve the spending limit of $266,470 for FY 2021/2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 2021/2022 Adopted Budget includes $235,186 for the Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard median island landscape maintenance. The funding breakdown is shown in the following table: Page 60 Page 2 9 0 0 Account Funding Source Amount 1001319-5300 Parks Maintenance $37,000 1130303-5300 LMD 1 $20,520 1133303-5300 LMD 3B $130,125 1134303-5300 LMD 4R $40,841 1139303-5300 LMD 9 $6,700 Total $235,186 The contract spending limit of $266,470 includes an additional contingency of $31,284 for unforeseen work resulting from wind events or other emergencies. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all while providing high quality outdoor spaces. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 61 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Jeff Benson, Parks and Landscape Superintendent Paul Fisher, Management Analyst III SUBJECT:Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 17-142 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance on General Fund and LMD 3B Parkways in an Amount Not to Exceed $875,680. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 5 to contract CO 17-142 with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc., extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $875,680 for FY 2021/2022. BACKGROUND: On June 21, 2017, the City Council accepted the bids received for landscape and irrigation maintenance on the General Fund, LMD 3A, and LMD 3B parkways and medians, and awarded contract CO 17-142 to Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. The initial term of the contract was one year, with the option to renew in one (1) year increments up to a total of six (6) additional years through June 30, 2024. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-082 ordering the dissolution of LMD 3A on July 15, 2020 removing that landscape site from maintenance under this contract. Currently, landscape sites in General Fund and LMD 3B are maintained at Service Level A. If approved, Amendment No. 5 to contract CO 17-142 will extend the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 with a 3.0% rate increase and no changes to the scope of work, service levels, or other terms and conditions. FY 2021-2022 will be the fifth year of the contract. ANALYSIS: Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. has submitted a Letter of Intent expressing their desire to continue providing service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga during FY 2021/2022 with a 3.0% rate increase. The requested increase is 2.9% below the change in the May Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Region Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. continues to meet the service needs of the City and staff recommends the City Council approve the renewal of contract CO 17-142 effective July 1, 2021 and approve the spending limit of $875,680 for FY 2021/2022. Page 62 Page 2 9 0 1 FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 2021/2022 Adopted Budget includes $778,880 for parkway, paseo, and median island landscape maintenance in General Fund and LMD 3B and weed abatement on City owned parcels. The funding breakdown is shown in the following table: Account Funding Source Amount 1001319-5300 Park Maintenance $481,190 1133303-5300 LMD 3B $252,690 1001318-5300 Streets Maintenance (Weed Abatement) $45,000 Total $778,880 The contract spending limit of $875,680 includes an additional contingency of $96,800 for unforeseen work resulting from wind events or other emergencies. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all while providing high quality outdoor spaces. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 63 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Jeff Benson, Parks and Landscape Superintendent Paul Fisher, Management Analyst III SUBJECT:Consideration of Amendment No. 5 to Contract CO 16-148 with BrightView Landscape Services for Landscape, Irrigation, and Parks Maintenance for Landscape Maintenance District 1 Parks in an Amount Not to Exceed $294,150. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 5 to contract CO 16-148 with BrightView Landscape Services, extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $294,150. BACKGROUND: On June 15, 2016, the City Council accepted the bids received for landscape services and awarded contract CO 16-148 to BrightView Landscape Services for the complete maintenance of parks located in Landscape Maintenance District 1 (LMD-1). The initial term of the contract was one year, with the option to renew in one (1) year increments up to a total of six (6) additional years through June 30, 2023. Currently, all parks in LMD 1 are maintained at Service Level C as defined by the contract specifications. If approved, Amendment No. 5 to contract CO 16-148 extends the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 with a 3% rate increase and no changes to the scope of work, service levels, or other terms and conditions. ANALYSIS: BrightView Landscape Services has submitted a Letter of Intent expressing their desire to continue providing service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga during 2021/2022 with a 3.0% rate increase. The requested increase is 2.9% below the change in the May Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Region Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). BrightView Landscape Services continues to meet the service needs of the City and staff recommends the City Council approve the renewal of contract CO 16-148 effective July 1, 2021 and approve the spending limit of $294,150 for FY 2021/2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 2021/2022 Adopted Budget includes $267,410 in account 1130303-5300 for Landscape Maintenance for LMD 1 Parks. The contract spending limit of $294,150 includes an additional contingency of $26,740 for unforeseen work resulting from wind events or other emergencies. Page 64 Page 2 9 0 6 COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all while providing high quality outdoor spaces. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 65 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Jeff Benson, Parks and Landscape Superintendent Paul Fisher, Management Analyst III SUBJECT:Consideration Amendment No. 11 to Contract CO 2012-009 with BrightView Landscape Services for Maintenance of Parkway, Paseo, and Median Landscapes within Landscape Maintenance Districts 1 and 5 in an Amount Not to Exceed $273,870. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 11 to contract CO 2012-009 with BrightView Landscape Services, extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $273,870 for FY 2021/2022. BACKGROUND: On March 21, 2012, the City Council accepted the bids received and awarded contract CO 2012- 009 to BrightView Landscape Services for the maintenance of landscape and irrigation within Landscape Maintenance Districts 1, 2, 4R, and 5. This contract, as amended, had an option to renew in one-year increments, up to a total of seven years ending June 30, 2019. On June 19, 2019, the City Council approved a one-year extension to allow time to re-bid these services. RFP 19/20-011 (LMDs 1 and 5), RFP 19/20-012 (LMD 2) and RFP 19/20-013 (LMD 4R) were posted to the City’s automated procurement system and proposals were received on September 19, 2019. RFP 19/20-012 and RFP 19/20-013 were successful and new contracts were awarded by Council on April 1, 2020 for landscape maintenance in LMDs 2 and 4R. Unfortunately, following the evaluation of the written proposals and vendor interviews, it was determined the proposals received for LMDs 1 and 5 did not meet the needs of the City. In order to provide continuity of services in LMDs 1 and 5, it is necessary to extend the term of contract CO 2012-009 an additional year. Contract No. CO 2012-009 provides tiered pricing for Service Levels A through C as defined in the contract specifications. Currently, the landscape site in LMD 5 is maintained at Service Level A and LMD 1 sites are maintained at Service Level C. If approved, Amendment No. 11 to contract CO 2012-009 will amend the contract to extend the term an additional year to June 30, 2022 with a 3% rate increase and no changes to the scope of work, service levels, or other terms and conditions. Staff is currently reviewing the landscape maintenance contracts and seeking opportunities to realign some of the services to increase operational efficiencies and reduce contract costs to align Page 66 Page 2 9 0 5 with the district budgets in LMDs 1 and 5. The specifications are expected to be completed by the end of the calendar year. Once completed, the specifications will be forwarded to the Procurement Department for a formal solicitation. The goal is to have the solicitation completed and a new contract awarded before the end of the fiscal year. Upon completion of a successful procurement and award of a new contract, Contract No. CO 2012-009 will be terminated, and services will begin with the selected vendor. ANALYSIS: BrightView Landscape Services has submitted a Letter of Intent expressing their desire to continue providing service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga during 2021/2022 with a 3.0% rate increase. The requested increase is 2.9% below the change in the May Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Region Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). BrightView Landscape Services continues to meet the service needs of the City and staff recommends the City Council approve the renewal of contract CO 2012-009 effective July 1, 2021 and approve the spending limit of $273,870 for FY 2021/2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 2021/2022 Adopted Budget includes $242,360 for parkway, paseo, and median island landscape maintenance in LMDs 1 and 5. The funding breakdown is shown in the following table: Account Funding Source Amount 1130303-5300 LMD 1 $241,110 1135303-5300 LMD 5 $1,250 Total $242,360 The contract spending limit of $273,870 includes an additional contingency of $31,510 for unforeseen work resulting from wind events or other emergencies. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all while providing high quality outdoor spaces. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 67 DATE:September 1, 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 Romeo M. David, Associate Engineer SUBJECT:Consideration of a Contract with Alfaro Communication Construction, Inc., in an Amount of $222,780 Plus 10% Contingency, Issuance of a Purchase Order to Onward Engineering for On-Call Construction Inspection Services, and Appropriations from the MSRC Air Pollution Reduction and AB2766 Air Quality Improvement Funds for the EV Chargers at Various Locations Project. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer for the EV Chargers at Various Locations (Project); 2. Accept the bids received for the Project; 3. Award and authorize the execution of a contract in the amount of $222,780 to the lowest responsive bidder, Alfaro Communication Construction, Inc., for the total Base Bid, plus Additive Bids 1 and 3; 4. Authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $22,278; 5. Authorize a Purchase Order in the amount of $26,400 to Onward Engineering, Inc. for on- call construction inspection services; 6. Authorize an appropriation of revenue in the amount of $22,500 to the MSRC Grant Fund; and 7. Authorize appropriations of expenditures in the amount of $22,500 from the MSRC Air Pollution Reduction Fund (Fund 106) and $251,140 from the from the AB2766 Air Quality Improvement Fund (Fund 105). BACKGROUND: Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations have been a staple in the city for over a decade and have provided early adopters of EV’s with vital charging opportunities as they visit or travel through Rancho Cucamonga. EV charging station technology continues to advance and with the number of EV owners increasing every day, our aging infrastructure is in need of an upgrade to be able to provide for new charging speeds and convenience. The City’s very first EV Readiness Plan was adopted by the City Council at its June 16, 2021 meeting. This Plan provides an analysis of current and future EV charging station needs and includes a roadmap to achieve charging station goals in order to prepare for increasing EV adoption and public charging demand. One action identified as needed to reach those goals is to upgrade our aging EV charging station infrastructure. Page 68 Page 2 9 2 2 The implementation of EV charging measures is also a vital component to meeting the goals of the General Plan and Sustainable Community Action Plan. These measures provide a direct impact toward reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by creating a reliable and accessible network of resources that encourages the ownership or leasing of EV’s in the Southern California region. These efforts align with other initiatives to collectively bolster the City's sustainability efforts. In 2019, the City was awarded a Local Government Match Program grant from AQMD’s Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Committee (MSRC) in the amount of $22,500 for the replacement and installation of Smart Level II charging stations. These funds served as the seed for the subject project which will include upgrading current Level II charging stations—that have no network connection capability and have reached the end of their useful life—to new Smart Level II charging stations that will allow staff to monitor chargers from their desk and utilize data reports to understand usage patterns to make informed decisions about pricing and to inform the rollout of future charging station locations. A Vicinity Map for the project is included as Attachment 1. The scope of work consists of, but is not limited to, furnishing and installing new ChargePoint dual output gateway unit commercial electric vehicle charging stations (EVSE) including foundations, bollards, conduit, new wiring, pull boxes, prepaid commercial cloud plan, prepaid ChargePoint Assure service plan, setup, and activation; removing and salvaging existing electric vehicle charging stations; installing salvaged electric vehicle charging stations with new foundations, bollards, conduit, wiring, and pull boxes for use by City owned EVs; minor modifications to parking areas including surfacing, signs and striping, and landscaping per the plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer. The contract documents call for thirty (30) working days to complete this construction. ANALYSIS: The Notice Inviting Bids was released to the general contracting community and was published in the Daily Bulletin on July 27, and August 3, 2021. The City Clerk’s Office facilitated the formal solicitation for bidding the project. This project was advertised to bid with base bid and additive bid items (Additive Bids 1 to 3). The base bid includes the installation of four (4) replacement EV chargers at City Hall, while the additive bids sought bids to install additional chargers at locations in Central Park (Additive Bid 1), Beryl Park and the RC Sports Center (Additive Bid 2), and the Public Works Services Facility (Additive Bid 3). On August 10, 2021, the City Clerk’s office received four (4) construction bids. Total bids for the project (base bid plus additive bids) ranged from $287,295 to $366,208. The apparent low bidder (as calculated per State law and the terms of the project’s bid documents), Alfaro Communication Construction, Inc. (Contractor), submitted a total bid of $287,295 consisting of: Base Bid (City Hall) $139,040 Additive Bid 1 (Central Park) $56,540 Additive Bid 2 (Beryl Park & RC Sports Center) $64,515 Additive Bid 3 (Public Works Services Center) $27,200 $287,295 The Engineer’s estimate for the project (base bid plus additive bids) was $160,000. Given the significant difference between the estimate and actual bids, staff evaluated the bids to determine whether the bid prices received were reasonable. The primary component affecting the project’s cost increase appears to be related to the cost of chargers. During the design phase, staff obtained preliminary budgeting figures from the manufacturer, however, it appears that costs have Page 69 Page 3 9 2 2 increased significantly since that time. This could be attributed to the increasing costs of construction and electronics post-pandemic as both labor and material shortages have adversely affected these costs. In an effort to further the City’s goals with regard to EV infrastructure, utilize the grant funding that the City was awarded for this project, and provide responsible management of the City’s resources, staff evaluated each additive bid to provide a recommendation on award of the portion of the additive items that will provide the greatest benefit to the City. To that end, staff’s recommendation above includes proceeding with installation of replacement and new EV chargers at City Hall, Central Park, and the Public Works Services Center for a contract cost of $222,780. The plans for the remaining locations at Beryl Park and the RC Sports Center will be retained and staff will continue to seek funding opportunities to complete those installations in the future. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found all to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements with any irregularities to be inconsequential. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds the lowest responsive bidder, Alfaro Communication Construction, Inc., meets the requirements of the bid documents. Environmental: Staff has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 “Existing Facilities” subsection (c), Class 1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). FISCAL IMPACT: Anticipated construction costs are estimated to be as follows: Expenditure Category Amount Construction Contract $222,780 Construction Contract Contingency (10%)$22,278 Construction Inspection Services $26,400 Bid Noticing $2,173 Estimated Construction Costs $273,631 This project will be funded with a combination of the MSRC reimbursement-based grant funds and AB2766 Air Quality funds. Revenue for the grant funds has not been included in the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget, therefore an appropriation of revenue in the amount of $22,500 will need to be made to the MSRC Air Pollution Reduction Grant Fund (Fund 106) to account for the Local Government Match Program grant. Account No.Funding Source Description Amount 1106000-4740 MSRC Air Pollution Reduction Grant Fund (106) Grant Income $22,500 Total Revenue Appropriation $22,500 Page 70 Page 4 9 2 2 Further, expenditures for the project have not been included in this year’s budget, therefore a total of $273,640 from MSRC Air Pollution Grant Fund (Fund 106) the AB2766 Air Quality Improvement Fund (Fund 105) will need to be appropriated to proceed with construction. Account No.Funding Source Description Amount 1106303-5650/2084106-0 MSRC Air Pollution Reduction Grant Fund (106) EV Chargers at Various Locations $22,500 1105208-5650/2084105-0 AB2766 Air Quality Improvement Fund (105) EV Chargers at Various Locations $251,140 Total Project Appropriation $273,640 COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This project meets our City Council core values by promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, and by providing continuous improvement through the construction of high- quality public improvements. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map Attachment 2 – Bid Summary Page 71 ATTACHMENT 1 EV Chargers at Various Locations VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE Project Site Page 72 UNITUNITBIDUNITBIDUNITBIDUNITBIDNO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTIONCOSTAMOUNTCOSTAMOUNTCOSTAMOUNTCOSTAMOUNTCOSTAMOUNT11 LS MOBILIZATION6,733.75$ 6,733.75$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 3,450.00$ 3,450.00$ 21 LS CLEARING, GRUBBING, AND REMOVAL - INCLUDING DISPOSAL5,387.00$ 5,387.00$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 2,001.00$ 2,001.00$ 33 EA FURNISH AND INSTALL CHARGEPOINT CT4021-GW1 DUAL OUTPUT GATEWAY UNIT COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION (EVSE) INCLUDING FOUNDATION, ELECTRICAL, CONDUITS, PULL BOXES, NEW WIRING, SETUP, AND ACTIVATION PER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS COMPLETE IN PLACE (CITY HALL)10,500.00$ 31,500.00$ 19,000.00$ 57,000.00$15,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 19,000.00$ 57,000.00$ 22,824.67$ 68,474.01$ 41 EA FURNISH AND INSTALL CHARGEPOINT CT4023-GW1 DUAL OUTPUT GATEWAY UNIT COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION (EVSE) INCLUDING ELECTRICAL, CONDUITS, PULL BOXES, NEW WIRING, SETUP, AND ACTIVATION PER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS COMPLETE IN PLACE (CITY HALL)10,500.00$ 10,500.00$ 21,600.00$ 21,600.00$15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 24,987.00$ 24,987.00$ 58 EA FURNISH AND INSTALL PROTECTIVE BOLLARDS PER PLAN AND DETAIL (CITY HALL)800.00$ 6,400.00$ 1,000.00$ 8,000.00$500.00$ 4,000.00$ 1,100.00$ 8,800.00$ 1,656.00$ 13,248.00$ 64 EA 1 YEAR PREPAID COMMERCIAL CLOUD PLAN AND CHARGEPOINT ASSURE INCLUDING SECURE NETWORK CONNECTION, ON-GOING STATION SOFTWARE UPDATES, STATION INVENTORY, 24X7 DRIVER SUPPORT, HOST SUPPORT, SESSION DATA AND ANALYTICS, FLEET VEHICLE MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION, FLEET ACCESS CONTROL, VALET DASHBOARD, POWER MANAGEMENT, SCHEUDLED CHARGING, DRIVER ACCESS CONTROL, PRICING AND AUTOMATIC FUNDS COLLECTION, WAITLIST, VIDEOS (ON SUPPORTED HARDWARE) (CITY HALL)1,200.00$ 4,800.00$ 1,300.00$ 5,200.00$7,500.00$ 30,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 6,000.00$ -$-$73 EA REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING EVSE PEDESTAL INCLUDING EV CHARGERS REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING ELECTRICAL, WIRING, AND FOUNDATION PER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS COMPLETE IN PLACE (CITY HALL)1,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 6,000.00$1,200.00$ 3,600.00$ 1,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 690.00$ 2,070.00$ 82 EA REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING WHEEL STOP FILL HOLE WITH NON-SHRINK GROUT PER PLAN COMPLETE IN PLACE (CITY HALL)100.00$ 200.00$ 40.00$ 80.00$1,200.00$ 2,400.00$ 100.00$ 200.00$ 1,173.00$ 2,346.00$ 91 EA RELOCATE EXISTING WHEEL STOP FILL HOLE WITH NON-SHRINK GROUT PER PLAN AND DETAIL COMPLETE IN PLACE (CITY HALL)50.00$ 50.00$ 60.00$ 60.00$1,200.00$ 1,200.00$ 100.00$ 100.00$ 1,518.00$ 1,518.00$ 1015 SF FURNISH AND INSTALL DECTECTABLE WARNING SURFACE PER PLAN COMPLETE IN PLACE (CITY HALL)20.00$ 300.00$ 40.00$ 600.00$200.00$ 3,000.00$ 213.00$ 3,195.00$ 93.00$ 1,395.00$ 11700 SF APPLY EPOXY SEAL ON CONCRETE PAVEMENT (CITY HALL)1.00$ 700.00$ 5.00$3,500.00$20.00$ 14,000.00$ 17.00$ 11,900.00$ 30.00$ 21,000.00$ 121 LS RESTORE DISTURBED LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 1,932.00$ 1,932.00$ 131 LS TRAFFIC STRIPING, SIGNAGE, MARKINGS, AND MARKERS PER PLAN COMPLETE IN PLACE15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 14,000.00$ 14,000.00$3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 13,230.00$ 13,230.00$ 17,250.00$ 17,250.00$ TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT87,570.75$ 139,040.00$ 128,700.00$ 137,925.00$ 159,671.01$ UNITUNITBIDUNITBIDUNITBIDUNITBIDNO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTIONCOSTAMOUNTCOSTAMOUNTCOSTAMOUNTCOSTAMOUNTCOSTAMOUNTA2 EAFURNISH AND INSTALL ADDITIONAL CHARGEPOINT CT4021-GW1 DUAL OUTPUT GATEWAY UNIT COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION (EVSE) INCLUDING FOUNDATION, ELECTRICAL, CONDUITS, ENCLOSURE, PULL BOXES, NEW WIRING, SETUP, AND ACTIVATION PER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS COMPLETE IN PLACED (CENTRAL PARK)10,500.00$ 21,000.00$ 21,000.00$ 42,000.00$15,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 23,000.00$ 46,000.00$ 33,549.00$ 67,098.00$ B8EAFURNISH AND INSTALL ADDITIONAL PROTECTIVE BOLLARDS PER PLAN AND DETAIL (CENTRAL PARK)800.00$ 6,400.00$ 1,000.00$ 8,000.00$500.00$ 4,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 1,452.00$ 11,616.00$ C2EA1 YEAR PREPAID COMMERCIAL CLOUD PLAN AND CHARGEPOINT ASSURE INCLUDING SECURE NETWORK CONNECTION, ON-GOING STATION SOFTWARE UPDATES, STATION INVENTORY, 24X7 DRIVER SUPPORT, HOST SUPPORT, SESSION DATA AND ANALYTICS, FLEET VEHICLE MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION, FLEET ACCESS CONTROL, VALET DASHBOARD, POWER MANAGEMENT, SCHEUDLED CHARGING, DRIVER ACCESS CONTROL, PRICING AND AUTOMATIC FUNDS COLLECTION, WAITLIST, VIDEOS ON SUPPORTED HARDWARE (CENTRAL PARK)1,200.00$ 2,400.00$ 1,500.00$ 3,000.00$7,500.00$ 15,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 3,000.00$ -$-$D55 SFSAWCUT, REMOVE, TRENCH BACKFILL, AND REPLACE ASPHALT AS REQUIRED FOR CONDUIT TRENCHING PER PLAN AND DETAIL COMPLETE IN PLACE (CENTRAL PARK)15.00$ 825.00$ 60.00$ 3,300.00$120.00$ 6,600.00$ 150.00$ 8,250.00$ 114.00$ 6,270.00$ E2EAFURNISH AND INSTALL NEW WHEEL STOP PER PLAN AND DETAIL COMPLETE IN PLACE (CENTRAL PARK)250.00$ 500.00$ 100.00$ 200.00$900.00$ 1,800.00$ 100.00$ 200.00$ 819.00$ 1,638.00$ F1EAREMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ADDITIONAL EXISTING WHEEL STOP FILL HOLE WITH NON-SHRINK GROUT PER PLAN COMPLETE IN PLACE (CENTRAL PARK)100.00$ 100.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$900.00$ 900.00$100.00$ 100.00$ 905.00$ 905.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$-$TOTAL ADDITIVE BID 1 AMOUNT31,225.00$ 56,540.00$58,300.00$ 65,550.00$ 87,527.00$ ALFARO COMMUNICATIONSCONSTRUCTION INC.4E.E. ELECTRIC, INC.SERVITEK ELECTRIC, INC.ADDITIVE BID 1:BASE BID A3ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC, INC.APPARENT LOW BIDDER 2BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING August 10, 2021EV CHARGERS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONSENGINEER'S ESTIMATEATTACHMENT 2&nbsp;&nbsp;Page 73 ALFARO COMMUNICATIONS CONSTRUCTION INC.4E.E. ELECTRIC, INC.SERVITEK ELECTRIC, INC.3ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC, INC.APPARENT LOW BIDDER 2BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING August 10, 2021EV CHARGERS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONSENGINEER'S ESTIMATEUNIT UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BIDNOQTY UNIT DESCRIPTIONCOST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNTA2 EAFURNISH AND INSTALL ADDITIONAL CHARGEPOINT CT4021-GW1 DUAL OUTPUT GATEWAY UNIT COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION (EVSE) INCLUDING FOUNDATION, ELECTRICAL, CONDUITS, PULL BOXES, NEW WIRING, SETUP, AND ACTIVATION PER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS COMPLETE IN PLACED (BERYL PARK AND RC SPORTS CENTER)10,500.00$ 21,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 48,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 23,000.00$ 46,000.00$ 18,255.00$ 36,510.00$ B4 EAFURNISH AND INSTALL ADDITIONAL PROTECTIVE BOLLARDS PER PLAN AND DETAIL (BERYL PARK AND RC SPORTS CENTER)800.00$ 3,200.00$ 1,300.00$ 5,200.00$ 975.00$ 3,900.00$ 1,100.00$ 4,400.00$ 1,426.00$ 5,704.00$ C2 EA1 YEAR PREPAID COMMERCIAL CLOUD PLAN AND CHARGEPOINT ASSURE INCLUDING SECURE NETWORK CONNECTION, ON-GOING STATION SOFTWARE UPDATES, STATION INVENTORY, 24X7 DRIVER SUPPORT, HOST SUPPORT, SESSION DATA AND ANALYTICS, FLEET VEHICLE MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION, FLEET ACCESS CONTROL, VALET DASHBOARD, POWER MANAGEMENT, SCHEUDLED CHARGING, DRIVER ACCESS CONTROL, PRICING AND AUTOMATIC FUNDS COLLECTION, WAITLIST, VIDEOS ON SUPPORTED HARDWARE (BERYL PARK AND RC SPORTS CENTER)1,200.00$ 2,400.00$ 1,400.00$ 2,800.00$ 7,500.00$ 15,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 3,000.00$ -$ -$ D2 EAREMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING EVSE PEDESTAL INCLUDING EV CHARGERS REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING ELECTRICAL, WIRING, AND FOUNDATION PER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS COMPLETE IN PLACE (BERYL PARK AND RC SPORTS CENTER)1,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 1,200.00$ 2,400.00$ 1,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,376.00$ 4,752.00$ E 105 SFSAWCUT, REMOVE, TRENCH BACKFILL, AND REPLACE PCC AS REQUIRED FOR CONDUIT TRENCHING PER PLAN AND DETAIL COMPLETE IN PLACE (BERYL PARK)20.00$ 2,100.00$ 43.00$ 4,515.00$ 150.00$ 15,750.00$ 150.00$ 15,750.00$ 105.60$ 11,088.00$ TOTAL ADDITIVE BID 2 AMOUNT30,700.00$ 64,515.00$ 67,050.00$ 71,150.00$ 58,054.00$ UNIT UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BIDNOQTY UNIT DESCRIPTIONCOST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNTA4 EAINSTALL SALVAGED EV PEDESTAL INCLUDING EV CHARGERS, FOUNDATION, CONDUITS, ENCLOSURE, PULL BOXES, NEW WIRING, ELECTRICS, SETUP, AND ACTIVATION PER PLAN AND SPECIFICATION COMPLETE IN PLACE (CITY YARD)2,500.00$ 10,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 7,500.00$ 30,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 12,551.00$ 50,204.00$ B6 EAFURNISH AND INSTALL ADDITIONAL PROTECTIVE BOLLARDS PER PLAN AND DETAIL (CITY YARD)100.00$ 600.00$ 1,200.00$ 7,200.00$ 975.00$ 5,850.00$ 1,100.00$ 6,600.00$ 1,792.00$ 10,752.00$ TOTAL ADDITIVE BID 3 AMOUNT10,600.00$ 27,200.00$ 35,850.00$ 34,600.00$ 60,956.00$ UNIT UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BIDNO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTIONCOST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNTBASE BID87,570.75$ 87,570.75$ 139,040.00$ 139,040.00$ 128,700.00$ 128,700.00$ 137,925.00$ 137,925.00$ 159,671.01$ 159,671.01$ ADDITIVE BID 131,225.00$ 31,225.00$ 56,540.00$ 56,540.00$ 58,300.00$ 58,300.00$ 65,550.00$ 65,550.00$ 87,527.00$ 87,527.00$ TOTAL ALTERNATE BID 1 (BASE BID + ADDITIVE BID 1) AMOUNT118,795.75$ 195,580.00$ 187,000.00$ 203,475.00$ 247,198.01$ UNIT UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BIDNO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTIONCOST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNTBASE BID-$ 87,570.75$ 139,040.00$ 139,040.00$ 128,700.00$ 128,700.00$ 137,925.00$ 137,925.00$ 159,671.01$ 159,671.01$ ADDITIVE BID 131,225.00$ 31,225.00$ 56,540.00$ 56,540.00$ 58,300.00$ 58,300.00$ 65,550.00$ 65,550.00$ 87,527.00$ 87,527.00$ ADDITIVE BID 230,700.00$ 30,700.00$ 64,515.00$ 64,515.00$ 67,050.00$ 67,050.00$ 71,150.00$ 71,150.00$ 58,054.00$ 58,054.00$ TOTAL ALTERNATE BID 2 (BASE BID + ADDITIVE BID 1 + ADDITIVE BID 2) AMOUNT149,495.75$ 260,095.00$ 254,050.00$ 274,625.00$ 159,671.01$ UNIT UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BIDNO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTIONCOST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNTBASE BID87,570.75$ 87,570.75$ 139,040.00$ 139,040.00$ 128,700.00$ 128,700.00$ 137,925.00$ 137,925.00$ 159,671.01$ 159,671.01$ ADDITIVE BID 131,225.00$ 31,225.00$ 56,540.00$ 56,540.00$ 58,300.00$ 58,300.00$ 65,550.00$ 65,550.00$ 87,527.00$ 87,527.00$ ADDITIVE BID 230,700.00$ 30,700.00$ 64,515.00$ 64,515.00$ 67,050.00$ 67,050.00$ 71,150.00$ 71,150.00$ 58,054.00$ 58,054.00$ ADDITIVE BID 310,600.00$ 10,600.00$ 27,200.00$ 27,200.00$ 35,850.00$ 35,850.00$ 34,600.00$ 34,600.00$ 60,956.00$ 60,956.00$ TOTAL ALTERNATE BID 3 (BASE BID + ADDITIVE BID 1 + ADDITIVE BID 2 + ADDITIVE BID 3) AMOUNT160,095.75$ 287,295.00$ 289,900.00$ 309,225.00$ 366,208.01$ ALTERNATE BID 3:ALTERNATE BID 2:ALTERNATE BID 1:ADDITIVE BID 2:ADDITIVE BID 3:&nbsp;&nbsp;Page 74 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Matthew Burris, AICP, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT:Consideration of Approval and Execution of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Chris Hyun for Property Generally Located on the Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve and execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Chris Hyun for property generally located on the northwest corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue. Staff also recommends the Council allow the City Manager to make administrative corrections to the ENA if they are necessary as acceptable per the ENA. BACKGROUND: On May 26, 2021, Chris Hyun (Developer) provided the City with an unsolicited offer to purchase or partner with City on the development of the property generally located at the northwest corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue. After reviewing and discussing this proposal in closed session on August 18, 2021, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ENA to facilitate negotiation of terms for the possible sale of the property. ANALYSIS: The Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA), defines the roles and responsibilities among the City and the Developer for the exclusive negotiation of those terms and conditions. The term of the ENA is six (6) months which may be extended by the mutual written agreement of the Developer and the City for up to two additional six (6) month periods. Subsequent to the ENA period it is anticipated the City will enter into a Development Agreement with the selected developer for the entitlement, construction, and operation of the development project. The ENA also prohibits all parties from entering into any discussions or negotiations with other parties during the term of the ENA. FISCAL IMPACT: None COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This action helps achieve the City Council’s vision of creating an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive by facilitating the opportunity for new housing, businesses, and jobs in the Civic Center area. Page 75 Page 2 9 3 8 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Haven and Civic Center ENA Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 From: Cindy Pain <cindy@mitchtsailaw.com> Date: September 1, 2021 at 2:28:09 PM PDT To: "Burris, Matt" <Matt.Burris@cityofrc.us> Cc: Mitchell Tsai <mitch@mitchtsailaw.com>, Brandon Young <brandon@mitchtsailaw.com>, Hind Baki <hind@mitchtsailaw.com>, Cindy Pain <cindy@mitchtsailaw.com>, Mary Linares <mary@mitchtsailaw.com> Subject: SWRCC - Comment Letter [Agenda Item D20 – City of Rancho Cucamonga, Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue Project] 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. Mr. Burris, Please find the attached Comment Letter in regards to Agenda Item D20 – City of Rancho Cucamonga, Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue Project, along with the following Exhibits: •March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); •Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); •Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C) Best Regards, -- Cindy Pain Paralegal Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney at Law 139 South Hudson Avenue, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91101 Office: (626) 381-9248 Fax: (626) 389-5414 Email: cindy@mitchtsailaw.com Website: http://www.mitchtsailaw.com 9/1/2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - ITEM G20 - CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED P: (626) 381-9248 F: (626) 389-5414 E: info@mitchtsailaw.com Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney At Law 139 South Hudson Avenue Suite 200 Pasadena, California 91101 VIA E-MAIL September 1, 2021 City of Rancho Cucamonga Matthew Burris, Deputy City Manager 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Email: matthew.burris@cityofrc.us RE: Agenda Item D20 – City of Rancho Cucamonga, Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue Project Dear Mr. Burris, On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Commenter” or “Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s (“City”) September 1, 2021 City Council Meeting regarding Agenda Item D20 “Consideration of Approval and Execution of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Chris Hyun for Property Generally Located on the Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue (“Project”). The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts. Commenters expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121. City of Rancho Cucamonga/Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue August 31, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Commenters incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties). Moreover, Commenter requests that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body. The City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to construct and operate the proposed development project to benefit the community’s economic development and environment. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California. Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note: [A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga/Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue August 31, 2021 Page 3 of 5 reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling. Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded: . . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1 Local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant environmental benefits since they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2 Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10 City of Rancho Cucamonga/Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue August 31, 2021 Page 4 of 5 achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3 In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs.”5 Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008: People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.6 In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf. 4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf. 5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf 7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf. City of Rancho Cucamonga/Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue August 31, 2021 Page 5 of 5 trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note: In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits. The City should consider skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts. Sincerely, ______________________ Mitchell M. Tsai Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Attached: March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). EXHIBIT A 1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com March 8, 2021 Mitchell M. Tsai 155 South El Molino, Suite 104 Pasadena, CA 91101 Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai, Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts. Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2 The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3 1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 2 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4 Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below): “VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where: n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5 Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below): “Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant Where: Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise. Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the 4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 3 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are: “[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13 Worker Trip Length by Air Basin Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles) Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8 Lake County 16.8 10.8 Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8 North Central Coast 17.1 12.3 North Coast 16.8 10.8 Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8 Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8 Salton Sea 14.6 11 San Diego 16.8 10.8 San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8 San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8 South Central Coast 16.8 10.8 South Coast 19.8 14.7 Average 16.47 11.17 Minimum 10.80 10.80 Maximum 19.80 14.70 Range 9.00 3.90 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 4 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location. Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C). Local Hire Provision Net Change Without Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623 Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024 Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17% As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location. 14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 5 Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. EXHIBIT B SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: prosenfeld@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019 Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019 Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant. Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant. Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial, March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015 In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case Number CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014 In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case Number cc-11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant. Case 3:10-cv-00622 Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013 In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013 EXHIBIT C 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887‐9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: •Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); •Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014; •Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. 6 Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011. 9 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Neil Plummer, Facilities Superintendent Kenneth Fung, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT:Consideration to Accept Animal Care & Adoption Center - Roof Maintenance & Repair Project as Complete, file a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Bonds for Contract No. 2021-078. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Accept the Animal Care & Adoption Center – Roof Maintenance & Repair Project, Contract No. 2021-078, as complete. 2. Approve the final contract amount of $185,780.00. 3. Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Bond and accept a Maintenance Bond. 4. Authorize the release of the Labor & Materials Bond in the amount of $185,780.00, six months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received. 5. Authorize the Public Works Services Director to file a Notice of Completion and release of the retention in the amount of $9,289.00, 35 days after acceptance. 6. Authorize the Public Works Services Director to approve the release of the Maintenance Bond one year following the filing of the Notice of Completion if the improvements remain free from defects in material and workmanship. BACKGROUND: The Animal Care & Adoption Center – Roof Maintenance & Repair Project scope of work consisted of various maintenance and repair measure to the roof the facility plus other related work. Pertinent information of the project is as follows: Budgeted Amount: $250,000.00 Publish Dates for Local Paper: March 30,2021 and April 6, 2021 Bid Opening: May 4, 2021 Contract Award Date: June 2, 2021 Low Bidder: Bligh Pacific Roof Co. Contract Amount: $185,780.00 Contingency/ $64,220.00 Final Contract Amount: $185,780.00 Difference in Contract Amount: $0.00 (0.0%) Page 85 Page 2 9 2 8 ANALYSIS: The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Services Director. 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 Maintenance Bond upon approval by the Public Works Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds were included in the Fiscal Year 2020/21 adopted budget for this project in account number 1025001-5602 (General Fund). COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: By performing this project, this met the Council’s Core Values of continuous improvement and the preservation for a family-oriented atmosphere created at the Animal Care & Adoption Center. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Notice of Completion - ACAC Page 86 &nbsp;&nbsp;Page 87 DATE:September 1, 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 Romeo M. David, Associate Engineer SUBJECT:Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Grant Application for the Rubberized Pavement Program from CalRecycle. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-094) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution certifying the approval of an application for the Rubberized Pavement Program Grant offered by the Department of Resources and Recovery (CalRecycle). BACKGROUND: The Department of Resources and Recovery (CalRecycle) administers tire grant programs to provide opportunities to divert waste tires from landfill disposal, prevent illegal dumping, and promote recycling. The Rubberized Pavement Program Grant specifically allows for the awarding and funding of grants for activities and applications that result in reduced landfill disposal or stocking of waste tires. The City applies for this specific grant every 2 years to not only supplement budget for pavement projects included in our Capital Improvement Program (CIP), but also to do our part to divert waste and promote environmentally conscious strategies to re-use materials that have traditionally been sent to the landfill. ANALYSIS: This year, the Engineering Services Department will be submitting a grant application request for $250,000 which will help the City complete eligible projects that will use approximately 25,000 tons of Rubberized Pavement materials. Not only does this process keep old tires from our landfills but it also provides for a longer lasting pavement surface and can reduce roadway noise over the use of conventional asphalt. This year our CIP includes 5 major arterial street pavement rehabilitation projects. Locations include: Etiwanda Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to Wilson Avenue Base Line Road from Day Creek Boulevard to I-15 Freeway Banyan Street from Milliken Avenue to Rochester Avenue Milliken Avenue from 210 Freeway to Banyan Street Center Avenue from 6thth Street to 8th Street. Page 88 Page 2 9 2 0 The approval of the resolution is necessary for the City to submit for the grant. If awarded funding, the City will be required to enter into an agreement with the State of California for the development of the project similar to past grants from the same program. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the submittal of the grant application. The Rubberized Pavement Program Grant is funded on a reimbursement basis, therefore should grant funds be awarded, revenue and expenditure appropriations will be requested as appropriate. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's Core Values by ensuring the construction of high-quality public improvements that promote success as a world class community. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 2021-094 Attachment 2 - Vicinity Map Page 89 RESOLUTION NO. 21-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL APPLICATION FOR RUBBERIZED PAVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT FOR WHICH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IS ELIGIBLE WHEREAS, Public Resources Code sections 40000 et seq. authorize the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), to administer various Grant Programs (grants) in furtherance of the state of California’s (State) efforts to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste generated in the State thereby preserving landfill capacity and protecting public health and safety and the environment; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the application, awarding, and management of the grants; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle grant application procedures require, among other things, an applicant’s governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of CalRecycle grants; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga authorizes the submittal of an application for Rubberized Pavement Grant Program, from CalRecycle; and Be it further resolved that the City Engineer, or his/her designee is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Rancho Cucamonga all grant documents, including but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments and requests for payment, necessary to secure grant funds and implement the approved grant project; and Be it further resolved that these authorizations are effective for five (5) years from the date of adoption of this Resolution. Page 90 ATTACHMENT 1 Rubberized Pavement Program Grant (CalRecycle) Etiwanda Avenue, Base Line Road, Banyan Street, Milliken Avenue and Center Avenue VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE Project Site Page 91 DATE:September 1, 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 Trina Valdez, Utilities Operations Supervisor SUBJECT:Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Attestation of Veracity for the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and Power Content Label. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-095) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the attestation of veracity for the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) 2020 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and Power Content Label. BACKGROUND: In 1997, the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 1305, Article 5, amended by Assembly Bill 162 (2009), requiring retail suppliers of electricity to disclose sources of energy being used to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and to consumers in the form of the Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and Annual Power Content Label. The legislation also requires that the information used to calculate the Power Content Label for each calendar year be independently audited. In lieu of an independent audit and verification, an authorized agent of the City may submit to the CEC, under penalty of perjury, an attestation confirming the accuracy of the report. The CEC requires that the submission of the attestation be approved by the City Council at a public meeting. ANALYSIS: RCMU submitted the 2020 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and Power Content Label to the CEC on May 19, 2021, including the staff attestation, and provided the required information to its customers by posting the 2020 Power Content Label on the City’s website (https://www.CityofRC.us/rcmu). Approval of the attached resolution satisfies the statutory requirement for approval by the City Council. In 2020, RCMU’s total power procurements and generation for retail sales came from three sources: 26.4% of power was renewable procurements (solar), 6.8% was large hydroelectric and 66.8% was unspecified power. Unspecified power refers to electricity that has been purchased through open market transactions and is not traceable to a specific generation source. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Page 92 Page 2 9 2 1 COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s vision for the City by ensuring compliance to State regulations and building on our success as a world class and sustainable community. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - PSD Report Attachment 2 - Resolution No. 2021-095 Page 93 Version: April 2021 73,048 24,243 48,805 - - - 24,243 20,889 0.2860 DIRECTLY DELIVERED RENEWABLES Facility Name Fuel Type State or Province WREGIS ID RPS ID N/A EIA ID Gross MWh Procured MWh Resold Net MWh Procured Adjusted Net MWh Procured GHG Emissions Factor (in MT CO2e/MWh) GHG Emissions (in MT CO2e)N/A RE Astoria 2 Solar CA W4931 62691A 59977 17,690 17,690 17,690 - - City of Rancho Cucamonga - City Hall Solar CA W4859 63210A P222 175 175 175 - - City of Rancho Cucamonga - Animal Center ShelteSolar CA W5017 63221A P223 430 430 430 - - City of Rancho Cucamonga - Epicenter Solar CA W5425 63220A P224 1,000 1,000 1,000 - - - - #N/A - - #N/A - - #N/A - - #N/A - - #N/A - - #N/A - - #N/A FIRMED-AND-SHAPED IMPORTS Facility Name Fuel Type State or Province WREGIS ID RPS ID EIA ID of REC Source EIA ID of Substitute Power Gross MWh Procured MWh Resold Net MWh Procured Adjusted Net MWh Procured GHG Emissions Factor (in MT CO2e/MWh) GHG Emissions (in MT CO2e) Eligible for Grandfathered Emissions? - - #N/A - - #N/A - - #N/A - - #N/A - - #N/A SPECIFIED NON-RENEWABLE PROCUREMENTS Facility Name Fuel Type State or Province N/A N/A N/A EIA ID Gross MWh Procured MWh Resold Net MWh Procured Adjusted Net MWh Procured GHG Emissions Factor (in MT CO2e/MWh) GHG Emissions (in MT CO2e)N/A Boulder Canyon Project Large hydro NV 466 4,948 4,948 4,948 - - - - #N/A - - #N/A - - #N/A - - #N/A - - #N/A - - #N/A - - #N/A - - #N/A PROCUREMENTS FROM ASSET-CONTROLLING SUPPLIERS Facility Name Fuel Type N/A N/A N/A N/A EIA ID Gross MWh Procured MWh Resold Net MWh Procured Adjusted Net MWh Procured GHG Emissions Factor (in MT CO2e/MWh) GHG Emissions (in MT CO2e)N/A - #N/A - #N/A - #N/A - #N/A END USES OTHER THAN RETAIL SALES MWh GHG Emissions Intensity (in MT CO2e/MWh) Net Specified Natural Gas Net Specified Coal & Other Fossil Fuels Net Specified Nuclear, Large Hydro, Renewables, and ACS Power GHG Emissions (excludes grandfathered emissions) Retail Sales (MWh) Net Specified Procurement (MWh) Unspecified Power (MWh) Procurement to be adjusted 2020 POWER SOURCE DISCLOSURE ANNUAL REPORT SCHEDULE 1: PROCUREMENTS AND RETAIL SALES For the Year Ending December 31, 2020 City of Rancho Cucamonga (ELECTRICITY PORTFOLIO NAME) Instructions: Enter information about power procurements underlying this electricity portfolio for which your company is filing the Annual Report. Insert additional rows as needed. All fields in white should be filled out. Fields in grey auto-populate as needed and should not be filled out. For EIA IDs for unspecified power or specified system mixes from asset-controlling suppliers, enter "unspecified", "BPA,""Powerex,",or "Tacoma" as applicable. For specified procurements of ACS power, use the ACS Procurement Calculator to calculate the resource breakdown comprising the ACS system mix. Procurements of unspecified power must not be entered as line items below; unspecified power will be calculated automatically in cell N9. Unbundled RECs must not be entered on Schedule 1; these products must be entered on Schedule 2. At the bottom portion of the schedule, provide the other electricity end-uses that are not retail sales including, but not limited to transmission and distribution losses or municipal street lighting. Amounts should be in megawatt-hours. Page 94 Version: April 2021 6,000 RETIRED UNBUNDLED RECS Facility Name Fuel Type State or Province RPS ID Total Retired (in MWh) Sierra Pacific Burlington - SPI Burlington Onsi Biomass WA 60596A 6,000 Total Retired Unbundled RECs 2020 POWER SOURCE DISCLOSURE ANNUAL REPORT SCHEDULE 2: RETIRED UNBUNDLED RECS For the Year Ending December 31, 2020 City of Rancho Cucamonga (ELECTRIC SERVICE PRODUCT NAME) INSTRUCTIONS: Enter information about retired unbundled RECs associated with this electricity portfolio. Insert additional rows as needed. All fields in white should be filled out. Fields in grey auto- populate as needed and should not be filled out. Page 95 Version: April 2021 Adjusted Net Procured (MWh) Percent of Total Retail Sales Renewable Procurements 19,295 26.4% Biomass & Biowaste - 0.0% Geothermal - 0.0% Eligible Hydroelectric - 0.0% Solar 19,295 26.4% Wind - 0.0% Coal - 0.0% Large Hydroelectric 4,948 6.8% Natural gas - 0.0% Nuclear - 0.0% Other - 0.0% Unspecified Power 48,805 66.8% Total 73,048 100.0% 73,048 630 8.2% Total Retail Sales (MWh) GHG Emissions Intensity (converted to lbs CO2e/MWh) Percentage of Retail Sales Covered by Retired Unbundled RECs 2020 POWER SOURCE DISCLOSURE ANNUAL REPORT SCHEDULE 3: POWER CONTENT LABEL DATA For the Year Ending December 31, 2020 City of Rancho Cucamonga (ELECTRIC SERVICE PRODUCT NAME) Instructions: No data input is needed on this schedule. Retail suppliers should use these auto-populated calculations to fill out their Power Content Labels. Page 96 Version: April 2021 Net MWh Procured N/A Resource Type Resource Mix Factors Resource-Specific Procurements from ACS Biomass & biowaste - Geothermal - Eligible hydroelectric - Solar - Wind 0.00 - Coal - Large hydroelectric 0.88 - Natural gas 0.01 - Nuclear 0.01 - Other 0.04 - Unspecified Power 0.06 - Net MWh Procured N/A Resource Type Resource Mix Factors Resource-Specific Procurements from ACS Biomass & biowaste - Geothermal - Eligible hydroelectric - Solar 0.00 - Wind - Coal - Large hydroelectric 0.85 - Natural gas 0.00 - Nuclear 0.11 - Other 0.01 - Unspecified Power 0.04 - Net MWh Procured N/A Resource Type Resource Mix Factors Resource-Specific Procurements from ACS Biomass & biowaste - Geothermal - Eligible hydroelectric - Solar - Wind - Powerex ASSET CONTROLLING SUPPLIER RESOURCE MIX CALCULATOR Bonneville Power Administration Tacoma Power Instructions:Enter total net specified procurement of ACS system resources into cell A8, A23, or A38. In Column E, the calculator will determine quantities of resource-specific net procurement for entry on Schedule 1. Page 97 Version: April 2021 Coal - Large hydroelectric 0.90 - Natural gas - Nuclear 0.06 - Other - Unspecified Power 0.04 - Page 98 Version: April 2021 POWER SOURCE DISCLOSURE ANNUAL REPORT ATTESTATION FORM for the year ending December 31, 2020 City of Rancho Cucamonga (ELECTRICITY PORTFOLIO NAME) I, Fred Lyn, Deputy Director of Engineering Services / Utilities, declare under penalty of perjury, that the statements contained in this report including Schedules 1, 2, and 3 are true and correct and that I, as an authorized agent of City of Rancho Cucamonga, have authority to submit this report on the company's behalf. I further declare that the megawatt-hours claimed as specified purchases as shown in these Schedules were, to the best of my knowledge, sold once and only once to retail customers. Name: Fred Lyn____________________________________________________________ Representing (Retail Supplier):City of Rancho Cucamonga________________________ Signature: __________________________________________________________ Dated: 5/19/2021____________________________________________________________ Executed at: Rancho Cucamonga_____________________________________________ Page 99 RESOLUTION NO. 21- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ATTESTATION OF VERACITY FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL UTILITY 2020 POWER SOURCE DISCLOSURE ANNUAL REPORT AND POWER CONTENT LABEL WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) is a publicly-owned utility in the state of California and is therefore subject to Senate Bill 1305, as amended by Assembly Bill 162, requiring retail suppliers of electricity to disclose sources of energy being used to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and to consumers in the form of the Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and the Annual Power Content Label; and WHEREAS, the 2020 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and Annual Power Content Label has been submitted to the CEC, and the Annual Power Content Label has been posted on the City’s website for customers to review; and WHEREAS, the 2020 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report includes an attestation from an authorized agent of the City, under penalty of perjury, confirming the accuracy of the information provided. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES, Section 1.: The City Council hereby certifies the 2020 Power Source Disclosure Program Report and Annual Power Content Label. Section 2.: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Section 3.: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of September 2021. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 100 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Sean McPherson, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT:Consideration of a Resolution Rescinding Resolution 2021-084 Approving SUBTPM20164 and Approving a Revised Resolution, and Conditions, which Replaces and Supersedes Resolution 2021-084. (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-093) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council rescind Resolution 2021-084 and approve a revised Resolution approving SUBTPM20164 subject to certain conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: On July 7, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing to consider a proposed development located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 9th Street. The project proposed a lot split to create two new parcels to accommodate the development of a 14-pump service station and convenience store with a restaurant. After taking testimony from staff, the applicant’s representative and the public, the City Council voted to deny the Conditional Use Permit (DRC2020-00087) and Minor Design Review (DRC2020-00138) related to the construction and operation of the service station and convenience store, but approve the subject Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20164) to allow the lot split by a vote of 4 in favor and 1 against. Following their decision, the Council directed staff to return with resolutions as appropriate at a later meeting. On August 4, 2021, the City Council formally adopted three separate resolutions denying the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Design Review, but approving the Tentative Parcel Map. ANALYSIS: Following the August 4, 2021 adoption of the various Resolutions, it was discovered that an incorrect set of conditions of approval were included with Resolution 2021-084 which approved Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20164. These incorrect conditions of approval referenced a separate and unrelated project and were inadvertently included with the Resolution for SUBTPM20164. Staff has corrected this error by compiling the correct set of conditions of approval relative to Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20164 and recommends that the City Council rescind Resolution 2021-084 and adopt a new Resolution with the correct conditions of approval applicable to the project. This new Resolution, including the conditions of approval, replaces and supersedes Resolution 2021-084. Lastly, staff notes that since the adoption of the original resolutions on August 4, 2021, Ordinance 982 became effective on August 20, 2021, which revised development standards for industrial zones, including the renaming of certain zoning districts. Notably, and for the purposes of this Page 101 Page 2 9 3 2 project, the General Industrial (GI) District has been renamed the Neo-Industrial (NI). These changes are also reflected in the revised Resolution, which is included with this report as Attachment 1. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The recommended action corrects an error with a previously adopted Resolution. There are no other council missions, visions or goals addressed with this action. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 2021-093 Attachment 2 – Conditions of Approval Page 102 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM20164, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.33 ACRE PROJECT SITE INTO TWO (2) PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE NEO- INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ADDRESSED 8768 ARCHIBALD AVENUE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 9TH STREET; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0209-032-35. A.Recitals. 1.Grant Ross, for Orbis Real Estate Partners, filed an application for the issuance of SUBTPM20164, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map request is referred to as "the application." 2.On the 24th day of February 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3.The application is being processed concurrently with a request for a Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20164 and a Minor Design Review DRC2020-00138. 4.At the February 24, 2021 public hearing, after deliberating on the facts of the project, the Planning Commission denied a request for off-sale beer and wine sales relative to Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00087 and recommended that the City Council deny a request for Public Convenience or Necessity (DRC2020-00459) related to the request for the Type 20 alcohol license. At the February 24, 2021 hearing, the Planning Commission also directed City staff and the applicant to consider improvements to project and return at a later date for consideration of the remaining entitlements. 5.On May 4, 2021, the Planning Department received a written statement from the applicant indicating their desire to withdraw a request for a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity related to the request for off-sale beer and wine sales. 6.On the May 12, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga considered the remaining entitlements of the development application and voted to approve the project by a vote of 3 in favor and 2 against. 7.On May 19, 2021, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga voted to appeal the Planning Commission’s approval by a vote of 4 in favor and 1 against, in order further analyze the project and consider questions which were raised at the May 12, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. 8.On July 7, 2021, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a public hearing to in appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision. After taking testimony from staff, the applicant’s representative and the public, the City Council voted to deny the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Design Review related to the application but approve the subject Tentative Parcel Map by a vote of 4 in favor and 1 against and directed staff to return with resolutions as appropriate at a later meeting. Attachment 1Page103 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX SUBTPM20164 – ORBIS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS September 1, 2021 Page 2 9. On August 4, 2021, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20164 subject to certain conditions of approval. 10. Following the August 4, 2021 City Council meeting, it was discovered that the conditions included with Resolution 2021-084 regarding the approval of SUBTPM20164 were incorrect and not applicable to the subject project. 11. The prior Resolution (2021-084) is hereby rescinded and this resolution, including the conditions, replaces and supersedes the prior resolution. 12. On September 1, 2021, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20164 subject to certain conditions of approval. 13. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on July 7, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The subject 2.33-acre (101,495 square foot) project site is located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 9th Street on property addressed 8768 Archibald Avenue (APN: 0209-032-35). The northern portion of the site is largely vacant while the southern portion is improved with an existing multi-tenant commercial building and related improvements (parking, drive aisles, landscaping); and b. The site is generally at-grade with Archibald Avenue and 9th Street and is void of any trees. The street frontage along Archibald Avenue is improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk and the 9th Street frontage is improved with curb and gutter. Neither frontage is currently improved with streetlights; and c. The applicant has requested the subdivision of the subject project area to create two new parcels: Parcel 1, totaling 1.68 acres and Parcel 2, totaling 0.65 acres. Parcel 1 will remain vacant, and Parcel 2 will remain improved with the aforementioned multi-tenant industrial building and related parking and landscaped areas; and d. The existing land use, and General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Multi-tenant commercial/industrial General Industrial Neo-Industrial (NI) District Page 104 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX SUBTPM20164 – ORBIS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS September 1, 2021 Page 3 North Commercial General Industrial Neo-Industrial (NI) District South Commercial/Office General Industrial Neo-Industrial (NI) District West Commercial General Industrial Neo-Industrial (NI) District East Multi-Family Residential Medium Residential Medium (R) Residential District e. The applicant’s corresponding request for a Minor Design Review and Conditional Use Permit to construct a 14-pump service station with a 3,180 square foot canopy and a 6,600 square foot commercial building which included a 4,595 square foot convenience store, a 2,005 square foot restaurant, and a 3,600 square foot covered patio was denied by the City Council on July 7, 2021; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general plan and specific plans. The General Plan designates the project site as General Industrial which permits the widest possible range of light and medium industrial, as well as limited commercial, activity. The proposed project is for the subdivision of the site into two parcels. No physical changes are being proposed to the site. b. The design or improvements of the tentative parcel map will be consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans. The project proposes no physical changes to the site. Any necessary public improvements (i.e. installation of public street trees), will be required to meet all city standards; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. No physical changes are being proposed to the site; and d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat. The proposed project is for the subdivision of the project site into two parcels. No building or construction is proposed in conjunction with this tentative parcel map. No environmental impacts are expected. e. The tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed project is only for the subdivision of the project site into two parcels. No building or construction is proposed in conjunction with this tentative parcel map. No health impacts are expected. f. The design of the tentative parcel map 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. The subject property does not contain any easements that would limit access to or use of the project site. 4. 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 Page 105 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX SUBTPM20164 – ORBIS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS September 1, 2021 Page 4 Guidelines. The project qualifies under as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions, as the project includes the subdivision of an existing parcel into two new parcels where no physical changes occur. The City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20164, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. 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, Grant Ross, at the address identified in City records. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021. ________________________ L. Dennis Michael, Mayor City of Rancho Cucamonga ATTEST: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga APPROVED AS TO FORM: Page 106 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: SUBTPM20164 Project Name: EDR - Tentative Parcel Map 20164 Location: 8768 ARCHIBALD AVE - 020903235-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 1. 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 approval of the Final Map. 2. 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. 3. The approval or conditional approval of the tentative parcel map shall expire three (3) years from the date of adoption of the resolution by the City Council approving or conditionally approving the map if a Final Map has not been filed with the county recorder or a time extension has not been granted. 4. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved tentative parcel map plan, the conditions contained herein and the Development Code regulations. 5. Copies of the signed 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. 6. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Prior to final map receiving City Council Approval approval, the final map shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering department for plan check. 1. Standard Conditions of Approval www.CityofRC.us Printed: 8/19/2021 Attachment 2 Page 107 Project #: SUBTPM20164 Project Name: EDR - Tentative Parcel Map 20164 Location: 8768 ARCHIBALD AVE - 020903235-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval A signed consent and waiver form to join and /or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. The project shall annex into LMD3B, SLD1 and SLD6. 2. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 2Printed: 8/19/2021 Page 108 DATE:September 1, 2021 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director Jennifer Nakamura, Management Analyst II SUBJECT:Consideration of Resolution Nos. 2021-096 and 2021-097 and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance Nos. 983, 984 and 985, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending, 1) The 2010 General Plan to Amend the Land Use Element to Add Three New Zoning Designations Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, and Redesignate 62 Parcels from Their Existing Land Use Designations to One of the New Land Use Designations. (DRC2021- 00281), 2) Title 17 (Development Code) of the Municipal Code to Establish Three New Zoning Districts Known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, Establish Development Standards and Permitted Uses for Each New Zoning District, and Remove 8 Parcels from the Haven Avenue Overlay and 1 Parcel from the Industrial Commercial Overlay. (DRC2021-00282), 3) A Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone 41 of the 62 Parcels Within the City to One of the Three New Zoning Districts. (DRC2021-00283), 4) An Amendment to the Terra Vista Planned Community to Rezone 13 of the 62 Parcels to the New Urban Corridor Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Corridor Zoning District. (DRC2021-00284), 5) An Amendment to the Victoria Planned Community to Rezone 6 of the 62 Parcels Within the Specific Plan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021- 00285), and 6) An Amendment to the Town Square Master Plan to Rezone 2 of the 62 Parcels Within the Master Plan to the New Urban Center Zoning Designation and Establish Development Standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. (DRC2021-00286). An Addendum to the 2010 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) Has Been Prepared for This Project. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2021-096 & 2021-097) (ORDINANCE NOS. 983, 984 & 985) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution numbers 2021-096 and 2021-097 conduct first reading of Ordinance numbers 983, 984 and 985 and to do the following: 1. Amend the 2010 General Plan Land Use Element to add three new land use designations: City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High and redesignate 62 parcels from Page 109 Page 2 9 2 3 their existing land use designations to one of the new land use designations in order to be consistent with the proposed housing element and state law. The 62 parcels affected by this General Plan Amendment and the proposed new land use designations assigned to each are identified in Attachment 1 of this staff report. 2. Amend the Development Code (Title 17) to establish three new zoning districts: Urban Center, General Urban and Urban Corridor that correspond to the proposed three General Plan Land Use Designations, establish development standards and permitted uses for each new zoning district and remove 8 parcels from the Haven Avenue Overlay and 1 parcel from the Industrial Commercial Overlay 3. Amend the Zoning Map to rezone 41 identified parcels within the city to one of the new zoning districts. 4. Amend the Terra Vista Planned Community to rezone 13 parcels identified in Exhibit 3within the planned community to the new Urban Corridor zoning designation and establish development standards for the Urban Corridor zoning district. 5. Amend the Victoria Specific Plan to rezone 6 parcels identified in Exhibit 4 within the specific plan to the new Urban Center zoning designation and establish development standards for the Urban Center zoning district. 6. Amend the Town Square Master Plan to rezone 2 parcels identified in Exhibit 5 within the master plan to the new Urban Center zoning designation and establish development standards for the Urban Center zoning district. BACKGROUND: Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their General Plan. California’s housing-element law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain), housing development. as a result, housing policy in California rests largely on the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements. The City is currently in the process of updating its housing element as part of the PlanRC General Plan process. In Rancho Cucamonga, the sixth cycle housing element is required to be certified by the City Council by October 15, 2021 and covers the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. However, the state provides a 120-day grace period for certification, allowing cities to adopt and certify their housing element no later than February 12, 2022. The City is currently on track to adopt the new General Plan, including the housing element, later this year, or early next year, by the final deadline of February 12, 2022. While certifying and adopting the housing element within the grace period is permitted, one of the provisions of current housing law states that if a city cannot show that it has a capacity to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) based on its existing planning and zoning framework by the statutory deadline (i.e., October 15, 2021), the city is considered to have a “shortfall” in capacity. If there is a shortfall in capacity, the City must rezone sites identified in its housing inventory that can meet the shortfall and establish a “by-right” process for new housing developments that include 20 percent of the units for lower income households on those sites. This would eliminate discretionary Planning review for these developments and reduce local control over certain new developments. Under current General Plan and Zoning regulations, the City has a planned residential capacity of 5,103 units. Capacity for an additional 5,422 units must be added to the existing General Plan and Zoning Code in order to meet the RHNA Page 110 Page 3 9 2 3 requirements set forth by the state by October 15, 2021 and retain local control of future affordable housing developments. To accomplish this, the City is proposing to amend the 2010 General Plan, Development Code and related special planning documents to adopt new General Plan land use and zoning designations for selected parcels from our vacant parcel inventory to ensure that enough sites are zoned to meet the RHNA requirements by October 15, 2021. These sites were chosen from sites identified by the draft Housing Element that were recognized as having the potential to develop housing. The draft Housing Element was presented to the Planning Commission on May 12 and submitted to the state for review on June 3. The state provided initial comments on the element via conference call on July 29, 2021 and provided a few comments on our draft Housing Element and were supportive of our plans to rezone selected parcels to meet the RHNA requirements by the October 15th deadline. ANALYSIS: The City identified 62 vacant parcels that in its inventory of housing sites to achieve its RHNA obligation at all income levels. If these parcels are rezoned with updated land use and zoning designations, they will provide fill the shortfall of planned housing units needed to meet the RHNA by October 15, 2021. A list and maps of all affected parcels is listed as Attachments 1 and 2. The proposed general plan land use and zoning designations proposed below have been developed as part of the PlanRC General Plan process. To properly redesignate these sites to allow for housing development the following changes to our existing planning documents are being proposed: General Plan Amendment Staff proposes amending Chapter 2 (Land Use) of the 2010 General Plan to add three new mixed use general plan designations to support potential future development of additional housing units along key corridors, consistent with the community vision laid out in the new General Plan, along with conforming changes to the remainder of the chapter to ensure internal consistency. All necessary land use maps, tables and text will be amended to include these new designations: City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High. City Center is a mixed-use designation along activated public spaces with commercial and residential uses at densities of 40-100 units per acre. City Center sites correspond with the downtown areas identified through public input on the new General Plan, including the Civic Center area (Haven and Foothill), Victoria Gardens area (Foothill and Day Creek) as well as 4th and Haven. City Corridor Moderate is a medium to high intensity mixed use designation along active, walkable streets with commercial and residential uses of 24-42 units per acre. These sites are located along Foothill Boulevard west of Haven Avenue. City Corridor High is intended to provide medium to high intensity mixed use development along active, walkable corridors at densities of 36-60 units per acre. These sites are located along Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, east of Haven Avenue. The proposed map, text and table changes are provided in Attachment 4. Page 111 Page 4 9 2 3 Development Code Amendment Staff proposes the following changes to the Development Code to establish three new zoning districts: Urban Center, General Urban and Urban Corridor that correspond to the proposed three General Plan Land Use Designations. General Plan Land Use Designation Implementing Zoning Designation City Center Mixed Use - Urban Center City Corridor Moderate Mixed Use - General Urban City Corridor High Mixed Use - Urban Corridor Development standards for each zoning district are also being proposed, including density, setbacks, building height and open space requirements. Table 17.30.030-1 (land use table) is also proposed to be amended to include allowed land uses and permit requirements for uses within the new zoning designations. In addition, 8 parcels identified for new zoning designations will be removed from the Haven Avenue Overlay and 1 parcel proposed for rezoning will be removed from the Industrial Commercial Overlay. These overlays are more restrictive than the land use table of the Development Code with respect to permitted uses. Removing these parcels from their current overlays will allow broader application of the new zoning, development standards and allowed uses for those parcels. The proposed text and table changes are provided in Attachment 5. Zoning Map Amendment The zoning map is also proposed to be amended to rezone 41 of the identified parcels from their existing zoning designation to one of the new zoning designations. The remaining parcels are part of a special planning area (Planned Community, Specific Plan or Master Plan) that will be amended as outlined below. The proposed text and table changes are provided in Attachment 5. Terra Vista Planned Community Amendment 13 of the identified parcels are located within the Terra Vista Planned Community (north side of Foothill between Haven Avenue and Rochester Avenue), which supersede many regulations of the Development Code. The Terra Vista Community Plan is proposed to be amended to rezone the 11 identified parcels to the Mixed Use – Urban Corridor zoning designation and establish development standards for the urban corridor zoning district including density, setbacks, building height and open space requirement. These standards will mirror what is being proposed for the Development Code. Text is added to the plan indicating allowed land uses for the Mixed Use – Urban Corridor zone will be governed by the Development Code Allowed Land Use Table (17.30.030-1). The proposed amendments are provided in Attachment 6. Victoria Planned Community Amendment 6 of the identified parcels are located within the Victoria Planned Community (south side of Foothill between Rochester Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard), which supersede many regulations of the Development Code. The Victoria Planned Community is proposed to be amended to rezone the 6 identified parcels to the Mixed Use – Urban Center zoning designation and establish development standards for the urban center zoning district including density, setbacks, building height and open space requirement. These standards will mirror what is being proposed for the Development Code. Text will also be added indicating allowed land uses for the Mixed Use – Urban Center zone will be governed by the Development Code Allowed Land Use Table (17.30.030-1). The proposed amendments are provided in Attachment 7. Page 112 Page 5 9 2 3 Town Square Master Plan Amendment 2 of the identified parcels are located within the Town Square Master Plan (north west corner of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive), which supersede many regulations of the Development Code. The Terra Vista Plan is proposed to be amended to rezone the 2 identified parcels to the Mixed Use – Urban Center zoning designation and establish development standards for the urban center zoning district including density, setbacks, building height and open space requirement. These standards will mirror what is being proposed for the Development Code. Text will also be added indicating allowed land uses for the Mixed Use – Urban Center zone will be governed by the Development Code Allowed Land Use Table (17.30.030-1). The proposed amendments are provided in Attachment 8. Environmental Assessment Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) has been prepared. The addendum concludes that the proposed changes do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which implementation of the General Plan was being undertaken since the certification of the EIR have occurred. The proposed project would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the environmental topics analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor would the project require new mitigation measures or alternatives. As a consequence, an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review. The addendum is provided as Attachment 9. Planning Commission Discussion A public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on August 11, 2021. At the hearing, testimony was presented from representatives of two property owners. One requested that additional parcels they own that were adjacent to their parcels being proposed for rezoning to be added to the project and rezoned as well. They also expressed concerns about the market not being ready for densities the City is proposing. A second representative expressed some concerns about the constraints on their property and felt that a lower density would be more appropriate. Staff recommended that the minimum densities for two of the three proposed designations be reduced based on the chart below: General Plan Land Use & Zoning Designation Original Density Range Proposed Density Range City Center/Mixed Use - Urban Center 40-100 DU/Acre 24-100 DU/Acre City Corridor Moderate/Mixed Use - General Urban 24-42 DU/Acre No Change City Corridor High/Mixed Use - Urban Corridor 36-60 DU/Acre 24-60 DU/Acre Planning Commission expressed some concerns about reducing the minimum density given all the work that has been done for the General Plan. Staff stressed that these changes were for the current amendment as proposed, but had heard similar concerns during the public review of the Plan RC General Plan and are taking a closer look at if any refinements are needed to the final plan prior to adoption and implementation. Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of these amendments with the changes proposed by staff. A draft copy of the minutes is included as Attachment 3. Page 113 Page 6 9 2 3 FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed amendments may result in the development of additional housing and context sensitive non-residential uses which may result in an increase in revenue through property and sales taxes while increasing costs for some city services. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Through the proactive rezoning of these properties to meet state law, we are intentionally embracing and anticipating the future to retain local control on new housing developments to ensure that they are developed with the high quality and thoughtful design Rancho Cucamonga is known for. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – List of Parcels to be Amended Attachment 2 – Map of Parcels to be Amended Attachment 3 – Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2021, Item D3 only Attachment 4 – Resolution 2021-096 adopting General Plan Amendment (DRC2021-00281) Attachment 5 – Ordinance 983 amending the Municipal Code and Zoning Map (DRC2021- 00282 & DRC2021-00283) Attachment 6 – Ordinance 984 amending the Terra Vista Planned Community (DRC2021- 00284) Attachment 7 – Ordinance 985 amending the Victoria Planned Community (DRC2021-00285) Attachment 8 – Resolution 2021-097 amending the Town Square Master Plan (DRC2021- 00286) Attachment 9 – EIR Addendum Attachment 10 – Correspondence Received for Public Hearing Item Page 114 Parcels for Proposed General Plan/Zoning Designation ChangesParcel Number (APN) Address Current GP Designation New GP Designation Current Zoning Designation New Zoning Designation Special Planning Area207211428841 FOOTHILL BLVDMixed Use City Corridor Moderate Medium ResidentialGeneral Urban20721143Mixed Use City Corridor Moderate Medium ResidentialGeneral Urban20721144Mixed Use City Corridor Moderate Medium ResidentialGeneral Urban207211468801 FOOTHILL BLVDMixed Use City Corridor Moderate Community CommercialGeneral Urban208101178998 FOOTHILL BLVDGeneral Commercial City Corridor Moderate Community CommercialGeneral Urban208101189008 FOOTHILL BLVDGeneral Commercial City Corridor Moderate Community CommercialGeneral Urban208101199030 FOOTHILL BLVDGeneral Commercial City Corridor Moderate Community CommercialGeneral Urban208101209040 FOOTHILL BLVDGeneral Commercial City Corridor Moderate Community CommercialGeneral Urban208151019590 FOOTHILL BLVDMixed Use City Corridor Moderate Community CommercialGeneral Urban208151159554 FOOTHILL BLVDMixed Use City Corridor Moderate Community CommercialGeneral Urban2083212410043 FOOTHILL BLVDMedium Residential City Corridor Moderate Medium ResidentialGeneral Urban2083310810315 FOOTHILL BLVDMixed Use City Corridor Moderate Commercial/OfficeGeneral Urban2083311710333 FOOTHILL BLVDMixed Use City Corridor Moderate Low Medium ResidentialGeneral Urban2083311810237 FOOTHILL BLVDMixed Use City Corridor Moderate Low Medium ResidentialGeneral Urban2083312310277 FOOTHILL BLVDMixed Use City Corridor Moderate Low Medium ResidentialGeneral Urban20833140Mixed UseCity Corridor HighMixed UseUrban Corridor Town Square/Haven Ave Overlay20833147Mixed UseCity Corridor HighMixed UseUrban Corridor Town Square/Haven Ave Overlay208341158310 HAVEN AVEIndustrial Park City Corridor HighIndustrial ParkUrban Corridor Haven Ave Overlay2083530210575 FOOTHILL BLVDIndustrial ParkCity CenterIndustrial ParkUrban Center Haven Ave Overlay20835503Community Commercial City Corridor HighIndustrial ParkUrban Corridor Industrial Commercial Overlay20863247General Commercial City Corridor Moderate Community CommercialGeneral Urban208632489172 FOOTHILL BLVDGeneral Commercial City Corridor Moderate Community CommercialGeneral Urban208632499116 FOOTHILL BLVDGeneral Commercial City Corridor ModerateLow ResidentialGeneral Urban208632509110 FOOTHILL BLVDGeneral Commercial City Corridor Moderate Community CommercialGeneral Urban2091310110411 26TH STIndustrial Park City Corridor HighIndustrial ParkUrban Corridor Haven Ave Overlay209131028812 HAVEN AVEIndustrial Park City Corridor HighIndustrial ParkUrban Corridor Haven Ave Overlay20949104Industrial Park City Corridor ModerateIndustrial ParkGeneral Urban21008141Industrial ParkCity CenterIndustrial ParkUrban Center Haven Ave Overlay21008142Industrial ParkCity CenterIndustrial ParkUrban Center Haven Ave Overlay2290216812181 FOOTHILL BLVDGeneral Commercial City Center Regional Related Office/Commercial Urban Center Victoria SP2290216912225 FOOTHILL BLVDGeneral Commercial City Center Regional Related Office/Commercial Urban Center Victoria SP2290217012271 FOOTHILL BLVDGeneral Commercial City Center Regional Related Office/Commercial Urban Center Victoria SP229021718158 DAY CREEK BLVDGeneral Commercial City Center Regional Related Office/Commercial Urban Center Victoria SP229021728188 DAY CREEK BLVDGeneral Commercial City Center Regional Related Office/Commercial Urban Center Victoria SP229021738160 DAY CREEK BLVDGeneral Commercial City Center Regional Related Office/Commercial Urban Center Victoria SP22902307General Commercial City Corridor HighGeneral CommercialUrban Corridor 22931114Community Commercial City Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor 2293111512939 FOOTHILL BLVDMixed UseCity Corridor HighLow ResidentialUrban Corridor 107742251Mixed UseCity Corridor HighFinancialUrban Corridor Terra Vista PC107742255Mixed UseCity Corridor HighFinancialUrban Corridor Terra Vista PC107742298Mixed UseCity Corridor HighFinancialUrban Corridor Terra Vista PC107742299Mixed UseCity Corridor HighFinancialUrban Corridor Terra Vista PCAttachment 1 &nbsp;&nbsp;Page 115 Parcels for Proposed General Plan/Zoning Designation ChangesParcel Number (APN) Address Current GP Designation New GP Designation Current Zoning Designation New Zoning Designation Special Planning Area107742301Community Commercial City Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor Terra Vista PC107742302Community Commercial City Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor Terra Vista PC1077621349950 FOOTHILL BLVDCommunity Commercial City Corridor Moderate Community CommercialGeneral Urban1077641688001 ARCHIBALD AVECommunity Commercial City Corridor Moderate Community CommercialGeneral Urban1077641698019 ARCHIBALD AVECommunity Commercial City Corridor Moderate Community CommercialGeneral Urban1077641718045 ARCHIBALD AVECommunity Commercial City Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor 109012117Mixed UseCity Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor Terra Vista PC109012118Mixed UseCity Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor Terra Vista PC109012120Mixed UseCity Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor Terra Vista PC109012121Mixed UseCity Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor Terra Vista PC109012122Mixed UseCity Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor Terra Vista PC109012138Mixed UseCity Corridor HighFinancialUrban Corridor Terra Vista PC109012139Mixed UseCity Corridor HighFinancialUrban Corridor Terra Vista PC109060120Mixed UseCity Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor 109060121Mixed UseCity Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor 1100161028033 FOOTHILL BLVDMixed UseCity Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor 11001610312962 FOOTHILL BLVDMixed UseCity Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor 110020103Mixed UseCity Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor 1100201048050 EAST AVEMixed UseCity Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor 110020107Mixed UseCity Corridor High Community CommercialUrban Corridor &nbsp;&nbsp;Page 116 4TH ST BEECH AVE CHERRY AVEBASE LINE RD ARCHIBALD AVEMILLIKEN AVEWILSON AVE HAVEN AVEETIWANDA AVE6TH ST DAY CREEK BLVDROCHESTER AVEARROW RTE FOOTHILL BLVD Community Commercial General Commercial Industrial Park Medium Residential Mixed Use Existing General Plan ¯0 ¼ ½ ¾ 1 Miles City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021 Attachment 2Page117 4TH ST BEECH AVE CHERRY AVEBASE LINE RD ARCHIBALD AVEMILLIKEN AVEWILSON AVE HAVEN AVEETIWANDA AVE6TH ST DAY CREEK BLVDROCHESTER AVEARROW RTE FOOTHILL BLVD Draft, July 26, 2021 City Center City Corridor Moderate City Corridor High Proposed General Plan Land Use Changes ¯0 ¼½¾1 Miles City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021 Page 118 4TH ST BEECH AVE CHERRY AVEBASE LINE RD ARCHIBALD AVEMILLIKEN AVEWILSON AVE HAVEN AVEETIWANDA AVE6TH ST DAY CREEK BLVDROCHESTER AVEARROW RTE FOOTHILL BLVD Community Commercial (CC) Commercial/Office (CO) General Commercial (GC) Industrial Park (IP) Low-Medium Residential (LM) Financial (MFC) Mixed Use (MU) Regional Rel. Ofc/Comm (RRO/C) Existing Zoning ¯0 ¼½¾1 Miles City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021 Page 119 4TH ST BEECH AVE CHERRY AVEBASE LINE RD ARCHIBALD AVEMILLIKEN AVEWILSON AVE HAVEN AVEETIWANDA AVE6TH ST DAY CREEK BLVDROCHESTER AVEARROW RTE FOOTHILL BLVD Draft, July 26, 2021 General Urban Urban Center Urban Corridor Proposed Zoning Changes ¯0 ¼½¾1 Miles City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021 Page 120 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA August 11, 2021 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES The Regular meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on August 11, 2021. The meeting was called to order by the Chair Oaxaca at 7:00 p.m. A.Roll Cal Planning Commission present: Chair Oaxaca, Vice Chair Dopp, Commissioner Morales, Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Guglielmo Staff Present: Nicholas Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney; Anne McIntosh, Planning Director; Mike Smith, Principal Planner; Jennifer Nakamura, Management Analyst II; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant; David Eoff, Sr. Planner; Dat Tran, Assistant Planner; Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner. B.Public Communications Chair Oaxaca opened the public communications and hearing no comment, closed public communications. C.Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of June 23, 2021. C2. Consideration to adopt Staff Retreat Meeting Minutes of July 14, 2021. Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Morales to approve Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously 5-0 vote. D.Public Hearings D1. LOCATED AT 6929 HELLMAN AVENUE - W&W LAND CONSULTANTS, INC. - A request to subdivide a vacant 2-acre parcel into 6 lots for the development of 6 single-family residences, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 16 Heritage Trees, and a Minor Exception for increased wall height for a site within the Low (L) Residential District. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is exempt under CEQA Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects (Tentative Tract Map, Design Review, Tree Removal Attachment 3Page121 HPC/PC Regular Minutes – August 11, 2021 Page 6 of 10 Draft D3. General Plan Amendment to amend the land use element to add three new zoning designations known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, and redesignate 62 parcels identified in Exhibit 1 of the staff report from their existing land use designations to one of the new land use designations. (DRC2021-00281) Development Code Amendment to establish three new zoning districts known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High, establish development standards and permitted uses for each new zoning district, and remove 8 parcels from the Haven Avenue Overlay and 1 parcel from the Industrial Commercial Overlay. (DRC2021-00282) Zoning Map Amendment to rezone 41 of the 62 parcels within the city to one of the three new zoning districts. (DRC2021-00283) Planned Community Amendment to amend the Terra Vista Planned Community to rezone 13 of the 62 parcels to the new Urban Corridor zoning designation and establish development standards for the Urban Corridor zoning district. (DRC2021-00284) Specific Plan Amendment to amend the Victoria Specific Plan to rezone 6 of the 62 parcels within the specific plan to the new Urban Center zoning designation and establish development standards for the Urban Center zoning district. (DRC2021-00285) Master Plan Amendment to amend the Town Square Master Plan to rezone 2 of the 62 parcels within the master plan to the new Urban Center zoning designation and establish development standards for the Urban Center zoning district. (DRC2021-00286) An addendum to the 2010 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) has been prepared for this project. All of these items will be forwarded to City Council for final consideration following the Planning Commission’s recommendation on each. Jennifer Nakamura, Management Analyst II, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file). She explained the reason for the changes and stated it is time for the City to update its housing element (6-cycle) that is due to the State Department of Housing Community Development by October 15th, 2021, with a 120-day grace period. As part of the housing element, the City needs to plan for 10,525 housing units, meaning creating space where those can be accommodated within the 6-cycle, which lasts 2021-2029. State law requires the zoning for the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) must be in place by October 15th. If we do not have this zoning in place by October 15th, we will lose the opportunity to have discretionary review over certain types of affordable housing projects. As a City, we want to maintain local control as much as possible and by doing this in this order we would be able to continue to maintain that local control and make sure future affordable housing projects are developed under the same high standards that we expect for all housing projects today and in the future. What happens today: Based on what is currently zoned, a capacity for over 5000 units, we need to take that balance of those units and up zone some parcels to do that. We identified 62 parcels that would provide the potential for those planned housing units and incorporate now into our existing planning documents. In order to do this, we need to update the following: 2010 General Plan, Develop Code, Zoning Map, Terra Vista and Victoria Communities and Towns Square Master Plan. Commissioner Guglielmo asked regarding the rezoning, is it taking away any existing zone capabilities and rezoning it or is it an additional option for property owners. Page 122 HPC/PC Regular Minutes – August 11, 2021 Page 7 of 10 Draft Jennifer Nakamura answered the most significant changes would be along Haven Avenue overlay. Those properties would now be able to do a mix of uses, an office as well as residential. Generally, this is designed to expand not contract the allowed uses permitted to further develop property than what is currently allowed today. Commissioner Guglielmo asked if there is an office, can they still do an office or include along with housing. Jennifer Nakamura replied there has to be a minimum of two land use types. She explained that can be a mix of office and commercial. residential and office, or commercial and residential. Ultimately, how those percentages would work out would be determined part of the development review process with a recommendation from the Planning Director. Commissioner Morales asked when they adjusted the density range with the lower floor, will it still keep us in compliance with RHNA requirements. Jennifer Nakamura answered yes, as long as we do not eliminate the minimum density range. We have to have a minimum density range as required by the State as part of this process. Commissioner Morales asked if she could give an example or explain how tall the buildings will be in certain areas. Jennifer Nakamura replied the lower end of the density range will be 3-story building. From Haven west to city limits, lower 3-4 story. Haven/Foothill corner, which is designated as City Center, could go up to 12 stories. Same with Victoria Gardens, downtown feel with higher density of housing and uses. Same with the area of Haven/4th would be of a similar density with upper ends of that range. On east side of Haven, along Foothill, 4-7 story building depending on how far they get to density range. Commissioner Dopp expressed that Vincent Acuna, Dat Tran, along with Jennifer Nakamura had wonderful presentations. They all did a great job. He stated for the record, this does not set everything completely in stone. We still have a General Plan Update we are still doing; this will come back before Commissioners if there are concerns from the community. Jennifer Nakamura replied yes. These are going to be in the Code and General Plan as a permanent ordinance but will probably have additional refinement as we finish our review and adoption of the PlanRC General Plan and as we work through the development code that goes along with it. These are the minimum requirements we have to have per the State in order to make sure we meet the requirement to say we have implemental zoning available for these potential number of units, as well as development standards. Commissioner Dopp mentioned the letter she referred to talked about CEQA and EIR. He stated we will be seeing in PlanRC Environmental Impact Report and asked we’ll have the final say. Jennifer Nakamura answered yes. Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney, clarified this action today an addendum to 2010 EIR was prepared, and our environmental consultant concluded the buildout under the proposed ordinance before you was anticipated as part of that general plan. Page 123 HPC/PC Regular Minutes – August 11, 2021 Page 8 of 10 Draft Commissioner Dopp asked is it possible there is an argument to be made that we should not actually reduce the minimum density. A lot of time, effort and money has been put into this General Plan in the last two years. If staff feels strongly about the density requirements of the vision for the plan, we should “stick to our guns” rather than reduce requirements just to make property owners happy. Anne McIntosh suggested we should hear from the public and ask that question after we have had public testimony. Chair Oaxaca stated early in the presentation she mentioned a number over 10,000 units and recognize council will take care of half of that number. He asked where the rest is coming from. Jennifer Nakamura responded the rest it is coming from parcels already zoned and the current densities that are allowed within those already zoned. She explained when evaluating housing element and sites you currently have and determine how many we already have zoned and planned for, then we have to add the balance. She said there is already zoning in place for about 5000 or so of those. Now, it is just adding to that balance. Anne McIntosh mentioned it’s important to note this is not the total number in the new General Plan we have been talking about having additional units. This is a number that gets us to our goal. She said it is undoubtable Commissioners will have a deeper conversation with property owners about land use designations once we get into those public hearings. There will be a lot of discussions. Chair Oaxaca asked what was staff thinking as they identified these particular parcels. How did they look at the available parcels in the city. Jennifer Nakamura replied that part of it had to do with vacant parcel inventory and parcels of interest. We asked our housing consultant to first propose the initial list and staff reviewed and made refinements. Looking for parcels currently vacant and/or parcels that were underdeveloped. Most of the parcels, well over 80% on east end of town, currently have developments on them. Chair Oaxaca mentioned a correspondence received refers to a specific parcel and asked staff if any comments are warranted, or any reaction Commissioners should be aware of. Jennifer Nakamura answered within the Haven Avenue overlay, it is the southernly parcel is the subject of one of the pieces of correspondence. They have requested to remove from the Haven Avenue overlay and leave as Industrial Zoning or to be lowered from City Center High to City Center Moderate zoning designation. Currently, it is staff’s recommendation we leave proposal as is. Currently in discussion with property owner. Felt lowering the density at this time would provide the relief they are looking for, but we will be in continued conversations with them as we move forward to alleviate concerns or answer any questions they may have. Chair Oaxaca opened public hearing. Ray Allard, Allard Engineering, representing Hofer Properties, LLC; APN 209-131-02. He said a lot of effort went into this and thanked staff, especially David Eoff, Senior Planner, for taking the time to meet. Mr. Allard’s clients attorney filed an objection letter (which was received today), due to concerns of lowering the density. Lowering the ceiling on that particular property does start to go a long way toward addressing their concern. Did not need to get into much detail due to a lot of negotiations going on. Page 124 HPC/PC Regular Minutes – August 11, 2021 Page 9 of 10 Draft Bret Bernard, Director of Planning and Development with Milan Capital Mgmt., commented regarding Foothills Crossing, a total of 11 parcels of which 5 were selected for rezoning, and provided a summary of their thoughts and responses on their actual correspondence. (The actual correspondence should be referred to for more details.) He looks forward to much more involvement going forward relative not only to Foothills Crossing Center, but all the surrounding properties affected by these suggested significant amendments. Anne McIntosh reiterated the point Mr. Bernard was trying to make at the end of his time. She said that the City has been informed by Foothills Crossing that it owns additional contiguous parcels that were not included in this inventory. Staff will be considering whether to include all of their holdings, per their written request to do so. Nicholas Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney, explained the proposal he discussed with Mr. Hofer’s attorney involved reducing the minimum density to 24 and that is what is being proposed to you tonight, and there are also potentially opportunities to change parcels around given there are parcels out there to accommodate more density. Chair Oaxaca closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Dopp mentioned a concern that keeps coming back to the idea, hearing a lot from our elected officials, the idea of holding out and not thinking about the present term but thinking about the future. Looking at these dwelling units per acre and lowering the threshold for the development to occur, he does wonder if it shoots the process in the foot a little bit. He asked does staff want to take on at all. Jennifer Nakamura answered there is some concern the market may not be where we would like it to be yet. It is a long, slow process. She said in some ways, this is a short term means to an end. At the same time, we also recognize we need to take a look at what do we want long term. For now, these are the standards. Further refinements may happen down the line. We want to make sure it actually can be implemented over time. Vice Chair Dopp stated as we move forward, if we have a vision and buying into that vision. There is a huge difference between 96 and 24. His concern is that maybe we are allowing a development to occur that maybe will hamper development as a whole; Civic Center Region or Victoria Gardens. He asked for something the City Council ponder onto the minutes and if it can be addressed in the staff report to discuss further with them. He agrees to move onto City Council at this time. Anne McIntosh mentioned we are not really setting a precedent, we are diminishing our commitment by lowering that minimum, it’s really a matter of moving this item forward at this time. Because this is a current decision and it’s something that would necessarily be for 8 years, we feel this is a reasonable thing to do at this time. The PlanRC General Plan when it comes forward may contain different standards. Commissioner Morales stated good comments from speakers tonight. He is glad they worked together with interested parties to lower the floor density range. Finally, we need this update to the housing element to meet the State’s requirements or we lose control and that is what is most important. Commissioner Williams concurs with Commissioner Morales and complimented Jennifer Nakamura’s staff report was easy to understand and was able to follow along all the moving pieces. It was very clear. She is in favor in recommending to City Council. Page 125 HPC/PC Regular Minutes – August 11, 2021 Page 10 of 10 Draft Commissioner Guglielmo stated it’s important to look at the big picture overall plan for the city and where we see ourselves in the next 10-20 years. Maintaining local control and discretion over development is very important. It looks like much of this is an up-zone, enhancing the marketing ability and flexibility for property owners to maximize values. It’s a great job and is in support. Chair Oaxaca stated what stands out to him is staff had everything ready to go and not having to scramble and start almost from scratch. In spite of some initial discomfort, an urgent need to make a quick decision, he feels comfortable after discussion tonight that everything was thought out. Motion by Commissioner Guglielmo, second by Commissioner Morales, to adopt Resolution 21-50, including the amendments recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. E. General Business - None F. Director Announcements Anne McIntosh mentioned there are a couple of items scheduled for the next PC meeting agenda in two weeks. G. Commission Announcements - None H. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Guglielmo, second by Commissioner Morales to adjourn the meeting, motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. Meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Elizabeth Thornhill Executive Assistant, Planning Department Approved: Page 126 11231-0001\2569109v1.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2021-096 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2021-00281 TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT BY ADDING THREE NEW ZONING DESIGNATIONS, REDESIGNATING 62 PARCELS FROM THEIR EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO ONE OF THE NEW LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A.Recitals. 1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga is required by law to update the Housing Element of its General Plan for the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. In connection with that requirement, the City is currently in the process of updating its Housing Element as part of the PlanRC General Plan process. The City is on track to adopt the new General Plan, including the Housing Element, in accordance with the deadlines set forth in State law. 2.Current housing law states that if a city cannot show that it has the capacity to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) based on its existing planning and zoning framework as of October 15, 2021, the city is considered to have a “shortfall” in capacity. If a city has a shortfall, the city then must include a program in its housing element to rezone specific sites to show capacity to meet the shortfall based on new zoning standards for specific sites. The rezoning program for sites used to demonstrate capacity for the very low and low income RHNA allocations must rezone those sites to create a “by-right” process for developments that include 20 percent of the units for lower income households. 3.The City is proposing to amend its current General Plan, Development Code, Zoning Map and related special planning documents for selected parcels to ensure that enough sites are zoned to meet the RHNA requirements by October 15, 2021 and to avoid the shortfall. The City has prepared a set of amendments for this purpose, including General Plan Amendment DRC 2021- 00281 as described in the title of this Resolution (the “Amendment”). 4.As shown in Exhibits “A” and “B”, the Amendment proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to add three new zoning designations, as well as to redesignate 62 parcels from their existing land use designations to new zoning designations, and make other conforming changes. 5.Concurrent with this Amendment, the City has prepared Municipal Code Amendment DRC2021-00281, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2021-00283, Planned Community Amendment DRC2021-00284, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2021-00285, and Master Plan Amendment DRC2021-00286. The collective purpose of these amendments is to ensure that enough sites within the City are zoned to meet the RHNA requirements by October 15, 2021, and to avoid the shortfall. 6.On August 11, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendment and concluded said hearing on that date. 7.On September 1, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Amendment, and all interested persons were given an opportunity to present oral and written Attachment 4Page127 2 evidence regarding the Amendment and the addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027), and concluded said hearing on that date. 8.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.Recitals. 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. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on September 1, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The Amendment has been processed, including, but not limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). b.Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) has been prepared. The addendum concludes that the proposed Amendment and other amendments intended to create sufficient housing capacity do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which implementation of the General Plan was being undertaken since the certification of the EIR have occurred. The proposed Amendment would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the environmental topics analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor would the project require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all the evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff’s determination that the Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. The City Council has considered the proposed addendum attached to the staff report accompanying the Amendment, along with the General Plan Program Final EIR, and hereby adopts the addendum. c.The Amendment is internally consistent with the direction, goals, and policies of the remainder of the adopted General Plan. d.Approval of the Amendment is in the public interest and would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. e.The City Council finds that the Amendment serves the important purpose of providing sufficient opportunities for housing development within the City to meet demand at all income levels in accordance with its assigned RHNA. The City Council further finds that maintaining some local control over the planning and development process for new residential projects is important for purposes of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, this Amendment is needed to ensure that the City does not have a housing shortfall as of October 15, 2021. Page 128 3 f.The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the City Council. 3. Determination. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment DRC2021-00281. Figure LU-2 (“Land Use Plan”) of the General Plan Land Use Element is hereby amended in its entirety as depicted in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The General Plan Land Use Element is further amended to reflect the text changes identified in red font in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 4.The Planning Director is directed to take all actions necessary to document this Amendment in the General Plan. 5.The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 6.The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS ____ DAY OF ____ 2021. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: 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 and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ____ day of ____ 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 129 4 EXHIBIT A Figure LU-2 Land Use Plan Page 130           Campus AveSan B e r n a r d i n o F r e e w a y Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Metrolink Arrow Hwy 16th St Cherry AveEast AveVineyard Ave!"a$ !"`$San Bernardino Freeway Foothill Blvd 24TH ST Base Line Ave 20th St Milliken AveHermosa AveHaven AveEtiwanda AveArchibald AveSan Bernardino Ave Base Line Rd !"`$ CI TY OFUP LAND CI TY OFONTARIO CI TY OFFONTANAArchibald AveHaven AveCherry AveFoothill BlvdMilliken AveFoothill BlvdCarnelian StArrow Hwy Arrow Hwy Church St Base Line Rd Terra Vista Pkw y 6th St Rochester AveRochester AveOntario Freeway!"a$ !"a$ State Route 210 FreewayA³HSapphire StHaven AveA³HHermosa AveHellman AveHillside Rd Hellman AveBanyan St Wilson Ave Banyon St East AveS A N B E R N A R D I N O N A T I O N A L F O R E S T CI TY OFFONTANA San Antonio Heights Sa n Ga br iel M o un ta ins Deer Canyon Day Canyon East Etiwanda Canyon San Sevaine Canyon County Canyon ChaffeyCollegeBanyan St n¤ IÀCarnelian St19th St ?øE IÀ Hillside Rd Day Creek BlvdDEMEN S C R E E K C H A N N E L CUCAMONGACREEK Vineyard AveDAY CREEK CHANNELE T IWAND A CR E EK CHANNELSAN SEVAINE WASHDAY CREEK CHANNELDEERDEER CREEK CHANNELCANYON ETIWANDACREEKCHANNELAlmond St Amethyst AveBeryl StArchibald AveChurch St Wilson Ave Lemon Ave Victoria StDay Creek BlvdWardman Bullock RdPowerline Rd Metrolink Station Etiwanda AveEtiwanda AveVictoriaGardens 4th St Jersey Blvd9th St Hermosa AveTurquoise AvThe Epicenter Vineyard Ave4th St4th St H H H H J E E E E E E E E E E J E E E E E E J J J E J E E E E C E J J p p p p 1 8 11 3 75 294 10 12 6 13 Land Use Plan00.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles Source: Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. Figure LU-2: Note: (1) Location of proposed parks are not fixed, and may be adjusted to accommodate future planning needs. 1. Victoria Gardens 2. Town Center (Foothill Blvd & Haven Ave) 3. Terra Vista 4. Foothill Blvd (Hermosa Ave & Center Ave) 5. Foothill Blvd (Archibald Ave & Hellman Ave) 6. Foothill Blvd (Helms Ave and Hampshire St) ANCHOUCAMONGACR Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A G E N E R A L P L A N LU-11 Mixed Use Areas Schools and ParksE Elementary SchoolJ Junior High SchoolH High SchoolC Collegep Proposed Park (1) Base Layers City Boundary Sphere of Influence Waterways Freeway Roads Railroads Overlays Haven Avenue Office Equestrian/Rural AreaMaster Plan 7. Foothill Blvd & Mayten Ave 8. Industrial Area Specific Plan (Sub-Area 18) 9. Foothill Blvd & Deer Creek Channel 10. Haven Ave & Church St Site 11. Western Gateway (Bear Gulch Area) 12. Foothill Blvd-Cucamonga Channel Site 13. Historic Alta Loma (Amethyst Site) Land Use Designations Residential Very Low (0.1 - 2.0 du/ac) Low (2.0 - 4.0 du/ac) Low Medium (4.0 - 8.0 du/ac) Medium (8.0 - 14.0 du/ac) Medium High (14.0 - 24.0 du/ac) High (24.0 - 30.0 du/ac)Commercial Office (0.40 - 1.0 FAR) Neighborhood Commercial (0.25 - 0.35 FAR) Community Commercial (0.25 - 0.35 FAR) General Commercial (0.25 - 0.35 FAR) Public Facility Civic/Regional (0.40 - 1.0 FAR) Schools (0.10 - 0.20 FAR) Parks Mixed Use Mixed Use (0.25 - 1.0 FAR) City Center City Corridor Moderate City Corridor High Open Space Hillside Residential (0.1 - 2.0 du/ac) Conservation Open Space (0 - 0.1 du/ac) Flood Control/Utility Corridor Industrial Industrial Park (0.40 - 0.60 FAR) General Industrial ((0.50 - 0.60 FAR) Heavy Industrial (0.40 - 0.50 FAR) Page 131 5 EXHIBIT B Land Use Element Amendments Page 132 Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN LU-17 1.Victoria Gardens/Victoria Arbors 2.Town Center (Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue) 3.Terra Vista 4.Foothill Boulevard between Hermosa Avenue and Center Avenue 5.Foothill Boulevard between Archibald Avenue and Hellman Avenue 6.Foothill Boulevard at Helms Avenue and Hampshire Street 7.Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Avenue 8.Industrial Area Specific Plan (Sub- Area 18) 9.Foothill Boulevard and Deer Creek Channel 10. Haven Avenue and Church Street Site 11.Western Gateway (Bear Gulch Area) 12.Foothill Boulevard and Cucamonga Channel Site 13.Historic Alta Loma (Amethyst Site) City Corridor - Moderate (Probable FAR of 0.40 and Maximum FAR of 1.0) The City Corridor - Moderate designation provides for a mix of uses at moderate development intensities along Foothill Boulevard. Allowed uses include medium- and medium-high density residential and a broad range of commercial uses including general retail, personal services, banks, restaurants, cafes, and office. Uses may be in freestanding or mixed-use buildings and projects. Civic uses, such as fire stations, schools, and churches, may be allowed and should be designed to be compatible with the scale and character of the corridor environment. City Corridor - High (Probable FAR of 0.4 and Maximum FAR of 1.5) The City Corridor - High designation provides for high development intensities along Foothill Boulevard, particularly adjacent to city centers. Allowed uses include medium-high and high density residential and a broad range of commercial uses including general retail, personal services, banks, restaurants, cafes, and offices. Office uses are strongly encouraged along Haven Avenue. Uses may be in freestanding or mixed-use buildings and projects. Civic uses, such as fire stations, schools, and churches may be allowed and should be designed to be compatible with the scale and character of the corridor environment. City Center (Probable FAR of 0.4 and Maximum FAR of 2.0) The City Center designation provides for intense concentrations of retail and civic activity, multifamily housing, and employment in a pedestrian-oriented, transit-ready environment. Allowed uses include medium-high to high density residential and a wide range of commercial uses, including general retail, personal services, banks, restaurants, cafes, and office. Uses may be in freestanding or mixed-use buildings and projects. Infill and redevelopment with a mix of uses is encouraged. Page 133 Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN LU-51 Table LU-20: General Plan Land Use Designations and Development District Consistency Matrix Land Use Development Districts Residential Very Low VL - Very Low Low L - Low Low Medium LM - Low Medium1 Medium M - Medium1 Medium High MH - Medium High High H - High Commercial Office OP - Office and Professional Neighborhood Commercial NC - Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial GC - General Commercial Commercial Recreation Mixed Use Mixed Use SP - Specific Plan Districts PC - Planned Community Districts City Corridor – Moderate MU-GU – Mixed Use – General Urban City Corridor – High MU-UCR – Mixed Use – Urban Corridor City Center MU-UCT – Mixed Use – Urban Center Industrial Industrial Park IP - Industrial Park General Industrial GI - General Industrial Heavy Industrial HI/MI – Heavy Industrial/Minimum Impact HI/RS - Heavy Industrial/Rail-Served Open Space Hillside Residential HR – Hillside Residential District Conservation OS - Open Space Open Space Flood Control/Utility Corridor FC - Flood Control UC - Utility Corridor Public Facility Civic/Regional All Zoning Districts Schools All Zoning Districts Parks All Zoning Districts Note: 1. Development Code allows multi-unit residential in LM (Low Medium) under optional standards, and single-unit detached residential in M (Medium) under optional standards. Adopted Specific Plans The Specific Plans and Planned Communities identified in Table LU-21 and Figure LU-5 have been approved by the City. In 1999, the Development Code was amended Page 134 11231-0001\2569110v1.doc ORDINANCE NO. 983 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2021-00281 TO AMEND TABLE 17.26.020-1, SECTION 17.30.030, TABLE 17.30.030-1, and SECTION 17.36.030 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH THREE NEW ZONING DISTRICTS AND ADOPT ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PERMITTED USES FOR EACH NEW ZONING DISTRICT, ADOPTING ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2021-00283 TO REZONE CERTAIN PARCELS AS SET FORTH HEREIN, ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A.Recitals. 1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga is required by law to update the Housing Element of its General Plan for the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. In connection with that requirement, the City is currently in the process of updating its Housing Element as part of the PlanRC General Plan process. The City is on track to adopt the new General Plan, including the Housing Element, in accordance with the deadlines set forth in State law. 1. Current housing law states that if a city cannot show that it has the capacity to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) based on its existing planning and zoning framework as of October 15, 2021, the city is considered to have a “shortfall” in capacity. If a city has a shortfall, the city then must include a program in its housing element to rezone specific sites to show capacity to meet the shortfall based on new zoning standards for specific sites. The rezoning program for sites used to demonstrate capacity for the very low and low income RHNA allocations must rezone those sites to create a “by-right” process for developments that include 20 percent of the units for lower income households. 2. The City is proposing to amend its current General Plan, Development Code, Zoning Map and related special planning documents for selected parcels to ensure that enough sites are zoned to meet the RHNA requirements as of October 15, 2021 and to avoid the shortfall. The City has prepared a set of amendments for this purpose, including Municipal Code Amendment DRC2021-0028 and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2021-00283 as described in the title of this Ordinance (the “Amendment”). 3. As shown in Exhibit “A”, the Amendment proposes to amend the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code to establish three new zoning districts, establish development standards and permitted uses for each new zoning district, and to remove several parcels from certain overlay districts. The Amendment also proposes amend the City’s Zoning Map to rezone 41 parcels within the City to one of the three new zoning districts. 4. Concurrent with this Amendment, the City has prepared General Plan Amendment DRC 2021-00281, Planned Community Amendment DRC2021-00284, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2021-00285, and Master Plan Amendment DRC2021-00286. The collective purpose of these amendments is to ensure that enough sites within the City are zoned to meet the RHNA requirements by October 15, 2021 and to avoid any shortfall. Attachment 5Page135 5. On August 11, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendment and concluded said hearing on that date. 6. On September 1, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Amendment, and all interested persons were given an opportunity to present oral and written evidence regarding the Amendment and the addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027), and concluded said hearing on that date. 7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and ordained by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on September 1, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The Amendment identified herein has been processed, including, but not limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). b. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) has been prepared. The addendum concludes that the proposed Amendment and other amendments intended to create sufficient housing capacity do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which implementation of the General Plan was being undertaken since the certification of the EIR have occurred. The proposed Amendment would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the environmental topics analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor would the project require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all the evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff’s determination that the Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. The City Council has considered the proposed addendum attached to the staff report accompanying the Amendment, along with the General Plan Program Final EIR, and hereby adopts the addendum. c. The Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals, policies, and implementation programs of the adopted General Plan, including without limitation, the Land Use Element thereof (as amended), and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan. d. Subject to the approval of the related amendments (General Plan Amendment DRC 2021-00281, Planned Community Amendment DRC2021-00284, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2021-00285, and Master Plan Amendment DRC2021-00286), the Amendment does not conflict with the policies and provisions of the proposed General Plan, Planned Community, Specific Plan, and Master Plan amendments identified herein. Page 136 e. The City Council finds that the Amendment serves the important purpose of providing sufficient opportunities for housing development within the City to meet demand at all income levels in accordance with its assigned RHNA. The City Council further finds that maintaining some local control over the planning and development process for new residential projects is important for purposes of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, this Amendment is needed to ensure that the City does not have a housing shortfall as of October 15, 2021. f. The findings set forth in this Ordinance reflect the independent judgment of the City Council. 3. Determination on DRC2021-0028. Based on the findings set forth in this Ordinance and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Municipal Code Amendment DRC2021-0028. 4. The City Council hereby amends Section 17.26.020 (“Zoning Districts Established”), including Table 17.26.020-1 (“Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Districts”), of Chapter 17.26 (“Establishment of Zoning Districts”) of Article III (“Zoning Districts, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards”) of Title 17 (“Development Code”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows: “17.26.020 Zoning districts established. A. Zoning district purpose. Zoning districts are established in order to classify, regulate, designate, and distribute the uses of land and buildings; to regulate and restrict the height, setbacks and bulk of buildings; to regulate the area of yards and other open spaces around buildings; and to regulate the density of population. The city is divided into zoning districts that are grouped into two categories: (a) base zoning districts and (b) overlay zoning districts. These districts are listed and described in Table 17.26.020-1 (Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Districts), along with the general plan land use designation that they implement. B. Base zoning districts. The base zoning district is the primary zoning district that applies to a property. Every parcel throughout the city has a base zoning district that establishes the primary land use type, density, intensity, and site development regulations. Base districts are grouped into six categories as follows: 1. Residential Zoning Districts. 2. Mixed Use Zoning Districts. 3. Commercial and Office Zoning Districts. 4. Industrial Zoning Districts. 5. Open Space Zoning Districts. 6. Special Purpose Zoning Districts. C. Overlay zoning districts. The Overlay Zoning Districts supplement base zoning districts for one or more of the following purposes: 1. To allow more flexibility from the standard provisions of the underlying base zone. 2. To protect unique site features or implement location-specific regulations. 3. To specify a particular standard or guideline for an area. D. In the event of a conflict between the regulations of the base zoning district and the Overlay Zoning District, the provisions of the Overlay Zoning District shall apply. TABLE 17.26.020-1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA ZONING DISTRICTS Zoning District Symbol Zoning District Name/Description Page 137 Zoning District Symbol Zoning District Name/Description Residential Zoning Districts VL Very Low Residential. Designates areas for very low density residential use, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a maximum residential density of up to 2 units per gross acre. L Low Residential. Designates areas for single-family residential use, with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and a maximum residential density of 4 units per gross acre. LM Low Medium Residential. Designates areas for low medium density single-family or multiple-family use with site development regulations that assure development compatible with nearby single-family detached neighborhoods. Residential densities range from 4 to 8 units per gross acre maximum. M Medium Residential. Designates areas for medium density multiple-family use, with site development regulations that assure development compatible with nearby lower density residential development. Residential densities range from 8 to 14 units per gross acre maximum. MH Medium High Residential. Designates areas for medium high density multiple-family use, with site development regulations that assure development compatible with nearby lower density residential development. Residential densities range from 14 to 24 units per gross acre maximum. H High Residential. Designates areas for high density multiple-family use, with site development regulations that assure development compatible with nearby lower density residential development. Residential densities range from 24 to 30 units per gross acre. Mixed Use Zoning Districts MU Mixed Use. Designates areas for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, with site development regulations that assure development compatible with nearby lower density residential development, as well as internal compatibility among the varying uses. MU-GU Mixed Use – General Urban. Designates areas for a mix of residential and non- residential uses of lower intensity, with site development standards that assure buildings create walkable streets and transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods. MU- UCR Mixed Use – Urban Corridor. Designates areas for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses of medium to high intensity, with site development regulations that assure buildings create a vibrant pedestrian environment and transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods. MU-UCT Mixed Use – Urban Center. Designates areas for a mix of residential and non- residential uses of high intensity, with site development regulations that allow for infill development with buildings that transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods. Commercial and Office Zoning Districts OP Office/Professional. Designates areas primarily for the development of professional/administrative offices and personal services rather than commodities. Site development regulations and performance standards are designed to make such uses relatively compatible with residential uses. NC Neighborhood Commercial. Designates areas for immediate day-to-day convenience shopping and services for the residents of the immediate neighborhood. Site development regulations and performance standards are intended to make such uses compatible to and harmonious with the character of surrounding residential or less intense land use area. Page 138 Zoning District Symbol Zoning District Name/Description GC General Commercial. Designates areas for general commercial activities and services of a more intensive nature, including but not limited to major shopping facilities, major service-oriented uses, major financial, and corporate headquarters that are designed to serve the city or the region as a whole and are typically located primarily along major transportation routes. CC Community Commercial. Designates areas for commercial activities and services on a larger scale. Businesses are typically auto oriented and located along major commercial corridors. SC Specialty Commercial. Designates areas designed to enhance the character around historic resources or sites which promote a special landmark quality or create a special ambience. Examples include specialty theme-oriented uses located adjacent to the Thomas Brothers Winery, which complement the existing winery structure and provide a unifying theme or the establishment of tourist-oriented specialty uses in other areas, which cater to visitors. A limited number of office uses have been included into the specialty commercial category in order to facilitate an interactive office/commercial environment. RRC Regional Related Commercial. Designates areas for large-scale commercial development that serves both local and regional needs. Sites are easily accessible from freeways and may contain a variety of goods and services, such as large- format retail, department stores, eating and drinking establishments, hotels, and motels. CO Commercial Office. Designates areas for activities that cater to business support and personal services. Uses typically include medical and health care clinics, travel agencies, insurance agencies, copy centers, and other similar land uses. Industrial Zoning Districts IP Industrial Park. Designates areas for industrial firms seeking an attractive and pleasant working environment and a location which has prestige value. The district allows light industrial uses, office and administration facilities, research and development laboratories, and limited types of warehousing, as well as support businesses and commercial service uses. NI Neo-Industrial. Designates areas to support a complementary mix of uses such as, research and development, light and custom manufacturing, engineering and design services, breweries, and maker spaces, as well as accessory office, retail and limited residential uses to compliment the primary use; supportive amenities and services; and convenient transit access. This zoning district encourages light industrial activities with low environmental impacts and supports the growth of creative industries, incubator businesses, and innovative design and manufacturing. The zoning district can allow for small scale, context sensitive warehousing, distribution and manufacturing to support small business development. IE Industrial Employment. Designates areas reserved for manufacturing, processing, construction and heavy equipment yards, warehousing and storage, e-commerce distribution, light industrial research parks, automobile and vehicle services, and a broad range of similar clean industrial practices and processes that typically generate more truck traffic, noise, and environmental impacts than would be compatible with office and residential uses. This zoning district prohibits non-industrial uses, except for accessory office and commercial uses (such as restaurants or convenience stores) that support the employees of the primary industrial use, and on-site caretaker units. Open Space Zoning Districts OS Open Space. Designates areas primarily to protect environmentally sensitive land. Page 139 Zoning District Symbol Zoning District Name/Description The use regulations, development standards, and criteria provide low intensity development and encourage recreational activities and preservation of natural resources. HR Hillside Residential. Designates areas for maintaining natural open space character through protection of natural landforms; minimizing erosion; providing for public safety; protecting water, flora, and fauna resources; and establishing design standards to provide for limited development in harmony with the environment. Allowed density is a maximum of 2 units per net buildable acre as determined through the Hillside Development Review process. FC Flood Control. Designates areas necessary for flood control facilities for protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. UC Utility Corridor. Designates areas within utility corridors in which land uses compatible to both the utility function and surrounding, existing, or proposed land uses are allowed. Special Purpose Zoning Districts SP Specific Plan. Designates areas for master planning through the adoption of a specific plan with unique land use and development standards for a particular project areas with a minimum of 300 acres. PC Planned Community. Designates areas master planning through the adoption of a Planned Community, which can establish unique land use and development standards for a particular project area. Planned Communities typically include less detail than specific plans and have no minimum project size requirement. Overlay Zoning Districts SH Senior Housing. Designates areas available for affordable rental housing units to serve the city’s senior citizens. District provisions ensure high quality project design and establish incentives for ongoing affordability for this target group. This district can be combined with any residential base zoning district that meets the overlay district qualifications. E Equestrian. Designates areas for the keeping of equine, bovine, and cleft-hoofed animals. Further, this district protects the ability to maintain such animals, promotes a “rural/farm” character in an urban setting, and recognizes and encourages the educational and recreational values derived from raising and maintaining such animals. This district may be combined with any residential base zoning district that meets the overlay district qualifications. FB Foothill Boulevard. Designates areas along Foothill Boulevard for special use and development regulations to implement the goals and objectives in the general plan for this important corridor that covers most of the length of Historic Route 66 through the city. Special regulations encourage a mix of uses, concentrate neighborhood, community, and regional-serving uses as appropriate, and accommodate future transit. H Hillside. Designates sloped areas subject to special hillside development regulations. Generally, this district applies to areas with a slope greater than or equal to 8%. This district may be combined with any residential base zoning district that meets the overlay district qualifications. HA Haven Avenue. Designates an area along Haven Avenue with unique allowed use regulations and development standards focused on high quality office opportunities. IC Industrial Commercial. Designates areas with an Industrial Park Base Zoning District to encourage and support the integration of traditional general commercial uses and special development review requirements focused on retail opportunities. LW Large Warehouse. Designates area where large industrial buildings with a gross Page 140 Zoning District Symbol Zoning District Name/Description floor area over 450,000 square feet are permitted.” 5. The City Council hereby amends Section 17.30.030 (“Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements”), including Table 17.30.030-1 (“Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zoning District”), of Chapter 17.30 (“Allowed Land Uses by Base Zoning District”) of Article III (“Zoning Districts, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards”) of Title 17 (“Development Code”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows: “17.30.030 Allowed land uses and permit requirements. A. Allowed land uses. Allowed uses and corresponding permit and entitlement requirements for the base zoning districts are listed in Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zoning District). Uses are organized into common categories as follows: 1. Residential uses. 2. Agriculture and animal related uses. 3. Recreation, resource preservation, open space, education, and public assembly uses. 4. Utility, transportation, public facility, and communication uses. 5. Retail, service, and office uses. 6. Automobile and vehicle uses. 7. Industrial, manufacturing, and processing uses. B. Permit requirements. Generally, a use is either allowed by right, allowed through issuance of a conditional use permit, or not permitted. In addition to the requirements for planning permits or entitlements listed herein, other permits and entitlements may be required prior to establishment of the use (e.g., building permit or permits required by other agencies). The requirements for planning permits or entitlements identified in Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zoning District) include: 1. Permitted (P). A land use shown with a “P” indicates that the land use is permitted by right in the designated zoning district, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of this title (e.g., development standards) as well state and federal law. 2. Conditionally permitted (C). A land use shown with a “C” indicates that the land use is permitted in the designated zoning district upon issuance of a conditional use permit from the designated approving authority, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of this zoning code (e.g., development standards) as well as state and federal law. 3. Minor use permit (M). A land use shown with an “M” indicates that the land use is permitted in the designated zoning district upon issuance of a minor use permit from the designated approving authority, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of this zoning code (e.g., development standards) as well as state and federal law. 4. Not permitted (N). A land use shown with an “N” is not allowed in the applicable zoning district. Additionally, uses not shown in the table are not permitted, except as otherwise provided for in this title. 5. Adult entertainment permit (A). A land use shown with an “A” indicates that the land use is permitted in the designated zoning district upon issuance of an adult entertainment permit from the designated approving authority, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of this zoning code (e.g., development operational standards) as well as state and federal law. Page 141 C. Base zoning district names and symbols. Base zoning district names for the zoning district symbols used in the table are listed below. Specific Plan (SP) District and Planned Community (PC) District are not listed in the table as the allowed uses for those base zoning districts are determined in compliance with the adopted Specific Plan or Planned Community. • Very Low Residential (VL) • Specialty Commercial (SC) • Low Residential (L) • Regional Related Commercial (RRC) • Low Medium Residential (LM) • Commercial Office (CO) • Medium Residential (M) • Industrial Park (IP) • Medium High Residential (MH) • Neo-Industrial (NI) • High Residential (H) • Industrial Employment (IE) • Mixed Use (MU) • Open Space (OS) • Mixed Use – General Urban (MU-GU) • Hillside Residential District (HR) • Mixed Use – Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) • Flood Control-Open Space (FC) • Mixed Use – Urban Center (MU-UCT) • Utility Corridor-Open Space (UC) • Office Professional (OP) • Neighborhood Commercial (NC) • General Commercial (GC) • Community Commercial (CC) TABLE 17.30.030-1: ALLOWED LAND USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS BY BASE ZONING DISTRICT Land Use/Zoning District VL L LM M MH H MU MU- GU MU- UCR MU- UCT OP NC GC CC SC RRC CO IP NI IE OS HR FC UC Residential Uses Adult Day Care Home P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P N N Caretaker Housing M M M M M M M M M M P P P N N N N M M M P M P P Dwelling, Multi-Family N N P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Dwelling, Single- Family P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N Dwelling, Two-Family N N P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Emergency Shelter N N N N N N N N N N N N P N N N N N C N N N N N Family Day Care Home, Large (11) M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N M N N Family Day Care Home, Small P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P N N Guest House P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Group Residential M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N M N N N N N M N N Home Occupation (2) P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N P P N N Live-Work Facility N N N N N N P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Manufactured Home (3) P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P N N Mobile Home Park (3) M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Residential Care Facility N M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Residential Care Home P P P P P P N P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P N N Short-Term Rental(16) P P P P P P P P P P P P N N P P P P N P P P P P Single-Room Occupancy Facility N N N P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Transitional Housing P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P N N Agriculture and Animal-Related Uses Agricultural Uses N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P N P P Animal Keeping, Domestic Pets (4) P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P N N Animal Keeping, Exotic Animals (4) M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N M N N Animal Keeping, Insects (4) P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Animal Keeping, Livestock Animals (4) P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N Animal Keeping, Poultry (4) P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N Equestrian Facility, Commercial M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N M M Page 142 Equestrian Facility, Hobby P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Land Use/Zoning District VL L LM M MH H MU MU- GU MU- UCR MU- UCT OP NC GC CC SC RRC CO IP NI IE OS HR FC UC Recreation, Resource Preservation, Open Space, Education, and Public Assembly Uses Assembly Use M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C N N N N N Cemetery/Mausoleum N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N Community Center/Civic Use M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N P P N N M N N Community Garden M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P N P P Convention Center N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M C C N N N N Golf Course/Clubhouse N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N M M Indoor Amusement/ Entertainment Facility N N N N N N M M M M N M M P P P N M C N N N N N Indoor Fitness and Sports Facility—Large N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M C N N N N N Indoor Fitness and Sports Facility—Small N N N N N N P P P P P P P P M P P M C N N N N N Library and Museum M M M M M M P P P P P P P N P N P M N N M M M M Outdoor Commercial Recreation N N N N N N M M M M M M M N N M M M C N N N N N Park and Public Plaza P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N M M M P P P P Public Safety Facility M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C C N M N N Resource-Related Recreation P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N P P P P School, Academic (Private) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C N N M N N School, Academic (Public) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N P N N School, College/University (Private) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C N N M N N School, College/University (Public) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C N N C N N Schools, Specialized Education and Training/Studio N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M C C C N N N N Theaters and Auditoriums N N N N N N M M M M N N M N N P N N N N N N N N Tutoring Center—Large N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N Tutoring Center—Small N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N Utility, Transportation, Public Facility, and Communication Uses Broadcasting and Recording Studios N N N N N N N N N N P N P N N N P P P N N N N N Park and Ride Facility N N N N N N N N N N M M M N N N N C P C N N N N Parking Facility N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Transit Facility N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M C C N N N N Utility Facility and Infrastructure—Fixed Based Structures (5, 12) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M C C C N M M Utility Facility and Infrastructure— Pipelines (5) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Wind Energy System— Small (10) P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N Land Use/Zoning District VL L LM M MH H MU MU- GU MU- UCR MU- UCT OP NC GC CC SC RRC CO IP NI IE OS HR FC UC Retail, Service, and Office Uses Adult Day Care Facility N N N N N N M M M M M M M N N N M C C N N N N N Adult-Oriented Business (6) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N A A A N N N N Alcoholic Beverage Sales N N N N N N M M M M N M M M M M M M M N N N N N Ambulance Service N N N N N N N N N N M M M N N N N N C P N N N N Animal Sales and Grooming N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P N N N N N N N N N Art, Antique, Collectable Shop (13) N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P P N N N N N N N N Artisan Shop (13) N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P P N N N N N N N N Bail Bonds N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Banks and Financial Services N N N N N N M M M M M M P P P P P P P N N N N N Bar/Nightclub N N N N N N M M M M M N M M M M M N C N N N N N Page 143 Bed and Breakfast Inn M M M N N N N N N N N N N M M N N N N N N N N N Building Materials Store and Yard N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M P N N N N Business Support Services N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N Call Center N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M C N N N N Card Room N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Check Cashing Business (7) N N N N N N P P P P N P P N N N N P N N N N N N Child Day Care Facility/Center N N N N N N M M M M M M M M N M M M P P N N N N Commercial Cannabis Activity N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Consignment Store N N N N N N M M M M N M M N M N N N N N N N N N Convenience Store N N N N N N P P P P N P P N M N N M M N N N N N Crematory Services (7) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N Drive-In and Drive- Through Sales and Service (8) N N N N N N M M M M M M M M N M M M M N N N N N Land Use/Zoning District VL L LM M MH H MU MU- GU MU- UCR MU- UCT OP NC GC CC SC RRC CO IP NI IE OS HR FC UC Equipment Sales and Rental N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N C P N N N N Feed and Tack Store N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N N N N N N N N N N Furniture, Furnishing, and Appliance Store N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P P N N N N N N N N Garden Center/Plant Nursery N N N N N N P P P P N P P P N P N N P P P N P P Grocery Store/Supermarket N N N N N N P P P P N P P P N P N N N N N N N N Gun Sales N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N M M N N N N N Hookah Shop N N N N N N M M M M N N M N N N N N N N N N N N Home Improvement Supply Store N N N N N N P P P P N P P P N P N M P P N N N N Hotel N N N N N N M M M M M N M N N M M M N N N N N N Internet Café N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N Kennel, Commercial N N N N N N N N N N N N M M N M N M C N N N N N Liquor Store N N N N N N M M M M N M M M M M N M M N N N N N Maintenance and Repair, Small Equipment N N N N N N P P P P N P P P N P P P P P N N N N Massage Establishment (14) N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N Massage Establishment, Ancillary (14) N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N Medical Services, Extended Care N M M M M M M M M M P N P P N N P P P N N N N N Medical Services, General N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N Medical Services, Hospitals N N M M M M M M M M M N M N N N N P P N N N N N Land Use/Zoning District VL L LM M MH H MU MU- GU MU- UCR MU- UCT OP NC GC CC SC RRC CO IP NI IE OS HR FC UC Mobile Hot Food Truck N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N N N Mortuary/Funeral Home N N N N N N N N N N M M M N N N N N N N N N N N Office, Business and Professional N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N Office, Accessory N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N Pawnshop (7) N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N Personal Services N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N Restaurant, No Liquor Service N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N Restaurant, Beer and Wine N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P C N N N N Restaurant, Full Liquor Service N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N Retail, Accessory N N N N N N P P P P P P P P N P P M M P N N N N Retail, General N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P P N M M C N N N N Retail, Warehouse Club N N N N N N P P P P N N P P N P N P N N N N N N Secondhand Dealer N N N N N N P P P P N P P N N N N N N N N N N N Shooting Range N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M C N N N N N Smoke Shop (7) N N N N N N N N N N N N M M N M N N N N N N N N Specialty Food Store (13) N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P P N N N N N N N N Page 144 Tattoo Shop (7) N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N Thrift Store (7) N N N N N N M M M M N M M M N M N N N N N N N N Veterinary Facility M N N N N N M M M M N P P M M M N N P P N N N N Automobile and Vehicle Uses Auto and Vehicle Sales and Rental N N N N N N N N N N M N M N N P N M M N N N N N Auto and Vehicle Sales, Autobroker N N N N N N N N N N P P P P N P P P N N N N N N Auto and Vehicle Sales, Wholesale N N N N N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P N N N N N Auto and Vehicle Storage18 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Auto Parts Sales N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N P N N P N N N N N Car Washing and Detailing N N N N N N N N N N N N M M N M N M N N N N N N Recreational Vehicle Storage N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C N N N N Service Stations N N N N N N M M M M M M P M N M M M M N N N N N Vehicle Services, Major N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N P P N N N N Vehicle Services, Minor N N N N N N N N N N M M P N N M N P P N N N N N Land Use/Zoning District VL L LM M MH H MU MU- GU MU- UCR MU- UCT OP NC GC CC SC RRC CO IP NI IE OS HR FC UC Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses Commercial (Secondary/Accessory) - Industrial N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N Commercial (Repurposing) - Industrial N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M C C N N N N E-Commerce Distribution Distribution/Fulfillment Center, Small(12) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N Distribution/ Fulfillment Center, Large N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M N N N N Parcel Sorting Facilities N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Parcel Hub Small (< 130,000 sq. ft.) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Parcel Hub Large (> 130,000 sq. ft.) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Lumber Yard N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C N N N N Maker Space/Accessory Maker Space N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N M P P N N N N Manufacturing, Custom(12) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N N N N Manufacturing, Green Technology N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N N N Manufacturing, Light - Small(12) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N Manufacturing, Light - Large(12) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M N N N N Microbrewery N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N Printing and Publishing N N N N N N N N N N N N P N N N N P P N N N N N Recycling Facility, Collection N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N N N N C C N N N N Recycling Facility, Processing N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C N N N N Research and Development N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N Storage, Personal Storage Facility N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C N N N N Storage Warehouse N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N C C N N N N Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution - Light(12) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution - Medium (12) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C P N N N N Table Notes: (1) Reserved. (2) See additional regulations for home occupations in Chapter 17.92. Page 145 (3) See additional regulations for mobile homes in Chapter 17.96. (4) See additional regulations for animal keeping in Chapter 17.88. (5) Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas and/or liquid pipeline development require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (6) See additional regulations for adult entertainment businesses in Chapter 17.86. Adult-oriented businesses are not permitted west of Haven Avenue. (7) See additional regulations for special regulated uses in Chapter 17.102. (8) See additional regulations for drive-in and drive-through facilities in Chapter 17.90. (9) Not permitted within 300 feet of residentially zoned property. (10) See additional regulations for wind energy systems in Chapter 17.76. (11) Family Day Care Home — Large requires approval of a Large Family Day Care Permit, not a Conditional Use Permit. (12) Not permitted on any parcel that is located within, or partly within, five hundred (500) feet of the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way. (13) Permitted in Industrial Park and General Industrial zoning districts when proposed in conjunction with “Commercial (Repurposing) — Industrial”. (14) Massage establishment permit required. See additional regulations for massage establishments in chapter 5.18. (16) A short-term rental must be a single family residence in zoning districts other than VL, L, and LM. See additional regulations for short-term rentals in Chapter 8.34. (17) Maximum building gross floor area for all industrial uses is 450,000 square feet. A master plan is required for all industrial buildings larger than 450,000 square feet in gross floor area. (18) Auto and vehicle storage is permitted as an on- or off-site accessory use to any manufacturing use upon issuance of a minor use permit. The minor use permit may also permit truck storage as an accessory use to manufacturing.” 6. The City Council hereby amends Section 17.36.020 (“Development Standards for Mixed Use Zoning Districts”), including Table 17.36.020-2 (“Development Standards for Mixed Use Zoning Districts”), which shall be renumbered to Table 17.36.020-1 of Chapter 17.36 (“Development Standards by Base Zoning District”) of Article III (“Zoning Districts, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards”) of Title 17 (“Development Code”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows: “17.36.020 Development standards for mixed use zoning districts. A. Purpose and applicability. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum development standards that are unique to development projects within the city’s Mixed Use Zoning Districts. Development standards in this section apply to all land designated on the zoning map within a Mixed Use District and are intended to be consistent with and implement the general plan. TABLE 17.36.020-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS Development Standard MU MU-GU MU-UCR MU-UCT Site/Lot Area (minimum) (1) n/a n/a n/a n/a Lot Width/Depth (minimum) n/a n/a n/a n/a Allowed Density (dwelling units per acre) Minimum Density n/a 24 units/acre 24 units/acre 24 units/acre Maximum Density 50 units/acre 42 units/acre 60 units/acre 100 units/acre Land Use Mix (2)(3) Project shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following types of land uses: Commercial, Office, Institutional, Residential, Live/Work Project shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following types of land uses: Commercial, Office, Institutional, Residential, Live/Work Project shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following types of land uses: Commercial, Office, Institutional, Residential, Live/Work Project shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following types of land uses: Commercial, Office, Institutional, Residential, Live/Work Setbacks (4)(5) Street Yard 50% - 75% 0 – 10 ft. 0 – 10 ft. 0 – 5 ft. Page 146 Development Standard MU MU-GU MU-UCR MU-UCT (Major/Special Boulevard) reduction of streetscape requirements (8) Street Yard (Secondary/Collector) 50% - 75% reduction of streetscape requirements (8) 0 – 10 ft. 0 – 10 ft. 0 – 5 ft. Street Yard (Local Streets) 75% - 100% reduction of streetscape requirements (8) 0 – 10 ft. 0 – 10 ft. 0 – 5 ft. Rear Yard (adjacent to residential) Match rear yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Match rear yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Match rear yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Match rear yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Rear Yard (adjacent to commercial or industrial) 0 feet (6) 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet Interior Side (adjacent to residential) Match side yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Match side yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Match side yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Match side yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Interior Side (adjacent to commercial or industrial) 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Distance Between Buildings Primary Buildings Minimum per Building Code requirements Minimum per Building Code requirements Minimum per Building Code requirements Minimum per Building Code requirements Accessory Buildings Minimum per Building Code requirements Minimum per Building Code requirements Minimum per Building Code requirements Minimum per Building Code requirements Building Height (maximum in feet) (7) Primary Buildings 75 feet maximum 3 stories min. – 5 stories max. 4 stories min. – 7 stories max. 12 stories max. Accessory Buildings Not to exceed primary building height Not to exceed primary building height Not to exceed primary building height Not to exceed primary building height Open Space Requirement (minimum percentage of open space per parcel or project) Landscape Area (overall net area) 10% minimum 10% minimum 10% minimum 10% minimum Open Space Requirements Minimum of 150 square feet/unit; See Section 17.36.020 (D) for additional requirements Minimum of 150 square feet/unit; See Section 17.36.020 (D) for additional requirements Minimum of 150 square feet/unit; See Section 17.36.020 (D) for additional requirements Minimum of 150 square feet/unit; See Section 17.36.020 (D) for additional requirements Page 147 Development Standard MU MU-GU MU-UCR MU-UCT Recreation Area/Facility Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) Parking Requirement Parking Spaces See Table 17.64.050-1; NOTE: A parking study is required for all Mixed Use projects per Section 17.64.060(D) See Table 17.64.050-1; NOTE: A parking study is required for all Mixed Use projects per Section 17.64.060(D) See Table 17.64.050-1; NOTE: A parking study is required for all Mixed Use projects per Section 17.64.060(D) See Table 17.64.050-1; NOTE: A parking study is required for all Mixed Use projects per Section 17.64.060(D) Accessory Dwelling Units Allowed per Chapter 17.100 (Accessory Dwelling Units) Allowed per Chapter 17.100 (Accessory Dwelling Units) Allowed per Chapter 17.100 (Accessory Dwelling Units) Allowed per Chapter 17.100 (Accessory Dwelling Units) Table Notes: (1) On existing lots of record, parcels less than three (3) acres or less than the required minimum frontage may only be developed at the lowest end of the permitted density range. (2) Lot sizes less than one-half (½) acre are not subject to land use mix requirement. (3) The precise amount of two or more land uses in a mixed use development is determined on a case by case basis, at the discretion of the Planning Director. (4) Setbacks are measured between the structure and curb face in front yards and corner side yards. Setbacks are measured between the structure and property line in rear yards and interior side yards. (5) Shall apply to buildings, parking and landscaping. (6) Must meet minimum Building Codes. (7) All buildings within one hundred (100) feet of LM, L, or VL Districts shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25’); however, there may be areas where the maximum building height may be required to be less than the cited maximum, and shall be determined on a case by case basis. (8) For mixed use development of any type see the streetscape setbacks in Table 17.36.010-3 that apply to Attached Single-Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential. B. Open space mixed use development standards. 1. Front and/or street yard setbacks do not count towards meeting the usable open space requirements. 2. Required perimeter and parking landscape area, per section 17.56.060(N), shall not be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement, but is counted towards the overall landscape requirement. 3. A maximum of 30 percent of the total requirement for private open space shall be counted toward required open space area. Additional private open space area will not count towards the total requirement for open space. This maximum 30 percent requirement may be modified by not more than five percent if determined to be necessary during design review. 4. Each private open space shall have a minimum width and depth of six feet. 5. Each common open space shall have at least one minimum dimension of 15 feet and the other dimensions shall be at least six feet, except for private open space (e.g., balconies or patios). a. Open space shall include both indoor/interior space and outdoor open space. b. Open space can be in the form of private open space (e.g., balconies) or common open space (e.g., pool or side or rear setback areas). Page 148 c.An indoor recreational room of up to 600 square feet may be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement. d.A landscaped and usable utility easement may be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement if it is properly landscaped in compliance with chapter 17.56 (Landscaping).” 7.Determination on DRC2021-00283. Based on the findings set forth in this Ordinance and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Zoning Map Amendment DRC2021-00283 as set forth in Exhibit “B,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Those parcels identified by APNs 20833140, 20833147, 20834115, and 20835302 are hereby removed from the Haven Avenue Overlay. For reference purposes, a list of the parcels affected by Zoning Map Amendment DRC2021-00283 is also included in Exhibit “B”. 8.The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 9.The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within in the manner required by law. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS ____ DAY OF ____ 2021. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ____ day of ____ 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 149 EXHIBIT A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Page 150 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D L MMM M L VL L LM VL VL LM VL LM L M L L M L L L M LM M L LM L LM LM M VL M M M M M M LM M M Chaffey College LM L 8th St Arrow Rt Foothill Bl Base Line Rd 19th St Banyan St Base Line Rd Foothill Bl Arrow Rt 4th St4th St 6th StCarnelian StMilliken AvHellman AvArchibald AvHermosa AvHaven AvRochester AvEtiwanda AvI-15Vineyard AvGrove AvEast AvI-15Etiwanda AvRochester AvMilliken AvHaven AvHermosa AvArchibald AvHellman AvHillside Rd Day Creek BlvdRoute 210 Tex t HR OS OS OS FC FCHR FC FC FC FC FC OS OS FC FC FC FC FC FC FC MH NC NC FC OP OS FC FC MHHMHNCNCNCOP NC NC OS MH MHMUGCNCGC NC H GC NC GCOP CSNCOPGCGCOP OS OP FC OS H NCNCNCNCOP FC OS FC OP OP OS FC IP GC FC CCFCMUCCSCCCMURMUCC U SC RCMU CC COCCCC SC CCCCCOCCCCCCSCCO MU PPL COSCCC FC MU IP IPCC FC CC CCSC SC IPCO CC OS IPIPIP CC MH CCOP RCSC SC MU MU MU IPIPCC LI IP MUOP GIIP GIMH GIGI IP IP IP OPK IP IPGCGC GC GI FC UC FC GI GC IP GC MIHI GI GI GI GI GIGI IP GI GI GI GI GI GC MIHI GC IP GI GIFCGI GI GIGI IP MIHIIP HI GIGI GIFC MH GI IPGI IP MIHIGIGIGI GI GIFCGIGIGIFCIPGIGI GI GI GIGI IPGI UC GI GI GI GI GI GI GI GI GI IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IPIP IP IP GIGIGIGI GI GI GIGI GI IP IP FC FC FC S S S GC (SP-EN)Etiwanda North Specific Plan (SP-E)Etiwanda Specific Plan (SP-EL)Empire LakesSpecific Plan (PC-TV)Terra Vista Planned Community (PC-V)Victoria Planned Community (PC-C)Caryn PlannedCommunity (PC-EH)Etiwanda HighlandsPlanned Community (SP-EHNCP)Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan ¹ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ZONING MAP The maps, data and geographic information ("Information") available by and through the City of Rancho Cucamonga are presented as a public resource of general information. The City of Rancho Cucamonga makes nor implies no warranty representation or guarantee as to the content, sequence, accuracy, completeness or timelines of any Information provided to you herein. The user should not rely upon the Information for any reason and is directed to independently verify any and all Information presented herein. The City of Rancho Cucamonga explicitly and without limitation disclaims any and all representations and warrantees, including, but not limited to, the implied warrantees of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall neither accept nor assume any liability, regardless of the causation for (i) any errors, omissions or in accuracies in any Information provided and/or (ii) any action or inaction occurring due to any persons reliance upon the information available herein. Commercial/Office Community Commercial (CC) Specialty Commercial (SC) Regional Related Commercial (RC) Commercial Office (CO) Data Provided by Department of Innovation & Technology 0 km 1 km km2 0 ft 1,000ft 2,000ft 3,000ft 4,000ft 5,000 ft 6,000ft 7,000 ft 8,000ft ft9,000 Scale 1:16,000 City Limits Office Professional (OP) Specific Plan Planned Communities Overlay District Empire Lakes Specific Plan (SP-EL) Equestrian (EOD) Haven Avenue (HAOD) Senior Housing (SHOD) Hillside (HOD) " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Foothill Boulevard (FBOD) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Industrial Commercial (ICOD) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Mixed Use Mixed Use (MU) Residential Open Space Neighborhood Commercial (NC) General Commercial (GC) Caryn Planned Community (PC-C) Etiwanda North Specific Plan (SP-EN) Etiwanda Highlands Planned Community (PC-EH) Terra Vista Planned Community (PC-TV) Victoria Planned Community (PC-V) Etiwanda Specific Plan (SP-E) Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Specific Plan (SP) Planned Community (PC) Very Low (<2 du/ac) Low (2-4 du/ac) Low Medium (4-8 du/ac) Medium (8-14 du/ac) Medium High (14-24 du/ac) High (24-30 du/ac) Utility Corridor (UC) Flood Control (FC) Open Space (OS) Hillside Residential (HR) General Urban (GU) Urban Center (UCE) Urban Corridor (UCO) Industrial Industrial Park (IP) General Industrial (GI) Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (MI/HI) Heavy Industrial (HI) Page 151 Page 152 ORDINANCE NO. 983 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2021-00281 TO AMEND TABLE 17.26.020-1, SECTION 17.30.030, TABLE 17.30.030-1, and SECTION 17.36.030 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH THREE NEW ZONING DISTRICTS AND ADOPT ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PERMITTED USES FOR EACH NEW ZONING DISTRICT, ADOPTING ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2021-00283 TO REZONE CERTAIN PARCELS AS SET FORTH HEREIN, ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A.Recitals. 1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga is required by law to update the Housing Element of its General Plan for the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. In connection with that requirement, the City is currently in the process of updating its Housing Element as part of the PlanRC General Plan process. The City is on track to adopt the new General Plan, including the Housing Element, in accordance with the deadlines set forth in State law. 2.Current housing law states that if a city cannot show that it has the capacity to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) based on its existing planning and zoning framework as of October 15, 2021, the city is considered to have a “shortfall” in capacity. If a city has a shortfall, the city then must include a program in its housing element to rezone specific sites to show capacity to meet the shortfall based on new zoning standards for specific sites. The rezoning program for sites used to demonstrate capacity for the very low and low income RHNA allocations must rezone those sites to create a “by-right” process for developments that include 20 percent of the units for lower income households. 3.The City is proposing to amend its current General Plan, Development Code, Zoning Map and related special planning documents for selected parcels to ensure that enough sites are zoned to meet the RHNA requirements as of October 15, 2021 and to avoid the shortfall. The City has prepared a set of amendments for this purpose, including Municipal Code Amendment DRC2021-0028 and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2021-00283 as described in the title of this Ordinance (the “Amendment”). 4.As shown in Exhibits “A” and “B,” the Amendment proposes to amend the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code to establish three new zoning districts, establish development standards and permitted uses for each new zoning district, and to remove several parcels from certain overlay districts. The Amendment also proposes amend the City’s Zoning Map to rezone 41 parcels within the City to one of the three new zoning districts. 5.Concurrent with this Amendment, the City has prepared General Plan Amendment DRC 2021-00281, Planned Community Amendment DRC2021-00284, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2021-00285, and Master Plan Amendment DRC2021-00286. The collective purpose of these amendments is to ensure that enough sites within the City are zoned to meet the RHNA requirements by October 15, 2021 and to avoid any shortfall. 11231-0001\2569110v1.doc 09/01/2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: ITEM G1 - UPDATED ORDINANCE NO. 983 - CHANGES HIGHLIGHTED IN RED TEXT Page 153 6. On August 11, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendment and concluded said hearing on that date. 7. On September 1, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Amendment, and all interested persons were given an opportunity to present oral and written evidence regarding the Amendment and the addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027), and concluded said hearing on that date. 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B.Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and ordained by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on September 1, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The Amendment identified herein has been processed, including, but not limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). b.Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) has been prepared. The addendum concludes that the proposed Amendment and other amendments intended to create sufficient housing capacity do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which implementation of the General Plan was being undertaken since the certification of the EIR have occurred. The proposed Amendment would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the environmental topics analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor would the project require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all the evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff’s determination that the Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. The City Council has considered the proposed addendum attached to the staff report accompanying the Amendment, along with the General Plan Program Final EIR, and hereby adopts the addendum. c.The Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals, policies, and implementation programs of the adopted General Plan, including without limitation, the Land Use Element thereof (as amended), and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan. d.Subject to the approval of the related amendments (General Plan Amendment DRC 2021-00281, Planned Community Amendment DRC2021-00284, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2021-00285, and Master Plan Amendment DRC2021-00286), the Amendment does not conflict with the policies and provisions of the proposed General Plan, Planned Community, Specific Plan, and Master Plan amendments identified herein. Page 154 e. The City Council finds that the Amendment serves the important purpose of providing sufficient opportunities for housing development within the City to meet demand at all income levels in accordance with its assigned RHNA. The City Council further finds that maintaining some local control over the planning and development process for new residential projects is important for purposes of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, this Amendment is needed to ensure that the City does not have a housing shortfall as of October 15, 2021. f. The findings set forth in this Ordinance reflect the independent judgment of the City Council. 3. Determination on DRC2021-0028. Based on the findings set forth in this Ordinance and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Municipal Code Amendment DRC2021-0028. 4. The City Council hereby amends Section 17.26.020 (“Zoning Districts Established”), including Table 17.26.020-1 (“Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Districts”), of Chapter 17.26 (“Establishment of Zoning Districts”) of Article III (“Zoning Districts, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards”) of Title 17 (“Development Code”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows: “17.26.020 Zoning districts established. A. Zoning district purpose. Zoning districts are established in order to classify, regulate, designate, and distribute the uses of land and buildings; to regulate and restrict the height, setbacks and bulk of buildings; to regulate the area of yards and other open spaces around buildings; and to regulate the density of population. The city is divided into zoning districts that are grouped into two categories: (a) base zoning districts and (b) overlay zoning districts. These districts are listed and described in Table 17.26.020-1 (Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Districts), along with the general plan land use designation that they implement. B. Base zoning districts. The base zoning district is the primary zoning district that applies to a property. Every parcel throughout the city has a base zoning district that establishes the primary land use type, density, intensity, and site development regulations. Base districts are grouped into six categories as follows: 1. Residential Zoning Districts. 2. Mixed Use Zoning Districts. 3. Commercial and Office Zoning Districts. 4. Industrial Zoning Districts. 5. Open Space Zoning Districts. 6. Special Purpose Zoning Districts. C. Overlay zoning districts. The Overlay Zoning Districts supplement base zoning districts for one or more of the following purposes: 1. To allow more flexibility from the standard provisions of the underlying base zone. 2. To protect unique site features or implement location-specific regulations. 3. To specify a particular standard or guideline for an area. D. In the event of a conflict between the regulations of the base zoning district and the Overlay Zoning District, the provisions of the Overlay Zoning District shall apply. TABLE 17.26.020-1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA ZONING DISTRICTS Zoning District Symbol Zoning District Name/Description Page 155 Zoning District Symbol Zoning District Name/Description Residential Zoning Districts VL Very Low Residential. Designates areas for very low density residential use, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a maximum residential density of up to 2 units per gross acre. L Low Residential. Designates areas for single-family residential use, with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and a maximum residential density of 4 units per gross acre. LM Low Medium Residential. Designates areas for low medium density single-family or multiple-family use with site development regulations that assure development compatible with nearby single-family detached neighborhoods. Residential densities range from 4 to 8 units per gross acre maximum. M Medium Residential. Designates areas for medium density multiple-family use, with site development regulations that assure development compatible with nearby lowe r density residential development. Residential densities range from 8 to 14 units per gross acre maximum. MH Medium High Residential. Designates areas for medium high density multiple-family use, with site development regulations that assure development compatible with nearby lower density residential development. Residential densities range from 14 to 24 units per gross acre maximum. H High Residential. Designates areas for high density multiple-family use, with site development regulations that assure development compatible with nearby lower density residential development. Residential densities range from 24 to 30 units per gross acre. Mixed Use Zoning Districts MU Mixed Use. Designates areas for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, with site development regulations that assure development compatible with nearby lower density residential development, as well as internal compatibility among the varying uses. MU-GU Mixed Use – General Urban. Designates areas for a mix of residential and non- residential uses of lower intensity, with site development standards that assure buildings create walkable streets and transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods. MU- UCR Mixed Use – Urban Corridor. Designates areas for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses of medium to high intensity, with site development regulations that assure buildings create a vibrant pedestrian environment and transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods. MU-UCT Mixed Use – Urban Center. Designates areas for a mix of residential and non- residential uses of high intensity, with site development regulations that allow for infill development with buildings that transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods. Commercial and Office Zoning Districts OP Office/Professional. Designates areas primarily for the development of professional/administrative offices and personal services rather than commodities. Site development regulations and performance standards are designed to make such uses relatively compatible with residential uses. NC Neighborhood Commercial. Designates areas for immediate day-to-day convenience shopping and services for the residents of the immediate neighborhood. Site development regulations and performance standards are intended to make such uses compatible to and harmonious with the character of surrounding residential or less intense land use area. Page 156 Zoning District Symbol Zoning District Name/Description GC General Commercial. Designates areas for general commercial activities and services of a more intensive nature, including but not limited to major shopping facilities, major service-oriented uses, major financial, and corporate headquarters that are designed to serve the city or the region as a whole and are typically located primarily along major transportation routes. CC Community Commercial. Designates areas for commercial activities and services on a larger scale. Businesses are typically auto oriented and located along major commercial corridors. SC Specialty Commercial. Designates areas designed to enhance the character around historic resources or sites which promote a special landmark quality or create a special ambience. Examples include specialty theme-oriented uses located adjacent to the Thomas Brothers Winery, which complement the existing winery structure and provide a unifying theme or the establishment of tourist-oriented specialty uses in other areas, which cater to visitors. A limited number of office uses have been included into the specialty commercial category in order to facilitate an interactive office/commercial environment. RRC Regional Related Commercial. Designates areas for large-scale commercial development that serves both local and regional needs. Sites are easily accessible from freeways and may contain a variety of goods and services, such as large- format retail, department stores, eating and drinking establishments, hotels, and motels. CO Commercial Office. Designates areas for activities that cater to business support and personal services. Uses typically include medical and health care clinics, travel agencies, insurance agencies, copy centers, and other similar land uses. Industrial Zoning Districts IP Industrial Park. Designates areas for industrial firms seeking an attractive and pleasant working environment and a location which has prestige value. The district allows light industrial uses, office and administration facilities, research and development laboratories, and limited types of warehousing, as well as support businesses and commercial service uses. NI Neo-Industrial. Designates areas to support a complementary mix of uses such as, research and development, light and custom manufacturing, engineering and design services, breweries, and maker spaces, as well as accessory office, retail and limited residential uses to compliment the primary use; supportive amenities and services; and convenient transit access. This zoning district encourages light industrial activities with low environmental impacts and supports the growth of creative industries, incubator businesses, and innovative design and manufacturing. The zoning district can allow for small scale, context sensitive warehousing, distribution and manufacturing to support small business development. IE Industrial Employment. Designates areas reserved for manufacturing, processing, construction and heavy equipment yards, warehousing and storage, e-commerce distribution, light industrial research parks, automobile and vehicle services, and a broad range of similar clean industrial practices and processes that typically generate more truck traffic, noise, and environmental impacts than would be compatible with office and residential uses. This zoning district prohibits non-industrial uses, except for accessory office and commercial uses (such as restaurants or convenience stores) that support the employees of the primary industrial use, and on-site caretaker units. Open Space Zoning Districts OS Open Space. Designates areas primarily to protect environmentally sensitive land. Page 157 Zoning District Symbol Zoning District Name/Description The use regulations, development standards, and criteria provide low intensity development and encourage recreational activities and preservation of natural resources. HR Hillside Residential. Designates areas for maintaining natural open space character through protection of natural landforms; minimizing erosion; providing for public safety; protecting water, flora, and fauna resources; and establishing design standards to provide for limited development in harmony with the environment. Allowed density is a maximum of 2 units per net buildable acre as determined through the Hillside Development Review process. FC Flood Control. Designates areas necessary for flood control facilities for protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. UC Utility Corridor. Designates areas within utility corridors in which land uses compatible to both the utility function and surrounding, existing, or proposed land uses are allowed. Special Purpose Zoning Districts SP Specific Plan. Designates areas for master planning through the adoption of a specific plan with unique land use and development standards for a particular project areas with a minimum of 300 acres. PC Planned Community. Designates areas master planning through the adoption of a Planned Community, which can establish unique land use and development standards for a particular project area. Planned Communities typically include less detail than specific plans and have no minimum project size requirement. Overlay Zoning Districts SH Senior Housing. Designates areas available for affordable rental housing units to serve the city’s senior citizens. District provisions ensure high quality project design and establish incentives for ongoing affordability for this target group. This district can be combined with any residential base zoning district that meets the overlay district qualifications. E Equestrian. Designates areas for the keeping of equine, bovine, and cleft-hoofed animals. Further, this district protects the ability to maintain such animals, promotes a “rural/farm” character in an urban setting, and recognizes and encourages the educational and recreational values derived from raising and maintaining such animals. This district may be combined with any residential base zoning district that meets the overlay district qualifications. FB Foothill Boulevard. Designates areas along Foothill Boulevard for special use and development regulations to implement the goals and objectives in the general plan for this important corridor that covers most of the length of Historic Route 66 through the city. Special regulations encourage a mix of uses, concentrate neighborhood, community, and regional-serving uses as appropriate, and accommodate future transit. H Hillside. Designates sloped areas subject to special hillside development regulations. Generally, this district applies to areas with a slope greater than or equal to 8%. This district may be combined with any residential base zoning district that meets the overlay district qualifications. HA Haven Avenue. Designates an area along Haven Avenue with unique allowed use regulations and development standards focused on high quality office opportunities. IC Industrial Commercial. Designates areas with an Industrial Park Base Zoning District to encourage and support the integration of traditional general commercial uses and special development review requirements focused on retail opportunities. LW Large Warehouse. Designates area where large industrial buildings with a gross Page 158 Zoning District Symbol Zoning District Name/Description floor area over 450,000 square feet are permitted.” 5. The City Council hereby amends Section 17.30.030 (“Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements”), including Table 17.30.030-1 (“Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zoning District”), of Chapter 17.30 (“Allowed Land Uses by Base Zoning District”) of Article III (“Zoning Districts, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards”) of Title 17 (“Development Code”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows: “17.30.030 Allowed land uses and permit requirements. A. Allowed land uses. Allowed uses and corresponding permit and entitlement requirements for the base zoning districts are listed in Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zoning District). Uses are organized into common categories as follows: 1. Residential uses. 2. Agriculture and animal related uses. 3. Recreation, resource preservation, open space, education, and public assembly uses. 4. Utility, transportation, public facility, and communication uses. 5. Retail, service, and office uses. 6. Automobile and vehicle uses. 7. Industrial, manufacturing, and processing uses. B. Permit requirements. Generally, a use is either allowed by right, allowed through issuance of a conditional use permit, or not permitted. In addition to the requirements for planning permits or entitlements listed herein, other permits and entitlements may be required prior to establishment of the use (e.g., building permit or permits required by other agencies). The requirements for planning permits or entitlements identified in Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zoning District) include: 1. Permitted (P). A land use shown with a “P” indicates that the land use is permitted by right in the designated zoning district, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of this title (e.g., development standards) as well state and federal law. 2. Conditionally permitted (C). A land use shown with a “C” indicates that the land use is permitted in the designated zoning district upon issuance of a conditional use permit from the designated approving authority, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of this zoning code (e.g., development standards) as well as state and federal law. 3. Minor use permit (M). A land use shown with an “M” indicates that the land use is permitted in the designated zoning district upon issuance of a minor use permit from the designated approving authority, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of this zoning code (e.g., development standards) as well as state and federal law. 4. Not permitted (N). A land use shown with an “N” is not allowed in the applicable zoning district. Additionally, uses not shown in the table are not permitted, except as otherwise provided for in this title. 5. Adult entertainment permit (A). A land use shown with an “A” indicates that the land use is permitted in the designated zoning district upon issuance of an adult entertainment permit from the designated approving authority, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of this zoning code (e.g., development operational standards) as well as state and federal law. Page 159 C. Base zoning district names and symbols. Base zoning district names for the zoning district symbols used in the table are listed below. Specific Plan (SP) District and Planned Community (PC) District are not listed in the table as the allowed uses for those base zoning districts are determined in compliance with the adopted Specific Plan or Planned Community. • Very Low Residential (VL) • Specialty Commercial (SC) • Low Residential (L) • Regional Related Commercial (RRC) • Low Medium Residential (LM) • Commercial Office (CO) • Medium Residential (M) • Industrial Park (IP) • Medium High Residential (MH) • Neo-Industrial (NI) • High Residential (H) • Industrial Employment (IE) • Mixed Use (MU) • Open Space (OS) • Mixed Use – General Urban (MU-GU) • Hillside Residential District (HR) • Mixed Use – Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) • Flood Control-Open Space (FC) • Mixed Use – Urban Center (MU-UCT) • Utility Corridor-Open Space (UC) • Office Professional (OP) • Neighborhood Commercial (NC) • General Commercial (GC) • Community Commercial (CC) TABLE 17.30.030-1: ALLOWED LAND USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS BY BASE ZONING DISTRICT Land Use/Zoning District VL L LM M MH H MU MU- GU MU- UCR MU- UCT OP NC GC CC SC RRC CO IP NI IE OS HR FC UC Residential Uses Adult Day Care Home P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P N N Caretaker Housing M M M M M M M M M M P P P N N N N M M M P M P P Dwelling, Multi-Family N N P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Dwelling, Single- Family P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N Dwelling, Two-Family N N P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Emergency Shelter N N N N N N N N N N N N P N N N N N C N N N N N Family Day Care Home, Large (11) M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N M N N Family Day Care Home, Small P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P N N Guest House P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Group Residential M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N M N N N N N M N N Home Occupation (2) P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N P P N N Live-Work Facility N N N N N N P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Manufactured Home (3) P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P N N Mobile Home Park (3) M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Residential Care Facility N M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Residential Care Home P P P P P P N P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P N N Short-Term Rental(16) P P P P P P P P P P P P N N P P P P N P P P P P Single-Room Occupancy Facility N N N P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Transitional Housing P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P N N Agriculture and Animal-Related Uses Agricultural Uses N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P N P P Animal Keeping, Domestic Pets (4) P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P N N Animal Keeping, Exotic Animals (4) M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N M N N Animal Keeping, Insects (4) P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Animal Keeping, Livestock Animals (4) P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N Animal Keeping, Poultry (4) P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N Equestrian Facility, Commercial M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N M M Page 160 Equestrian Facility, Hobby P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Land Use/Zoning District VL L LM M MH H MU MU- GU MU- UCR MU- UCT OP NC GC CC SC RRC CO IP NI IE OS HR FC UC Recreation, Resource Preservation, Open Space, Education, and Public Assembly Uses Assembly Use M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C N N N N N Cemetery/Mausoleum N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N Community Center/Civic Use M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N P P N N M N N Community Garden M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P N P P Convention Center N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M C C N N N N Golf Course/Clubhouse N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N M M Indoor Amusement/ Entertainment Facility N N N N N N M M M M N M M P P P N M C N N N N N Indoor Fitness and Sports Facility—Large N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M C N N N N N Indoor Fitness and Sports Facility—Small N N N N N N P P P P P P P P M P P M C N N N N N Library and Museum M M M M M M P P P P P P P N P N P M N N M M M M Outdoor Commercial Recreation N N N N N N M M M M M M M N N M M M C N N N N N Park and Public Plaza P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N M M M P P P P Public Safety Facility M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C C N M N N Resource-Related Recreation P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N P P P P School, Academic (Private) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C N N M N N School, Academic (Public) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N P N N School, College/University (Private) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C N N M N N School, College/University (Public) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C N N C N N Schools, Specialized Education and Training/Studio N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M C C C N N N N Theaters and Auditoriums N N N N N N M M M M N N M N N P N N N N N N N N Tutoring Center—Large N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N Tutoring Center—Small N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N Utility, Transportation, Public Facility, and Communication Uses Broadcasting and Recording Studios N N N N N N N N N N P N P N N N P P P N N N N N Park and Ride Facility N N N N N N N N N N M M M N N N N C P C N N N N Parking Facility N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Transit Facility N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M C C N N N N Utility Facility and Infrastructure—Fixed Based Structures (5, 12) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M C C C N M M Utility Facility and Infrastructure— Pipelines (5) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Wind Energy System— Small (10) P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N Land Use/Zoning District VL L LM M MH H MU MU- GU MU- UCR MU- UCT OP NC GC CC SC RRC CO IP NI IE OS HR FC UC Retail, Service, and Office Uses Adult Day Care Facility N N N N N N M M M M M M M N N N M C C N N N N N Adult-Oriented Business (6) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N A A A N N N N Alcoholic Beverage Sales N N N N N N M M M M N M M M M M M M M N N N N N Ambulance Service N N N N N N N N N N M M M N N N N N C P N N N N Animal Sales and Grooming N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P N N N N N N N N N Art, Antique, Collectable Shop (13) N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P P N N N N N N N N Artisan Shop (13) N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P P N N N N N N N N Bail Bonds N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Banks and Financial Services N N N N N N M M M M M M P P P P P P P N N N N N Bar/Nightclub N N N N N N M M M M M N M M M M M N C N N N N N Page 161 Bed and Breakfast Inn M M M N N N N N N N N N N M M N N N N N N N N N Building Materials Store and Yard N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M P N N N N Business Support Services N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N Call Center N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M C N N N N Card Room N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Check Cashing Business (7) N N N N N N P P P P N P P N N N N P N N N N N N Child Day Care Facility/Center N N N N N N M M M M M M M M N M M M P P N N N N Commercial Cannabis Activity N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Consignment Store N N N N N N M M M M N M M N M N N N N N N N N N Convenience Store N N N N N N P P P P N P P N M N N M M N N N N N Crematory Services (7) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N Drive-In and Drive- Through Sales and Service (8) N N N N N N M M M M M M M M N M M M M N N N N N Land Use/Zoning District VL L LM M MH H MU MU- GU MU- UCR MU- UCT OP NC GC CC SC RRC CO IP NI IE OS HR FC UC Equipment Sales and Rental N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N C P N N N N Feed and Tack Store N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N N N N N N N N N N Furniture, Furnishing, and Appliance Store N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P P N N N N N N N N Garden Center/Plant Nursery N N N N N N P P P P N P P P N P N N P P P N P P Grocery Store/Supermarket N N N N N N P P P P N P P P N P N N N N N N N N Gun Sales N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N M M N N N N N Hookah Shop N N N N N N M M M M N N M N N N N N N N N N N N Home Improvement Supply Store N N N N N N P P P P N P P P N P N M P P N N N N Hotel N N N N N N M M M M M N M N N M M M N N N N N N Internet Café N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N Kennel, Commercial N N N N N N N N N N N N M M N M N M C N N N N N Liquor Store N N N N N N M M M M N M M M M M N M M N N N N N Maintenance and Repair, Small Equipment N N N N N N P P P P N P P P N P P P P P N N N N Massage Establishment (14) N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N Massage Establishment, Ancillary (14) N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N Medical Services, Extended Care N M M M M M M M M M P N P P N N P P P N N N N N Medical Services, General N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N Medical Services, Hospitals N N M M M M M M M M M N M N N N N P P N N N N N Land Use/Zoning District VL L LM M MH H MU MU- GU MU- UCR MU- UCT OP NC GC CC SC RRC CO IP NI IE OS HR FC UC Mobile Hot Food Truck N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N N N Mortuary/Funeral Home N N N N N N N N N N M M M N N N N N N N N N N N Office, Business and Professional N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N Office, Accessory N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N Pawnshop (7) N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N Personal Services N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N Restaurant, No Liquor Service N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N Restaurant, Beer and Wine N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P C N N N N Restaurant, Full Liquor Service N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N Retail, Accessory N N N N N N P P P P P P P P N P P M M P N N N N Retail, General N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P P N M M C N N N N Retail, Warehouse Club N N N N N N P P P P N N P P N P N P N N N N N N Secondhand Dealer N N N N N N P P P P N P P N N N N N N N N N N N Shooting Range N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M C N N N N N Smoke Shop (7) N N N N N N N N N N N N M M N M N N N N N N N N Specialty Food Store (13) N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P P N N N N N N N N Page 162 Tattoo Shop (7) N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N Thrift Store (7) N N N N N N M M M M N M M M N M N N N N N N N N Veterinary Facility M N N N N N M M M M N P P M M M N N P P N N N N Automobile and Vehicle Uses Auto and Vehicle Sales and Rental N N N N N N N N N N M N M N N P N M M N N N N N Auto and Vehicle Sales, Autobroker N N N N N N N N N N P P P P N P P P N N N N N N Auto and Vehicle Sales, Wholesale N N N N N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P N N N N N Auto and Vehicle Storage18 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Auto Parts Sales N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N P N N P N N N N N Car Washing and Detailing N N N N N N N N N N N N M M N M N M N N N N N N Recreational Vehicle Storage N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C N N N N Service Stations N N N N N N M M M M M M P M N M M M M N N N N N Vehicle Services, Major N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N P P N N N N Vehicle Services, Minor N N N N N N N N N N M M P N N M N P P N N N N N Land Use/Zoning District VL L LM M MH H MU MU- GU MU- UCR MU- UCT OP NC GC CC SC RRC CO IP NI IE OS HR FC UC Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses Commercial (Secondary/Accessory) - Industrial N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N Commercial (Repurposing) - Industrial N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M C C N N N N E-Commerce Distribution Distribution/Fulfillment Center, Small(12) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N Distribution/ Fulfillment Center, Large N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M N N N N Parcel Sorting Facilities N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Parcel Hub Small (< 130,000 sq. ft.) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Parcel Hub Large (> 130,000 sq. ft.) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Lumber Yard N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C N N N N Maker Space/Accessory Maker Space N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N M P P N N N N Manufacturing, Custom(12) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N N N N Manufacturing, Green Technology N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N N N Manufacturing, Light - Small(12) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N Manufacturing, Light - Large(12) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M N N N N Microbrewery N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N Printing and Publishing N N N N N N N N N N N N P N N N N P P N N N N N Recycling Facility, Collection N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N N N N C C N N N N Recycling Facility, Processing N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C N N N N Research and Development N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N Storage, Personal Storage Facility N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C N N N N Storage Warehouse N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N C C N N N N Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution - Light(12) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution - Medium (12) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C P N N N N Table Notes: (1) Reserved. (2) See additional regulations for home occupations in Chapter 17.92. Page 163 (3) See additional regulations for mobile homes in Chapter 17.96. (4) See additional regulations for animal keeping in Chapter 17.88. (5) Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas and/or liquid pipeline development require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (6) See additional regulations for adult entertainment businesses in Chapter 17.86. Adult-oriented businesses are not permitted west of Haven Avenue. (7) See additional regulations for special regulated uses in Chapter 17.102. (8) See additional regulations for drive-in and drive-through facilities in Chapter 17.90. (9) Not permitted within 300 feet of residentially zoned property. (10) See additional regulations for wind energy systems in Chapter 17.76. (11) Family Day Care Home — Large requires approval of a Large Family Day Care Permit, not a Conditional Use Permit. (12) Not permitted on any parcel that is located within, or partly within, five hundred (500) feet of the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way. (13) Permitted in Industrial Park and General Industrial zoning districts when proposed in conjunction with “Commercial (Repurposing) — Industrial”. (14) Massage establishment permit required. See additional regulations for massage establishments in chapter 5.18. (16) A short-term rental must be a single family residence in zoning districts other than VL, L, and LM. See additional regulations for short-term rentals in Chapter 8.34. (17) Maximum building gross floor area for all industrial uses is 450,000 square feet. A master plan is required for all industrial buildings larger than 450,000 square feet in gross floor area. (18) Auto and vehicle storage is permitted as an on- or off-site accessory use to any manufacturing use upon issuance of a minor use permit. The minor use permit may also permit truck storage as an accessory use to manufacturing.” 6. The City Council hereby amends Section 17.36.020 (“Development Standards for Mixed Use Zoning Districts”), including Table 17.36.020-2 (“Development Standards for Mixed Use Zoning Districts”), which shall be renumbered to Table 17.36.020-1 of Chapter 17.36 (“Development Standards by Base Zoning District”) of Article III (“Zoning Districts, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards”) of Title 17 (“Development Code”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows: “17.36.020 Development standards for mixed use zoning districts. A. Purpose and applicability. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum development standards that are unique to development projects within the city’s Mixed Use Zoning Districts. Development standards in this section apply to all land designated on the zoning map within a Mixed Use District and are intended to be consistent with and implement the general plan. TABLE 17.36.020-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS Development Standard MU MU-GU MU-UCR MU-UCT Site/Lot Area (minimum) (1) n/a n/a n/a n/a Lot Width/Depth (minimum) n/a n/a n/a n/a Allowed Density (dwelling units per acre) Minimum Density n/a 24 units/acre 24 units/acre 24 units/acre Maximum Density 50 units/acre 42 units/acre 60 units/acre 100 units/acre Land Use Mix (2)(3) Project shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following types of land uses: Commercial, Office, Institutional, Residential, Live/Work Project shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following types of land uses: Commercial, Office, Institutional, Residential, Live/Work Project shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following types of land uses: Commercial, Office, Institutional, Residential, Live/Work Project shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following types of land uses: Commercial, Office, Institutional, Residential, Live/Work Setbacks (4)(5) Street Yard 50% - 75% 0 – 10 ft. 0 – 10 ft. 0 – 5 ft. Page 164 Development Standard MU MU-GU MU-UCR MU-UCT (Major/Special Boulevard) reduction of streetscape requirements (8) Street Yard (Secondary/Collector) 50% - 75% reduction of streetscape requirements (8) 0 – 10 ft. 0 – 10 ft. 0 – 5 ft. Street Yard (Local Streets) 75% - 100% reduction of streetscape requirements (8) 0 – 10 ft. 0 – 10 ft. 0 – 5 ft. Rear Yard (adjacent to residential) Match rear yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Match rear yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Match rear yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Match rear yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Rear Yard (adjacent to commercial or industrial) 0 feet (6) 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet Interior Side (adjacent to residential) Match side yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Match side yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Match side yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Match side yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Interior Side (adjacent to commercial or industrial) 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Distance Between Buildings Primary Buildings Minimum per Building Code requirements Minimum per Building Code requirements Minimum per Building Code requirements Minimum per Building Code requirements Accessory Buildings Minimum per Building Code requirements Minimum per Building Code requirements Minimum per Building Code requirements Minimum per Building Code requirements Building Height (maximum in feet) (7) Primary Buildings 75 feet maximum 3 stories min. – 5 stories max. 4 stories min. – 7 stories max. 12 stories max. Accessory Buildings Not to exceed primary building height Not to exceed primary building height Not to exceed primary building height Not to exceed primary building height Open Space Requirement (minimum percentage of open space per parcel or project) Landscape Area (overall net area) 10% minimum 10% minimum 10% minimum 10% minimum Open Space Requirements Minimum of 150 square feet/unit; See Section 17.36.020 (D) for additional requirements Minimum of 150 square feet/unit; See Section 17.36.020 (D) for additional requirements Minimum of 150 square feet/unit; See Section 17.36.020 (D) for additional requirements Minimum of 150 square feet/unit; See Section 17.36.020 (D) for additional requirements Page 165 Development Standard MU MU-GU MU-UCR MU-UCT Recreation Area/Facility Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) Parking Requirement Parking Spaces See Table 17.64.050-1; NOTE: A parking study is required for all Mixed Use projects per Section 17.64.060(D) See Table 17.64.050-1; NOTE: A parking study is required for all Mixed Use projects per Section 17.64.060(D) See Table 17.64.050-1; NOTE: A parking study is required for all Mixed Use projects per Section 17.64.060(D) See Table 17.64.050-1; NOTE: A parking study is required for all Mixed Use projects per Section 17.64.060(D) Accessory Dwelling Units Allowed per Chapter 17.100 (Accessory Dwelling Units) Allowed per Chapter 17.100 (Accessory Dwelling Units) Allowed per Chapter 17.100 (Accessory Dwelling Units) Allowed per Chapter 17.100 (Accessory Dwelling Units) Table Notes: (1)On existing lots of record, parcels less than three (3) acres or less than the required minimum frontage may only be developed at the lowest end of the permitted density range. (2)Lot sizes less than one-half (½) acre are not subject to land use mix requirement. (3) The precise amount of two or more land uses in a mixed use development is determined on a case by case basis, at the discretion of the Planning Director. (4)Setbacks are measured between the structure and curb face in front yards and corner side yards. Setbacks are measured between the structure and property line in rear yards and interior side yards. (5)Shall apply to buildings, parking and landscaping. (6)Must meet minimum Building Codes. (7)All buildings within one hundred (100) feet of LM, L, or VL Districts shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25’); however, there may be areas where the maximum building height may be required to be less than the cited maximum, and shall be determined on a case by case basis. (8)For mixed use development of any type see the streetscape setbacks in Table 17.36.010-3 that apply to Attached Single-Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential. B.Open space mixed use development standards. 1.Front and/or street yard setbacks do not count towards meeting the usable open space requirements. 2.Required perimeter and parking landscape area, per section 17.56.060(N), shall not be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement, but is counted towards the overall landscape requirement. 3.A maximum of 30 percent of the total requirement for private open space shall be counted toward required open space area. Additional private open space area will not count towards the total requirement for open space. This maximum 30 percent requirement may be modified by not more than five percent if determined to be necessary during design review. 4.Each private open space shall have a minimum width and depth of six feet. 5.Each common open space shall have at least one minimum dimension of 15 feet and the other dimensions shall be at least six feet, except for private open space (e.g., balconies or patios). a.Open space shall include both indoor/interior space and outdoor open space. b.Open space can be in the form of private open space (e.g., balconies) or common open space (e.g., pool or side or rear setback areas). Page 166 c.An indoor recreational room of up to 600 square feet may be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement. d.A landscaped and usable utility easement may be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement if it is properly landscaped in compliance with chapter 17.56 (Landscaping).” 7.Determination on DRC2021-00283. Based on the findings set forth in this Ordinance and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Zoning Map Amendment DRC2021-00283 as set forth in Exhibit “B,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Those parcels identified by APNs 20833140, 20833147, 20834115, 20835302, 20913101, 20913102, 21008141, and 21008142 are hereby removed from the Haven Avenue Overlay. The parcel identified by APN 20835503 is hereby removed from the Industrial Commercial Overlay. For reference purposes, a list of the parcels affected by Zoning Map Amendment DRC2021-00283 is also included in Exhibit “B”. 8.The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 9.The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within in the manner required by law. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS ____ DAY OF ____ 2021. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ____ day of ____ 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 167 EXHIBIT B ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Page 168 ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################################################### XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ############## ######### ######### ######### ######### ######### ######### ######### ######### ######### ######### ######### ######### ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D L MMM M L VL L LM VL VL LM VL LM L M L L M L L L M LM M L LM L LM LM M VL M M M M M M LM M M Chaffey College LM L 8th St Arrow Rt Foothill Bl Base Line Rd 19th St Banyan St Base Line Rd Foothill Bl Arrow Rt 4th St4th St 6th StCarnelian StMilliken AvHellman AvArchibald AvHermosa AvHaven AvRochester AvEtiwanda AvI-15Vineyard AvGrove AvEast AvI-15Etiwanda AvRochester AvMilliken AvHaven AvHermosa AvArchibald AvHellman AvHillside Rd Day Creek BlvdRoute 210 Text HR OS OS OS FC FCHR FC FC FC FC FC OS OS FC FC FC FC FC FC FC MH NC NC FC OP OS FC FC MHHMHNCNCNCOP NC NC OS MH MHMUGCNCGC NC H GC NC GCOP CSNCOPGCGCOP OS OP FC OS H NCNCNCNCOP FC OS FC OP OP OS FC IP GC FC CCFCMUCCSCCCMURMUCC U SC RCMU CC COCCCC SC CCCCCOCCCCCCSCCO MU PPL COSCCC FC MU IP IPCC FC CC CCSC SC IPCO CC OS IPIPIP CC MH CCOP RCSC SC MU MU MU IPIPCC LI IP MUOP GIIP GIMH GIGI IP IP IP OPK IP IPGCGC GC GI FC UC FC GI GC IP GC MIHI GI GI GI GI GIGI IP GI GI GI GI GI GC MIHI GC IP GI GIFCGI GI GIGI IP MIHIIP HI GIGI GIFC MH GI IPGI IP MIHIGIGIGIGIGIFCGIGIGIFCIPGIGIGIGIGIGIIPGI UC GI GI GI GI GI GI GI GI GI IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IPIP IP IP GIGIGIGI GI GI GIGI GI IP IP FC FC FC S S S GC (SP-EN)Etiwanda North Specific Plan (SP-E)Etiwanda Specific Plan (SP-EL)Empire LakesSpecific Plan (PC-TV)Terra Vista Planned Community (PC-V)Victoria Planned Community (PC-C)Caryn PlannedCommunity (PC-EH)Etiwanda HighlandsPlanned Community (SP-EHNCP)Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan ¹ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ZONING MAP The maps, data and geographic information ("Information") available by and through the City of Rancho Cucamonga are presented as a public resource of general information. The City of Rancho Cucamonga makes nor implies no warranty representation or guarantee as to the content, sequence, accuracy, completeness or timelines of any Information provided to you herein. The user should not rely upon the Information for any reason and is directed to independently verify any and all Information presented herein. The City of Rancho Cucamonga explicitly and without limitation disclaims any and all representations and warrantees, including, but not limited to, the implied warrantees of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall neither accept nor assume any liability, regardless of the causation for (i) any errors, omissions or in accuracies in any Information provided and/or (ii) any action or inaction occurring due to any persons reliance upon the information available herein. Commercial/Office Community Commercial (CC) Specialty Commercial (SC) Regional Related Commercial (RC) Commercial Office (CO) Data Provided by Department of Innovation & Technology 0 km 1 km km2 0 ft 1,000ft 2,000ft 3,000ft 4,000ft 5,000 ft 6,000ft 7,000 ft 8,000ft ft9,000 Scale 1:16,000 City Limits Office Professional (OP) Specific Plan Planned Communities Overlay District Empire Lakes Specific Plan (SP-EL) Equestrian (EOD) Haven Avenue (HAOD) Senior Housing (SHOD) Hillside (HOD) """"""" """"""" """"""" !!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!! ######## ######## ######## ######## X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Foothill Boulevard (FBOD) ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ Industrial Commercial (ICOD) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Mixed Use Mixed Use (MU) Residential Open Space Neighborhood Commercial (NC) General Commercial (GC) Caryn Planned Community (PC-C) Etiwanda North Specific Plan (SP-EN) Etiwanda Highlands Planned Community (PC-EH) Terra Vista Planned Community (PC-TV) Victoria Planned Community (PC-V) Etiwanda Specific Plan (SP-E) Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Specific Plan (SP) Planned Community (PC) Very Low (<2 du/ac) Low (2-4 du/ac) Low Medium (4-8 du/ac) Medium (8-14 du/ac) Medium High (14-24 du/ac) High (24-30 du/ac) Utility Corridor (UC) Flood Control (FC) Open Space (OS) Hillside Residential (HR) General Urban (GU) Urban Center (UCE) Urban Corridor (UCO) Industrial Industrial Park (IP) General Industrial (GI) Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (MI/HI) Heavy Industrial (HI) Page 169 Page 170 ORDINANCE NO. 984 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT DRC2021-00284 TO AMEND THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY TO REZONE 13 PARCELS TO THE NEW URBAN CORRIDOR ZONING DISTRICT, ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A.Recitals. 1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga is required by law to update the Housing Element of its General Plan for the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. In connection with that requirement, the City is currently in the process of updating its Housing Element as part of the PlanRC General Plan process. The City is on track to adopt the new General Plan, including the Housing Element, in accordance with the deadlines set forth in State law. 2.Current housing law states that if a city cannot show that it has the capacity to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) based on its existing planning and zoning framework as of October 15, 2021, the city is considered to have a “shortfall” in capacity. If a city has a shortfall, the city then must include a program in its housing element to rezone specific sites to show capacity to meet the shortfall based on new zoning standards for specific sites. The rezoning program for sites used to demonstrate capacity for the very low and low income RHNA allocations must rezone those sites to create a “by-right” process for developments that include 20 percent of the units for lower income households. 3.The City is proposing to amend its current General Plan, Development Code, Zoning Map and related special planning documents for selected parcels to ensure that enough sites are zoned to meet the RHNA requirements by October 15, 2021 and to avoid the shortfall. The City has prepared a set of amendments for this purpose, including Planned Community Amendment DRC2021-00284 as described in the title of this Ordinance (the “Amendment”). 4.The Amendment proposes to amend the Terra Vista Planned Community to rezone 13 parcels within the Urban Corridor Zoning district and to establish development standards for the Urban Corridor Zoning District. Specifically, the proposed Amendment would amend the Terra Vista Planned Community to rezone Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 107742251, 107742255, 107742298, 107742299, 107742301, 107742302, 109012117, 109012118, 109012120, 109012121, 109012122, 109012138, and 109012139 are rezoned to Mixed Use - Urban Corridor (MU-UCR). 5.Concurrent with this Amendment, the City has prepared General Plan Amendment DRC2021-00281, Municipal Code Amendment DRC2021-0028, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2021-00283, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2021-00285, and Master Plan Amendment DRC2021-00286. The collective purpose of these amendments is to ensure that enough sites within the City are zoned to meet the RHNA requirements by October 15, 2021 and to avoid any shortfall. 6.On August 11, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendment and concluded said hearing on that date. Attachment 6 Page 171 7. On September 1, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Amendment, and all interested persons were given an opportunity to present oral and written evidence regarding the Amendment and the addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027), and concluded said hearing on that date. 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and ordained by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on September 1, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The Terra Vista Planned Community amendment identified herein has been processed, including, but not limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). b. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) has been prepared. The addendum concludes that the proposed Amendment and other amendments intended to create sufficient housing capacity do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which implementation of the General Plan was being undertaken since the certification of the EIR have occurred. The proposed Amendment would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the environmental topics analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor would the project require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all the evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff’s determination that the Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. The City Council has considered the proposed addendum attached to the staff report accompanying the Amendment, along with the General Plan Program Final EIR, and hereby adopts the addendum. c. The Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals, policies, and implementation programs of the adopted General Plan, including without limitation, the Land Use Element thereof (as amended), and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan. d. The land use and development regulations within the Amendment are comparable in breadth and depth to similar zoning regulations contained in the Development Code. e. The administration and permit processes within the Amendment are consistent with the administration and permit processes of the Development Code. f. The City Council finds that the Amendment serves the important purpose of providing sufficient opportunities for housing development within the City to meet demand at all income levels in accordance with its assigned RHNA. The City Council further finds that maintaining some local control over the planning and development process for new residential Page 172 projects is important for purposes of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, this Amendment is needed to ensure that the City does not have a housing shortfall as of October 15, 2021. g. The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the City Council. 3. Determination. Based on the findings set forth in this Ordinance and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Planned Community Amendment DRC2021-00284. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 107742251, 107742255, 107742298, 107742299, 107742301, 107742302, 109012117, 109012118, 109012120, 109012121, 109012122, 109012138, and 109012139 are hereby rezoned to Mixed Use - Urban Corridor (MU- UCR) and exempt from all inconsistent requirements of the Terra Vista Planned Community. The development standards applicable to these parcels shall be the development standards set forth in Section 17.36.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which reads as follows: 17.36.020 Development standards for mixed use-urban corridor zoning districts. A. Purpose and applicability. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum development standards that are unique to development projects within the city’s Mixed Use Urban Corridor Zoning District. Development standards in this section apply to all land designated on the zoning map within a Mixed Use Urban Corridor Zoning District and are intended to be consistent with and implement the general plan. TABLE 17.36.020-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS Development Standard MU-UCR(9) Site/Lot Area (minimum) (1) n/a Lot Width/Depth (minimum) n/a Allowed Density (dwelling units per acre) Minimum Density n/a Maximum Density 36-60 units/acre Land Use Mix (2)(3) Project shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following types of land uses: Commercial, Office, Institutional, Residential, Live/Work Setbacks (4)(5) Street Yard (Major/Special Boulevard) 0 – 10 ft. Street Yard (Secondary/Collector) 0 – 10 ft. Street Yard (Local Streets) 0 – 10 ft. Page 173 Development Standard MU-UCR(9) Rear Yard (adjacent to residential) Match rear yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Rear Yard (adjacent to commercial or industrial) 0 feet Interior Side (adjacent to residential) Match side yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Interior Side (adjacent to commercial or industrial) 5 feet Distance Between Buildings Primary Buildings Minimum per Building Code requirements Accessory Buildings Not to exceed primary building height Open Space Requirement (minimum percentage of open space per parcel or project) Landscape Area (overall net area) 10% minimum Open Space Requirements Minimum of 150 square feet/unit; See Section 17.36.020 (D) for additional requirements Recreation Area/Facility Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) Parking Requirement Parking Spaces See Table 17.64.050-1; NOTE: A parking study is required for all Mixed Use projects per Section 17.64.060(D) Page 174 Development Standard MU-UCR(9) Accessory Dwelling Units Allowed per Chapter 17.100 (Accessory Table Notes: (1) On existing lots of record, parcels less than three (3) acres or less than the required minimum frontage may only be developed at the lowest end of the permitted density range. (2) Lot sizes less than one-half (1/2) acre are not subject to land use mix requirement. (3) The precise amount of two or more land uses in a mixed use development is determined on a case by case basis, at the discretion of the Planning Director. (4) Setbacks are measured between the structure and curb face in front yards and corner side yards. Setbacks are measured between the structure and property line in rear yards and interior side yards. (5) Shall apply to buildings, parking and landscaping. (6) Must meet minimum Building Codes. (7) All buildings within one hundred (100) feet of LM, L, or VL Districts shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25’); however, there may be areas where the maximum building height may be required to be less than the cited maximum, and shall be determined on a case by case basis. (8) For mixed use development of any type see the streetscape setbacks in Table 17.36.010-3 that apply to Attached Single- Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential. (9) Permitted land uses within the Urban Corridor Zoning District are governed by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapters 17.30 and 17.32. 4. In the event of any conflict between the Terra Vista Planned Community and the applicable provisions of Section 17.32.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, the provisions of the Municipal Code shall control. 5. The Planning Director is directed to take all actions necessary to document this Amendment in the Terra Vista Planned Community. 6. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner required by law. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS ____ DAY OF ____ 2021. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Page 175 I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day of September 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 176 ORDINANCE NO. 985 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT DRC2021-00285 TO AMEND THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY TO REZONE SIX PARCELS WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE NEW URBAN CENTER ZONING DISTRICT, ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A.Recitals. 1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga is required by law to update the Housing Element of its General Plan for the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. In connection with that requirement, the City is currently in the process of updating its Housing Element as part of the PlanRC General Plan process. The City is on track to adopt the new General Plan, including the Housing Element, in accordance with the deadlines set forth in State law. 2.Current housing law states that if a city cannot show that it has the capacity to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) based on its existing planning and zoning framework as of October 15, 2021, the city is considered to have a “shortfall” in capacity. If a city has a shortfall, the city then must include a program in its housing element to rezone specific sites to show capacity to meet the shortfall based on new zoning standards for specific sites. The rezoning program for sites used to demonstrate capacity for the very low and low income RHNA allocations must rezone those sites to create a “by-right” process for developments that include 20 percent of the units for lower income households. 3.The City is proposing to amend its current General Plan, Development Code, Zoning Map and related special planning documents for selected parcels to ensure that enough sites are zoned to meet the RHNA requirements by October 15, 2021 and to avoid the shortfall. The City has prepared a set of amendments for this purpose, including Specific Plan Amendment DRC2021- 00285 as described in the title of this Ordinance (the “Amendment”). 4.The Amendment proposes to amend the Victoria Planned Community to rezone six parcels within the Specific Plan to the new Urban Center Zoning district and to establish development standards and permitted uses for the Urban Center Zoning District. Specifically, the proposed Amendment would amend the Victoria Planned Community to rezone Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 22902168, 22902169, 22902170, 22902171, 229021172, and 229021173 to Mixed Use - Urban Center (MU-UCT). 5.Concurrent with this Amendment, the City has prepared General Plan Amendment DRC 2021-00281, Municipal Code Amendment DRC2021-0028, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2021-00283, Planned Community Amendment DRC2021-00284, and Master Plan Amendment DRC2021-00286. The collective purpose of these amendments is to ensure that enough sites within the City are zoned to meet the RHNA requirements by October 15, 2021, and to avoid any shortfall. 6.On August 11, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendment and concluded said hearing on that date. Attachment 7Page177 7. On September 1, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Amendment, and all interested persons were given an opportunity to present oral and written evidence regarding the Amendment and the addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027), and concluded said hearing on that date. 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and ordained by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on September 1, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The Victoria Planned Community amendment identified herein has been processed, including, but not limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). b. Pursuant to the CEQA and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) has been prepared. The addendum concludes that the proposed Amendment and other amendments intended to create sufficient housing capacity do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which implementation of the General Plan was being undertaken since the certification of the EIR have occurred. The proposed Amendment would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the environmental topics analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor would the project require new mitigation measures or alternatives. As a consequence, a. Based on this evidence and all the evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff’s determination that the Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. The City Council has considered the proposed addendum attached to the staff report accompanying the Amendment, along with the General Plan Program Final EIR, and hereby adopts the addendum. c. The Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals, policies, and implementation programs of the adopted General Plan, including without limitation, the Land Use Element thereof (as amended), and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan. d. The land use and development regulations within the Amendment are comparable in breadth and depth to similar zoning regulations contained in the Development Code. The proposed Amendment will ensure that higher density, mixed use development is concentrated along major corridors within the City, similar to other zoning adopted by the City Council. e. The administration and permit processes within the Amendment are consistent with the administration and permit processes of the Development Code. Page 178 f. The City Council finds that the Amendment serves the important purpose of providing sufficient opportunities for housing development within the City to meet demand at all income levels in accordance with its assigned RHNA. The City Council further finds that maintaining some local control over the planning and development process for new residen tial projects is important for purposes of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, this Amendment is needed to ensure that the City does not have a housing shortfall as of October 15, 2021. g. The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the City Council. 3. Determination. Based on the findings set forth in this Ordinance and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Planned Community Amendment DRC2021-00285. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 22902168, 22902169, 22902170, 22902171, 229021172, and 229021173 are hereby rezoned to Mixed Use - Urban Center (MU-UCT) and exempt from all inconsistent requirements of the Victoria Planned Community. The development standards applicable to these parcels shall be the development standards set forth in Section 17.36.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which reads as follows: 17.36.020 Development standards for mixed use urban center zoning districts. A. Purpose and applicability. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum development standards that are unique to development projects within the city’s Mixed Use Urban Center Zoning District. Development standards in this section apply to all land designated on the zoning map within a Mixed Use Urban Center Zoning District and are intended to be consistent with and implement the general plan. TABLE 17.36.020-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS Development Standard MU-UCT Site/Lot Area (minimum) (1) n/a Lot Width/Depth (minimum) n/a Allowed Density (dwelling units per acre) Minimum Density n/a Maximum Density 40-100 units/acre Land Use Mix (2)(3) Project shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following types of land uses: Commercial, Office, Institutional, Residential, Live/Work Setbacks (4)(5) Page 179 Development Standard MU-UCT Street Yard (Major/Special Boulevard) 0 – 5 ft. Street Yard (Secondary/Collector) 0 – 5 ft. Street Yard (Local Streets) 0 – 5 ft. Rear Yard (adjacent to residential) Match rear yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Rear Yard (adjacent to commercial or industrial) 0 feet Interior Side (adjacent to residential) Match side yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Interior Side (adjacent to commercial or industrial) 5 feet Distance Between Buildings Primary Buildings Minimum per Building Code requirements Accessory Buildings Minimum per Building Code requirements Building Height (maximum in feet) (7) Primary Buildings 12 stories max. Accessory Buildings Not to exceed primary building height Open Space Requirement (minimum Landscape Area (overall net area) 10% minimum Open Space Requirements Minimum of 150 square feet/unit; See Section 17.36.020 (D) for additional requirements Page 180 Development Standard MU-UCT Recreation Area/Facility Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) Parking Requirement Parking Spaces See Table 17.64.050-1; NOTE: A parking study is required for all Mixed Use projects per Section 17.64.060(D) Accessory Dwelling Units Allowed per Chapter 17.100 (Accessory Dwelling Units) Table Notes: (1) On existing lots of record, parcels less than three (3) acres or less than the required minimum frontage may only be developed at the lowest end of the permitted density range. (2) Lot sizes less than one-half (1/2) acre are not subject to land use mix requirement. (3) The precise amount of two or more land uses in a mixed use development is determined on a case by case basis, at the discretion of the Planning Director. (4) Setbacks are measured between the structure and curb face in front yards and corner side yards. Setbacks are measured between the structure and property line in rear yards and interior side yards. (5) Shall apply to buildings, parking and landscaping. (6) Must meet minimum Building Codes. (7) All buildings within one hundred (100) feet of LM, L, or VL Districts shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25’); however, there may be areas where the maximum building height may be required to be less than the cited maximum, and shall be determined on a case by case basis. (8) For mixed use development of any type see the streetscape setbacks in Table 17.36.010-3 that apply to Attached Single- Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential. (9) Permitted land uses within the Urban Corridor Zoning District are governed by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapters 17.30 and 17.32. 4. In the event of any conflict between the Victoria Specific Plan and the applicable provisions of Section 17.32.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, the provisions of the Municipal Code shall control. 5. The Planning Director is directed to take all actions necessary to document this Amendment in the Victoria Specific Plan. 6. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Page 181 ORDINANCE NO. ____ SPA DRC2021-00285 ____, 2021 Page 6 11231-0001\2569111v4.doc 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner required by law. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS ____ DAY OF ____ 2021. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day of September 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 182 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-097 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TOWN SQUARE MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2021-00286 TO AMEND THE TOWN SQUARE MASTER PLAN TO REZONE TWO PARCELS WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN TO THE NEW URBAN CENTER ZONING DISTRICT, ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A.Recitals. 1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga is required by law to update the Housing Element of its General Plan for the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. In connection with that requirement, the City is currently in the process of updating its Housing Element as part of the PlanRC General Plan process. The City is on track to adopt the new General Plan, including the Housing Element, in accordance with the deadlines set forth in State law. 2.Current housing law states that if a city cannot show that it has the capacity to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) based on its existing planning and zoning framework as of October 15, 2021, the city is considered to have a “shortfall” in capacity. If a city has a shortfall, the city then must include a program in its housing element to rezone specific sites to show capacity to meet the shortfall based on new zoning standards for specific sites. The rezoning program for sites used to demonstrate capacity for the very low and low income RHNA allocations must rezone those sites to create a “by-right” process for developments that include 20 percent of the units for lower income households. 3.The City is proposing to amend its current General Plan, Development Code, Zoning Map and related special planning documents for selected parcels to ensure that enough sites are zoned to meet the RHNA requirements by October 15, 2021 and to avoid the shortfall. The City has prepared a set of amendments for this purpose, including Master Plan Amendment DRC2021- 00286 as described in the title of this Resolution (the “Amendment”). 4.The Amendment proposes to amend the Town Square Master Plan to rezone two parcels to the new Urban Center Zoning district and to establish development standards for the Urban Center Zoning District. Specifically, the proposed Amendment would amend the Town Square Master Plan to rezone Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 20833140 and 20833147 to Mixed-Use Urban Center (MU-UCT). 5.Concurrent with this Amendment, the City has prepared General Plan Amendment DRC2021-00281, Municipal Code Amendment DRC2021-00281, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2021-00283, Planned Community Amendment DRC2021-00284, and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2021-00285. The collective purpose of these amendments is to ensure that enough sites within the City are zoned to meet the RHNA requirements by October 15, 2021 and to avoid any shortfall. 6.On August 11, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendment and concluded said hearing on that date. Attachment 8 Page 183 7. On September 1, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Amendment, and all interested persons were given an opportunity to present oral and written evidence regarding the Amendment and the addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027), and concluded said hearing on that date. 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. Recitals. 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. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on September 1, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The Town Square Master Plan amendment identified herein has been processed, including, but not limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). b. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) has been prepared. The addendum concludes that the proposed Amendment and other amendments intended to create sufficient housing capacity do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which implementation of the General Plan was being undertaken since the certification of the EIR have occurred. The proposed Amendment would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the environmental topics analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor would the project require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all the evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff’s determination that the Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. The City Council has considered the proposed addendum attached to the staff report accompanying the Amendment, along with the General Plan Program Final EIR, and hereby adopts the addendum. c. The Amendment is internally consistent with the direction, goals, and policies of General Plan and Development Code, as amended. d. The City Council finds that the Amendment serves the important purpose of providing sufficient opportunities for housing development within the City to meet demand at all income levels in accordance with its assigned RHNA. The City Council further finds that maintaining some local control over the planning and development process for new residential projects is important for purposes of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, this Amendment is needed to ensure that the City does not have a housing shortfall as of October 15, 2021. e. The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the City Council. Page 184 3. Determination. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Master Plan Amendment DRC2021-00286. Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 20833140 and 20833147 are hereby rezoned to Mixed-Use Urban Center (MU-UCT) and exempt from all inconsistent requirements of the Town Square Master Plan. The development standards applicable to these parcels shall be the development standards set forth in Section 17.36.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which reads as follows: 17.30.020 Development standards for mixed use urban center zoning districts. A. Purpose and applicability. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum development standards that are unique to development projects within the city’s Mixed Use Urban Center Zoning District. Development standards in this section apply to all land designated on the zoning map within a Mixed Use Urban Center Zoning District and are intended to be consistent with and implement the general plan. TABLE 17.36.020-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS Development Standard MU-UCT Site/Lot Area (minimum) (1) n/a Lot Width/Depth (minimum) n/a Allowed Density (dwelling units per acre) Minimum Density n/a Maximum Density 40-100 units/acre Land Use Mix (2)(3) Project shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following types of land uses: Commercial, Office, Institutional, Residential, Live/Work Setbacks (4)(5) Street Yard (Major/Special Boulevard) 0 – 5 ft. Street Yard (Secondary/Collector) 0 – 5 ft. Street Yard (Local Streets) 0 – 5 ft. Rear Yard (adjacent to residential) Match rear yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Page 185 Development Standard MU-UCT Rear Yard (adjacent to commercial or industrial) 0 feet Interior Side (adjacent to residential) Match side yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Interior Side (adjacent to commercial or industrial) 5 feet Distance Between Buildings Primary Buildings Minimum per Building Code requirements Accessory Buildings Minimum per Building Code requirements Building Height (maximum in feet) (7) Primary Buildings 12 stories max. Accessory Buildings Not to exceed primary building height Open Space Requirement (minimum Landscape Area (overall net area) 10% minimum Open Space Requirements Minimum of 150 square feet/unit; See Section 17.36.020 (D) for additional requirements Recreation Area/Facility Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) Parking Requirement Page 186 Development Standard MU-UCT Parking Spaces See Table 17.64.050-1; NOTE: A parking study is required for all Mixed Use projects per Section 17.64.060(D) Accessory Dwelling Units Allowed per Chapter 17.100 (Accessory Dwelling Units) Table Notes: (1) On existing lots of record, parcels less than three (3) acres or less than the required minimum frontage may only be developed at the lowest end of the permitted density range. (2) Lot sizes less than one-half (1/2) acre are not subject to land use mix requirement. (3) The precise amount of two or more land uses in a mixed use development is determined on a case by case basis, at the discretion of the Planning Director. (4) Setbacks are measured between the structure and curb face in front yards and corner side yards. Setbacks are measured between the structure and property line in rear yards and interior side yards. (5) Shall apply to buildings, parking and landscaping. (6) Must meet minimum Building Codes. (7) All buildings within one hundred (100) feet of LM, L, or VL Districts shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25’); however, there may be areas where the maximum building height may be required to be less than the cited maximum, and shall be determined on a case by case basis. (8) For mixed use development of any type see the streetscape setbacks in Table 17.36.010-3 that apply to Attached Single- Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential. (9) Permitted land uses within the Urban Corridor Zoning District are governed by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapters 17.30 and 17.32. 4. In the event of any conflict between the Town Square Master Plan and the applicable provisions of Section 17.32.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, the provisions of the Municipal Code shall control. 5. The Planning Director is directed to take all actions necessary to document this Amendment in the Town Square Master Plan. 6. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021. Page 187 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ____ MPA DRC2021-00286 ____, 2021 Page 6 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: 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 and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day of September 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 188 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update SCH # 2000061027 August 2021 Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact: Jennifer Nakamura, Management Analyst II Phone: (909) 774-4324 Email: Jennifer.Nakamura@cityofrc.us Attachment 9Page189 This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. Page 190 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................... 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS ................................................ 4 2.1 LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................... 4 2.2 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................................. 4 2.3 ADDENDUM SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ............................... 16 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 17 3.1 IMPACTS HAVING NO POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ...................... 17 3.2 IMPACTS POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ................................................... 18 3.2.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................... 18 3.2.2 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................... 19 3.2.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................ 20 3.2.4 ENERGY ........................................................................................... 21 3.2.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................... 22 3.2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................... 23 3.2.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................. 24 3.2.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY............................................ 25 3.2.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING ........................................................... 27 3.2.10 MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................. 28 3.2.11 NOISE ............................................................................................... 29 3.2.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................ 29 3.2.13 PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................................... 30 3.2.14 PARKS AND RECREATION ............................................................ 30 3.2.15 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ............................................... 31 3.2.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................. 33 3.2.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................. 33 Page 191 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 ii 4.0 DETERMINATION/ADDENDUM CONCLUSION ............................................... 35 5.0 ADDENDUM PREPARATION SOURCES/REFERENCES ............................... 37 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity Map ...................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 2: Site Vicinity Map .............................................................................................. 6 Exhibit 3 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations ................................................. 7 Exhibit 4: Existing Zoning ............................................................................................... 8 Exhibit 5: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations .......................................... 14 Exhibit 6: Proposed Zoning .......................................................................................... 15 Page 192 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document serves as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for the proposed City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Development Code Amendments (proposed project). As Lead Agency, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) certified the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (Certified EIR; SCH No. 2000061027) on May 19, 2010, in connection with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 2010 (General Plan) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to the Certified EIR has been prepared for consideration as the proposed project involves amending the General Plan Land Use Element and the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code (Development Code). The amendment to the Development Code is intended to make the Code consistent with the General Plan. The analysis in this addendum to the Certified EIR was conducted to determine whether the proposed project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared to the impacts disclosed in the Certified EIR. This addendum demonstrates that the analysis provided in the Certified EIR adequately addresses the potential physical environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration apply. 1.1 BACKGROUND State law requires every jurisdiction in California to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan to guide its physical development. The City’s General Plan contains elements addressing land use, circulation and infrastructure, design, economic development, air quality and conservation, healthy community, housing, noise, parks, recreation and open space, and safety to establish the framework for population and job growth and for provision of public services and facilities. The Land Use Element is one of the seven mandated elements of a general plan. State law requires that every jurisdiction demonstrate that their existing planning and zoning framework allow for the realistic development of housing units to meet their allocation for each income level under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The City’s RHNA allocation for the 2015 to 2023 planning period is 10,525 units. The current General Plan Land Use Element and Development Code have been able to accommodate its moderate income RHNA (5,245 units) with entitlements and potential accessory dwelling units (ADUs). As such, the City has 5,280 remaining units (5,073 extremely low/very low- and low-income units and 225 above moderate-income units) that need to be allocated as part of its planning and zoning framework. 1.2 LEGAL STANDARDS CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 specifies the type of documentation required when changes are proposed to a project. When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be required unless one or more of the following events occurs: Page 193 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 2 (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. (c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval Page 194 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 3 for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines includes situations when a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required and, therefore, an addendum to the previously Certified EIR is appropriate. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states: (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously Certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. As discussed below, none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR apply and the preparation of this Addendum is appropriate. This Addendum supports the conclusion that the proposed project modifications are minor and do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in the Certified EIR. In addition, as discussed below, the proposed project modifications would not result in any new or substantially increased significant environmental impacts, new mitigation measures, or new alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts. As a result, an addendum is an appropriate CEQA document for analysis and consideration of the proposed project modifications. Page 195 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 4 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS 2.1 LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed land use and development code amendments associated with the proposed project would occur entirely within the City limits; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity Map. Rancho Cucamonga is located in the southwest portion of San Bernardino County, south of the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and Angeles National Forest. Adjoining cities include Fontana to the east, Ontario to the south, and Upland to the west; refer to Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity Map. Proposed changes to the Land Use Element and Development Code would be reflected in parcels at various locations within the project site. The City encompasses a mix of existing commercial, industrial, residential, mixed use, and park uses; refer to Exhibit 3, Existing General Plan Land Use Designations. On-site zoning includes a mix of existing commercial, industrial, residential, financial, mixed use, and regional related office/commercial; refer to Exhibit 4, Existing Zoning. 2.2 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT As stated, the City has 5,280 remaining RHNA units (5,073 extremely low/very low- and low-income units and 225 above moderate-income units) that need to be allocated as part of its planning and zoning framework in order to meet State RHNA requirements. As such, the City proposes the following: 1. Amend the General Plan Land Use Element to provide four new land use designations and amend the land use map, tables, and text to reflect the new land use designations; refer to Table 1, Proposed Land Use and Development Code Amendments, and Exhibit 5, Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations. a. City Center. The City Center land use designation is intended to provide mixed-use urban areas with commercial and residential hubs and infill development along activated public spaces. Buildings would transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods and developments would support safe streets for pedestrians and cyclists. Primarily ground floor commercial and retail activity with a mix of commercial, residential, service, and/or office uses on upper stories are allowed in the City Center land use areas. Additionally, high density residential (40 to 100 dwelling units per acre) with nearby civic uses would be allowed in the City Center land use area. b. City Corridor High. The City Corridor High land use designation is intended to provide medium to high intensity mixed-use development along active, walkable corridors. Buildings would front streets and transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods with some context-sensitive auto-oriented uses in transition areas. Primarily ground floor commercial and retail activity with a mix of uses on upper stories are allowed in the City Corridor High land use areas. High density residential (36 to 60 dwelling units per acre) in proximity to some civic and auto-oriented uses is also allowed if the scale and character is appropriate. Page 196 PA C I F I C O CE A N USMC Camp Pendleton SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY 101 395 405 405 605 105 210 210 710 110 215 215 5 5 5 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 73 55 57 9191 90 60 71 91 60 38 18 18 22 1 2 14 18 18 138 138 173 74 74 1 133 261 241 330 241 Victorville Adelanto Hesperia Apple Valley SanBernardino LakeArrowhead RunningSprings Riverside Fontana OntarioPomona RanchoCucamonga Chino Rialto Corona Norco LakeElsinore Hemet Redlands Temecula Fallbrook Murrieta Palmdale Lancaster SanFernando Pasadena WestCovina Whittier Burbank Glendora LosAngeles Torrance Long Beach Newport Beach Huntington Beach San Clemente DanaPoint LagunaBeach San Juan Capistrano SantaAna Costa Mesa Garden Grove Fullerton Yorba Linda Irvine MorenoValley SunCity PerrisOrange Project Site ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS Exhibit 1 Regional Vicinity Map NOT TO SCALE 07/21 | JN 179819 Page 197 Site Vicinity Exhibit 2 NOT TO SCALE Foothill Boulevard Arrow Route 6th Street 4th Street Base Line Road Archibald AvenueHaven AvenueMilliken AvenueRochester AvenueDay Creek BoulevardProject Site ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 07/21 | JN 179819 Page 198 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Exhibit 3 NOT TO SCALE ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 07/21 | JN 179819 7+67 %((&+$9(&+(55<$9(%$6(/,1(5'$5&+,%$/'$9(0,//,.(1$9(:,/621$9(+$9(1$9((7,:$1'$$9(7+67 '$<&5((.%/9'52&+(67(5$9($552:57( )227+,//%/9' &RPPXQLW\&RPPHUFLDO *HQHUDO&RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO3DUN 0HGLXP5HVLGHQWLDO 0L[HG8VH ([LVWLQJ*HQHUDO3ODQ ¯ó ò ô 0LOHV &LW\RI5DQFKR&XFDPRQJD Page 199 Existing Zoning Exhibit 4 NOT TO SCALE ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 07/21 | JN 179819 7+67 %((&+$9(&+(55<$9(%$6(/,1(5'$5&+,%$/'$9(0,//,.(1$9(:,/621$9(+$9(1$9((7,:$1'$$9(7+67 '$<&5((.%/9'52&+(67(5$9($552:57( )227+,//%/9' &RPPXQLW\&RPPHUFLDO && &RPPHUFLDO2IILFH &2 *HQHUDO&RPPHUFLDO *& ,QGXVWULDO3DUN ,3 /RZ0HGLXP5HVLGHQWLDO /0 )LQDQFLDO 0)& 0L[HG8VH 08 5HJLRQDO5HO2IF&RPP 552& ([LVWLQJ=RQLQJ ¯ó ò ô 0LOHV &LW\RI5DQFKR&XFDPRQJD Page 200 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 9 c. City Corridor Moderate. The City Corridor Moderate land use designation is intended to provide medium to high intensity mixed-use development along active, walkable streets. Buildings would front streets and transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods with some context-sensitive auto-oriented uses in transition areas. Primarily ground floor commercial and retail activity with a mix of uses on upper stories are allowed in the City Corridor Moderate land use areas. Medium density residential (24 to 42 dwelling units per acre) in proximity to some civic and auto-oriented uses is also allowed if the scale and character is appropriate. 2. Rezone 62 identified parcels to allow for additional housing units to one of three zoning districts that correspond to the four new General Plan land use designations; refer to Table 1 and Table 2, Summary of Proposed Parcel Rezoning, and Exhibit 6, Proposed Zoning. a. Urban Center – Limited. The Urban Center - Limited zone is intended to provide mixed-use urban areas with commercial and residential hubs and infill development along activated public spaces. Buildings would transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods and developments would support safe streets for pedestrians and cyclists. Primarily ground floor commercial and retail activity with a mix of commercial, residential, service, and/or office uses on upper stories are allowed in the Urban Center - Limited zoning areas. Additionally, high density residential (40 to 100 dwelling units per acre) with nearby civic uses would be allowed within areas zoned Urban Center - Limited. b. City Corridor High. The City Corridor High zone is intended to provide medium to high intensity mixed-use development along active, walkable corridors. Buildings would front streets and transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods with some context-sensitive auto-oriented uses in transition areas. Primarily ground floor commercial and retail activity with a mix of uses on upper stories are allowed in areas zoned City Corridor High. High density residential (36 to 60 dwelling units per acre) in proximity to some civic and auto-oriented uses is also allowed if the scale and character is appropriate. c. General Urban – Limited. The General Urban – Limited zone is intended to provide medium to high intensity mixed-use development along active, walkable streets. Buildings would front streets and transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods with some context-sensitive auto-oriented uses in transition areas. Primarily ground floor commercial and retail activity with a mix of uses on upper stories are allowed in areas designated General Urban – Limited, in addition to office, business, and service uses in proximity to walkable, urban areas. Medium density residential (24 to 42 dwelling units per acre) in proximity to some civic and auto-oriented uses is also allowed if the scale and character is appropriate. Page 201 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 10 3. Amend the Development Code and applicable Specific Plans, Master Plans, and Overlays to establish development standards for the new proposed zoning districts. a. Amend the Terra Vista Planned Community to rezone 13 parcels to the new Urban Corridor zoning designation; b. Amend the Victoria Specific Plan to rezone six parcels within the specific plan to the new Urban Center zoning designation; c. Amend the Town Square Master Plan to rezone two parcels within the master plan to the new Urban Center zoning designation; d. Amend the Haven Avenue Overlay to remove six parcels; and e. Amend the Industrial Commercial Overlay to remove one parcel. Table 1 Proposed Land Use and Development Code Amendments Proposed Zone Urban Center - Limited City Corridor High General Urban - Limited General Plan Land Use Category City Center City Corridor High City Corridor Moderate Intent Mixed-use urban areas with commercial and residential hubs and infill development along activated public spaces. Buildings transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods and developments support safe streets for pedestrians and cyclists. Medium to high intensity mixed- use development along active, walkable corridors. Buildings front streets and transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods with some context- sensitive auto-oriented uses in transition areas. Medium to high intensity mixed-use development along active, walkable streets. Buildings front streets and transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods with some context- sensitive auto- oriented uses in transition areas. Lot Size (min)1 Large Medium to Large Medium Height 12 stories max 4 stories min - 7 stories max 3 stories min - 5 stories max Residential Density (du/ac) 24-100 24-60 24-42 Lot Coverage (max) 85% 75% 80% Front Setback (min/max)2 0 - 5 ft 0 - 10 ft 0 - 10 ft Accessory Dwelling Unit Allowed? Allowed per current City Ordinance Allowed per current City Ordinance Allowed per current City Ordinance General Uses Allowed Primarily ground floor commercial and retail activity with a mix of commercial, residential, service, and/or office uses on upper stories. High density residential with nearby civic uses. Primarily ground floor commercial and retail activity with a mix of uses on upper stories. High density residential in proximity to some civic and auto- oriented uses if the scale and character is appropriate. Primarily ground floor commercial and retail activity with a mix of uses on upper stories. Medium density residential in proximity to some civic and auto-oriented uses if the scale and character is appropriate. Notes: min = minimum; max = maximum; du = dwelling units; ac = acre; ft = feet 1. Lot sizes will be based on building types. 2. Side/rear setbacks will be based on building types. Page 202 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 11 Table 2 Summary of Proposed Parcel Rezoning APN Existing Land Use Designation New Land Use Designation Current Use Existing Zoning Designation New Zoning Designation Net Potential Units 20721142 Mixed Use City Corridor Moderate Commercial Medium Residential General Urban 82 20721143 Mixed Use City Corridor Moderate Vacant Medium Residential General Urban 51 20721144 Mixed Use City Corridor Moderate Vacant Medium Residential General Urban 35 20721146 Mixed Use City Corridor Moderate Commercial Community Commercial General Urban 13 20810117 General Commercial City Corridor Moderate Commercial Community Commercial General Urban 19 20810118 General Commercial City Corridor Moderate Commercial Community Commercial General Urban 30 20810119 General Commercial City Corridor Moderate Commercial Community Commercial General Urban 24 20810120 General Commercial City Corridor Moderate Commercial Community Commercial General Urban 180 20815101 Mixed Use City Corridor Moderate Commercial Community Commercial General Urban 28 20815115 Mixed Use City Corridor Moderate Commercial Community Commercial General Urban 13 20832124 Medium Residential City Corridor Moderate Vacant Medium Residential General Urban 349 20833108 Mixed Use City Corridor Moderate Vacant Commercial/Office General Urban 19 20833117 Mixed Use City Corridor Moderate Vacant Low Medium Residential General Urban 45 20833118 Mixed Use City Corridor Moderate Vacant Low Medium Residential General Urban 108 20833123 Mixed Use City Corridor Moderate Commercial Low Medium Residential General Urban 174 20833140 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Mixed Use Urban Corridor 89 20833147 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Mixed Use Urban Corridor 113 20834115 Industrial Park City Corridor High Vacant Industrial Park Urban Corridor 290 20835302 Industrial Park City Center Vacant Industrial Park Urban Center 198 20835503 Community Commercial City Corridor High Vacant Industrial Park Urban Corridor 49 20863247 General Commercial City Corridor Moderate Vacant Community Commercial General Urban 53 20863248 General Commercial City Corridor Moderate Commercial Community Commercial General Urban 50 20863249 General Commercial City Corridor Moderate Commercial Low Residential General Urban 20 20863250 General Commercial City Corridor Moderate Commercial Community Commercial General Urban 15 20913101 Industrial Park City Corridor High Industrial Industrial Park Urban Corridor 138 20913102 Industrial Park City Corridor High Vacant Industrial Park Urban Corridor 284 Page 203 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 12 APN Existing Land Use Designation New Land Use Designation Current Use Existing Zoning Designation New Zoning Designation Net Potential Units 20949104 Industrial Park City Corridor Moderate Industrial Industrial Park General Urban 58 21008141 Industrial Park City Center Vacant Industrial Park Urban Center 253 21008142 Industrial Park City Center Vacant Industrial Park Urban Center 260 22902168 General Commercial City Center Commercial Regional Related Office/Commercial Urban Center 33 22902169 General Commercial City Center Commercial Regional Related Office/Commercial Urban Center 32 22902170 General Commercial City Center Commercial Regional Related Office/Commercial Urban Center 45 22902171 General Commercial City Center Commercial Regional Related Office/Commercial Urban Center 32 22902172 General Commercial City Center Commercial Regional Related Office/Commercial Urban Center 43 22902173 General Commercial City Center Commercial Regional Related Office/Commercial Urban Center 129 22902307 General Commercial City Corridor High Vacant General Commercial Urban Corridor 147 22931114 Community Commercial City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 14 22931115 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Low Residential Urban Corridor 136 107742251 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Financial Urban Corridor 26 107742255 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Financial Urban Corridor 224 107742298 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Financial Urban Corridor 28 107742299 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Financial Urban Corridor 21 107742301 Community Commercial City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 111 107742302 Community Commercial City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 15 107762134 Community Commercial City Corridor Moderate Commercial Community Commercial General Urban 79 107764168 Community Commercial City Corridor Moderate Commercial Community Commercial General Urban 14 107764169 Community Commercial City Corridor Moderate Commercial Community Commercial General Urban 16 107764171 Community Commercial City Corridor High Commercial Community Commercial Urban Corridor 27 109012117 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 199 109012118 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 232 109012120 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 38 109012121 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 32 109012122 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 40 109012138 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Financial Urban Corridor 143 109012139 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Financial Urban Corridor 60 Page 204 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 13 APN Existing Land Use Designation New Land Use Designation Current Use Existing Zoning Designation New Zoning Designation Net Potential Units 109060120 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 127 109060121 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 31 110016102 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 55 110016103 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 109 110020103 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 21 110020104 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 22 110020107 Mixed Use City Corridor High Vacant Community Commercial Urban Corridor 190 TOTAL 5,511 Notes: APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number Based on Table 2, the project would accommodate an additional 5,511 units (5,162 low- income units and 349 above moderate-income units) within the City, thereby exceeding the City’s remaining RHNA requirement of 5,280 units. Page 205 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Exhibit 5 NOT TO SCALE ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 07/21 | JN 179819 7+67 %((&+$9(&+(55<$9(%$6(/,1(5'$5&+,%$/'$9(0,//,.(1$9(:,/621$9(+$9(1$9((7,:$1'$$9(7+67 '$<&5((.%/9'52&+(67(5$9($552:57( )227+,//%/9' 'UDIW-XO\ &LW\&HQWHU &LW\&RUULGRU0RGHUDWH &LW\&RUULGRU+LJK 3URSRVHG*HQHUDO3ODQ /DQG8VH&KDQJHV ¯ó ò ô 0LOHV &LW\RI5DQFKR&XFDPRQJD Page 206 Proposed Zoning Exhibit 6 NOT TO SCALE ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 07/21 | JN 179819 7+67 %((&+$9(&+(55<$9(%$6(/,1(5'$5&+,%$/'$9(0,//,.(1$9(:,/621$9(+$9(1$9((7,:$1'$$9(7+67 '$<&5((.%/9'52&+(67(5$9($552:57( )227+,//%/9' 'UDIW-XO\ *HQHUDO8UEDQ 8UEDQ&HQWHU 8UEDQ&RUULGRU 3URSRVHG=RQLQJ&KDQJHV ¯ó ò ô 0LOHV &LW\RI5DQFKR&XFDPRQJD Page 207 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 16 The proposed project is anticipated to require the following permits and approvals: • General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to add three new zoning designations and redesignate 62 parcels from their existing land use designations to one of the new land use designations; • Development Code Amendment to establish three new zoning districts with established development standards and permitted uses for each new zoning district and remove six parcels from the Haven Avenue Overlay and one parcel from the Industrial Commercial Overlay; • Zoning Map Amendment to rezone 41 parcels within the City to one of the three new zoning districts; • Planned Community Amendment to amend the Terra Vista Planned Community to rezone 13 parcels to the new Urban Corridor zoning designation and establish development standards for the Urban Corridor zoning district; • Specific Plan Amendment to amend the Victoria Specific Plan to rezone six parcels within the specific plan to the new Urban Center zoning designation and establish development standards for the Urban Center zoning district; and • Master Plan Amendment to amend the Town Square Master Plan to rezone two parcels within the master plan to the new Urban Center zoning designation and establish development standards for the Urban Center zoning district. 2.3 ADDENDUM SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As discussed in the Certified EIR, implementation of the General Plan was determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact with implementation of standard conditions with regard to the following impact thresholds: • Biological Resources; • Geology and Soils; • Land Use and Planning • Population and Housing; • Public Services; • Parks and Recreation; • Transportation/Traffic; and • Utilities and Service Systems. The Certified EIR established that, with implementation of both standard conditions and mitigation measures, implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to the following environmental issue areas: • Cultural Resources; Page 208 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 17 • Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and • Hydrology and Water Quality. The Certified EIR determined that significant and unavoidable impacts would occur with implementation of the General Plan related to the following environmental issue areas: • Aesthetics; • Agricultural and Forestry Resources; • Air Quality; • Greenhouse Gas Emissions; • Mineral Resources; and • Noise For all of the topical impact categories cited above, this Addendum will address the project’s potential to result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the Certified EIR. However, based on the scope, location, and existing environmental setting of the project, a more detailed analysis will be provided for the following environmental topics: Aesthetics, Air Quality; Biological Resources; Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources, Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services; Parks and Recreation, Transportation/Circulation; and Utilities and Service Systems. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This comparative analysis has been undertaken to analyze whether the proposed project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts as compared to implementation of the General Plan that was analyzed under the Certified EIR. The comparative analysis discusses whether impacts are greater than, less than, or similar to the conclusions discussed in the Certified EIR. 3.1 IMPACTS HAVING NO POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS • Agriculture and Forestry Resources: The parcels identified for redesignation and rezoning are not mapped as important farmland nor are the parcels currently designated or zoned for agriculture or forest use.1 Additionally, none of the identified parcels are under a Williamson Act contract.2 Thus, the proposed project modifications would not adversely impact agriculture and forestry resources in this regard, and no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to agriculture and forestry resources would result from implementation of the proposed project. 1 California Department of Conservation. Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed July 29,2021. 2 California Department of Conservation. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land, 2017. Page 209 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 18 • Cultural Resources: The Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report (June 2020) was prepared as a supporting document to 2010 General Plan Update. The report analyzes the existing archaeological and cultural resources within the City. Based on the Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report, there are no known cultural resources that qualify for the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources on-site.3 Additionally, the project site has been disturbed by existing industrial, commercial, and residential development. No new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources would result from implementation of the proposed project. • Wildfire: As shown in Exhibit 4.8-2, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, of the Certified EIR, the proposed project area is not located within an area designated as a high fire hazard severity zone. The majority of the project area is urbanized and developed and is not adjacent to any wildland-urban interface areas. As such, no impacts relative to wildfires are anticipated. It should be noted that the Certified EIR did not include a specific analysis of wildfire as this topical area was not included in the CEQA Guidelines at the time the Certified EIR was prepared. However, a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required as a result of wildfire impacts absent new information on that front.4 Information regarding impacts related to wildfire were known long before the City certified the EIR. Thus, concerns related to these impacts could have been raised when the City considered the 2010 General Plan Update and associated EIR. Under Public Resources Code section 21166(c), an agency may not require a supplemental environmental review unless new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was approved, becomes available. “‘[S]ection 21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred [and] the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired ...’” (Id., 1050.) There is no competent evidence of new information of severe impact, and thus the City may rely on an addendum. Accordingly, the City finds that impacts related to wildfire are not “new information” under Public Resources Code Section 21166. 3.2 IMPACTS POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 3.2.1 AESTHETICS Future development and redevelopment in accordance with the new land use designations and zoning districts could potentially obstruct views of scenic resources within the City. Future development and redevelopment would potentially create obstructions to the views of land uses located immediately south of individual development sites. Depending on the building heights of new structures, some views of the mountains may be partially blocked, including views of the foothills at lower elevations. Compliance with the 2010 General Plan Update goals LU-8, LU-13, LU-18, LU-19, LU-20, and LU-21 would minimize the 3 City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report, June 2020. 4 Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) v. City of San Diego, (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 531. Page 210 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 19 potential impacts to scenic vistas. However, the Certified EIR determined that, regardless of compliance with City regulations, impacts of the buildout of the 2010 General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Future development would comply with City standards and result in similar heights and setbacks as to what is established in the Municipal Code. As such, the project impacts would not exceed the impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. As discussed in the Certified EIR, there are no scenic highways in or near the City. As such, the project would not result in impacts to scenic highways. Future development and redevelopment pursuant to the 2010 General Plan Update would change the visual quality of individual development sites. Similarly, future development in accordance with the amended General Plan Land Use Element and Development Code could alter the visual quality and character of individual development sites. Compliance with General Plan policies LU-9.1, LU-9.3, and LU-9.5 as well as all policies under the General Plan Goal LU-11 would ensure that potential impacts related to the visual quality of each parcel would be reduced to less than significant. Additionally, compliance with and SC 4.1-8, SC 4.1-9, and SC 4.1-10 would require future development to comply with the City’s Development Code and Design Guidelines for Residential/ and Commercial- Industrial land uses. The proposed project would result in taller buildings; however, as shown on Table 1, above, the intent of each new zoning area is to provide development standards that are cohesive with the surrounding land uses including building frontage, height, and design character. Future development and redevelopment of the proposed project would be reviewed for consistency with the design standards, as well as consistency with the character of the neighboring properties. Future development and redevelopment of the proposed project could introduce new sources of light and glare. However, compliance with SC-4.14 and 4.15 would require a submittal of lighting plan and solar access easements for each individual future development and redevelopment project. Additionally, the City’s light and glare regulations (SC 4.1-5) prohibit the creation of areas of intense light and glare through the use of fences, walls, berms, screens, and landscaping to reduce light and glare spillover, as the City also has regulations for outdoor lighting poles and fixtures for allowable illumination and glare levels, standards for exterior lighting and lighted signs, and parking lot lighting regulations, with which all future developments would need to comply. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Overall, the proposed project would not result in additional impacts to scenic vistas, scenic highways, visual quality, or light and glare beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. No new impacts or substantial increase in the severity of impacts have been identified. 3.2.2 AIR QUALITY The Certified EIR determined that the 2010 General Plan Update would not involve specific construction activities; however, Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 includes a range of construction-related measures that the City would require of each future project Page 211 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 20 developed under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Construction emissions would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis for future development and redevelopments. Additionally, the Certified EIR determined that long-term operation (stationary sources and mobile sources) of the 2010 General Plan Update would exceed the established significance thresholds for the criteria pollutants of PM10, and PM2.5. Long-term operational emissions would remain significant with implementation of identified 2010 General Plan Update goals and policies, and Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2. Impacts in this regard were determined to be significant and unavoidable. The 2010 General Plan Update was determined to be less than significant with regard to conflicts with an applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and odors. The proposed project would introduce new land use designations and zoning districts. The proposed project would not directly involve construction activities. However, the Certified EIR assumed that development would be constructed on each of the proposed sites and the proposed project does not change that assumption. Accordingly, construction of future development and redevelopment projects under the proposed project would be required to implement 2010 General Plan Update Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 to reduce potential construction-related impacts to air quality. Additionally, construction emissions would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis and would adhere to existing South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) standards to minimize construction air pollutants (dust control, emissions control features on construction equipment, idling restrictions). Therefore, no greater short-term air quality impacts would occur than that previously analyzed in the Certified EIR. Similarly, long term operations of future development projects in accordance with the amended General Plan Land Use Element and Development Code could generate operational emissions in exceedance of established thresholds. Future development would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis and would need to implement the range of standards and practices outlined in Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 of the 2010 General Plan Update. As such, the project would not result in new impacts not previously identified in the Certified EIR. 3.2.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Certified EIR determined that buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update has the potential to impact special status species; however, compliance with General Plan Resource Conservation Element Policies RC-1.1, RC-8.1, RC 8.2, RC-8.3, and LU-8.5, and Standard Conditions SC 4.4-1, SC 4.4-2, SC 4.4-3, SC 4.4-4, and SC 4.4-5 would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Based on the Certified EIR, development associated with buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update has the potential to impact wetland areas and other natural communities; however, compliance with General Plan Resource Conservation Element Policies RC- 1.1, RC-8.1, and RC-8.2, and Standard Conditions SC 4.4-6 and SC 4.4-7 would ensure that potential impacts would be less than significant. Page 212 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 21 Additionally, the Certified EIR determined that buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update has the potential to disrupt wildlife movement through the loss of open space corridors; however, compliance with General Plan Resource Conservation Element Policy RC-8.4 would ensure that potential impacts would be less than significant. Lastly, the Certified EIR determined that buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update has the potential to result in removal of trees and plants protected by local and County ordinances. However, compliance with County and City codes (SC 4.4-8 and SC 4.4-9, respectively), would ensure that these impacts would be less than significant. The City is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Thus, the Certified EIR concluded no impacts would occur in this regard. The Certified EIR concluded that with implementation of the policies in the 2010 General Plan Update and compliance with the standard conditions, no significant adverse impacts on biological resources would occur and no mitigation measures were recommended. Based on Exhibits 4.4-1K, through 4.4-1N, Vegetation Types, in the Certified EIR, multiple parcels identified by the proposed project are generally developed, disturbed land with pockets of vegetation including ruderal vegetation and annual brome. Additionally, as shown in Table 4.4-3, Special Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in The Vicinity of The Rancho Cucamonga Proposed General Plan Update Study Area, of the Certified EIR, various special status wildlife species are known to occur in the General Plan area. The parcels proposed for redesignation and rezoning under the proposed project are located in urban and built out areas of Rancho Cucamonga. The Certified EIR assumed that development would be constructed on each of the proposed sites and the proposed project does not change that assumption. Although the proposed project site is urbanized and built out, future projects would be required to undergo site-specific environmental review, during which, the project would be evaluated on a site-specific level to determine its potential to impact special-status species or sensitive communities known to occur in the area. Additionally, future development would continue to be subject to the 2010 General Plan Update standard conditions detailed in the Certified EIR. Overall, the proposed project would not result in additional impacts to biological resources beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. No new impacts or substantial increase in the severity of biological resources impacts have been identified. 3.2.4 ENERGY Analysis of energy consumption generally focuses on multiple resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources. As discussed in Section 3.1, the Certified EIR did not include a specific analysis of energy, and a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required as a result of energy impacts absent new information on that front. However, concerns related to these impacts could have been raised when the City considered the 2010 General Plan Update and associated EIR. Under Public Page 213 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 22 Resources Code section 21166(c), a supplemental environmental review is not necessary unless new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was approved, becomes available. As the proposed project would involve changes to the proposed land use that was analyze in the 2010 General Plan EIR and the Certified EIR, new information of potential impacts has been introduced. Although the project would indirectly result in fuel consumption during construction for construction employees and equipment, the nature of project improvements would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Compliance with state energy regulations, such as California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) and California Green (CALGreen) Building Standards, would result in efficient use in energy for future development projects. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. 3.2.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The Certified EIR determined that GHG emissions would result from construction activities associated with long-term implementation of land use policies in the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. The primary source of GHG emissions generated by construction activities is from use of diesel-powered construction equipment and other combustion sources (i.e., generators, worker vehicles, materials delivery, etc.). Compliance with General Plan policies RC6.1 and PF-7.1 would add energy efficient standards to the City’s Municipal Code and adopt programs such as recycling of construction and demolition materials into future development projects. The Certified EIR determined that the buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update would result in an increase in long-term GHG emissions. The primary source of GHG emissions generated by the buildout would be from motor vehicles. Other emissions would be generated from the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating, as well as off- site GHG emissions from the generation of electricity consumed by the proposed land use development over the long term. The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update goals, policies, and implementation plans, as well as the Standard Conditions of Approval (SC) described above would and will result in reducing long-term GHG emissions. As such, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard. While the project proposes land use amendments to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation, the project itself does not propose any new development or structures. The proposed project provides maximum allowable densities for each land use; however, there is no guarantee that each site would be developed to its maximum density. The City’s vision for long-range residential development associated with General Plan Buildout is analyzed within the General Plan Update and associated EIR that will be published in early September 2021. It should be noted that residential densities analyzed within the forthcoming General Plan Update are substantially higher than those associated with this proposed project. Future development projects in accordance with the proposed project would undergo site-specific environmental review on a project level, during which it would be evaluated for potential impacts related to GHG. Additionally, Page 214 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 23 Standard Conditions SC 4.5-1 through 4.5-3 would apply to future development projects to reduce potential GHG impacts. As such, the proposed project would not result in additional impacts beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. No new impacts or substantial increase in the severity of GHG impacts have been identified. 3.2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The Certified EIR determined that future development in accordance with the 2010 General Plan Update would potentially be subject to seismic ground movement and ground shaking and could be exposed to ground rupture hazards, including cracks on the ground surface, building foundation and structural damage, roadway cracks, and pipeline breaks. Certified EIR Exhibit 4.7-2, Earthquake Hazard Zones, indicates that multiple parcels identified to be redesignated and rezoned under the proposed project are located within the Red Hill Fault zone. Nevertheless, compliance with General Plan Public Health and Safety Element Policies PS-5.1 and PS-5.2 as well as Standard Conditions SC 4.7- 1, 4.7-2, 4.7-3, and 4.7-4 would reduce impacts regarding potential ground rupture and shaking to be less than significant. The Certified EIR determined that future development in the southwestern portion of the City would be subject to liquefaction hazards. Multiple parcels identified to be redesignated and rezoned under the proposed project are located within this portion of the City, and would therefore be exposed to liquefaction hazards. Compliance with Standard Condition 4.7-4 would ensure future projects conduct site-specific investigations and establish construction standards and inspection procedures to ensure that development does not pose a threat to public safety, including liquefaction hazard. As such, impacts would be less than significant with regard to liquefaction impact. The Certified EIR determined that buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update has the potential to result in landslides and seismic settlement. However, with the implementation of the General Plan policy PS-5.7 and Standard Conditions 4.7-2, 4.7-3, 4.7-4, and 4.7-5 would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. As shown in Exhibit 4.17-3, Soil Association of the Certified EIR, future buildout of the proposed project would occur on different soil foundations. Additionally, parcels that would be impacted by the project are located at the ends at the northern end of the City. Therefore, future development would potentially result in landslides and seismic settlement. Compliance with City policies and standards would reduce the potential for landslides and settlement. As such, impacts would be less than significant. The Delhi, Tujunga, Hanford, Cieneba, Ramona and Greenfield soils underlying the City are determined by the Certified EIR to have high erosion potential. As shown in Certified EIR Exhibit 4.7-3, parcels that would be redesignated and rezoned by the proposed project would contain these soils. Future project compliance with Standard Conditions 4.7-7 and 4.7-8 and General Plan Policies Public Health and Safety Element PS-8.3 and PS-8.4 would help reduce soil erosion from future development within each parcel. Additionally, in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), each individual project would be required to implement erosion-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in project-specific Storm Water Pollution Page 215 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 24 Prevention Plans (SWPPPs). Thus, project impacts regarding soil erosion would be less than significant. Overall, future projects in accordance with the proposed project would be required to undergo project-specific environmental review, in which future project impacts related to geology and soils would be evaluated on a project-specific level and mitigated, as needed. Standard Conditions 4.7-4 and 4.7-9 in the Certified EIR would require future projects to prepare geotechnical evaluation reports to evaluate site-specific geologic conditions. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in additional geologic impacts than what was already analyzed in the Certified EIR. 3.2.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazards Airports Although there are no airports located in the City, the Certified EIR determined that future development in the City’s southern portion may extend into the navigable airspace of the Ontario International Airport and therefore, could affect aircraft landing and take-off operations. Thus, the Certified EIR concluded that future development associated with buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update in this area would need to comply with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 regarding height limitations in order to prevent hazards to users, occupants, and visitors of the development and to prevent obstruction to aircraft operations (Standard Condition 4.8-9). Compliance with these regulations would allow the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to review development plans, identify/prevent potential hazards to aircraft navigation, and prevent exposure of persons or workers to aircraft hazards. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. According to Exhibit 4.8-1, Airspace Protection Areas in the Certified EIR, the parcels identified to be redesignated and rezoned are located within a designated FAA Height Notification Area for the Ontario International Airport. Within this notification area, FAR Part 77, Subpart B, requires that the FAA be notified of any proposed construction or alteration having a height greater than an imaginary surface extending 100 feet outward and one foot upward (slope of 100 to 1) for a distance of 20,000 feet from nearest point of any runway. Beyond the FAA Height Notification Area boundary, any object taller than 200 feet requires FAA notification. Future projects developed in accordance with the proposed project would be evaluated on a project-level and undergo separate environmental review. If future projects are within the FAA Height Notification Area, they would be required to comply with FAA regulations and thus, would reduce potential hazards in this regard to less than significant levels. As such, the proposed project would not result in additional impacts regarding airport hazards beyond what was already analyzed in the Certified EIR. No new impacts or substantial increase in the severity of impacts have been identified. Page 216 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 25 Hazardous Materials Based on the Certified EIR, future development of the 2010 General Plan Update may include facilities that would be listed in government databases related to hazards and hazardous materials. However, compliance with existing regulations (Standard Conditions 4.8-2 through 4.8-5) would reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. According to the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (CalEPA) Cortese List,5 two voluntary cleanups occurred on two parcels included as part of the proposed project, located at 9116 East Foothill Boulevard (Former Town Center Cleaners) and 8013 Archibald Avenue (Mission Plaza Properties). Cleanup at 8013 Archibald Avenue was completed as of October 19, 2017. However, the case at 9116 East Foothill Boulevard is currently open. Future development at this location would need to comply with the following existing regulations would prevent the creation of threats to public health and safety: Hazardous Material Transportation Act (SC 4.8-1); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (SC 4.8-2), the California Hazardous Waste Control Act (SC 4.8-3), the CUPA (SC 4.8-4); and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (SC 4.8-5). With adherence to these requirements, it is not expected the project would result in any new impacts or substantial increase in the severity of impacts related to existing hazardous materials. The proposed project would allow residential development and would not introduce any new land uses that routinely use, store, or dispose of hazardous materials. All future developments would be required to comply with existing regulations, including the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the California Hazardous Waste Control Act (HWCA). Compliance with these regulations would avoid the creation of a significant hazard to the public and reduce the potential for the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Additionally, all potentially significant effects resulting from the proposed project, such as those relating to hazards and hazardous materials, can be minimized through compliance with General Plan policies and Standard Conditions 4.8-1 through 4.8-9 provided in the Certified EIR. In addition, adherence to the local, State, and Federal regulatory framework would be required. No new significant impacts involving hazards and hazardous materials, or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project. 3.2.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The Certified EIR determined that future development in accordance with the 2010 General Plan Update would be required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities. Additionally, future development would need to comply with Mitigation Measure 4.9-3, which would require projects to prepare Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) that identify BMPs related to water quality and runoff volumes/pollutants. 5 California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List website, https://calepa.ca.gov/ SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed July 28, 2021. Page 217 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 26 The City is largely developed, with an existing storm drain system of underground lines and concrete-lined creeks. Individual development projects would need to comply with Mitigation Measures 4.9-1 and 4.9-2, which would require the project applicant to implement erosion control measures under the SWPPP and implement on-site BMPs, respectively. Individual projects would also need to comply with additional City regulations, such as Standard Conditions SC 4.9-4. The Certified EIR determined that, as new development and redevelopment introduces structures, driveways, parking lots, walkways, and other site improvements, the amount of impervious surface area in the City would increase. Thus, with the implementation of the proposed project, runoff volumes are likely to increase over existing conditions. Compliance with the General Plan Policies PS-7.1 and PS-7.2 would require the upgrade and expansion of the flood control system and maintain the flood control system and upstream tributary areas, respectively. In addition, individual development projects would be required to comply with City regulations (Standard Condition 4.9-1 and 4.9-4) as well as Mitigation Measures 4.9-3 and 4.9-4 to incorporate adequate BMPs that would effectively prohibit non-storm water discharges from entering into the storm drain system. Lastly, future projects would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 4.9-1 and 4.9- 2 and Mitigation Measure 4.9-6 through Mitigation Measure 4.9-8 to identify appropriate methods for controlling discharge of debris and sediment into water bodies and fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides through preparation of a landscaping plan. The Certified EIR determined that multiple areas designated under the Land Use Element of the General Plan as residential uses would be located in recognized 100-year floodplains. However, compliance with Standard Conditions 4.9-4 through 4.9-6 would reduce any significant adverse impacts related to the placement of housing within a 100- year flood hazard area. The Certified EIR also determined that buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update would involve development in inundation areas of the San Antonio Dam, Cucamonga Creek, and the Alta Loma Basin. Certified EIR Exhibit 4.9-4, Dam Inundation Hazards, shows the areas within the City that are located in an inundation area. Additionally, there are multiple locations within the City that have a potential for mudflow hazards. However, compliance with Standard Conditions 4.9-4 and 4.9-10 would reduce impacts associated with flooding due to inundation by seiche or mudflow. The proposed project would introduce new land use designations and zoning districts that would result in new development. Future projects would undergo site-specific environmental review to determine impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Such projects would also be required to comply with existing regulations (e.g., NPDES Construction General Permit) and standard conditions detailed in the Certified EIR. Project-specific WQMPs and SWPPPs and associated BMPs would also be prepared to reduce impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Thus, no new significant hydrologic and water quality impacts, or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project. No new impacts or substantial increase in the severity of impacts have been identified. Page 218 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 27 3.2.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING The Certified EIR determined that the 2010 General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts with regards to physically dividing established communities and conflicting with any applicable habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan (NCCP). The potential for buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update to conflict with applicable land use plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Standard Conditions 4.10-1 and 4.10-2 and Mitigation Measure 4.10- 1. Standard Conditions 4.10-1 and 4.10-2 require all future development projects to be consistent with the goals and policies of the 2010 General Plan Update and the Development Code standards and design guidelines. Mitigation Measure 4.10-1 requires the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department to track all development that takes place within the City against the projected densities detailed in the 2010 General Plan Update to ensure the City begins preparing an update to the General Plan prior to development reaching the established target densities. The project proposes to redesignate and rezone parcels within the City to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation. No new development or structures are proposed and thus, the project would not physically divide any established communities within Rancho Cucamonga. Future development on the redesignated and rezoned parcels would be required to undergo project-specific environmental review, upon which each project would be evaluated on its potential to physically divide an established community. Thus, project impacts in this regard would be less than significant. The proposed project would increase the overall buildout potential for residential development within Rancho Cucamonga. While the project proposes General Plan and Development Code amendments, the project would comply with existing General Plan goals and policies related to preserving and providing residential uses. Specifically, the project would encourage more residential development in compatible neighborhoods (Policy LU-1.6); plan for vibrant, pedestrian-friendly mixed-use and high-density residential areas in strategic infill locations (Policy LU-2.1); promote infill development that contributes positively to existing residential neighborhoods (Policy LU-2.4); facilitate effective use of land constrained by challenging parcel sizes/dimensions (Policy LU-2.5); and encourage new development projects to build on vacant infill sites within built out areas and/or redevelop underutilized properties (Policy LU-3.7). Additionally, future development in accordance with the proposed project would be required to continue to comply with existing General Plan goals and policies and be consistent with Development Code standards. Further, Standard Conditions 4.10-1 and 4.10-2 would still apply to all future development projects (i.e., being consistent with the goals and policies of the 2010 General Plan Update and Development Code standards, as amended by the project). Further, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-1, included in the Certified EIR, would ensure the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department continues to track development as it occurs within the City to be sure an update to the General Plan is set in motion prior to development reaching the established target densities including the additional buildout allowed by the project. Page 219 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 28 There are no applicable HCP or NCCPs in the City. Thus, similar to the 2010 General Plan Update, the proposed project would not conflict with any HCP or NCCP. Further, it should be noted that this threshold regarding the potential to conflict with any HCP or NCCP under the “Land Use and Planning” topical area was removed from the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist as part of the update in December 2018. The Certified EIR determined that the 2010 General Plan Update would be consistent with the principles outlined in the 2008 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Compass Blueprint and Regional Comprehensive Plan. The Compass Blueprint proposes to achieve the principles of Mobility, Livability, Prosperity, and Sustainability. SCAG regional plans have been revised since the 2008 release. The current 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal (RTP/SCS) sets forth goals and policies that integrate land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. The proposed project would provide an adequate number of residential units, consistent with RHNA requirements. The project would include General Plan and Development Code amendments to allow for infill, mixed- use developments that would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and be consistent with RTP/SCS goals and policies related to VMT reductions and associated air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, no new impacts involving land use and planning, or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the Certified EIR would occur with implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project does not trigger new land use impacts requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR. 3.2.10 MINERAL RESOURCES The certified EIR determined that future development in accordance with the 2010 General Plan Update would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to existing aggregate resources. Additionally, the Certified EIR determined that potential loss of availability of these local mineral resources due to future development would result in a less than significant impact, and adherence to Goal RC-7 and associated policies of the General Plan would further reduce the potential for impacts. As shown in Exhibit 4.11-2, Significant Aggregate Resources of the Certified EIR, parcels that would be impacted by the proposed project are not located in any aggregate resource centers. However, as shown in Exhibit 4.11-1, Mineral Land Classification of the Certified EIR, the majority of the project site is located in mineral land classification MRZ-2. Therefore, significant mineral deposits may be present within the project site. The parcels proposed for redesignation and rezoning under the proposed project are located in urban and built out areas of Rancho Cucamonga. Future development would also need to comply with Goal RC-7 and associated policies to further reduce potential impacts. As such, operational mineral resource impacts would be less than significant. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Page 220 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 29 3.2.11 NOISE Short-term construction noise impacts were determined to be less than significant in the Certified EIR with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 through 4.12-4, and compliance with the City’s Noise Control Ordinance as provided in the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.66.050, Noise Standards. Similarly, the Certified EIR determined that operational noise impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.12-5 through 4.12-7. A portion of the proposed project is located within a designated FAA Height Notification Area for Ontario International Airport, located approximately four miles to the southwest, and is therefore subject to FAA requirements regarding notification. The proposed project does not propose development or redevelopment of residential or other land uses that would impact sensitive receptors. However, implementation of the proposed project would potentially result in development or redevelopment of residential or other land uses within close proximity to sensitive receptors. Future projects would be required to undergo separate environmental review at a project-level to determine potential noise-related impacts from construction and operational activities. Further, future development would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 4.12-3 of the Certified EIR and prepare a noise mitigation plan to negate any potentially significant impacts resulting from construction noise. Short-term construction noise associated with future development would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 4.12-2, and 4.12-4 of the Certified EIR, as well as comply with General Plan Policies PS- 13.1 through PS-13.11 and PS-14.1 through PS-14.2 from the Certified EIR and comply with the City’s Noise Control Ordinance to reduce potential noise impacts. Similarly, future development projects would be subject to individual environmental review regarding operational noise impacts. Future development and redevelopment projects would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 4.12-5 through 4.12-7 of the Certified EIR to ensure that operations of their development would not exceed the noise thresholds and standards imposed by the City. As such, operational noise impacts would be less than significant. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.2.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING The Certified EIR determined that buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in an increase in the overall population growth of the City. However, the Certified EIR determined that buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update would indirectly increase the City’s population, housing stock, and employment base by providing capacity to accommodate future development. Exceedances of SCAG projections for population, households, and employment are expected, which may have the potential for a significant impact based on the rate of future development proposals and entitlements. Additionally, the increase in the jobs/housing ratio at buildout may create more traffic congestion. The Certified EIR also determined that buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing. Page 221 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 30 The proposed project would allocate RHNA units as part of its planning and zoning framework in order to meet State RHNA requirements. As shown in Table 2, the proposed project would potentially result in approximately 5,511 new low-income or moderate- income residential units. While the project proposes land use amendments to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation, the project itself does not propose any new development or structures that would result in an increase in population. The proposed project provides maximum allowable densities for each land use; however, there is no guarantee that each site would be developed to its maximum density. The City’s vision for long-range residential development associated with General Plan Buildout is analyzed within the General Plan Update and associated EIR that will be published in early September 2021. It should be noted that residential densities analyzed within the forthcoming General Plan Update are substantially higher than those associated with this proposed project. As such, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. No new mitigation measures are required. 3.2.13 PUBLIC SERVICES The Certified EIR determined that, although buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update would create additional demand for fire and police protection services, the City’s general fund or other existing funding mechanisms would reduce the impacts to these services. Buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update would result in an additional demand for schools and public libraries. Future development and redevelopment projects would need to comply with Standard Conditions 4.14-1 and 4.14-2, which would require the project to comply with all applicable state and local regulations codes, ordinances and standard conditions, as well as pay applicable developer’s fees to impacted school districts. Additionally, future development and redevelopment projects would need to comply with the General Plan Policies PF 3.1 through PF 3.6 to ensure that impacts to library services would be less than significant. As discussed in Section 3.2.10, the proposed project would potentially result in an indirect increase in the City’s overall population. This in turn would result in an increase in the demand for public services. Future development and redevelopment resulting from the proposed project would comply with Standard Conditions 4.14-1 and 4.14-2 as well as the General Plan Policies PF 3.1 through PF 3.6. With compliance to these standards and regulations, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public services. No new mitigation measures are required. 3.2.14 PARKS AND RECREATION The Certified EIR determined that the buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update could lead to an increase in the City’s population, and therefore increase the usage and demand for parks and recreational facilities. The City’s Local Park Ordinance requires developers of residential projects to dedicate land and/or pay in-lieu fees for the provision of parklands at a standard of 3 to 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (SC 4.15-2). Residential development and redevelopment would also provide on-site recreational areas and facilities, as required by the City’s Development Code (SC 4.15-1). Page 222 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 31 As discussed, the proposed project would potentially result in an indirect increase in the City’s overall population. As a result, the usage parks and recreational facilities within the would potentially increase. Future development would comply with City standards and pay the required fees for the provision of parklands. With compliance to these standards, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities. No new mitigation measures are required. 3.2.15 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Based on the Certified EIR, buildout of the General Plan would increase traffic volumes in the City, leading to four intersections operating at LOS E or worse by 2030 (Rochester Avenue at Arrow Highway [LOS F in PM peak hour], Etiwanda Avenue at Foothill Boulevard [LOS E in PM peak hour], Etiwanda Avenue at Arrow Highway [LOS F in PM peak hour], and East Avenue at Base Line Road [LOS E in PM peak hour]), as well as increasing the potential for traffic accidents. Improvements at these intersections would allow the deficient intersections to operate at LOS D or better. Further, future development and redevelopment under the General Plan would have to provide emergency access. Standard Conditions 4.16-1 through 4.16-5 would ensure improvement of the roadway system to accommodate future traffic volumes, prevent traffic hazards, and provide for continued emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant. Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Ordinances or Policies Establishing Measures of Effectiveness for the Performance of the Circulation System Short-term construction traffic impacts associated with General Plan implementation were determined to be less than significant in the Certified EIR with implementation of Standard Condition 4.16-2. Similarly, the Certified EIR determined that operational traffic impacts associated with General Plan implementation would be less than significant with implementation of Standard Conditions 4.16-3 through 4.16-9. No significant, unavoidable impacts relative to transportation/circulation would occur with implementation of future development envisioned in the General Plan. As discussed above, the proposed project would allocate RHNA units as part of its planning and zoning framework in order to meet State RHNA requirements. The proposed project would not exceed the City’s buildout capacity of 63,261 housing units. Additionally, the project would comply with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and provide an adequate number of residential units that would sustain the City’s planned population growth. Furthermore, applicants for individual developments would be required to comply with Standard Condition 4.16-1 and prepare a traffic study addressing the additional trips resulting from the development. Compliance with Standard Condition 4.16-2 would ensure improvement of the roadway system to accommodate future traffic volumes. As such, impacts regarding the for the performance of the circulation system would be less than significant. The State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), in implementing Senate Bill (SB) 743, issued proposed updates to the CEQA guidelines in November 2017 that amends the Appendix G question for transportation impacts to delete Page 223 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 32 reference to vehicle delay and level of service (LOS) and instead refer to Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines asking if the project would result in a substantial increase in VMT. The California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the revisions to the CEQA Guidelines in December of 2018, and as of July 1, 2020 the provisions of the new section are in effect statewide. The revisions of the CEQA guideline were not taken into account in determining the impact of the buildout of 2010 General Plan Update, as these changes to the CEQA guidelines occurred after the Certified EIR was published. It should be noted that the traffic impacts of future development would be evaluated based on the VMT metric, on a site-specific basis as future developments associated with the proposed project are proposed. The proposed high density land uses would reduce VMT as shopping, employment opportunities, and housing would be in close proximity to one another; thus, would result in a beneficial impact regarding VMT. Public Transit/Alternative Transportation Modes The Certified EIR promotes alternative transportation systems through Goals CM-1, CM- 2, CM-3, and supporting policies. Future development and redevelopment associated with General Plan implementation would need to comply with Standard Conditions 4.16- 6 and 4.16-7, which would provide facilities for alternative modes of transportation. Implementation of Standard Conditions 4.16-8 and 4.16-9 would also encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. Should future development and redevelopment of the proposed project result in roadway improvements, individual development projects would comply with City standards related to sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and public transit opportunities. Since the proposed project constitutes minor, technical changes to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the City’s Development Code, the project would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of identified impacts relative to public transit/alternative transportation modes. Therefore, no conflict with policies, plans and programs for alternative transportation would occur beyond what was previously analyzed in the Certified EIR. Emergency Access The Certified EIR determined that emergency access impacts associated with General Plan implementation would be less than significant. Compliance with Standard Condition 4.16-2, which includes Title 12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and the standards in the Work Area Protection and Traffic Control Manual, would maintain emergency access to individual parcels at all times. The Manual states that the needs of emergency service providers (law enforcement, fire, and medical) should be assessed and appropriate coordination and accommodations made. Thus, notification of the Rancho Cucamonga Police and Fire Departments of potential roadway closures and construction work would allow for the use of alternative routes by emergency vehicles and would avoid adverse impacts to emergency response and access. Also, as provided for in Standard Condition 4.14-3, compliance with the requirements for emergency lane width, vertical clearance, and distance would ensure that adequate emergency access is available for all future projects associated with General Plan implementation. Future Page 224 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 33 development and redevelopment projects resulting from the proposed project would be required to comply with the regulations set forth of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and comply with the Standard Conditions 4.16-2 and 4.16-3. As such, the project would not result in impacts to emergency access greater than what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. Design Hazards/Incompatible Uses The Certified EIR determined that a less than significant impact would occur relative to design hazards and incompatible uses. Roadway improvements would have to be made in accordance with the City’s Circulation Plan, roadway functional design guidelines, access and circulation design guidelines, and intersection line-of-sight design guidelines, as provided for in Standard Condition 4.16-4. The Certified EIR concluded that impacts relative to traffic hazards would be less than significant. As a land use and development code amendment, the proposed project would not directly result in design hazards and incompatible uses. Compliance with Standard Condition 4.16-4 would reduce the potential for design hazards and incompatible uses by future development. No new significant impacts involving transportation/circulation, or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts, would occur with implementation of the proposed project beyond what was previously analyzed within the Certified EIR. 3.2.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts to tribal cultural resources by the buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update were not analyzed by the Certified EIR. Under Public Resources Code section 21166(c), a supplemental environmental review is not necessary unless new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was approved, becomes available. The parcels proposed for redesignation and rezoning under the proposed project are located in urban and built out areas of the City. Regardless, future projects would be required to undergo site-specific environmental review, during which projects would need to comply with California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and establish formal a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. 3.2.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The project would involve amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and the Development Code, and the rezoning of 62 parcels. As such, the project would not directly impact the existing utility and service systems. Future development and redevelopment projects of the project would include the development of parcels that are currently vacant; refer to Table 2. Development of these parcels would result in the installation of new Page 225 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 34 connecting utility lines and an increase in the demand for water, wastewater, solid waste and dry utility services. Water Supply and Infrastructure The Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) serves the City’s water and wastewater needs. According to the Cucamonga Valley Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City’s projected normal-year water demand is currently 53,369 acre-feet (AF), and would increase by 2045 to a demand of 60,949 AF. The UWMP includes an analysis of water supply reliability projected through 2045. Based on the analysis, the CVWD would be capable of providing adequate water supply to its service area under a normal supply and demand scenario and single dry-year supply and demand scenario through 2045. The analysis also projected that the CVWD would be capable to supply an additional 4,000 AF of water under a normal supply and demand scenario and 3,900 AF under a single dry-year supply and demand scenario through 2045. Higher densities within the City are analyzed with the General Plan Update and associated EIR that will be published in early September 2021. However, although the project provides maximum densities, maximum buildout of the project is not guaranteed, and future development projects will undergo similar environmental review and approvals. As such, the CVWD would have adequate supply to accommodate increased density associated with the proposed project. As discussed above, future development and redevelopment of the proposed project would result in the construction of new connecting water lines and potentially and increase in demand for water. As such, future development and redevelopment projects would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis under separate environmental review and may be subject to SB 610 and/or SB 221 and comply with all applicable requirements in order to demonstrate the availability of an adequate and reliable water supply (Standard Condition 4.17-1). With compliance to these standards and regulations, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Wastewater Infrastructure and Treatment The Certified EIR determined that the buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts to wastewater facilities. As an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the proposed project would not directly impact the existing wastewater facilities that are servicing the City. However, development and redevelopment of the project would potentially increase the existing development and increase the demand for wastewater services. As stated in Section 3.2.7, future development projects would need to comply with all applicable NPDES Permit rules and regulations (Standard Condition 4.17-2). Future development projects would also need to individually submit a water and sewer plan to the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), proving that the project would be designed and constructed to meet CVWD requirements (Standard Condition 4.17-3). Compliance to existing standards would reduce impacts to be less than significant. Page 226 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 35 Dry Utilities According to the Certified EIR, private companies that serve the City, such as Southern California Edison (SCE), Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), Charter Communications (Charter) and Time Warner Cable (Time Warner) are private companies that provide services on demand. Therefore, no significantly adverse impacts on their services are expected. Future development projects would need to coordinate with individual utility agencies with service connections. The individual project developer would be required to comply with Standard Conditions 4.15 through 4.17-7 and would be responsible for the for relocation of onsite utilities. Additionally, individual future development projects would be required by the City to implement all applicable Title 24 energy efficiency standards regarding natural gas and electricity usage (Standard Condition 4.17-4). As such impacts to dry utilities services and facilities would be less than significant. Solid Waste The Certified EIR determined that the buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update would result in an estimated net increase in solid waste disposal of 201.5 tons per day and 73,545 tons per year. This increase would represent a nominal percentage of the existing landfills that service the City’s permitted capacity. The proposed project would result in changes to land use designations within the General Plan Land Use Element as well as the City’s existing zoning code. These changes would result in changes to the build out of 2010 General Plan Update and would potentially result in changes to future development. The project would not impact the City’s compliance with State law (AB939), which requires a 50 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills. Additionally, the project would comply with the General Plan Update’s Goal PF-7 and Policies PF-7.1 through PF- 7.5, which state the City’s aim to minimize the volume of solid waste that enters regional landfills and encourage recycling. Therefore, with continuing adherence to the requirements of AB 939 and SB 1016 and implementation of the identified goal and related policies in the proposed 2010 General Plan Update, impacts regarding solid waste would be less than significant. 4.0 DETERMINATION/ADDENDUM CONCLUSION As detailed in the analysis above, none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR apply and the preparation of this Addendum is appropriate. This Addendum supports the conclusion that the modifications to the General Plan Land Use Element and Development Code are considered minor technical changes, and do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which implementation of the General Plan was being undertaken since the certification of the EIR have occurred. The proposed project would not substantially increase the severity of Page 227 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 36 effects relative to the environmental topics analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor would the project require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Page 228 General Plan and Development Code Amendments Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report August 2021 37 5.0 ADDENDUM PREPARATION SOURCES/REFERENCES California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/, accessed on July 29, 2021. California Department of Conservation. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act, 1970, as amended. Public Resources Code Sections 15162 – 15164. California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List website, https://calepa.ca.gov/ SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed July 28, 2021. Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) v. City of San Diego, (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 531. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report, June 2020. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update, 2010. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, 2010. San Bernardino County Transportation Authority. San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/san-bernardino-transportation- analysis-model/. Accessed August 17, 2021.Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal. Page 229 Attachment 10 Page 230 September 1st, 2021 Jennifer Nakamura Management Analyst City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91730 RE: General Plan Amendment – Letter of Support Dear Ms. Nakamura and members of the Planning Commission, my ownership group controls land holdings along Foothill Blvd. near the intersection of Vineyard Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga and we are exploring redeveloping our property into a mixed-use development with housing over ground floor retail that Rancho Cucamonga would be proud of that would be much in keeping with the General Plan Amendment’s vision statement. I am writing in to specifically support the rezoning of this area from General Commercial to City Corridor Moderate. This new zoning designation provides a wide range of residential densities, and such flexibility will be important in order to bring vibrant, walkable, mixed-use developments online. Our ownership group has a proven track record of delivering mixed- income housing developments to communities throughout Southern California, this rezoning effort will help bring much needed housing to the residents of this spectacular city. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you may have. I can be reached at the phone or email address listed below. Sincerely, Gilman Bishop Principal Bishop Ventures, LLC Office : (619)-746-5191 Email : Gbishop@bishopventures.com 09/01/2021 Regular City Council Meeting - CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR ITEM G1 Page 231 9/1/2021 – Regular City Council – CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR ITEM G1. From: Bret B. Bernard, AICP <bret@milancap.com> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 10:32 PM To: McIntosh, Anne <Anne.McIntosh@cityofrc.us>; Nakamura, Jennifer <Jennifer.Nakamura@cityofrc.us> Cc: Tanya Patton <tanya@milancap.com>; Karla Arzaga <karla@milancap.com>; Chris Nichelson <chris@milancap.com>; Eoff, David <David.Eoff@cityofrc.us> Subject: RE: Foothill Crossing - City Proposed GPA/DCA/ZMA/PCA/SPA/MPA / B3-MCM Follow-up ... for City Council Mtg./Wed., Spt. 1st Importance: High 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. Anne and Jennifer, et al, I/we hope that you and yours had a productive end of August and fun Summer’s end with your families. Following-up on my/our preceding communique (below) ... Please find attached our/MCM input letter – for you and the City Council -- regarding the proposed City land use codal (General Plan, Zoning, etc.) designations’ expansion and modification – particularly as these suggested changes relate to our “Foothills Crossing” commercial center. Would you please make copies and provide these to the appropriate parties, most especially the City Council in-advance of/or at this Wednesday’s meeting/public hearing on these matters. [And, as noted in the attached letter, I will be (again) attending and will also bring a ‘hard’ copy with me and provide to the Council, via the City Clerk, at Wednesday’s Council meeting.] I look forward to seeing y’all again this Wednesday evening. Good luck and (all) please ... Stay safe, healthy and well, and … Please take great care indeed, ~ Bret B. Bernard ~ Monday, 30 August 2021 Bret B. Bernard, AICP Director of Planning and Development 888 South Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 Anaheim, California 92802 Bret@milancap.com 714.687.0000, ext. 119 (Office) 714.687.1900 (Facsimile) 949.500.7571 (Mobile) From: Bret B. Bernard, AICP Sent: Saturday, 21 August, 2021 4:39 PM To: Tanya Patton <tanya@milancap.com>; Anne McIntosh AICP (Anne.McIntosh@CityofRC.us) <anne.mcintosh@cityofrc.us>; Nakamura, Jennifer <Jennifer.Nakamura@cityofrc.us> Cc: Karla Arzaga <karla@milancap.com>; Chris Nichelson <chris@milancap.com>; Eoff, David Page 232 <David.Eoff@cityofrc.us> Subject: RE: Foothill Crossing - City Proposed GPA/DCA/ZMA/PCA/SPA/MPA / B3-MCM Follow-up ... Anne and Jennifer, I/we hope all’s well with y’all and that it’s been ‘smooth sailing’ since we last connected at the Planning Commission (P.C.) meeting and its ‘public hearing’ for the items noted above, and their potential impacts to our/MCM’s “Foothills Crossing” commercial center on August 11th. As shared in my (reattached hereto) follow-up e-message ... we thank you/staff and the P.C. for the actions taken – including the amendments included that evening – approving these codes and plans’ changes. One of my follow-up queries was answered in the public hearing notice we received – sharing that the City Council (C.C.) will ‘take-up’ its consideration of these amendments and the P.C. approvals on Wednesday, September 1st evening beginning at 7 p.m. [We will follow-up and check the on-line C.C. Agenda for that evening to ascertain when it is scheduled during that meeting.] Per below, one of our other follow-up inquiries was confirmed – while the “City Center” designation will remain (goal) of 40-100 du/ac, that, as well as the other two (2) newly created mixed-use zones do allow for lower residential density – down to 24 du/ac. Thank you again for providing for this flexibility ... most helpful in today’s market and its real estate economics. The City advisement below does not include recognition of the other action the P.C. took – as confirmed by me with you after the hearing that night – that the entirety of our “Foothills Crossing” (FC) center (not just most of it – before the P.C.) will be designated as “City Center.” But, I presume that this was not included below because that change affected only our property/center and not the overall zoning designation ... would you please reconfirm that all of FC is not so zoned? As with the P.C., I/we plan upon attending this upcoming C.C. meeting/”public hearing” and providing (shorter) testimony in-support of these codes and plans’ modifications – hoping and barracking for those changes, as amended by the P.C. And I/we will provide a brief e-letter, as with the P.C., supporting these actions (again, as amended). We look forward to participating that evening; and, please let me/us know if anything changes between now and then (September 1st). And again, thank you all very much. P.S.: Tanya, thanks much for forwarding the e-mail and City Council ‘public hearing’ notice (not reattached hereto) for its consideration of the Planning Commission actions taken (August 11th) Approving, as amended pursuant to our/MCM’s requests, in this matter. Stay safe, healthy and well, and … Please take great care indeed, ~ Bret B. Bernard ~ Saturday, 21 August 2021 Bret B. Bernard, AICP Director of Planning and Development 888 South Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 Anaheim, California 92802 Bret@milancap.com 714.687.0000, ext. 119 (Office) 714.687.1900 (Facsimile) 949.500.7571 (Mobile) Page 233 From: Tanya Patton <tanya@milancap.com> Sent: Thursday, 19 August, 2021 4:12 PM To: Bret B. Bernard, AICP <bret@milancap.com> Cc: Karla Arzaga <karla@milancap.com>; Chris Nichelson <chris@milancap.com> Subject: FW: Foothill Crossing - City Proposed GPA/DCA/ZMA/PCA/SPA/MPA / MCM Initial Input Importance: High Hi Bret, We received the attached today. Can you review and let us know if what is being proposed aligns with how you left things with the city? It appears that they are in fact recommending to reduce the minimum density down to 24/units per acre for City Center designation, but I don’t see that they added our other parcels. Tanya Patton | Asset Manager Milan Capital Management, Inc. 888 South Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 | Anaheim, CA 92802 O: 714.687.0000 x 110 | D: 714.399.3010| F: 714.687.1900| M: 714.403.1028 tanya@milancap.com | www.milancap.com Page 234 From: Bret B. Bernard, AICP <bret@milancap.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 4:45 PM To: McIntosh, Anne <Anne.McIntosh@cityofrc.us>; Eoff, David <David.Eoff@cityofrc.us>; Nakamura, Jennifer <Jennifer.Nakamura@cityofrc.us> Cc: Chris Nichelson <chris@milancap.com>; Tanya Patton <tanya@milancap.com>; Karla Arzaga <karla@milancap.com> Subject: RE: Foothill Crossing - City Proposed GPA/DCA/ZMA/PCA/SPA/MPA / MCM Initial Input Importance: High Anne, Jennifer and David, Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to you, and the City – including the Planning Commission tonight – regarding the City’s proposed General Plan Amendment/Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment/Planned Community Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment/and Master Plan Amendment and more generally proposed General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Element to provide for three new zoning designations – known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High (DRC2021-00281), together with the other City Plan’s associated Amendments. Thank you as well for the occasion to speak directly with you (Anne/Director McIntosh) earlier today on the telephone in this regard, and for your input and our shared exchange. We understand and appreciate that the City of Rancho Cucamonga began this process (as shared this morning) in January 2020 -- prior to the Covid-19 pandemic and its processing restrictions and other repercussions affecting business as usual and specifically relative to formulating these suggested land use Amendments. We also discern that these Amendment considerations are within the context of the City’s intended overall update of your General Plan, as well as the requisite/State mandated more regular update of the General Plan’s City “Housing Element.” And, we further recognize that there are tremendous pressures – again from the State of California – as well as simply wanting “to do the right thing” in trying to provide locally, regionally and Statewide more housing opportunities ... given that California’s housing supply remains woefully short of ever-growing housing demands. Furthermore, as provided by you this morning, we understand that you are on a very tight timeline – responding to State deadlines, mandates and more. Thank you for that ‘backstory’ ... though as I shared earlier I/we had surmised much of what is facing you and other Cities.. We regret, whatever the reason, that we were not aware of this aforementioned land use Amendments formulation – we certainly would like to have been involved in this public outreach process. [Per our preceding conversation ... we look forward to more involvement going forward however. Thank you for that opportunity!] Given that late receipt of this impending Amendments process – just a fortnight ago – we have not had sufficient time and opportunity to fully read and review the Amendments’ package – over 260 pages – so that we could provide to you and the Planning Commission our full reaction and input set of responses, suggestions, questions, etc. [Per below, those will be forthcoming ... thank you again for providing for that additional and future opportunities.] However, as shared earlier on our telephone conversation, here are some initial (and given the timeframe, necessarily more cryptic than desired) thoughts and responses to the proposed Amendments (en toto): • We do support, as verified by our earlier (Fall 2019) discussions with you (staff) regarding the opportunity for introducing mixed-use, with non-single family residential, at/in our “Foothills Crossing” commercial center (FC). And we look forward to working with the City toward that goal and vision, and its ‘sooner than later’ implementation and realization. Page 235 • However, as shared previously (Fall 2019) and again earlier during today’s conversation, we are not in full-support –at least now -- of the proposed residential density standard proposed for much (but not all) of our property – “City Center” at 40-100 dwelling units per acre. o Strange that a land developer and land owner would suggest that this density is too high. Yet, as shared previously and again earlier today, such density simply does not “pencil” at the present time or foreseeable future. That is – the cost to construct housing at that density – is not currently met by the marketplace, i.e., the rents necessary to pay- off and for that development are not competitive in the local and surrounding market – now and for the foreseeable future. Which means anecdotally that ‘if they build it, they won’t come’ (again for now and in the years ahead). • So, as we discussed, we suggest that – while this standard may be codified ... necessarily for your Housing Element update and the State’s ‘standards’ (of each community) – that “City Center”40-100 dwelling units (du) per acre (ac) – be the ‘maximum’ provision, and provide that lower (mixed-use) residential development – at the “City Corridor High”/35-60 du/ac as well as “City Corridor Moderate”/24-42 du/ac – also be allowed within the “City Center” designated areas. o We appreciate, pursuant to our earlier conversation, that at least for now – this mixed-use residential development at these lower intensities are allowed. But, we understand that this “less is more” allowance may ‘go away’ in the future. So we ask that this lower- intensity residential infusion – at the “City Corridor High” and “City Corridor Moderate” levels be permanently allowed. ... We are convinced, given past urban development, that when there is sufficient demand for this high-density residential development in a more urban setting is demanded – the populous’ demand will support the requisite economics to develop at that significantly higher development intensity. o We look forward to future discussions and contemplation in this regard – after we all have had more time for more full consideration and contemplation. • We are also aware that the “City Center” zoning designation is not proposed for the entirety of our “Foothills Crossing” commercial center, nor is suggested for any other surrounding sites/properties. o We would like more time to consider, and then further respond, whether we would like that “City Center” mixed-use development designation be placed over the entirety of our site, left as proposed, or modified (that is, perhaps change portions’ zoning designations as presently proposed). o Until we have that additional time for consideration and response (which will be in the near-future) – we would suggest that the entirety of our FC center be singularly zoned (at that higher “City Center” standard). ... And, we would still request/suggest (per above) that while zoned for higher density – lower ‘market dictated’ mixed-use residential development be allowed for. Those are our ‘for now’ immediate and initial suggestions/requests/thoughts. With the coming days, and more time to fully read and comprehend the Amendments voluminous packet/tome – we will provide additional input. We again look forward to providing sharing additional and supplemental input/responses during the upcoming opportunities that you provided this morning -- no less that 3-4 more future forums to provide/exchange, as well as direct discussions and more in the days and weeks ahead. We have enjoyed our past and current dialog and congenial exchange of ideas and much look forward to its continuation. In that vein, as shared upon the phone this morning – we were unaware of the public outreach process that preceded these Amendments being provided to the PC. We do look forward to much more involvement going forward – relative to not only our “Foothills Crossing” center but all the surrounding properties affected by these suggested significant Amendments. As shared earlier, I look forward to attending tonight’s Planning Commission meeting and its first public hearing regarding these proposed land use Amendments. I look to share a brief summary of what we Page 236 have provided (above) with the Commission; and, I will also deliver and provide to you directly a “hard” copy of this e-mail. Thank you again. Good luck to you and us all tonight. And please (everyone) ... Stay safe, healthy and well, and … Please take great care indeed, ~ Bret B. Bernard ~ Wednesday, 11 August 2021 Bret B. Bernard, AICP Director of Planning and Development 888 South Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 Anaheim, California 92802 Bret@milancap.com 714.687.0000, ext. 119 (Office) 714.687.1900 (Facsimile) 949.500.7571 (Mobile) Page 237 30 August 2021 Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council, and Community Development Director McIntosh, et al City of Rancho Cucamonga 10759 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Subject: Foothill Crossing - City Proposed GPA/DCA/ZMA/PCA/SPA/MPA / MCM Follow-on Input Mayor Michael, Members of the City Council, and Director McIntosh, Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to you, and the City – including to responsible City staff and the Planning Commission earlier this month – regarding the City’s proposed General Plan Amendment/Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment/Planned Community Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment/and Master Plan Amendment and more generally proposed General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Element to provide for three new zoning designations – known as City Center, City Corridor Moderate and City Corridor High (DRC2021-00281), together with the other City Plan’s associated Amendments. We understand and appreciate that the City of Rancho Cucamonga began this process (as shared previously) in January 2020 -- prior to the Covid-19 pandemic and its processing restrictions and other repercussions affecting business as usual and specifically relative to formulating these suggested land use Amendments. We also discern that these Amendment considerations are within the context of the City’s intended overall update of your General Plan, as well as the requisite/State mandated more regular update of the General Plan’s City “Housing Element.” And we further recognize that there are tremendous pressures – again from the State of California – as well as simply wanting “to do the right thing” in trying to provide locally, regionally and Statewide more housing opportunities ... given that California’s housing supply remains woefully short of ever-growing housing demands. Page 238 Furthermore, as provided earlier to staff and the Planning Commission, we understand that you are on a very tight timeline – responding to State deadlines, mandates and more. Thank you for that ‘backstory’ ... though as I shared earlier I/we had surmised much of what is facing you and other Cities both now and going forward. We regret, whatever the reason, that we were not aware of this aforementioned land use Amendments formulation – we certainly would like to have been involved in this public outreach process much earlier-on. [Per preceding conversations with staff ... we look forward to more involvement going forward however with all that you are now and later doing. Thank you for that future opportunity as well!] Then, as shared earlier with staff and provided to and acted upon (thank you) by the Planning Commission, here are our thoughts and responses to the proposed Amendments (en toto): • We do support, as verified by our earlier (Fall 2019) discussions with you (staff) regarding the opportunity for introducing mixed-use, with non-single family residential, at/in our “Foothills Crossing” commercial center (FC). And we look forward to working with the City toward that goal and vision, and its ‘sooner than later’ implementation and realization. • However, as shared previously (Fall 2019) and again earlier during our early August (2021) discussions with staff, then shared and acted upon (approving our suggestions) subsequently by the Planning Commission, we were not in full- support – then before the Commission’s actions/modifications -- of the proposed residential density standard proposed for much (but previously not all) of our property – “City Center” at 40-100 dwelling units per acre. o Strange that a land developer and landowner would suggest that this density is too high. Yet, as shared previously (2019) and which remains true (per present market data), such density simply does not “pencil” at the present time or foreseeable future. That is – the cost to construct housing at that density – is not currently met by the marketplace, i.e., the rents necessary to pay-off and for that development are not competitive in the local and surrounding market – now and for the foreseeable future. Which means anecdotally that ‘if they build it, they won’t come’ (again for now and at least some years ahead). • So, as we discussed, we suggested that – while this standard may be codified ... necessarily for your Housing Element update and the State’s ‘standards’ (of each community) – that “City Center”40-100 dwelling units (du) per acre (ac) – be the ‘maximum’ provision, and provide that lower (mixed-use) residential development – at the “City Corridor High”/35-60 du/ac as well as “City Corridor Moderate”/24- 42 du/ac – also be allowed within the “City Center” designated areas. Page 239 o We appreciate, pursuant to our earlier conversation, that at least for now – this mixed-use residential development at these lower intensities is allowed. But we understand that this “less is more” allowance may ‘go away’ in the future. So, we requested of the Planning Commission that this lower-intensity residential infusion – at the “City Corridor High” and “City Corridor Moderate” levels be permanently allowed. ... We are convinced, given past urban development, that when there is sufficient demand for this high-density residential development in a more urban setting is demanded – the populous’ demand will support the requisite economics to develop at that significantly higher development intensity. o We look forward to future discussions and contemplation in this regard – after we all have had more time for more full consideration and contemplation. o We appreciate then that staff supported this modification to the proposed Amendments’ set; and, then that (on August 11th) the Planning Commission, at its public hearing for these Amendments, agreed with these changes – providing for lower mixed- use residential now and into the foreseeable future – amending the proposed adoptive Resolutions so that, while still ‘zoned’ for City Center at 40-100 du/ac ... lower multi-family residential development can be infused at 24 du/ac and above. ... We firmly believe that this will not only provide for but now encourage residential uses in this mixed-use area sooner than later. • We were also aware that the “City Center” zoning designation was, as initially proposed, did not cover the entirety of our “Foothills Crossing” commercial center, nor suggested for any other surrounding sites/properties. o Therefore, we suggested to staff and the Planning Commission that the entirety of our FC center be singularly zoned (at that higher “City Center” standard). ... And we would requested/suggested (per above) that while zoned for higher density – lower ‘market dictated’ mixed-use residential development be allowed for on all of our “FC” center. o (Per above) we sincerely appreciate that staff and the Commission supported this designation expansion over the entire expanse of our center; and modified the Resolutions’ actions to map/designate now all of “Foothills Crossing” as City Center. Those are our suggestions/requests/thoughts. We again look forward to providing sharing additional and supplemental input/responses during the upcoming opportunities that staff provided for in the coming months. We have enjoyed our past and current dialog and congenial exchange of ideas and much look forward to its continuation. In that vein, as shared earlier, while we were unaware of the public outreach process that preceded these Amendments being provided to the Planning Commission and now City Council, we very much look forward Page 240 to much more involvement going forward – relative to not only our “Foothills Crossing” center but all the surrounding properties affected by these suggested significant Amendments and the City’s future related actions. I/we look forward to attending the City Council’s meeting and its public hearing regarding these proposed land use Amendments. I look to share a brief summary of what we have provided (above) with the City Council; and I will also deliver and provide to you directly a “hard” copy of this e-mailed input letter. Thank you again. Good luck to you and us all on Wednesday, September 1st. And please (everyone) ... stay safe, healthy, and well, and please take great care indeed. Respectfully submitted, Bret B. Bernard Monday, 30 August 2021 Bret B. Bernard, AICP Director of Planning and Development 888 South Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 Anaheim, California 92802 Bret@milancap.com 714.687.0000, ext. 119 (Office) 714.687.1900 (Facsimile) 949.500.7571 (Mobile) Page 241 Rezoning for Housing Element City Council –September 1, 2021 What and Why? •6th Cycle Update to Housing Element •Due October 15, 2021 •120 day grace period •Regional Housing Needs Assessment •Plan for 10,525 housing units (6th Cycle 2021 –2029) What and Why? •State Law •Zoning for RHNA must be in place by October 15th •Housing Element must be certified by February 12, 2022 •PlanRC General Plan •Developed Place Types •Companion Development Code Update in progress •Consequences •Lose discretionary review of certain affordable housing projects How? •Identify the number of needed planned housing units •Current Capacity: 5,103 units •Additional Needed: 5,422 units •Identify Parcels that Can be Rezoned •62 Parcels provides the potential zoning capacity needed •Incorporate Now into Existing Planning Documents •2010 General Plan •Development Code •Zoning Map •Terra Vista PC •Victoria PC •Town Square Master Plan Identified Parcels •Total of 62 parcels identified •41 –Base Zoning Districts (Development Code/Haven Overlay/Industrial Commercial Overlay) •13 –Terra Vista Planned Community •6 –Victoria Planned Community •2 –Town Square Master Plan 2010 General Plan Amendment •3 New Land Use Designations •City Center •Mixed Use •Downtown Feel •40-100 units/acre •City Corridor Moderate •Mixed Use •Active Streets •24-42 units/acre •City Corridor High •Mixed Use •Active Corridors •24-60 units/acre 2010 General Plan Amendment •3 New Land Use Designations Land Use Designation Density Range City Center 40 –100 units/acre City Corridor Moderate 24 –42 units/acre City Corridor High 24 –60 units/acre Development Code Amendment •New Zoning Districts Development Code Amendment •New Development Standards •Minimum/Maximum Density •Land Use Mix •Setbacks •Building Height •Floor Area Ratio •Open Space •Parking •Accessory Dwelling Units Development Code Amendment •Updated Land Use Table Zoning Map Amendment •Rezone 41 parcels to one of the three new zoning designations Zoning Map Amendment Remove 8 parcels from the Haven Avenue Overlay Zoning Map Amendment Remove 1 parcel from the Industrial Commercial Overlay Terra Vista •Rezone 13 parcels to Mixed Use –Urban Corridor •Defer to the Development Code for New Development Standards and Land Uses in the New Zone Victoria •Rezone 6 parcels to Mixed Use –Urban Center •Defer to the Development Code for New Development Standards and Land Uses in the New Zone Town Square •Rezone 2 parcels to Mixed Use –Urban Center •Defer to the Development Code for New Development Standards and Land Uses in the New Zone Environmental Assessment •Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR has been prepared •No new significant environmental impacts •EIR Addendum will be certified by the Council as part of final action Planning Commission •Considered by the Planning Commission on August 11, 2021 •Unanimously Recommended Approval with Staff Modifications (Resolution 21-50) •Reduce minimum density for City Corridor Moderate/Mixed Use General Urban from 36 du/acre to 24 du/acre •Add missing text for Minor Use Permit definition Notice •1/8th page Legal Ad Published on August 18, 2021 •Notices Mailed to affected property owners on August 17, 2021 •Written comments received •August 26, 2021 (Included in Staff Report) •August 31 and September 1 (On the Dias) Recommendation Staff and the Planning Commission Recommend: •Adopt Resolutions: 2021-096 –General Plan Amendment 2021-097 –Amend Town Square Master Plan •Conduct first reading of Ordinances: 983 –Amend Municipal Code (Title 17)and Zoning Map 984 –Amend Terra Vista Planned Community 985 –Amend Victoria Planned Community To redesignate 62 parcels in the City to accommodate additional housing capacity required by the RHNA as identified in the draft housing element by October 15, 2021 to retain local discretionary authority of certain affordable housing projects