Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001/03/07 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga; CA 91730 City Office: (909) 477-2700 AGENDAS REDEVELOPM ENT AGENCY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS: 1sT and 3rd Wednesdays, 7:00 p.m. i~larch 7, 2001 AgencV, Board & CitV Council ~en~bers William J. Ale×ander ....................Mayor Diane Williams ...............Mayor Pro Tem Paul Biane ...............................Member James V. Curatalo .....................Member Bob Dutton ..............................Member Jack Lam .........................City Manager James L. Markman .............City Attorney Debra J. Adams .....................City Clerk 5:30 p.m. 7:00 p.m. ORBER OF BUS~NESS Closed Session .................................. Tapia Conference Room Regular ~,edevelopmenlZ Agency Meeting ...... Council Chambers Regu8ar City Council Meeting ......................Council Chambers City Council Agenda March 7, 2001 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call: Alexander , Biane __., Curatalo__ Dutton , and Williams__ B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS Introduction of newly-assigned deputies: Detective Suzanne Cefalu, Deputy Michael Goodman, Deputy Felix Huaman, Deputy Claudia Morales, and Deputy Kathleen Oroa to the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. Presentation of a proclamation honoring the memory of Army Sgt. Bob Darin MacDonald. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. 1. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 2/14/01, 2/21/01, 2/27/01 and Payroll ending 2/11/01 for the total amount of $3,475,033.83. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the construction of the Lemon Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation from Carnelian Street to Beryl Street, to be funded from Account No. 11763035650/1266-176 (Measure 'T' Funds). RESOLUTION NO. 01-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LEMON AVENUE PAVEMENT 1 18 20 City Council Agenda March 7, 2001 REHABILITATION FROM CARNELIAN STREET TO BERYL STREET IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS Approval to authorize the advedising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the construction of the Terra Vista Parkway Pavement Rehabilitation from Church Street to Spruce Avenue, to be funded from Account No. 11763035650/1270-176 (Measure 'T' Funds). RESOLUTION NO. 039 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE "TERRA VISTA PARKWAY PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM CHURCH STREET TO SPRUCE AVENUE" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 4. Approval to declare Surplus Miscellaneous City-Owned Equipment. 5. Approval of Metrolink Station Expansion, Phase II Project - granting of an easement to the Southern California Edison Company, a Corporation, for Utility Purposes. RESOLUTION NO. 01-040 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GRANT OF EASEMENT BETWEEN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR THE PURPOSE OF RELOCATING EXISTING ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINES AND POLES AT THE METROLINK STATION EXPANSION PHASE II PROJECT SITE 6. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for DR 00-32, located on the southeast corner of 7th Street and Utica Avenue, submitted by 7th & Utica Partners, LLC. RESOLUTION NO. 01-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DR 00-32 24 26 30 33 35 36 39 City Council Agenda March 7, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 01-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 00-32 Approval of Map, Drainage Acceptance Agreement, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Parcel Map No. 15692, located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, south of Hillside Road, submitted by JRN Construction Company. RESOLUTION NO. 01-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 15692, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15692), DRAINAGE ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 01-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR PARCEL MAP 15692 Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Dan Guerra and Associates (CO 01-014) to provide Construction Services for the Proposed Civic Center East Parking Lot Expansion, in the amount of $15,250.00, to be funded from Account No. 1001 305 5300. Approval to accept the bids and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $246,015.00 ($223,650.00 plus 10% contingency) to the apparent low bidder, R. J. Noble Company, (CO 01- t 015) for the construction of the 6" Street Pavement Rehabilitation from Milliken Avenue to Charles Smith Avenue, 1o be funded from Gas Tax Proposition 111 Funds, Account No. 11703035650/1198170. 10. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with RMA Group (CO 01-016) to provide Geotechnical and Material Testing services for the proposed Civic Center East Parking Lot Expansion, in the amount of $17,432.00, to be funded from Account No. 1001 305 5300. 40 47 50 51 64 City Council Agenda March 7, 2001 4 11. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement (CO 01-017) with RJM Design Group, Inc., for the preparation of the 1-15 Freeway Landscape Master Plan to be funded from Account No. 110-316-5300. 12. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for Tracts 15727-1 and 15727-2, submitted by Cornerpointe 257, LLC, located nodh of Fourth Street and East of the Cucamonga Creek Channel. RESOLUTION NO. 01-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACTS 15727-1 AND 15727-2 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 13. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bonds, accept Maintenance Bonds, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for Tract 14379, submitted by Centex Homes, located on the north side of Wilson Avenue, west of Etiwanda Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 01-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 14379 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 14. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for Tracts 15727-4 and 15727-5, submitted by Cornerpointe 257, LLC, located north of Fourth Street and east of the Cucamonga Creek Channel. RESOLUTION NO. 01-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACTS 15727-4 AND 15727-5 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 15. Approval to accept a Maintenance Bond from K.A.S. Equipment and Rental, Inc., and release Faithful Performance Bond for the ADA 1999/2000 Access Ramp and Drive Approach Improvement at various t locations along Hermosa Avenue, Haven Avenue, 6 h Street and Arrow Route, Contract No. 00-016. 65 66 69 70 74 78 City Council Agenda March 7, 2001 5 E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non- controversial. The Council will act them upon at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. 1. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various residential sections of the Development Code pertaining to roofing materials. ORDINANCE NO. 654 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00-04, A REQUEST TO AMEND VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO ROOFING MATERIALS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 2. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.21 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO SMOKING REGULATIONS ORDINANCE NO. 384A (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.21 PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OR PROHIBITION OF SMOKING AND AMENDING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE 80 87 F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-50 - VANTIGER - An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to require the construction of storm drainage improvements on Foothill Boulevard from the existing terminus near Cornwall Avenue to Etiwanda Avenue for the development of a service station with convenience market, drive-thru fast food service and a drive-thru self-service car wash on two acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan - APN: 1100-161-002. (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 21,2001 ) 92 City Council Agenda March 7, 2001 6 APPEAL OF VARIANCE 00-09 - CONCORDIA HOMES - A request to appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to allow retaining walls approximately 10 feet in height where a maximum height of 4 feet is allowed, and slope gradients of approximately 1.5:1 where a maximum gradient of 2:1 is allowed for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera, south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207- 631-01 through 11. Related Files: Development Review 00-47 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035 - CONCORDIA HOMES - The appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera, south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207- 641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related Files: Variance 00-09 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. RESOLUTION NO. 01-048 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 TO APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR 20 PROPOSED HOMES WITHIN 21 EXISTING LOTS WITHIN RECORDED TRACT 10035 ON 15.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO PREDERA, SOUTH OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE - APN: 207-641-01 THROUGH 10 AND 207-631-01 THROUGH 11 RESOLUTION NO. 01-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING VARIANCE 00-09 A REQUEST TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET IN HEIGHT WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 4 FEET IS ALLOWED, AND SLOPE GRADIENTS OF APPROXIMATELY 1.5:1 WHERE A MAXIMUM GRADIENT OF 2:1 IS ALLOWED FOR 20 PROPOSED HOMES ON 21 EXISTING LOTS WITHIN APPROVED TRACT 10035 ON 15.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL 93 93 239 250 City Council Agenda March 7, 2001 DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO PREDERA, SOUTH OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE - APN: 207-641-01 THROUGH 10 AND 207-631-01 THROUGH 11 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following requirements. testimony. items have no legal publication or posting The Chair will open the meeting to receive public No Items Submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ALLOCATION OF THE JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT (JAIBG} TO THE REGIONAL JUVENILE CRIME ENFORCEMENT COALITION (RJCEC) RESOLUTION NO. 01-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT (JAIBG) FUNDS ADMINISTERED BY THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING (OCJP) TO THE REGIONAL JUVENILE CRIME ENFORCEMENT COALITION (RJCEC) 2. PRESENTATION OF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA KIDS' WEB PAGE 253 255 ANNEXATION 00-02 - A request to approve the Tax Revenue Exchange for annexation proceedings (LAFCO No. 2872) between the County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for approximately 60 acres of the San Bernardino County unincorporated area, generally located at the northeast corner of Banyan Street and Milliken Avenue. 256 City Council Agenda March 7, 2001 8 RESOLUTION NO. 01-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES TO BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RESULTING FROM THE JURISDICTION CHANGE DESCRIBED BY LAFCO NO. 2872 262 I. COUNCIL BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. CONSIDERATION OF A RED LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM WITH NESTOR TRAFFIC SYSTEMS 263 J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the city Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on March 1, 2001, seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/14/01 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 1 WED, FEB 14, 2001, 6:08 PM --req: KFINCHER--le~: GL JL--lOC: FINANCE---job: 23858 #S047 ..... proD: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Check Payee ID~ Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note AP00164481 000552 AP00164482 000001 AP00164483 001334 AP00164484 000007 AP00164485 006610 AP00164486 004347 AP00164487 000014 AP00164488 006309 AP00164489 005231 AP00164490 021700 AP00164491 001326 AP00164482 006290 AP00164493 006354 AP00164494 005913 AP00164495 000024 AP00164496 002299 AP00164497 006115 AP00164498 004102 AP00164499 002820 AP00164500 004699 A JONTUE, ROSFj~qN 02/14/01 4,471.65 MW OH CC AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 02/14/01 975.44 MW OH AELAC 02/14/01 308.99 MW OH ABLETRONICS 02/14/01 464.79 MW OH ABLrND~NT LIVING F~J~ILY CHURCH 02/14/01 250,00 MW OH ACCURATE SMOG AUTO A/qD TRUCK 02/14/01 273.24 MW OH ACTION TRAVEL AGENCY 02/14/01 341.00 MW OH ~D~J4SON, RONALD 02/14/01 1,280.00 MW OH CC ~JEF SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC 02/14/01 2,970.00 MW OH AIR LIQUIDE ~ERICA CORPORATI 02/14/01 15.71 MW OH ALB~qO, STEPHANIE 02/14/01 143.50 MW OH ALLEN, TONY 02/14/01 518.40 MW OH CC ~4AZON.COM 02/14/01 32.43 MW OH ~J4ERICAN V~ EQUIPMEN~f INC 02/14/01 120.47 MW OH ARBOR NURSERy INC 02/14/01 456.88 MW OH ARROW TR/~ILER SUPPLIES 02/14/01 45.10 MW OH AUFBAU CORPORATION 02/14/01 4,350.00 MW OH B ~ K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 02/14/01 1,034.56 MW OH BERNELL HYDRAULICS INC 02/14/01 16.00 MW OH BORDNER, MARGIE 02/14/01 498.00 MW OH CC 02/14/01 0.00 VM OH 02/14/01 0.00 VM OH 02/14/01 12,440.32 MW OH 02/14/01 628.00 MW OH CC 02/14/01 6,331.15 MW OH AP00164501 VOID.CONTIRrU Void - Continued Stub AP00164502 VOID.CORFfINU Void - Continued Stub AP00164503 004369 BRODART BOOKS AP00164504 001166 BRLrNSWICK DEER CREEK L~_MES AP00164505 005341 BUCKN~4 ~ ASSOCIATES Void Void CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/14/01 C E E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 2 WED, FEB 14, 2001, 6:08 PM -~req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 23858 ~S047 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note AP00164506 006459 AP00164507 006052 AP00164508 001337 AP00164509 000073 AP00164510 000074 AP00164511 004279 AP00164512 000949 AP00164513 005407 AP00164514 000130 AP00164515 001328 AP00164516 000633 AP00164517 001321 AP00164518 021567 AP00164519 005349 AP00164520 000085 AP00164521 000604 AP00164522 002512 AP00164523 004488 AP00164524 004545 AP00164525 001067 AP00164526 000347 AP00164527 001666 AP00164528 004366 AP00164529 005138 AP00164530 004544 CASTRO, RAY 02/14/01 CH/~RTER COMMUNICATIONS 02/14/01 CIESLIK, DANIEL 02/14/01 CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC 02/14/01 CITY RENTALS 02/14/01 CLj~R/{, DEBOPj~H 02/14/01 C~RK, Fa~REN 02/14/01 COMBINED MARTIAL SCIENCE 02/14/01 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 02/14/01 CONCANNON, SHARI 02/14/01 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTR 02/14/01 COURT TRUSTEE 02/14/01 CPRS DISTRICT X 02/14/01 CREATIVE N~agAGEMENT SOLUTIONS 02/14/01 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 02/14/01 CYBERCOM RESOURCES INC 02/14/01 D A R E AMERICA 02/14/01 DAGHDEVIRIAN, KATHY 02/14/01 DATA2 INC 02/14/01 DAVID, ROMEO M 02/14/01 DAY TIMERS INC 02/14/01 DAY, WINONA 02/14/01 DEMCO INC 02/14/01 DI~24OND FENCE CO 02/14/01 DICK, ERIC 02/14/01 69.31 MW OH 1,419.32 MW 128.00 MW OH 208.56 MW 1,013.00 MW OH 65.00 MW OH 252.00 MW OH 1,641.60 MW OH 14,850.37 MW OE 149.50 MW OB 86.89 MW OH 318.50 MW OH 990.00 MW OH 4,178.62 MW OR 9,450.00 MW OR 3,819.70 MW OH 441.45 MW OH 1,583.86 MW OH 3,120.00 MW OH 32.22 MW OH 102.00 MW OH 54.93 MW OH 750.00 MW OH 337.50 MW OH CC CC CC CC Payee Name different in Check DB CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/14/01 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 3 WED, FEB 14, 2001, 6:08 PM --req: KFINCEER--le~: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 23858 #S047 ..... pro~: CK200 <l.37>~-repor~ id: CKREG--- Check Payee ID. AP00164531 001667 AP00164532 004466 AP00164533 003875 AP00164534 000527 AP00164535 001559 AP00164536 041332 AP00164537 003364 AP00164538 001422 AP00164539 001599 AP00164540 090520 AP00164541 001668 AP00164542 004436 AP00164543 001669 AP00164544 000977 AP00164545 003806 AP00164546 005521 AP00164547 000123 AP00164548 001670 AP00164549 006556 AP00164550 001671 AP00164551 001069 AP00164552 001335 AP00164553 001600 AP00164554 006232 Ap00164555 004540 Payee Name Date Check ~anount Type Subs Rel To Note DOMINICK, MARYANNE 02/14/01 40.00 MW OH DOUBLETREE HOTEL 02/14/01 750.00 MW OE DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 02/14/01 70.96 MW OH DYA/g INC, DIANE 02/14/01 480.00 MW OH E TEAM COM INC 02/14/01 445.00 MW OH EDWARDS, SHERYL 02/14/01 20.00 MW OH EIGHTH AVENUE GRAPHICS 02/14/01 746.91 MW OH EIMICXE ASSOCIATES INC, V W 02/14/01 119.06 MW OH EL RANCHO GR/UqDE INC 02/14/01 5.06 MW OH EMPLOYMENT SYSTEMS INC. 02/14/01 2,808.71 MW OH ENCISO, PATRICIA 02/14/01 60.00 MW OH EPIXTECH INC 02/14/01 269.38 MW OH ESPINAL, NANCY 02/14/01 20.00 MW OH ESRI INC 02/14/01 2,400.00 MW OH ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT 02/14/01 1,540.00 MW OH EXPERIAN 02/14/01 50.00 MW OH FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 02/14/01 492.72 MW OH FICHTNER, PATRICIA 02/14/01 30.00 MW OH FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 02/14/01 6,650.33 MW OH FLOP~n/gCE, CARLA 02/14/01 36.00 MW OH FORMICHELLA, NICK 02/14/01 80.00 MW OH FR/UgCHISE T/U{ BOARD 02/14/01 137.23 MW OH G M T DESIGNS 02/14/01 44.74 MW OH GADABOUT TOURS INC 02/14/01 4,506.60 MW OH GALE GROUP,THE 02/14/01 147.40 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/14/01 C H E C K WED, FEB 14, 2001, 6:08 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date AP00164556 001385 AP00164557 003356 AP00164558 001684 AP00164559 000781 AP00164560 041012 AP00164561 041163 AP00164562 005502 AP00164563 005955 AP00164564 003827 AP00164565 006383 AP00164566 006127 AP00164567 006044 AP00164568 003334 AP00164569 001650 AP00164570 003125 AP00164571 001624 AP00164572 002412 AP00164573 000449 AP00164574 000495 AP00164575 001653 AP00164576 006689 AP00164577 006202 AP00164578 001654 AP00164579 005147 AP00164580 001941 GALLERY COLLECTION, THE 02/14/01 GARCIA, VIVIAN 02/14/01 GENTRy BROS INC 02/14/01 GILBERT, GINA 02/14/01 GILLEY, D/~NI 02/14/01 GILLI, CHRIS 02/14/01 GIORDANO, MARIANNA 02/14/01 GOLDEN WEST DISTRIBUTING 02/14/01 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 02/14/01 H.V. CARTER CO. 02/14/01 H~GER 18 02/14/01 HAPpy ELVES DECORATING 02/14/01 HEILIG, KELLY 02/14/01 HEP2~ANDEZ, STEPHANIE 02/14/01 HI STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE 02/14/01 HIX HOMES 02/14/01 HOYT, RAYMOND 02/14/01 HURST, MELISSA 02/14/01 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 02/14/01 IMPASTATO, DENISE 02/14/01 INFANT FAMILY SERVICES PROGRA 02/14/01 INLj~ND VALLEY DANCE AC/MDEMY 02/14/01 INSTITUTE ON 21ST CENTURY LIB 02/14/01 IRRIGATION ASSOCIATION 02/14/01 JACOBSEN DIVISION OF TEXTRON 02/14/01 R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 4 FINANCE---job: 23858 #S047 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note 748.42 MW OH 21.78 MW OH 149,532.75 MW OH 42.00 MW OH 144.00 MW OH 57.24 MW OH 215.45 MW OH 15.67 MW OH 160.00 MW OH CC 6,055.00 MW OH CC 931.50 MW OH CC 16.00 MW OH 191.66 MW OH 500.00 MW OH 585.90 MW OH CC 1,795.75 MW OH 48.00 MW OH 606.00 MW OH 352.00 MW OH CC 25.00 MW OH 25.00 MW OH 2,290.79 MW OH CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/14/01 C E E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 5 WED, FEB 14, 2001, 6:08 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 23858 #S047 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note AP00164581 006559 JONES, JAMES 02/14/01 210.00 MW OH CC AP00164582 004700 JONES, KEITH 02/14/01 259.20 MW OH CC AP00164583 006667 K.E.C. ENGINEERING 02/14/01 275,445.90 MW OH AP00164584 001649 K~aqESHINA, MATILDA 02/14/01 65.50 MW OH AP00164585 000172 KOZLOVICH, DEBBIE 02/14/01 1,951.20 MW OH CC AP00164586 006516 }(RUSE, JOAN A 02/14/01 1,120.00 MW OE CC AP00164587 000941 LAM, KIN 02/14/01 200.00 MW OH CC AP00164588 001664 I~524PE, J/~RRED 02/14/01 130.00 MW OH CC AP00164589 000321 Lj~NDSCAPE WEST INC 02/14/01 132,100.87 MW OH AP00164590 005216 I~AS ROSAS E~4A SORCINI 02/14/01 36.00 MW OH CC AP00164591 000197 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 02/14/01 700.00 MW OH AP00164592 006296 LIVE OAK DOG OBEDIENCE 02/14/01 924.00 MW OH CC AP00164593 001336 LOWER, DARLENE 02/14/01 251.00 MW OH AP00164594 001062 M C I WORLDCOM 02/14/01 1,116.42 MW OH AP00164595 006553 F~GRUDER, KAP~N 02/14/01 397.58 MW OH CC AP00164596 000549 MARIPOSA HORTICULTUR3~L ENT IN 02/14/01 14,713.18 MW OH AP00164597 004727 MARSHALL PLHMBING 02/14/01 1,919.50 MW OH CC AP00164598 004701 MARSH/~LL, SYLVIA 02/14/01 870.90 MW OH CC AP00164599 001652 MCCAIN, TRACY 02/14/01 60.00 MW OH AP00164600 001365 MICKEY, BRENT 02/14/01 814.00 MW OH CC AP00164601 001651 MUNOZ, JULIE 02/14/01 36.00 MW OH AP00164602 000435 N F P A 02/14/01 291.79 MW OE AP00164603 001332 N M A DUES C/O BARBAPj~ WHITE 02/14/01 13.85 MW OH AP00164604 002248 NAPA AUTO PARTS 02/14/01 985.20 MW OH AP00164605 000744 NATIONAL DEFERRED 02/14/01 22,865.60 MW OH CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/14/01 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 6 WED, FEB 14, 2001, 6:08 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FIN/~NCE---job: 23858 #S047 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note AP00164606 001331 NELSON, SUS/LN 02/14/01 473.00 MW OH 02/14/01 160.00 MW OH 02/14/01 53.86 MW OH 02/14/01 0.00 VM OH OFFICE DEPOT 02/14/01 11,141.14 MW OH ONTARIO ICE SKATING CENTER 02/14/01 691.20 MW OH OR~/qGE, COUNTy OF 02/14/01 346.67 MW OH OWEN ELECTRIC 02/14/01 92.62 MW OH PACIFIC BELL 02/14/01 3,431.80 MW OH PACIFIC EQUIP ~ IRRIGATION 02/14/01 44.24 MW OH PACIFIC PLUMBING SPECIALTIES 02/14/01 1,264.23 MW OH PADGETT THOMPSON 02/14/01 676.00 MW OH PARKER, SFj~NNON 02/14/01 144.00 MW OH PETEPa~B~4, CHERYL 02/14/01 445.50 MW OH PIRON, SRAUN 02/14/01 156.00 MW OH PLANNING CENTER, THE 02/14/01 2,982.84 MW OH PRECISION GYMNASTICS 02/14/01 781.33 MW OH PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 02/14/01 22.23 MW OH QUALITY ONE ENGRAVING 02/14/01 59.13 MW OH QUINTANA, ZITA 02/14/01 193.00 MW OH R C QUAKES PROFESSIONAL BASEB 02/14/01 704.00 MW OH RANCHO CUC~24ONGA CHAMBER 02/14/01 30.00 MW OH Pj~NCHO SCREEN PRI~ ~ EMBRO 02/14/01 101.59 MW OH REIN~{APdDT, RITA 02/14/01 528.00 MW OH REIN}IARDTSEN, DEBR/~ 02/14/01 282.50 MW OH AP00164607 001647 NIKKHA~tANESH, NASRIN AP00164608 005428 NOLO PRESS AP00164609 VOID.CONTINnJ Void - Continued Stub AP00164610 000523 AP00164611 003964 AP00164612 001330 AP00164613 000235 AP00164614 001441 AP00164615 000338 AP00164616 005343 AP00164617 001661 AP00164618 005318 AP00164619 001325 AP00164620 006148 AP00164621 006206 AP00164622 005316 AP00164623 000065 AP00164624 005899 AP00164625 001323 AP00164626 004451 AP00164627 000070 AP00164628 006058 AP00164629 006292 AP00164630 001324 Void Payee Name different in Check DB CC CC CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/14/01 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 7 WED, FEB 14, 2001, 6:08 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---j ob: 23858 #5047 ..... prog: CK200 <1.37>--report id: CKREG--- Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note AP00164631 000443 AP00164632 001427 AP00164633 001322 AP00164634 004257 AP00164635 004704 AP00164636 001677 ~P00164637 006770 AP00164638 005538 AP00164639 001590 AP00164640 000301 AP00164641 000301 AP00164642 000214 AP00164643 001673 AP00164644 005029 AP00164645 006742 AP00164646 001672 AP00164647 005634 AP00164648 001829 AP00164649 000351 AP00164650 004534 AP00164651 000317 AP00164652 000319 RHI CONSULTING 02/14/01 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES 02/14/01 RIVERSIDE CO DEPT CHILD SUPPO 02/14/01 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION COMPAN 02/14/01 RUSH, CHRIS RYNEER, JENNIFER SAFEWAY SIGN SAN/~qTONIO MATERIALS o2/14/ol o2/14/ol o2/14/ol o2/14/ol SAN BERN COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT 02/14/01 S~tN BERN COUNTY SHERIFFS 02/14/01 SAN BERN COUNTY SHERIFFS 02/14/01 SAN BERN COUArry 02/14/01 SAN]~OVAL, ANGLE 02/14/01 SB COUNTY FIRE DEPT 02/14/01 SEAGATE SOFTWARE 02/14/01 SEIKO INSTRUMENTS USA INC 02/14/01 SENN, CINDY 02/14/01 SIX FLAGS MAGIC MOUNTAIN SO CALIF EDISON CO SO CALIF GAS COMPANY AP00164653 VOID.CONTINU Void - Continued Stub AP00164654 VOID.CONTIN]3 Void - Continued Stub AP00164655 VOID,CONTIN~J Void - Continued Stub SHARED TECHNOLOGY FAIRCHILD T 02/14/01 SIGN SHOP, THE 02/14/01 o2/i4/oi o2/i4/oi o2/i4/oi o2/i4/oi 02/i4/0i o2/i4/oi 6,304.94 MW OH 76.38 MW OH 226.00 MW OH 245,580.70 MW OH 269.28 MW OH 60.00 MW OH 95.42 MW OH 441.97 MW OH 231.00 MW OH 188.00 MW OH 154.14 MW OH 3,688.49 MW OH 32.00 MW OH 23,197.75 MW OH 850.00 MW OH 23.23 MW OH 208.80 MW OH 813.96 MW OH 1,268.33 MW OH 1,482.00 MW OH 92,866.88 MW OH 6,446.14 MW OH 0.00 VM OH 0.00 VM OH 0.00 VM OH Void Void Void CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/14/01 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 8 WED, FEB 14, 2001, 6:08 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 23858 #S047 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id~ CKREG--- Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note AP00164656 VOID.CONTINU Void - Continued Stub AP00164657 001432 AP00164658 000750 AP00164659 006343 AP00164660 003017 AP00164661 003058 AP00164662 005281 AP00164663 007256 AP00164664 002344 AP00164665 002718 AP00164666 000629 AP00164667 005387 AP00164668 004448 AP00164669 003388 AP00164670 006554 .AP00164671 001021 AP00164672 002958 AP00164673 006665 AP00164674 000919 AP00164675 004606 AP00164676 004558 AP00164677 000350 AP00164678 006398 02/14/01 SOUTHERN C~LIFORNIA EDISON 02/14/01 SPECIALTY TYPEWRITER SERVICE 02/14/01 STADIUM SELF STORAGE 02/14/01 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 02/14/01 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 02/14/01 STERICYCLE INC 02/14/01 STOFA, JOSEPH 02/14/01 TARGET 02/14/01 TERRY, DONNA 02/14/01 THOMPSON, TERI 02/14/01 TIME WARNER TELECOM INC 02/14/01 TREADWAY GRAPHICS 02/14/01 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 02/14/01 TURCR ~ ASSOCIATES, DAVID 02/14/01 U S K O 02/14/01 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 02/14/01 UNION B~/qK OF CALIFORNIA 02/14/01 UNITED WAY 02/14/01 UPLAND TENNIS CLUB 02/14/01 US GUARDS CO INC 02/14/01 US POSTMASTER 02/14/01 VENTURA, LOUIS 02/14/01 02/14/01 o2/i4/oi AP00164679 VOID.CONTINU Void - Continued Stub AP00164680 000137 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 0.00 VM OH 47,238.48 MW OH 140.67 MW OH 580.00 MW OH 1,209.00 MW OH 704.00 NB~ OH 347.05 MW OH 25.00 MW OH 64.80 MW OH 345.60 MW OH 41.00 MW OH 3,750.00 MW OH 701.19 MW OH 13,475.00 MW OH 8,000.00 MW OH 240.00 MW OH 1,350.00 MW OH 30,605.10 MW OH 612.57 MW OH 540.00 MW OH 876.00 MW OH 200.00 MW OH 294.00 MW OH 0.00 VM OH 4,899.40 MW OH Void Payee Name different in Check DH Void Payee Name different in Check DB CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/14/01 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 9 WED, FEB 14, 2001, 6:08 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---j ob: 23858 #S047 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check ~nount Type Subs Rel To Note AP00164681 000137 AP00164682 006661 AP00164683 000474 AP00164684 001103 AP00164685 001329 AP00164686 001675 AP00164687 000218 AP00164688 003080 AP00164689 001676 AP00164690 000872 AP00164691 006118 AP00164692 002021 AP00164693 001124 AP00164694 004562 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 02/14/01 VERIZON WIRELESS 02/14/01 VERMEER CALIFORNIA 02/14/01 VISTA PAINT 02/14/01 VOLM, LISA 02/14/01 WALSE, TIM 02/14/01 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS INC 02/14/01 WHITTIER FERTILIZER 02/14/01 WILKERSON, BRIDGET 02/14/01 WI~ER, JOANNE 02/14/01 WORLD BOOK SCHOOL ~ LIBRARY 02/14/01 YORK INDUSTRIES 02/14/01 YOUNG SALES CO 02/14/01 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 02/14/01 GRAND TOTALS: Total Void Machine Written 0.00 Total Void Hand Written 0.00 Total Machine Written 1297,578.40 Total Hand Written 0.00 Total Reversals 0.00 Total Cancelled Checks 0.00 G R A N D T O T A L 1297,578.40 37.45 MW OH 208.24 MW OH 34,845.27 MW OH 492.20 MW OH 112.50 MW OH 468.00 MW OH 365.57 MW OH 1,433.08 MW OH 47.00 MW OH 94.50 MW OH 1,678.75 MW OH 592.62 MW OH 37.55 MW OH 1,895.86 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DE Number of Checks Processed: 8 Number of Checks Processed: 0 Number of Checks Processed: 206 Number of Checks Processed: 0 Number of Checks Processed: 0 Number of Checks Processed: 0 CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/21/01 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CRECK REGISTER Page 1 WED, FEB 21, 2001, 3:43 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 24612 #S052 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Check Payee ID. Payee Name AP00164754 006451 AAND A AUTOMOTIVE Date Check Amount T!rpe Subs Rel To Note 02/21/01 116.00 ~[~ OH AP00164755 004635 A~/qD K PHOTOGRApHy 02/21/01 28.58 MW OH AP00164756 000010 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 02/21/01 3,018.49 MW OH AP00164757 090139 A P C O 02/21/01 800.00 b~4 OH AP00164758 001721 A P MASONRY 02/21/01 13.50 MW OH AP00164759 002732 ABC LOCKSMITHS 02/21/01 310.37 MW OH AP00164760 004347 ACCURATE SMOG AUTO AND TRUCK 02/21/01 244.89 MW OH AP00164761 000211 ADT SECURITY SERVICES INC 02/21/01 564.00 MW OH AP00164762 001726 ADVANCE OVERHEAD DOOR INC 02/21/01 18.00 MW OH AP00164763 005231 AEF SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC 02/21/01 18,242.50 MW OH AP00164764 006354 AMAZON.COM 02/21/01 500.00 MW OH AP00164765 001366 AMERICAS BODY COMPANY 02/21/01 4,981.16 MW OH AP00164766 001730 ANDERSON, LA DONNA 02/21/01 175.00 MW OH AP00164767 000024 ARBOR NURSERy INC 02/21/01 537.50 MW OH AP00164768 001728 ARRIOLA, JOSE 02/21/01 177.00 MW OH AP00164769 005995 ASC SCIENTIFIC 02/21/01 160.51 ~q OH AP00164770 006255 ASSI SECURITy 02/21/01 210.00 MW OH AP00164771 001724 AZTEC UNIFORM ~ TOWEL RENTA 02/21/01 24.70 MW OH AP00164772 004754 B~3DGE A MINIT 02/21/01 149.95 MW OH AP00164773 000262 BARCO OUTDOOR PRODUCTS 02/21/01 660.01 MW OH AP00164774 004475 BARNES ~ NOBLE 02/21/01 67.30 MW OH AP00164775 000033 BASELINE TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 02/21/01 316.56 MW OH AP00164776 002863 BEE REMOVERS 02/21/01 75.00 MW OR AP00164777 004441 BEST BUY CO INC 02/21/01 9.67 MW OH AP00164778 004407 BETTER ENERGy IDEAS 02/21/01 123.75 MW OH CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/21/01 C E E C K WED, FEB 21, 2001, 3:43 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: Check Payee ID. Payee Name AP00164779 000800 BILLINGS, CURT AP00164780 001727 AP00164781 006695 AP00164782 001725 AP00164783 004410 AP00164784 001732 AP00164785 001223 AP00164786 000069 AP00164787 006052 AP00164788 006052 AP00164789 001723 AP00164790 006384 AP00164791 001337 AP00164792 000073 AP00164793 004279 AP00164794 006215 AP00164795 006548 AP00164796 004774 AP00164797 001729 AP00164798 002470 AP00164799 000643 AP00164800 000633 AP00164801 006709 AP00164802 002051 AP00164803 001409 Date 02/21/01 BLOCK, MAUREEN 02/21/01 BOYLE ENGINEERING 02/21/01 BROWN, EDWARD A 02/21/01 BURNS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY 02/21/01 CALIFORNIA SATSUNG SOCIETY 02/21/01 CALSENSE 02/21/01 CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HS DISTRI 02/21/01 CHARTER CO~UNICATIONS 02/21/01 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 02/21/01 CHERONYS DELI 02/21/01 CHILDRENS PLUS INC 02/21/01 CIESLIK, D~/qIEL 02/21/01 CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC 02/21/01 CLARK, DEBORAH 02/21/01 CM SCHOOL SUPPLy 02/21/01 COASTLINE COVER COMPANy 02/21/01 COLE, NINA 02/21/01 COLES, FRANCES K 02/21/01 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 02/21/01 COMPUTERLAND 02/21/01 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTR 02/21/01 COPP CRUSHING, D/%N 02/21/01 COUNTRy ESTATE FENCE CO INC 02/21/01 CPSRPTC 02/21/01 R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 2 FINANCE---job: 24612 #S052 ..... pro9: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note 33.27 MW OH 24.00 MW OH 9,210.08 MW OH 62.42 MW OH 4,949.25 MW OH 200.00 MW OH 2,282.36 MW OH 585.90 MW OH 325.00 MW OH 250.00 MW OH 23.00 MW OH 2,878.86 MW OH 128.00 MW OH 4,771.67 MW OH 36.11 MW OH 191.58 MW OH 1,251.30 MW OH 17.36 MW OH 30.00 MW OH 564.17 MW OH 415.62 MW OH 162.33 MW OH 40.00 MW OH 1,203.96 MW OH 255.00 MW OH CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/21/01 C E E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 3 WED, FEB 21, 2001, 3:43 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FIN~NCE---job: 24612 #S052 ..... prog: CK200 <1.37>~-report id: CKREG--- Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date AP00164804 VOID.CONTINU Void - Continued Stub AP00164805 000085 AP00164806 000789 AP00164807 000604 AP00164808 000239 AP00164809 000105 AP00164810 002478 AP00164811 001290 AP00164812 004544 AP00164813 005613 AP00164814 000229 AP00164815 004914 AP00164816 003088 AP00164817 006685 AP00164818 004762 AP00164819 002840 AP00164820 004540 AP00164821 004685 AP00164822 001684 AP00164823 003992 AP00164824 000139 AP00164825 005955 AP00164826 000650 AP00164827 003827 AP00164828 005699 02/21/01 CUC~iMONGA CO WATER DIST 02/21/01 CUTTING EDGE LANDSCAPE INC 02/21/01 CYBERCOM RESOURCES INC 02/21/01 D ~ K CONCRETE COMPANY 02/21/01 D~/q GUERRA/~ND ASSOCIATES 02/21/01 DAPPER TIRE CO 02/21/01 DEER CREEK CAR CARE CENTER 02/21/01 DICK, ERIC 02/21/01 EMPIRE REPROGRAPHICS 02/21/01 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02/21/01 EXCLUSIVE E~GES 02/21/01 FIRST STOP MOTORSPORTS INC 02/21/01 FOOTHILL BEVEPj~GE COMPNAy 02/21/01 FOOTHILL F~ILY SHELTER 02/21/01 FORD OF UPL~3qD INC 02/21/01 GALE GROUP,TBE 02/21/01 GAYLORD BROTHERS 02/21/01 GENTRy BROS INC 02/21/01 GIBBYS FENCING MATERIALS 02/21/01 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIES 02/21/01 GOLDEN WEST DISTRIBUTING 02/21/01 GRAINGER, WW 02/21/01 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 02/21/01 HAPj~LAMBOS BEVERAGE COMPLY 02/21/01 Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Mote 0.00 VM OH 9,787.44 ~Bq OH 500.00 MW OH AR 5,175.00 ~Sq OH 38,416.00 MW OH 149.08 MW OH 21.00 MW OB 75.00 MW OH 61.92 MW OH 465.22 MW OH 27.95 MW OH 450.00 MW OH 124.25 b~q OH 937.60 MW OB 219.95 MW OH 305.21 MW OB 16,879.07 MW OH 215.00 MW OH 204.84 MW OH 110.88 MW OH 1,190.58 MW OH 287.45 P~q OH 380.25 MW OH Void Payee Name different in Check DB CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/2i/0i C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 4 WED, FEB 21, 2001, 3:43 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 24613 #8052 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note AP00164829 001682 FARLOW, LAURA 02/21/01 15.00 MW ON AP00164830 004984 FAWTHORNE LIFT SYSTEMS 02/21/01 141.48 MW OH AP00164831 000462 HCS CUTLER STEEL CO 02/21/01 332.51 MW OH AP00164832 001687 NEIDEN, DOE 02/21/01 48.00 ~F~ OH AP00164833 001694 HERMOSA TECHNOLOGY CENTER 02/21/01 175.43 MW OH AP00164834 000158 ROLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 02/21/01 1,039.40 MW OR AP00164835 001702 HOLT FIRE PROTECTION 02/21/01 44.10 MW ON AP00164836 004033 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 02/21/01 528.17 MW ON AP00164837 001234 HOSE MAN INC 02/21/01 6.74 MW OH AP00164838 000161 ROYT LUMBER CO, S M 02/21/01 155.16 MW OH AP00164839 001690 RU/~NG, K3%REN 02/21/01 25.00 MW OH AP00164840 000495 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 02/21/01 791.66 MW ON AP00164841 000495 NYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 02/21/01 111.02 ~q OH AP00164842 003276 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS 02/21/01 325.65 MW OH AP00164843 001695 IDEAL UNIFORM RENTAL 02/21/01 6.18 MW ON AP00164844 006710 INDUSTRIAL HARDWARE E SERVI 02/21/01 1,481.35 MW OH AP00164845 005087 INGERSOLL R/~ND 02/21/01 124.45 MW OH AP00164846 005682 INLAND INDUSTRIkL MEDICAL GRO 02/21/01 293.90 MW OH CC AP00164847 000908 INLAND MEDIATION BOARD 02/21/01 1,986.44 MW OH AP00164848 000122 INL/~ VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 02/21/01 927.14 MW OR AP00164849 002315 INL/~ND WHOLESALE NURSERY 02/21/01 440.18 MW OH AP00164850 005193 INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION 02/21/01 75.00 MW OH AP00164851 090933 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 02/21/01 44.86 MW OH AP00164852 003989 INTOXIPeTERS INC 02/21/01 88.82 MW OH AP00164853 002507 INVENSYS BUILDING SYSTEMS INC 02/21/01 15,893.00 MW OH CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/21/01 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 5 WED, FEB 21, 2001, 3:43 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 24612 #S052 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check ~anount Type Subs Rel To Note AP00164854 005147 IRRIGATION ASSOCIATION 02/21/01 25.00 MW OH AP00164855 001703 J D JIMENEZ CONCRETE CONTRACT 02/21/01 16.52 MW AP00164856 001700 JACK IN THE BOX # 3152 02/21/01 46.00 MW AP00164857 001941 JACOBSEN DIVISION OF TEXTRON 02/21/01 495.19 MW AP00164858 000175 JOBS AVAILABLE 02/21/01 248.40 MW OH AP00164859 001692 JONES, ~/qNA MARIE 02/21/01 145.00 MW OH AP00164860 004431 JONS FLAGS ~ POLES 02/21/01 832.91 MW OH AP00164861 001716 K B HOMES 02/21/01 48.20 MW OH AP00164862 001024 KOCH MATERIALS COMPANy 02/21/01 196.35 MW AP00164863 004982 KORANDA CONSTRUCTION 02/21/01 439.50 MW OH AP00164864 001699 KRAGEN AUTO SUPPLY # 745 02/21/01 7.50 MW AP00164865 006516 KRUSE, JO~3q A 02/21/01 1,120.00 MW AP00164866 001704 L AND L NURSERY SUPPLY 02/21/01 36.00 MW OH AP00164867 000339 LAM, JACK 02/21/01 39.74 MW OH AP00164868 001664 LAMPE, JARRED 02/21/01 84.00 MW AP00164869 001691 LANDIN, PAULA 02/21/01 30.00 MW OH AP00164870 005199 LASER LINE 02/21/01 260.45 MW AP00164871 006619 LASER TECHNOLOGY INC 02/21/01 34,511.90 MW AP00164872 000849 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 02/21/01 568.52 MW AP00164873 001693 LEJELFNE, TERA 02/21/01 33.00 MW OH AP00164874 000979 LEWIS OPERATING CORP 02/21/01 17.00 MW OH AP00164875 005884 LILBURN CORPORATION 02/21/01 8,710.20 MW OH AP00164876 005274 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 02/21/01 1,140.00 MW OH AP00164877 001696 LLOYD DDS, JEFFERY D 02/21/01 146.00 MW OH AP00164878 001455 LONGS DRUGS 02/21/01 7.25 MW OH CC CC CC CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/21/01 C E E C K WED, FEB 21, 2001, 3:43 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date AP00164879 005662 LOS ANGELES COCA COLA BTL CO 02/21/01 AP00164880 001706 AP00164881 004896 AP00164882 001683 AP00164883 007164 AP00164884 004727 AP00164885 000250 AP00164886 001707 AP00164887 001705 AP00164888 001365 AP00164889 002597 AP00164890 003860 AP00164891 004374 AP00164892 001631 AP00164893 001689 AP00164894 001020 AP00164895 000842 AP00164896 001709 AP00164897 002248 AP00164898 006687 AP00164899 002090 AP00164900 001708 AP00164901 005221 AP00164902 004853 M D DIET 02/21/01 ~L~CS SPRING SHOP 02/21/01 b~ILE, ROBIN 02/21/01 EEl=A, ROSARI0 02/21/01 ~RSH3LGL PL~BING 02/21/01 MARTINEZ TOWING ~ AUTOMOTIV 02/21/01 MATTRESS DISCOUNTERS CORP 02/21/01 MCCAY INTERIgATIONAL 02/21/01 MICKEY, BREN~ 02/21/01 MIN~gESOTA WESTERN 02/21/01 MOBILE MINI INC 02/21/01 MOBILE STORAGE GROUP INC 02/21/01 MOSQUEDA KIMBERLY 02/21/01 MOT~4EDI, REZA 02/21/01 MOL~qTAIN VIEW GLASS ~ MIRRO 02/21/01 MOUNTAIN VIEW S~L~LL ENG REPAI 02/21/01 NABISCO INC 02/21/01 NAPA AUTO PARTS 02/21/01 NATIONS RENT 02/21/01 NBSGOVEP~qMENT FIN~CE GROUP 02/21/01 NEW HOMES SALES SERVICE INC 02/21/01 NORSTAR INDUSTRIES 02/21/01 OCLC INC 02/21/01 02/21/01 AP00164903 VOID.CObTfINIJ Void - Continued Stub R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 6 FI~d%NCE---jOb: 24612 #S052 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note 199.22 MW OH 14.00 MW OH 450.05 ~Sq OH 40.00 MW OH 66.18 MW OH 419.49 ~ OH CC 135,00 MW OH 46.00 MW OH 19.80 FSq OH 627.00 MW OH CC 316.90 MW OH 461.84 MW OH 135.02 MW OH 375.00 F[~ OH AR 48.00 MW OH 223.45 MW OH 55.86 MW OH 756.97 MW OH 1,263.00 MW OH 12.10 MW OH 1,751.20 MW OH 8.37 MW OH 20.44 MW OH 50.16 NW OH 0.00 VM OH Void CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/21/01 C H E C K WED, FEB 21, 2001, 3:43 PM --req: KFINCEER--leg: GL JL--loo: Check Payee ID. Payee Name AP00164904 000523 OFFICE DEPOT AP001S4905 006722 AP00164906 002921 AP00164907 001441 AP00164908 000338 AP00164909 006287 AP00164910 001701 AP00164911 004223 AP00164912 000701 AP00164913 000487 AP00164914 006623 AP00164915 005720 AP00164916 004267 AP00164917 001697 AP00164918 006148 AP00164919 000272 AP00164920 001049 AP00164921 000693 AP00164922 00S688 AP00164923 001698 AP00164924 001713 AP00164925 000065 AP00164926 005899 AP00184927 001710 AP00164928 000251 R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 7 FIN~NCE---job: 24612 #SOS2 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note o2/2i/ol OPEN APPS 02/21/01 P A P A 02/21/01 PACIFIC HELL 02/21/01 PACIFIC EQUIP ~ IRRIGATION 02/31/01 PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA 02/21/01 PAK-WEST PAPER & CHEMICAL 02/21/01 PAPER DIRECT INC 02/21/01 PARKS,LYLE JR 02/21/01 PATTON SkLES CORP 02/21/01 PENWORTHY 02/21/01 PERVO PAINT CO 02/21/01 PETES ROAD SERVICE 02/21/01 PHOTO TRANSFER AND MORE 02/21/01 PIRON, SHAUN 02/21/01 PITNEY BOWES 02/21/01 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 02/21/01 POWERSTRIDE BATTERy CO INC 02/21/01 PRIMA 02/2i/0i PROS TEST INC 02/21/0i PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS PUBLICAT 02/21/01 PRUDENTIALOVERS~LL SUPPLY 02/21/01 QUALITY ONE ENGRAVING 02/21/01 QUIEL BROS SIGN CO 02/21/01 R ~2qD R AUTOMOTIVE 02/21/01 680.00 MW OH CC 1,106.33 F~q OH 2,149.61 NW OH 34,752.96 MW OH 72.00 MW OH 139.90 MW OH 1,239.08 MW OH 94.60 F~q OH 1,181.53 MW OH 36.00 MW OH 204.00 MW OR CC 449.46 NW OR 248.80 l~M OH 50.00 ~FW OR 25.00 MW OH 432.00 MW OH 7.41 NW OH 47.30 MW OH 108.00 NW OH 2,437.32 MW OH CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/21/01 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 8 WED, FEB 21, 2001, 3:43 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 24612 #S052 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>~~report id: CKREG--- Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check ~Jnount Type Subs Rel To Note AP00164929 000345 R D O EQUIPMENT CO POWERPL~/~ 02/21/01 255.91 ~ OH AP00164930 002705 R ~ F INC 02/21/01 704.26 FSq OH AP00164931 000418 R M A GROUP 02/21/01 140.00 ~q OH AP00164932 005174 PJ~NCHO CUCAMONGA F}~MILy YMCA 02/21/01 500.00 ~F~ OH AP00164933 001711 RANCHO CUC/~MONGA IN~D.C/O H/~VE 02/21/01 48.35 MW OH AP00164934 004130 RBM LOCK ~ KEY SERVICE 02/21/01 22.58 ~Sq OH AP00164935 000545 RED WING SHOE STORE 02/21/01 291.63 MW OH AP00164936 000545 RED WING SHOE STORE 02/21/01 150.00 ~ OH AP00164937 003368 RESOURCE DIRECTORY 02/21/01 46.95 ~q OH AP00164938 005618 RICHAPdDS WATSON AND GERSHON 02/21/01 28,230.60 MW OH AP00164939 000528 RIDGELINE ROOFING 02/21/01 3,760.00 ~Sq OH AP00164940 000276 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 02/21/01 72.57 ~FW OH AP00164941 005745 SAFELITE GLASS CORP 02/21/01 546.93 ~q OH AP00164942 006770 SAFEWAY SIGN 02/21/01 1,143.53 MW OH AP00164943 000301 S/~N BEPdq COL~TY SHERIFFS 02/21/01 949,630.33 MW OH AP00164944 000214 SAN BERN COUNTy 02/21/01 38.99 MW OH AP00164945 000150 SA/q BER/q COUNtry 02/21/01 205,678.90 MW OH AP00164946 005088 S~/qTA FE SPRINGS, CITY OF 02/21/01 285.00 MW OH AP00164947 006604 SCHNEIDER, D/LNIEL 02/21/01 39.20 ~F~ OH AP00164948 001733 SCHWETZ, BRENDA 02/21/01 55.00 ~ OH AP00164949 001105 SE~J~ FURNITURE/LND SYSTEM INC 02/21/01 14,069.66 MW OH AP00164950 001465 SELECT MI~SONRY CONTRACTOR 02/21/01 250.00 MW OH AP00164951 001829 SHARED TECHNOLOGY FAIRCHILD T 02/21/01 1,869.80 MW OH AP0~164952 000351 SIGN SHOP, THE 02/21/01 139.75 MW OH AP00164953 001327 S~L~RT ~ FINAL 02/21/01 23.62 bfN OH Payee Name different in Check DB CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/21/01 C H E C K WED, FEB 21, 2001, 3:43 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date AP00164954 006092 AP00164955 000682 AP00164956 001734 AP00164957 004176 AP00164958 000902 AP00164959 003017 AP00164960 001720 AP00164961 003632 AP00164962 000896 AP00164963 004733 AP00164964 005685 AP00164965 006411 AP00164966 001719 AP00164967 001615 AP00164968 003942 AP00164969 001736 AP00164970 001919 AP00164971 003388 AP00164972 002737 AP00164973 002737 AP00164974 003437 AP00164975 004206 AP00164976 005601 AP00164977 002682 AP00164978 006004 R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 9 FIN}~NCE---job: 24612 ~S052 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--* Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note SMOKE DETECTORS, THE 02/21/01 SPEEDWAY MUFFLER INC 02/21/01 STAGE DIRECTIONS 02/21/01 STATE BOARE OF EQUALIZATION 02/21/01 STATE OF CA DEPARTMENT OF TRA 02/21/01 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 02/21/01 STATER BROS MARKET #53&78 02/21/01 STEELWORKERS OLDTIMERS FOUNDA 02/21/01 STEVEN WALKER HOMES 02/21/01 SUNRISE FORD 02/21/01 SURE SHPaD DOCUMENT DESTRUCTI 02/21/01 SWEETS CLEAN SWEEP 02/21/01 SWIFTS ORCHIDS 02/21/01 TELLES, JONI 02/21/01 TERNINIX INTER/qATIONAL 02/21/01 TERRA VISTA CINEMA 6/GLOBE TH 02/21/01 TOMARK SPORTS INC 02/21/01 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 02/21/01 U C REGENTS 02/21/01 U C REGENTS 02/21/01 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 02/21/01 UNIQUE CREATIONS 02/21/01 UNIQUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES IN 02/21/01 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 02/21/01 UNITEK TECHNOLOGY INC 02/21/01 1,225.00 MW OH 129.88 MW OH 19.95 MW OH 63.85 MW OH 4,266.75 MW OH 54.23 MU OH 46.00 MW OH 2,011.95 MW OH 3,150.00 ME OH 4.62 ME OH 56.00 MW OH 9,300.00 MW OH 5.73 MW OH 10.00 MW OH 53.00 MW OH 1,494.00 MW OH 506.78 ME OH 3,318.00 MW OH 65.00 ME OH 300.00 MW OH 2,728.17 MW OH 1,794.09 MW OH 426.82 MW OH 4,500.00 MW OH 2,076.90 MW OH CITy OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/21/01 C H E C K R E G I S T E R WED, FEB 21, 2001, 3:43 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 24612 Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check ~nount Type AP00164979 011829 AP00164980 000137 AP00164981 006661 AP00164982 002340 AP00164983 000046 AP00164984 000213 AP00164985 004331 AP00164986 005526 AP00164987 000267 AP00164988 005222 AP00164989 000509 AP00164990 004662 VERANDA COMMUNICATIONS INC 02/21/01 127.00 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 02/21/01 1,954.20 VERIZON WIRELESS 02/21/01 3,966.69 VORTEX INDUSTRIES 02/21/01 508.19 VI/LCAN CALMAT ASPHALT 02/21/01 431.98 WAXIE 02/21/01 3,622.37 WEST END YWCA 02/21/01 731.00 WEST GROUP 02/21/01 565.15 WESTERN ROCK CO 02/21/01 225.00 WHITE CAP 02/21/01 178.25 XEROX CORPORATION 02/21/01 900.44 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 02/21/01 716.42 GRAND TOTALS: Total Void Machine Written 0.00 Total Void Hand Written 0.00 Total Machine Written 1531, 231.92 Total Hand Written 0.00 Total Reversals 0.00 Total Cancelled Checks 0.00 G R A N D T O T A L 1531,231.92 CHECK REGISTER Page 10 #S052 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Subs Rel To Note MW OH MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB MW OH MW OH MW OH MW OH MW OH MW OH MW OH MW OH MW OH MW OR Number of Checks Processed: 2 Number of Checks Processed: 0 Number of Checks Processed: 235 Number of Checks Processed: 0 Number of Checks Processed: 0 Number of Checks Processed: 0 CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/27/01 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 1 TUE~ FEB 27, 2001, 3:06 PM --req: CGONZ~LE--leg: GL JL--loc: FIN~NCE---j ob: 25425 #S037 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note AP00165089 006545 CAFE j~JSTICE 02/27/01 494,50 ~FW IP GRAND TOTALS: Total Void Machine Written Total Void Hand Written Total Machine Written Total Hand Written Total Reversals Total Cancelled Checks GRAND TOTAL 0.00 0.00 494.50 0,00 0.00 0.00 494.50 Number Of Checks Processed: 0 Number of Checks Processed: 0 Number of Checks Processed; 1 Number of Checks Processed: 0 Number of Checks Processed: 0 Number of Checks Processed: 0 AP00165090 006661 CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/27/01 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 1 TUE, FEB 27, 2001, 3:19 PM --req: CGONZALE--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 25452 #S037 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG--- Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note VERIZON WIRELESS GRAND TOTALS: Total Void Machine Written Total Void Hand Written Total Machine Written Total Hand Written Total Reversals Total Cancelled Checks GRAND TOTAL 02/27/01 2,613.62 MW IP 0.00 0.00 2,613.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,613.62 Number of Checks Processed: 0 Number of Checks Processed: 0 Number of Checks Processed: 1 Number of Checks Processed: 0 Number of Checks Processed: 0 Number of Checks Processed: 0 RANC h 0 ENGINEERING C UCA M ON GA DEPARTMENT Staff Report DATE: TO: March 7, 2001 Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: BY: SUBJECT: William J. O'Neit, City Engineer ~ Lucinda E. Hackett, Associate Enginee APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LEMON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM CARNELIAN STREET TO BERYL STREET TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 11763035650/1266-176 (MEASURE 'T' FUNDS) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve plans and specifications for the construction of the Lemon Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation from Carnelian Street to Beryl Street and approve the attached Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids". BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS: The Lemon Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation scope of work to be performed in general consists of, but is not limited to, excavation, saw cutting, removal of existing A.C. pavement, cold planing, crack sealing, rubberized overlay, asphalt paving, re-striping and pavement markings. The project is to be funded from Measure "1" funds, Account No. 11763035650/1266-176. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt per Article 19, Section 15301 (c) of the CEQA guidelines. The Engineer's estimate for the Lemon Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation is $149,300. Legal advertising is scheduled for March 13, 2001 and March 27, 2001, with bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 10, 2001. Re ully submitted, Wi ' City Engineer WJO:LEH:Ieh Attachments LEMON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION (FROM CARNELIAN STREET TO BERYL STREET) .4 I" 24~1 ST CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA VICINITY MAP RESOLUTION NO. {~/' a~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE "LEMON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM CARNELIAN STREET TO BERYL STREET" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for the "LEMON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM CARNELIAN STREET TO BERYL STREET". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 10, 2001, sealed bids or proposals for the "LEMON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - FROM CARNELIAN STREET TO BERYL STREET" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of "LEMON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - FROM CARNELIAN STREET TO BERYL STREET." PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a RESOLUTION NO. Page 2 similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or 2./ RESOLUTION NO. Page 3 journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract 2.2. RESOLUTION NO. Page 4 which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) or Class "C-12" License (Earthwork or Paving Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non-refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non-reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, reserves the right to reject any or all bids. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 7th day of March, 2001. Publish Dates: March 13, 2001 and March 27, 2001 RAN C HO CUCA MONGA I I~NGINEERING DEPARTFfENT Stuff Report DATE: March 7, 2001 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager BY: SUBJECT: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer e~ Lucinda E, Hackett, Associate Engine APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERRA VISTA PARKVVAY PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM CHURCH STREET TO SPRUCE AVENUE TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 11763035650/1270-176 (MEASURE 'T' FUNDS) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve plans and specifications for the construction of the Terra Vista Parkway Pavement Rehabilitation from Church Street to Spruce Avenue and approve the attached Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids". BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS: The Tetra Vista Parkway Pavement Rehabilitation scope of work to be performed in general consists of, but not limited to, excavation, saw cutting, removal of existing A.C. pavement, cold planing, crack sealing, rubberized overlay, asphalt paving, re-striping and pavement markings. The project is to be funded from Measure 'T' funds, Account No. 1176303565011270-176. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt per Article 19, Section 15301 (c) of the CEQA guidelines. The Engineer's estimate for the Terra Vista Parkway Pavement Rehabilitation is $101,100. Legal advertising is scheduled for March 13, 2001 and March 27, 2001, with bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 10, 2001. R ctfully submitted, City Engineer WJO:LEH:Ieh Attachments TERRA VISTA PARKWAY PAVEMENT REHABILITATION (FROM CHURCH STREET TO SPRUCE AVENUE) FG~)THILL CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA VICINITY MAP h'TS RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE "TERRA VISTA PARKWAY PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM CHURCH STREET TO SPRUCE AVENUE" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for the "TERRA VISTA PARKWAY PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM CHURCH STREET TO SPRUCE AVENUE". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 10, 2001, sealed bids or proposals for the "TERRA VISTA PARKWAY PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - FROM CHURCH STREET TO SPRUCE AVENUE" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of TERRA VISTA PARKWAY PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - FROM CHURCH STREET TO SPRUCE AVENUE." PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a RESOLUTION NO. Page 2 similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. RESOLUTION NO. Page 3 The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Parf 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. RESOLUTION NO. Page 4 No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) or Class "C-12" License (Earthwork or Paving Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non-refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non-reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, reserves the right to reject any or all bids. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 7th day of March, 2001. Publish Dates: March 13, 2001 and Mamh 27, 2001 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 7~ 2001 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP. City Manager FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director BY: Joan A. Kruse, Acting Purchasing Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO DECLARE SURPLUS MISCELLANEOUS CITY-OWNED EQUIPMENT RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approval be given to surplus the City-owned equipment on the attached listing which is either no longer needed, obsolete or unusable. BACKGROUND The City's purchasing manual ideoti~es two major categories of surplus property: material and supplies, and capital equipment. It has been the policy of the City to request that the City Council provide authorization to the Purchasing Manager to dispose of City property by declaring such items surplus. Methods of surplus can be transfer to another department, trade-in, sale by bid or auction, sale as scrap, donation, or simply disposing of the equipment. The majority of items to be surplused is computer-related equipment. If Council is in agreement, this equipment will be sent to auction or donated to the Detwiler Foundation Computer Ibr Schools Program, which is based in La Jolla, California. This organization, in conjunction with the California Department of Corrections, reti~rbishes and upgrades equipment and in turn donates it to area schools. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence I. Temple Administrative Services Director /dmc Attach. RANCHO CUCAMONGA SURPLUS LIST With Asset Tags DATE HARDWARE H.P. 4500 Color LaserJet H.P. NETSERVER 5/133 H.P. VECTRA VL5 H.P. VECTRA MS 4/50i H.P. VECTRA 233 HP. VECTRA XU 6/150 SUMMA SKETCH PLUS NILE IBM THINKPAD PIONEER CD-ROM CHANGER HP. VECTRA M2 4/50i IBM MICRO REGISTRATOR H.P. VECTRA VL5/600 H.P. VECTRA VL 5/600 H.P. VECTRA VL 5/100 HP. VECTRA 5/166 H.P. VECTRAVL5 133 APPLE LASERWRITER APPLE PC H.P. VECTRA VL 6/200 EPSQN PRINTER ITHACA CASH RECEIPT H.P. SCAN JET 6100C H.P. NETSERVER MUSTECK 1200 SCANNER ERWIN TAPE BACK UP H.P. VECTRA 4/50i TOSHIBA PRINTER NEC LAPTOP TEXAS INSTRUMENT LAPTOP TOSHIBA LAPTOP EPSON DFX 8000 SERIAL NUMBER JPD0102279 SG62040992 US71703106 3434A04189 US73924589 SG0201344 101700097720308000 14450 23-B2M95 8521228 :3424A05014 26-B0540 US55057366 US54852818 US55057239 US72413040 US72707526 CA2389V4%M2016G FC243276C53 US73655126 4011237 FN001796945 SG88C140KC 3417S00160 AC7000924 0001149BX-01 3434A04216 ZY18345 42007670 501415T1970 4432931 OBZ0036472 i FA# 1~02135 !01451 ~ 01649 ;01352 ~21941 '~01411 i00499 i02015 I 01366 .000202 ;01329 1000039 !01416 102003 ',01421 000280 ~01654 i01133 ~01131 ~000291 100266 :01980 '01982 ~01198 '01972 00510 000186 00180 01337 02029 01228 000193 Prepared by VVVilliam 2/27/01 Page 1 j F Surplus Inventory · Micro~che Reader (asset tag # 001149) · IBM Selectric II correcting typewriter (asset tag #00399) · Sharp SF-7070 Electrostatic copy machine (asset tag # 01356) · IBM Selectric II correcting typewriter (asset tag #00249) · IBM Selectric lI correcting typewriter (asset tag #00448) RAN C HO CUCA MON GA [ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: March 7, 2001 Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: BY: SUBJECT: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer / METROLINK STATION EXPANSION, PHASE II PROJECT GRANTING OF AN EASEMENT TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION, FOR UTILITY PURPOSES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution granting an easement to the Southern California Edison Company for the relocation of transmission poles within the new Metrolink Station parking lot site and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said easement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The City's Metrolink Station since it's opening in 1995 has been a success. An unfortunate consequence of this success has been that the original parking lot is being filled to capacity every workday. Later arriving vehicles have been forced to park anywhere they could. To alleviate this over-flow parking problem, the Council during its September 20, 2000 meeting, approved the Metrolink Station Expansion, Phase II Project. The primary goal of this project was the construction of a second parking lot. Southern California Edison Company has an existing easement though the project site for its transmission lines and poles. However the transmission poles, at their present locations, would be in the travel way of the new parking lot. Physical constraints caused by the alignment of the existing easement do not allow the relocation of the transmission poles onto nearby planter boxes. A new easement needs to be granted to CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Metrolink Station Expansion March 7, 2001 Page 2 the Southern California Edison Company so that the transmission lines can be realigned and the transmjssjon poles relocated. Upon completion of the realignment and relocation, Southern California Edison Company will quit claim their original easement through the project site. Respectfully submitted, V~!mj~' O,Neil~ City Engineer WJO:WS:kf Attachments P SOLUTION NO. D / ' d9 qO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GRANT OF EASEMENT DOCUMENT BETWEEN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR THE PURPOSE OF RELOCAT1NG EXISTING ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINES AND POLES AT THE METROLINK STATION EXPANSION PHASE II PROJECT SITE WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has for its consideration a Grant of Easement Document from Southem California Edison Company; and WHEREAS, the Easement provides for the relocation of existing electrical transmission lines and poles at the Metrolink Station Expansion, Phase II Project site, located at the southwest comer of Milliken Avenue and the Metrolink Railroad Tracks; and WHEREAS, City hereby considers said relocation of existing electrical transmission lines and poles essential for the completion of the Metrolink Station Expansion, Phase II Project. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve that said Easement Document be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is authorized to sign same on behalf of the City and the Clerk to attest thereto. RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEEI~ING DEPAI~TH~NT sc fRepor DARE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 7, 2001 Mayor and members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Joe Stofa Jr., Associate Engineer APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 FOR DR 00-32, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 7TM STREET AND UTICA AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY 7TM & UTICA PARTNERS, LLC RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving DR 00-32, accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS DR 00-32, located on the southeast corner of 7th Street and Utica Avenue, was approved by the Planning Commission on July 31, 2000, for the development of an industrial building. The Developer, 7th & Utica Partners, LLC, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $9,300.00 Labor and Material Bond: $4,650.00 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City. Olerk's Office. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DR 00-32 March 7, 2001 Page 2 Letters of approval have been received from Cucamonga County Water District. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation forms signed by the Developer are on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:JS:sc Attachments r N.T.S. ~17~ ST ACACIA ST TTHST JERSEY el. PROJECT 8TH ST ~ title;' ,o?- .......~,...CITY OF R-ANCI:IO _CUCA~\.IONGA · " ~ ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP N page RESOLUTION NO. 0/' ~ Z// A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DR 00-32 WHEREAS, the City Council of the Ci,l~ of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement by 7 & Utica Partners, LLC, as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the southwest corner of 7m Street and Utica Avenue; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property referred to as DR 00-32; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2 That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney. RESOLUTION qO. Dk z/L A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 00-32 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (referred to collectively as the "Maintenance Districts"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chaptar 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation resolutions, an assessment engineer's report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the 1972 Act related to the annexation of territory to the Maintenance District, Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California (''Article XIIID") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the Maintenance Districts on the territory proposed to be annexed to such districts; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the Maintenance Districts in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 1972 Act to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 1972 Act and/or Article XIIID applicable to the authorization to the levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization of levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hemto; and RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-32 March 7, 2001 Page 2 WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that: The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B. SECTION4: All future proceedings oftheMalntenanceDistricts, including the levy ofall assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. Exhibit A Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property To Be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: KENDAL, CHARLES B. JR., TR The legal description of the Property is: PARCEL 5 OF PARCEL MAP 6194 The above-described parcels are shown on sheet A-2 attached herewith and by this reference made a part hereof. A - 1 DR 00-32 qZ Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2000/2001 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b (LMD #3b) represents landscape sites throughout the Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites that are maintained by this district consist of median islands, parkways, street trees, entry monuments, the landscaping within the Metrolink Station and 22.87 acres of the Adult Sports Park (not including the stadium, parking lots or the maintenance building. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (SLD # 1 ) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. The facilities within this district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is assigned to the City-wide district. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (SLD #6) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on commercial and industrial streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally this area encompasses the industrial area of the City south of Foothill Boulevard. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on industrial or commercial streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on industrial or commercial streets generally south of Foothill Boulevard. B - 1 DR 00-32 Exhibit "B" (continued) Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2001/2002) For Project: DR 00-32 Street Lights 5800L 9500L SLD # 1 1 SLD # 6 Number of Lumps 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L Landscaping L3B Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees DGSF SF SF EA *Existing items installed with original project Assessment Units by District Parcel DU or Acres S1 S6 L3B B - 2 DR 00-32 qq Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2000/2001 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): The rate per assessment unit (A.U,) is $352.80 for the fiscal year 2000/01. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b (Commercial/hdustdal): # of Rate Per Physical # of Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment l,and Use Unit Type Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Comm/lnd Acre 1849.01 1.0 1849.01 $352.80 $652,330.73 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property OR 00-32) is: 1.293 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $456.17 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2000/01. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets): # of Rate Per Physical # of Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment l,and Use Unit Type Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 16,956.00 1.00 16,956.00 $17.77 $301,310.00 Family Multi- Unit 6,257.00 1.00 6,257.00 $17.77 $111,190.00 Family Commercial Acre 1,999.52 2.00 3,999.04 $17.77 $71,060.00 Toml $483,560.00 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DR 00-32) is: 1.293 Acres x 2.0 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $45.95 Annual Assessment C - 1 DR 00-32 5/5 Exhibit "C" (continued) STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIALflNDUSTRIAL): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $51.40 for the Fiscal Year 2000/01. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial/Industrial): # of Rate Per Physical # of Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment 1 ,and Use Unit Type Units 1Jnits Factor Units ~ Jnit Revenue Command Acre 1,716.63 1.00 1,716.63 $51.40 $88,235.00 The Proposed Atmual Assessment against the Property (DR 00-32) is: 1.293 Acres x 1.00 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $66.46 Annual Assessment C - 2 DR 00-32 ZF{~ Clio CUCAMONGA E~GI~EERI~G DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 7, 2001 Mayor and members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Joe Stofa Jr., Associate Engineer APPROVAL OF MAP, DRAINAGE ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 15692, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HELLMAN AVENUE, SOUTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD, SUBMITTED BY JRN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Parcel Map 15692, accepting the subject agreements and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos, 1 and 2 and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Parcel Map 15692, located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, south of Hillside Road, in the Residential Development District, was approved by the Planning Commission on May 12, 1999, for the division of 4.75 acres into four parcels. The Developer, JRN Construction Company, is submitting a Drainage Acceptance Agreement, Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond Labor and Material Bond: $111,000.00 $ 55,000.00 Copies of the agreements and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT P M 15692 March 7, 2001 Page 2 Letters of approval have been received from the high school and elementary school districts and Cucamonga County Water District. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation forms signed by the Developer are on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, ~m~j.~O,Nei~l/~ City Engineer WJO:JS:sc Attachments ...... --- . MASTER PLAN ~ Ref: Tena~ive tract map ' 12710 (2-88) i.~<,, CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION ITEM: VIc#NIrT MAP TITLE: TPM 15692 EMIT: ' aA' SOLUTIO q NO. t/3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROV1NG PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15692, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15692), DRAINAGE ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 15692, submitted by JRN Construction Company, and consisting of four parcels, located on the west side of Hellman Avenue south of Hillside Road, being a division of 4.75 acres, Land of Cucamonga Homestead Association, in the County of San Bemardino, State of California was approved by the Planning Commission as provided in the Subdivision Map Act and is in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map No. 15692 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, to meet the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the Final Map, said subdivider submits for approval said Final Map offering for dedication for public use the streets delineated thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. That said Drainage Acceptance Agreement and Improvement Agreement be and the same are approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2. That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney; and 3. That the offers for dedication and the Final Map delineating same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to execute the certificate thereon on behalf of said City. ESOLUTIONNO. t)/' t A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR PARCEL MAP 15692 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 (referred to collectively as the "Maintenance Districts"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation resolutions, an assessment engineer's report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the 1972 Act related to the annexation of territory to the Maintenance District, Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID') establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the Maintenance Districts on the territory proposed to be annexed to such districts; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the Maintenance Districts in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Cettain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 1972 Act to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 1972 Act and/or Article XIIID applicable to the authorization to the levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization of levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and RESOLUTION NO. PM 15692 March 7, 2001 Page 2 WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that: The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B. SECTION4: All future proceedings ofthe Maintenance Districts, including the levy ofall assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. Exhibit A Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property To Be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: JAMES LEO DUNN AND BERNICE I. DUNN, AS TRUSTEES OF THE DUNN TRUST, DATED MARCH 20, 1992 AS TO A 1/3 INTEREST AND PATRICIA PRUTTING, AS TO A 1/3 INTEREST AND DELBERT L. FELTIS AND JUDITH A. FELTIS, AS TO A 1/3 INTEREST, SUBJECT TO ITEM NO. 9 AND 10 The legal description of the Property is: BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 2, BLOCK 10, CUCAMONGA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION LANDS, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 6, PAGE 46 OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, EXCEPT THE EAST 33 FEET THEREOF. The above described parcels are shown on sheet A-2 attached herewith and by this reference made a part hereof. A-1 PMlS692 ,5'3 Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2000/2001 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (GENERAL CITY): Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (LMD # 1) represents 33.93 acres of landscape area and 43.25 acres of parks which are located at various sites throughout the City. These sites are not considered to be associated with any one particular area within the City, but rather benefit the entire City on a broader scale. As such, the parcels within this district do not represent a distinct district area as do the City's remaining LMD's. Typically parcels within this district have been annexed upon development. The various sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, paseos, street trees, entry monuments, Community Trails and Parks. The 43.25 acres of parks consist of Bear Gulch Park which is 5 acres, 20 acres of East and West Beryl Park, 5 acres of Old Town Park, 6.5 acres of Church Street Park, the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center which consists of 175 acres and the newest park, Golden Oaks Park located on 6m Street, west of Archibald. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (SLD #1 ) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. The facilities within this district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is assigned to the City-wide district. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (LOCAL STREETS): Street Light Maimenance District No. 2 (SLD #2) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffm signals located on local streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally this area encompasses the residential area of the City west of Haven Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets generally west of Haven Avenue. Exhibit B (continued) Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2001/2002) For Project: Parcel Map 15692 Street Lights 5800L SLD # 1 1 SLD # 2 5 Number of Lamps 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L Landscaping L#1 Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees DGSF SF SF EA *Existing items installed with original project Assessment Units by District Parcel Acres S1 S2 L1 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2000/2001 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (GENERAL CITY): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $92.21 for the fiscal year 2000/01. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance Dislxict No. 1 (General City): # of Physical Assessment # of Rate Per Units Units Factor Assessment Assessment Land Use Type Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 7269 1.0 7269 $92.21 $670.274.49 Family Multi- Unit 5952 0.5 2976 $92.21 $274,416.96 Family TOTAL $944,691.45 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (PM 15692) is: 4 parcels x 1.0 A.U. Factor x $92.21 Rate Per A.U. = $368.84 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2000/01. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets): # of Rate Per Physical # of Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Unit Type Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 16,956.00 1.00 16,956.00 $17.77 $301,310.00 Family Multi- Unit 6,257.00 1.00 6,257.00 $17.77 $111,190.00 Family Commercial Acre 1,999.52 2.00 3,999.04 $17.77 $71,060.00 Total $483,560.00 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (PM 15692) is: 4 Parcels x 1.0 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = 71.08 Annual Assessment Exhibit C (continued) STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (LOCAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $39.97 for the fiscal year 2000/01. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets): # of Rate Per Physical # of Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment l,and I Jse Unit Type Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 6606 1.00 6606 $39.97 $264,042.00 Family The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (PM 15692): 4 Parcels x 1.00 A.U. Factor x $39.97 Rate Per A.U. = $159.88 Annual Assessment CHO CUCAMONGA ENG1NEEI~ING DEDADTHENT Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 7, 2001 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION SURVEY SERVICES FOR THE PROPOSED CIVIC CENTER EAST PARKING LOT EXPANSION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,250.00, TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 1001 305 5300 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Professional Services Agreement Dan Guerra and Associates, to provide Construction Survey Services for the proposed Civic Center East Parking Lot Expansion, and authorize the Mayor to sign said agreement and the City Clerk to attest thereto. BACKG ROUN D/ANALYSIS: The City requested and received a proposal to provide Construction Survey Services from Dan Guerra and Associates. Their proposal met all of the City's requirements in an amount of $15,250.00 to be funded from Account No. 1001 305 5300. Dan Guerra and Associates has provided services to the City in the past with favorable results. Respectfully submitted, Wi~m~. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:MEP:dlw RAN C HO I ENGINEERING CUCAM 0 NGA DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: March 7, 2001 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: BY: SUBJECT: William J. O'Neil, City Enginee~eee~n../~ ACCEPT THE BIDS RECEIVED AND AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $246,015.00 ($223,650.00 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY) TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, R.J. NOBLE COMPANY, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 6th STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM MILLIKEN AVENUE TO CHARLES SMITH AVENUE, TO BE FUNDED FROM GAS T~ PROPOSITION 111 FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 11703035650/1198- 170 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $246,015.00 ($223,650.00 plus 10% contingency) to the apparent low bidder, R.J. Noble Company, for the construction of the 6th Street Pavement Rehabilitation from Milliken Avenue to Charles Smith Avenue, to be funded from Gas Tax Proposition 111 funds, Account No. 11703035650/1198-170. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on February 6, 2001, for the subject project. The Engineer's estimate was $289,340.00. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them 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 all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. City E~r~gineer WJO:CH Attachment 6TH STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION (FROM MIIJxKEN AVE. AV. TO CHARLES SMITH AVENUE .1 · '1 .~ SUMMIT [- C.) 7"1 IlllllJllfl~ll III HillIll Iqllllll ,ill .. .< 'r 6TH 4TH .ST PROJECT SITE BNSF RI CITY OF RANCII0 CUCAMONGA~ VlCINITY M/~ b BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING FEBRUARY 6, 2001 6TH STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM MILLIKEN AVENUE TO CHARLES SMITH AVENUE NO QTY UNIT 1. 1 LS 2. 36100 SY 3. 3150 TONS 4. 120 TONS 5. 160 TONS 6. 14 EA 7. 1 LS 8. I LS ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE UNIT DESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT Clearing & Grubbing, inc. Sawcut and Removal of AC $10,000.00] $10,000.00 0.10 Deep Cold Plane $1.40l $50,540.00 Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Crushed Aggregate Base Replace Inductive Loop Detector Striping, Pavement Markings, Markers & Signing Traffic Control TOTAL $56.001 $176,400.00 $8,400.00 $4,800.00 $300.001 $4,200.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 I $289,340.00 APPA RENT LOW BIDDER R.J. Noble Company UNIT ~ UNIT COST AMOUNT COST $13,000.00 $13,00ff00 $6,000.00 $1.20 $43,320.00 $0.69 $45.00 $141,750.00 $53.50 $50.00 $6,000.00 $56.00 $20.00 $3,200.00 $21.50 $220.00 $3,080.00 $200.00 $10,800.00 $10,800.00 $10,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $4,000.00 $223,650.00 Silvia Construction, Inc. BID CORRECTED AMOUNT AMOUNT $6,000.00 $24.909.00 $168~525.00 $61720.00 $3,440.00 '$21800.00 $10,000.00 $4,000.00 $226,354.00i $226~394.00 BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING FEBRUARY 6, 2001 6TH STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM MILLIKEN AVENUE TO CHARLES SMITH AVENUE NO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION I. I LS Clearing & Grubbing, inc. Sawcut and Removal of AC 2. 36100 SY 0.10 Deep Cold Plane 3. 3150 TONS Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix 4. 120 TONS Asphalt Concrete 5. 160 TONS Crushed Aggregate Base 6. 14 EA Replace Inductive Loop Detector 7. 1 LS Striping, Pavement Markings, Markers & Signing 8. 1 LS Traffic Control TOTAL Laird Construction All American Asphalt Vance Corporation UNIT ~ BID UNIT UNIT $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $ 00 $14,000.00 $10,677.00 $101677.00 $0.80 $28,880.00 $0.67 $24,187.00 $0.85 $301685.00 $52.50 $165,375.00 $54.20 $170,730.00 $53.50 $1681525.00 $40.00 $4,800.00 $80.00 $9,600.00 $48.00 $5,760.00 $15.00 $2,400.00 $35.80 $5,728.00 $20.00 $31200.00 $200.00 $2,800.00 $187.00 $2,618.00 $200.00 $21800.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $5,900.00 $5,900.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.0C $234,755.00 [ $242,763.00 $245~647.011 Page I BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING FEBRUARY 6, 2001 6TH STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM MILLIKEN AVENUE TO CHARLES SMITH AVENUE NO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION I. I LS 2. 36100 SY 3. 3150 TONS 4. 120 TONS 5. 160 TONS 6. 14 EA 7. 1 LS 8. 1 LS UNIT COST C learing & Grubbing, inc. Sawcut and Removal of AC Pa $15,100.00] 0.10 Deep Cold Plane $0.67 Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix $59.50 Asphalt Concrete $60.00 Crushed Aggregate Base $25.50 Replace Inductive Loop Detector $215.00 Striping, Pavement Markings, Markers & Signing $10,200.00 Traffic Control $2,500.00 TOTAL Mobassaly Engineering, Inc. Gentry Brothers, Inc Matich Corporation ~ UNIT ; UNIT AMouNTCOSTAMOUNT ,O00 AMOUNT $15,100.00 $8,000.00' $8,000.00 $ 00 $291007.0C $24,187.00 $1.25 $45,125.00 $0.881 $311768.00 $187,425.00 $55.00 $t73,250.00 $53.00 $1661950.00 $7,200.00 $60.00 $7,200.00 $47.00 $5,640.00 $4,080.00 $30.00 $4,800.00 $4,240.00 $3,010.00 $230.00 $3,220.00 $ 5 $31150.00 $10,200.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $101500.001 $101500.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $41000.001 $4,000.00 $253,702.00 $253,595.00 I $255~255.00 BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING FEBRUARY 6, 2001 6TH STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM MILLIKEN AVENUE TO CHARLES SMITH AVENUE NO QTY UNIT 1. I LS 2. 36100 SF 3. 3150 TONS 4. 120 TONS 5. 160 TONS 6. 14 TONS 7. I TONS 8. 1 LF Hardy UNIT DESCRIPTION COST Clearing & Grubbing, inc. Sawcut and Removal ofAC Pa $9,000.001 0.10 Deep Cold PIane $0.921 Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix $59.781 Asphalt Concrete $57.501 Crushed Aggregate Base $27.501 Replace Inductive Loop Detector $228,001 Striping, Pavement Markings, Markers & Signing $ I I, 120.001 Traffic Control TOTAL $1,000.00 Holland-Lowe Construction Harper Inc. Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. Inc. UNIT AMOUNT COST $9,000.00 $22,000.00 $33,212.00 $0.80 $188,307.00 $55.55 $6,900.00 $85.00 $4,400.00 $33.00 $3,192.00 $200.00 $11,120.00 $10,000.00 $1,000,00 $3,500.00 $257,131.00 UNIT AMOUNT COST AMOUNT $22,000.00 $151550.00 $15,550.00 $28,880.00 $0.88 $311768.00 $1741982.50 $58.73 $184~999.50 $10,200.00 $64.501 $7,740.00 $5,280.00 $27.301 $41368.00 $2,800.00 $191.00 $21674.00 $10.000.00 $101055.00 $101055.00 $3,500.00 $4 480.00 $4,480.00 $257,642.50 $261~634.50 Page 2 BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING FEBRUARY 6, 2001 6TH STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM MILLIKEN AVENUE TO CHARLES SMITH AVENUE UNIT ~ NO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST I. I LS Clearin~ & Grubbin~, inc. Sawcut and Removal of AC P-~ $8,948.441 2. 36100 SY 0.10 Deep Cold Plane $0.911 3.3150 TONS Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix $65.53 I 4.120 TONS Asphalt Concrete $52.45 ,.i6o ToNs C~.hed A~re~a,e Bnse ~::::~ 6. 14 EA Replace Inductive Loop Detector $ 7.1Lsst.pi.~, Paveme.t .arkin...arkers ~ si~n,n~ $~::~:V:::I 8.ILSTraffic Control TOTAL ] Premier Contractors AMOUNT $8,948.44 $8,948.44 $32,734.58 $32,851.00 $206,408.24 $206,419.50 $6,293.97 $6,294.00 $3,818.00 $3,817.60 $3,758.34 $3,758.30 $12,050.56 $12,050.56 $8,351.88 $8,351.88 $282,364.01 $282,491.28 Page 3 J RAN CUCAMONGA ENGINEEDING DEPAI~TM~NT S/Repo DATE: TO: BY: SUBJECT: March 7, 2001 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RMA GROUP, TO PROVIDE GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR THE PROPOSED CIVIC CENTER EAST PARKING LOT EXPANSION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,432.00, TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 1001 305 5300 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Professional Services Agreement with RMA Group to provide Geotechnical and Material Testing Services for the proposed Civic Center East Parking Lot Expansion, and authorize the Mayor to sign said agreement and the City Clerk to attest thereto. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The City requested and received a proposal to provide Geotechnical and Material Testing Services from RMA Group. Their proposal met all of the City's requirements in an amount of $17,432.00 to be funded from Account No. 1001 305 5300. RMA Group has provided services to the City in the past with favorable results. City Engineer WJO:MEP:dlw THE CITY P__ANCiIO OF CUCAHONGA Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 7, 2001 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH RJM DESIGN GROUP, INC., FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE 1-15 FREEWAY LANDSACPE MASTER PLAN TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 1110-316-5300 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council, through minute action, authorize the Mayor to execute the Professional Service Agreement awarding the subject contract to RJM Design Group, Inc. BAC KG RO U N DIANALYSI S This item was a directive of the Public Works Subcommittee from December of 1999. Staff sent out Requests For Proposal for the preparation of the I~15 Freeway Landscape Master Plan in March of 2000. Because the City got new information from SANBAG that I-15 Freeway will be slated for widening in the future, the project was temporarily placed on hold until further direction from the Public Works Subcommittee. Based on the new direction from the Subcommittee to proceed with the project, staff, after interviewing three consultants, has chosen RJM Design Group to prepare the project. Staff determined that RJM Design Group best meets the City's needs. The total cost of the contract including a 5 percent contingency is $65,100 Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF\Is RANC HO C U CA M O N GA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT S' tffReport DATE: TO: FROM: March 7, 2001 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACTS 15727-1 AND 15727- 2, SUBMITTED BY CORNERPOINTE 257, LLC, LOCATED NORTH OF FOURTH STREET AND EAST OF THE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL RECOMMENDATION: The required improvements for Tracts 15727-1 and 15727-2 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond and accept a Maintenance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As a condition of'approval of completion of Tracts 15727-1 and 15727-2, located north of Fourth Street and east of the Cucamonga Creek Channel, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. The improvements have been completed and it is recommended that City Council release the existing Faithful Performance Bond and accept the Maintenance Bond. Developer: Cornerpointe 257, LLC 24005 Venture Boulevard Calabasas, CA 91302 Release: Faithful Performance Bond: 3SM91062300 $3,280,000 3SM91062400 $ 272,000 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Tract 14379 March 7, 2001 Page 2 Accept Maintenance Bond: 3SM91062300 3SM91062400 $328,000 $ 27,200 Respectfully submitfed, ~qeO~rNed WJO:LRB:Is Attachments TR 15727-1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION · ' NORTII 1" = 400' ITEM: Tracts 15727-4 and 15727-: ~, TITLE: .,¢. :-,: ExHiBiT--, ,-~ RESOLUTION NO. D/' ~ Z'/5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT8 FOR TRACTS 15727-1 AND 15727-2 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Tracts 15727-1 and 15727-2, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. RA C H O C U C A M ON G A S fReport DATE: TO: FROM: March 7, 2001 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer~j~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BONDS, ACCEPT MAINTENANCE BONDS AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 14379, SUBMITTED BY CENTEX HOMES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE, WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: The required improvements for Tract 14379 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bonds and accept Maintenance Bonds. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As a condition of approval of completion of Tract 14379, located on the north side of Wilson Avenue, west of Etiwanda Avenue, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. The improvements have been completed and it is recommended that City Council release the existing Faithful Performance Bonds and accept the Maintenance Bonds. Developer: Centex Homes 2280 Wardlow Circle, Suite 150 Corona, CA 91720 Release: Faithful Performance Bonds: 5954146 $340,600 5954147 $115,400 5954148 $373,000 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Tract 14379 March 7, 2001 Page 2 Accept Maintenance Bonds: 5954146 5954147 5954148 $34,060 $11,540 $37,300 Respectfully submitted, City Engineer WJO:LRB:Is Attachments City of Rancho Cucamonga Eng~neenng Departme, nt TRACT MAP 14379 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE PROJECT SITE NORTH 72-- RESOLUT,ON NO, D/- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 14379 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Tract 14379, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. RANG h O CUCAMO N GA I ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT StaffRe rt DATE: TO: FROM: March 7, 2001 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACTS 157274 AND 15727- 5, SUBMITTED BY CORNERPOINTE 257, LLC, LOCATED NORTH OF FOURTH STREET AND EAST OF THE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL RECOMMENDATION: The required improvements for Tracts 15727-4 and 15727-5 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond and accept a Maintenance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As a condition of approval of completion of Tracts 15727-4 and 15727-5, located north of Fourth Street and east of the Cucamonga Creek Channel, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. The improvements have been completed and it is recommended that City Council release the existing Faithful Performance Bond and accept the Maintenance Bond. Developer: Cornerpointe 257, LLC 24005 Venture Boulevard Calabasas, CA 91302 Release: Faithful Performance Bond: 3SM91708200 $264,500 3SM91592100 $498,000 7f CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Tract 14379 March 7, 2001 Page 2 Accept Maintenance Bond: 3SM91708200 3SM91592100 $ 26,450 $ 49,800 Res ectfully submitted, City Engineer WJQ:LRB:Is Attachments IE_ '1 .I · · '!4. NOB. TII 1" = 400' CITY OF ITEM: 'tracts 15727-'q'and 15727-.,-'r' RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: -- "' ENGINEERING DIVISION EXIIIBIT: 7~' RESOLUTION NO. ~)/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT8 15727-4 AND 15727-5 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Tracts 15727-4 and 15727-5, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. RANC HO C UCAMONGA I ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Skiff Report DATE: March 7, 2001 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager SUBJECT: ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND FROM K.A.S. EQUIPMENT AND RENTAL, INC., AND RELEASE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND FOR THE ADA 1999/2000 ACCESS RAMP AND DRIVE APPROACH IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS ALONG HERMOSA AVENUE, HAVEN AVENUE, 6TM STREET AND ARROW ROUTE, CONTRACT NO. 00- 016 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept a Maintenance Bond from K.A.S. Equipment and Rental, Inc., and release the Faithful Performance Bond for the ADA 1999/2000 Access Ramp and Drive Approach improvements at Various Locations Along Hermosa Avenue, Haven Avenue, 6th Street and Arrow Route, Contract No. 00-016. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Faithful Performance Bond can be replaced with the Maintenance Bond for the remaining warranty period. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:JAD/RO:Is EXHIBIT "A" B~ymlb~areet l~.hStreet ~ B~e Line Road LEGEND ~ Project Site N .T.S. ADA t999/2000 ACCESS RAMP AND DRIVE APPROACH IMPROVEMENTS VICINITY MAP ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00-04, AMENDING VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO ROOFING MATERIALS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Development Code Amendment No. 00-04, as descdbed in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On December 13, 2000, the Planning Commission, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing and concluding said hearing on that date, adopted Resolution No. 00-135, recommending approval of said application to the City Council. 3. On the 21 st day of February 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public headng on February 21, 2001, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and CiTY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DCA 00-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA February 21, 2001 Page 2 and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives the Development Code; e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. This Council hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Development Code Amendment No. 00-04 by the adoption of the attached Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Council shall certif~ to the adoption of this Ordinance. Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17. 08. 040 P, Zero Lot Line. The dwelling unit may be placed on one interior side property line with a zero setback, and the dwelling unit setback on the other interior side property line shall be a minimum of 10 feet, excluding the connecting elements such as fences, walls, and trellises. Pools, decks, garden features, and other similar elements shall be permitted within the 10 foot setback area, provided, however, no structure, with the exception of fences or walls, shall be placed within easements required below. Whero adjacent Zero Lot Line dwellings are not constructed against a common lot line, the builder or developer must provide for a perpetual wall maintenance easement of five feet in width along the adjacent lot and parallel with such wall. PreDertv Maintenance. Property owners are responsible for the continuous maintenance of all buildings, structures, yards, landscaping, signs, parking areas, recreational facilities, and other improvements in a manner which does not detract from the appearance of the surrounding area. In addition, multiple family residential developments subject to the Development/Design Review process shall maintain site improvements in compliance with all applicable conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission. R. Amenities. To enhance the quality of life for multi-family development, additional amenities shall be required as follows: StoraGe Snace. Each unit shall be provided with a minimum of 125 cubic feet of exterior lockable storage space. The storage space shall be located outside of the dwelling at grade or floor level and easily accessible by the residents. The design of the exterior storage space shall be architecturally integrated and/or compatible to the dwellings. The individual storage space units can be located within the fully enclosed garages designated for that dwelling unit. Laundry Facility. Each unit shall be provided with a hook-up for washing machine and clothes dryer in the interior of the dwelling; or common laundry facilities shall be provided and be equipped with washing machines and clothes dryere at a rate of one washing machine and clothes dryer per five units. Common laundry facilities should be conveniently located for all residents within the complex. Common laundry facilities can be within freestanding buildings, attached to dwelling units, or within the recreation room. The design of the common laundry facilities shall be architecturally compatible to the dwellings. Roofincl Materials. Aft new development within residential districts shaft have roofing material made of tile, or the imitation thereof, but not including composition shingles. Other roofing materials such as metal, slate, or the imitation thereof, but not including composition shingles, may be approved by the Design Review Committee, if it is determined by the Design Review Committee that the roof material enhances the building design. Roofing materials for additions and accessory structures shall be governed by Section 17.08.0601f, Special Development Criteria. Section 17.08.050 -Absolute Policies The Absolute Policies are intended to address the most critical issues associated with residential development. These include assuring neighborhood compatibility, compliance with adopted plans, adequacy of public facilities and services, and protection of the environment and public health. Each project must satisfy all absolute policies before approval can be granted. These policies are used in evaluation of a residential project as described in Section 17.06.030 of this Title. Exhibit A-/ 17.08-26 7/00 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17. 08. 060 Front yard and corner side yard. No accessory structure or addition shall occupy any portion of a required front yard or corner side yard. B. Patio enclosures. Where required in Tables 17.08.040-B and C, pdvate open space shall maintain a minimum dimension of 12 feet for ground floor units, and 6 feet for upper story units. C. Proiections into Yards. Eaves, roof projections, awnings, and similar architectural features may project into required yards a maximum distance of 3 feet, provided such appendages are supported only at, or behind, the building setback line. Replacement chimneys, bay windows, balconies, fire escapes, extedor stairs and landings, and similar architectural features may project into required yards a maximum distance of 2 feet, provided such features shall be at least 3 feet from a property line. Decks, platforms, uncovered porches, and landing places which do not exceed a height of 48 inches above grade, may project into any front or corner side yard a maximum distance of 6 feet and project into any rear or interior side yard up to the property line. Proiections Above Heiqht Limits. Flues, chimneys, elevators or other mechanicel equipment, television antennas, spires or belltowers, or similar architectural, utility, or mechanicel features, may not exceed the height limits in Tables 17.08.040-B and C more than 15 feet, except as provided for in Section 17.08.060-1, Antennas. Roofino Materials. All accessory structures, including, but not limited to, second dwelling unite, guest houses, catports, detached or attached garages, and additions to main houses shall have roofing material made of tile, slate, or imitation thereof, but not including composition shingles. Detached accessory structures with roof cover that exceeds 120 square feet in area and/or are subject to public view from streete or from adjacent land uses, shall have roofing material made of tile, slate, or the imitation thereof, but not including composition singles. The pitch of the roof for additions and accessory structures shall be designed to accommodate roof materials made of tile, slate, or an imitation thereof. Where the roof material for the main house conslate of wood or composition shingles; additions to the main house, attached or detached accessory structures, and re-roofing can include the same material Detached accessory structures with roof cover such as patio covers, cabarias, etc., that do not exceed 120 square feet in area and/or are not subject to public view from streete or from adjacent land uses may use othherroofmaterialsasapprovedbytheCityplanner. Whensuchcircumstancesaftowthe use of composition shingles, it shall be of architectural dimension style to create a shadow. The burden of proof for detached accessory structures not subject to public view is on the applicant, which shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval Accessory structures for equestrian or agricultural uses such as barns for keeping of horses or storing of agricultural equipment, may include other roof materials (metal) as approved by City Planner. Equestdan Trails. All new residential development within the Equestrian/Rural area designated by the General Plan shall require local feeder trail easements for equestrian purposes, to provide access to the rear of all lots. All non-residential development within the Equestrian/Rural area shall require local feeder trail easements for equestrian purposes where it is determined by the Exhibit A - Z 17.08-33 6/99 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17. 08. 090 Spacing for right-of-way widths, street sections, street radii, and intersections are to conform to the Street Design Policy available from the Engineering Division. f. Comer lots are to be wider than interior lots. g. Relate lots and streets to one another to create neighborhoods. Relate development to adjacent development relative to street design and lot pattem. i. Avoid long flag lots, key lots, and lots which side on to the rear of other lots. If the tract is bordered or surrounded by undeveloped land, prepare a conceptual subdivision plan for those properties to indicate that logical circulation and drainage can occur. k. Avoid double-frontage lots on intedor streets. Four-way intersections are generally preferred over offset "T' type on collector or larger streets. m. Avoid four-way, local-to-local intersections. n. Intersections, including knuckles, are to be perpendicular (radial on curves). o. The maximum length for cul-cle-sacs is 600 feet for single-family and 300 feet for multi-family developments. p. Local streets are to be a minimum of 150 feet apart. Align intersections with existing streets or provide adequate spacing between intersections. Only use pdvate streets where through traffic is not necessap/and where the private street is gated. For private, gated entrances, provide adequate turn-around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right- of-way. D. BuildinQ Desicln. Deskin Theme. A recognizable design theme shall be established which is compatible with surrounding planned or existing developments and should be based upon prominent design features in the immediate area (e.g., trees, landforms, histodc landmarks). Subtle variations are encouraged which provide visual interest but do not create abrupt changes causing discord in the overall character of the immediate neighborhood. It is not intended that one style of architecture should be dominant but that individual structures shall create and enhance a high quality and harmonious community appearence. 2. Architecture. The architecture should consider compatibility with surrounding character, including harmonious building style, form, size, color, matedal, and roof line. Individual dwelling units should be distinguishable from one another and have separate entrances. Exhibi t A .-_,2 17,08-53 6/99 Rancho Cucarnonga Development Code Section 17. 08. 090 Shadow patterns created by architectural elements such as overhangs, projection or recession of stodes, balconies, reveals, and awnings contribute to a building's character while aiding in climate control. Further, changes in the roof level Or planes provide architectural interest. In particular, Low-Medium and multi-family residential development should be designed with upgraded architecture through increased delineation of surface treatment and architectural details. The architectural concept should also complement the grading and topography of the site. The City of Rancho Cucamonga seeks well thought out design solutions which reflect the best of a particular style, respect the community's hedtage, and relate well to their surroundings. The following guidelines should be considered: a. Provide architectural treatment to all elevations (i.e., 360-degree architecture). b. If the front of a house is sided, then provide siding to the other sides of the house. Consider compatibility with surrounding architectural character, including harmonious building style, form, height, size, color, material, and roof line. Develop individual expressions within single buildings in harmony with the neighborhood. Refrain from architectural gimmicks that sacdfice the integrity of the streetscape to a single structure. Roof lines are cdtical to the visual impact of a home. Provide roof lines which respond to the general design of other roofs along the street. f Vary rnnf massing and/orheights~on I~rg~r h. lildiOgS Upgrade design treatment of carport structures to reflect the architectural design of the dwelling units. h. Enhance architectural elements exposed to public view. Vary roof designs along rear elevations of units backing up to perimeter streets to provide a pleasant and varied streetscape. Coordinate exterior building design on all elevations from building-to-building to achieve the same level of design quality. On small lot subdivisions, avoid diverse architectural styles. Keep the design statement, materials, and details consistent. The use of mixed, incompatible architectural styles is strongly discouraged. For example, a Cape Cod style is incompatible with a Spanish style. Choose colors consistent with the chosen design theme. Avoid "trendy" colors which become quickly outdated. Low-key and earth-tone colors work best for primary colors; use of more vibrant colors should be limited to accents. m. Provide lockable storage spaces for multiple family units. n. Use 2.-car garages with bonus room on some floor plans or off set the third car space to avoid garages which dominate the streetscape. For multi-family projects, garages should be amhitecturally designed to compliment tl~e residences; consider varying the door treatment on multiple garage structures. Exhi bit A - ~ 17,08-54 6/99 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17. 08. 090 o. One-story massing is preferred on corner side yards. Shadow patterns created by architectural elements such as overhangs, trellises, reveals and recesses, and awnings contribute to a building's character while aiding in climate control. Avoid identical or similar elevation schemes plotted on adjacent lots or across the street from one another. r. Avoid identical color schemes plotted on adjacent lots. Integrate screens for all roof-mounted equipment into the building design (i.e., extend parapet walls) rather than as an afterthought. t. Design roof line in conjunction with building mass for consistent composition. On hillsides, design the form, mass, and profile of buildings and architectural features so as to compliment the natural topography. v. Use native rock for fieldstone. Other forms of stone may be manufactured products. w. Design chimney stacks with accent materials used on the house, such as brick or stone, except on interior chimneys. Use roofing material made of tile, slate, copper, or the imitation thereof, but not-including composition-shingles;-that will upgrade the character and the visual qua~ty of the structure. Scale. The mass and scale of the building should be proportionate to the site, open spaces, street locations, and surrounding developments. Setbacks and overall heights should provide an element of openness and human scale. Multiple family product type (i.e., apartment, condominium, townhouse) is discouraged immediately adjacent to lower density single family areas. All attached projects adjacent to existing one-sto~J single family developments shall be one story, unless the impact of two-story structures on the existing one-story neighborhood is fully mitigated with emphasis on privacy, views, and general compatibility. Buildings should emphasize horizontal as well as vertical appearance. This could be achieved by the use of projections or recessions of stories, balconies, windows and doors, and changes in roof levels and planes. In particular for multiple family product type, buildings over three stories should consider stepping back. Matedals and Colors. Colors, textures, and materials shall be coordinated to achieve total compatibility of design. The matedais and colors chosen should complement the building character and enhance the visual quality. Siqninq. Every building shall be designed with a precise concept for adequate signing. Provisions for sign placement, sign scale in relationship with building, and readability shall be considered in developing the signing concept. While providing the most effective signing, it shall also be highly compatible with the building and site design relative to color, material, and placement. EQuipment ScreeninQ. Any equipment, whether on the roof, side of building, or ground, shall be screened. The method of screening shall be architecturally compatible in terms Exh i b i t A - J~' 17.08-55 6/99 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING CHAPTER 8.21 PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OR PROHIBITION OF SMOKING AND AMENDING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 8.21.010 (Purpose and findings) of Chapter 8.21(Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "The City Council finds that the smoking and use of tobacco, or any other weed or plant, is a medically documented danger to health and a material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort and health hazard to those who are present in confined spaces, and in order to preserve public health, safety and welfare, the declared purpose of this chapter is to regulate the smoking of tobacco, or any weed or plant, within the city and public places." Section 2. Section 8.21.020 (Definitions) of Chapter 8.21 (Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "For purposes of this chapter, unless it is plainly evident fi'om the context that a different meaning is intended, the following defmitions shall apply: A. "City facility" shall mean any enclosed structure owned, leased or operated by the city of Rancho Cucumonga, and used by the city for governmental operations and activities. B. "Restaurant" shall mean any dinner house, coffee shop, cafeteria, luncheonette, soda fountain, fast food service, and any other establishment where cooked or otherwise prepared food is sold to the general public, and where seating for consumption is available on the premises." C. "Smoke" or "smoking" shall mean the carrying or holding of a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette or any other lighted smoking equipment or the lighting or emitting or exhaling of the smoke of a pipe, cigar, cigarette or other kind of smoking equipment. "Smoke" also means the gaseous products and particles created by the use of a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette or other kind of smoking equipment." 11231.0001/623184.1 Section 3. Section 8.21.040 (Smoking prohibited--Hospitals, health care and child care facilities) of Chapter 8.21 (Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "A. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in public areas of health care facilities and hospitals, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 1250, including patient rooms, waiting rooms, public hallways and lobbies. B. Signs reading "STAFF AND VISITOR SMOKING PROHIBITED" shall be conspicuously posted in public areas of health care facilities and hospitals. facilities." Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in public areas of childcare Section 4. Section 8.21.050 (Smoking prohibited--Meeting and conference rooms) of Chapter 8.21 (Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Except as hereinafter provided, smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in enclosed heating rooms, conference rooms, chambers, and all other enclosed places of public assembly." Section 5. Section 8.21.090 (Smoking prohibited--Eating establishments) of Chapter 8.21(Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "8.21.090 Smoking prohibited-restaurants. Smoking is prohibited and unlawful in the enclosed portions of every restaurant, whether publicly or privately owned, including, but not limited to, lobbies, waiting areas, restrooms, and dining areas of the restaurants." Section 6. Section 8.21.110 (Smoking prohibited--Indoor office and lobby areas) of Chapter 8.21 (Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in all indoor lobbies, reception and/or office areas open to the public." Section 7. Section 8.21.120 (Smoking prohibited--Retail food marketing establishments) of Chapter 8.21 (Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in an retail food marketing establishments including grocery stores and supermarkets." 11231.0001/623184.1 Section 8. Section 8.21.130 (Smoking prohibited--Retail stores) of Chapter 8.21(Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in all indoor retail stores in all areas." Section 9. Section 8.21.140 (Smoking prohibited--Banks and other fmancial institutions) of Chapter 8.21 (Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful within banks and other financial institutions in all areas." Section 10. Section 8.21.150 (Smoking prohibited--Public buildings and structures) of Chapter 8.21 (Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) of Ti~e 8 (Health and Safety) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful within all public buildings and structures in all areas." Section 11. Section 8.21.155 (Smoking prohibited--Entrances) is hereby added to Chapter 8.21 (Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows: 8.21.155 Smoking prohibited--Entrances. "A. Smoking shall be prohibited within an area measured twenty feet from the entrance of any City facility. B. Any retail, non-profit, or service related business owner may choose to prohibit smoking within twenty feet of the entrance of said business by conspicuously posting a no smoking sign at or near the entrance to the business. Said sign shall reference this ordinance and contain language similar to the following: "No smoking within twenty feet oft he entrance, pursuant to RCMC Section 8.21.155." When posted in accordance with this provision, smoking within twenty feet of the entrance shall be prohibited. C. It shall be the responsibility of any person smoking outside to ensure that smoke does not enter any buildings through open windows or doors." Section 12. Findings and intent regarding Section 13 of this Ordinance pertaining to vendor assisted sales. "A. The City has a substantial interest in promoting compliance with State policy and law prohibiting the sales of tobacco products to minors. The purpose of Section 13 of this ordinance is to regulate the business of selling tobacco products in order to 11231.0001/623184.1 decrease the likelihood of illegal purchases of such products by minors. The City Council finds that local authority to enact regulations such as those set forth in Section 13 of this ordinance is supported by the case of Bravo Vending v. City of Rancho Mirage, 16 Cal. App.4th 383(1993). B. The City Council recognizes that Penal Code Section 308 preempts the field of penal aspects of the sale of cigarettes to minors. Section 13 of this Ordinance is not intended, and shall not be construed as, intruding into such preempted field." Section 13. Section 8.21.165 (Vendor Assisted Sales) is hereby added to Chapter 8.21 (Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) to read as follows: "8.21.165. Vendor Assisted Sales. A. For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: 1. "Retail tobacco store" shall mean a retail store utilized primarily for the sale of tobacco products and accessories and in which the sale of other products is merely incidental. For purposes of this subsection, the term "primarily" shall mean that at least eighty percent (80%) of the square footage of the available retail floor and shelf space is devoted to the sale of tobacco and tobacco related products and accessories. 2. "Self-service display" shall mean the display of tobacco products in such manner that the products are accessible by the public without the intervention of the vendor. B. Except as hereinafter provided, it shall be unlawful in any business establishment to sell, dispense, permit to be sold or offer for sale any tobacco product by means other than vendor-assisted sales. This prohibition shall specifically preclude the selling, offering for sale, dispensing and displaying of tobacco products by self-service displays. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this prohibition shall not apply to retail tobacco stores and cigar lounges. C. No person shall sell, permit to be sold, or offer for sale any tobacco product to a buyer who reasonably appears to be less than 27 years of age unless such buyer has first presented photographic identification establishing that the buyer is not less than 18 years of age." D. Self-service displays in place as of the effective date of this ordinance in a location prohibited in paragraph B above shall be removed not later than September 1, 2001. Section 14. Section 8.21.180 (Exemptions) of Chapter 8.21 (Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) is hereby repealed. I1231.0001/623184.1 Section 15. Sections 8.21.190 (Penalties) and 8.21.200 (Civil remedies available) of Chapter 8.21 (Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) are hereby renumbered Section 8.2 I. 180 and Section 8.21.190 respectively. Section 16. A new paragraph "D" is hereby added to Section 8.21.180 (Penalties) of Chapter 8.21 (Smoking Regulated or Prohibited) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows: "D. A violation of any provision of this Chapter is an infraction which is punishable as provided in Section 1.12.030 of this Code." Section 17. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every 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. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: 2001. Mayor City Clerk THE CITY OF I:;~ANCIIO CUCAMONGA DATE: FROI~ BY: March 7, 2001 Mayor and Members of the City Council Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-50 - BARRY VANTIGER - Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to require the construction of storm drainage improvements in Foothill Boulevard from the existing terminus near Cornwall Avenue to Etiwanda Avenue for the development of a service station with convenience market, drive-thin fast food service and a ddve-thru self-service car wash on two acres of land located on the Northeast comer of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan - APN: 1100-161-002 A letter has been received from the Developer asking this item be postponed indef'imtely. Staff will re-advertise when the project is rescheduled. WJO:DJ:dlw Attachment t72 RANCHO CITY OF CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE March 7, 2001 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OFVARIANCE 00-09 - CONCORDIA HOMES - An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a request to allow retaining walls approximately 10 feet in height where a maximum height of 4 feet is allowed, and slope gradients of approximately 1.5: 1 where a maximum gradient of 2:1 is allowed for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2- 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera, south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related Files: Development Review 00.47 and Tree Removal Permit 00.41. APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00.47 (TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES -An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve the Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera, south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related Files: Variance 00-09 and Tree Removal Permit 00.41. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal filed in opposition to the project and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission approving the development review and variance applications. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed the subject development review and vadance applications on January 10, 2001 and January 24, 2001. The January 10th meeting was continued to allow staff time to obtain and review Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for Tract 10035 (the subject tract) due to public testimony claiming the project violated view preservation provisions of the CC&R's. Staff reviewed the CC&R's and found that the view preservation provisions restrict homes to a height of 24 feet above the mid-point of the curb line elevation. The plans for the project were CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 AND VARIANCE 00-09 APPEAL - CONCORDIA HOMES March 7, 2001 Page 2 found to be in compliance with this restriction, contrary to public testimony. The Planning Commission approved the subject development review and variance applications at their January 24th meeting by a vote of 4 to 1. Commissioner Tolstoy voted against the project, stating that he had a concern for the maintenance of the large slope areas proposed. It should be noted that the applicant, Concordia Homes, intends to establish a Homeowner's Association that will handle maintenance of the slope areas. Furthermore, the entire site is one large sloped area, whether the slopes are left in their existing condition or graded per the applicant's development proposal, they will still have to be maintained once homes are built. The manufactured slopes are what allow this development to locate most of the homes below or barely above the existing curb elevation, thus maximizing view preservation. Lynn and Renee Massey filed the subject appeal in a timely fashion on February 5, 2001. ANALYSIS: The Massey's pose the following points in their appeal: "The elevation of homes does not follow the original elevation of the filed plans in 1987. Those plans call for the view of lots north of the development not to be unreasonably obstructed." Response: The question of the 1987 project is moot because the approval has expired. Staff has reviewed the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 10035 approved in 1987 as well as the Conditions of Approval and conceptual plans for "Design Review for Tract 10035" approved by the Planning Commission in January of 1987. There are no Conditions of Approval that pertain to view preservation. Review of the 1987 conceptual plans indicates a split-level home design; however, all of the homes in the project were designed to take direct access off of Camino Predera, and those plotted across the street from the Massey's ranged in height from approximately 18 to 24 feet above the Camino Predera curb line (see Exhibit "B"). While a home with a roofiine that is 18 feet above the curb line would technically be lower than the 24-foot high homes proposed by Concordia, the homes proposed in 1987 were plotted much closer to the street, which places greater building mass closer to the Massey's. "The new Concordia Home plans are now 25 feet higher and will obstruct the total view of our property toward the valley." Response: It is assumed that the Massey's are referring to the previous 1987 approval. As noted above, the 1987 approval had homes across from the Massey's property that ranged in height from 18 to 24 feet above the curb line. The current request by Concordia proposes homes up to 24 feet above the curb line consistent with the CC&R's for the tract; therefore, the difference in home elevation between the current proposal and the previous 1987 approval ranges from zero to six feet. All of the homes in the 1987 approval were higher than the existing curb line by 18 to 24 feet; whereas, the current proposal only 8 of the 20 homes plotted such that the roofiines are above or slightly above (four feet) the existing curb line. It is also significant that the Massey's home, and all homes along the north side of Camino Predera are elevated above the street which further diminishes any view impact. When the project is considered as a whole the current proposal far exceeds the 1987 project in terms of view preservation. "The old plans were for split-level homes with part of the home cut into the slope of the property. This would keep with the consistency of the existing homes on the street." CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 0047 AND VARIANCE 00-09 APPEAL - CONCORDIA HOMES March 7, 2001 Page 3 Response: The appellant is correct, the home plans associated with the 1987 approval were of a split-level design and this certainly would be consistent with the existing homes along this stretch of Camino Predera (see Exhibit "B"). The currently proposed homes also have split-level foundations; however, the range of elevation split is approximately 3 feet compared to the 1987 approval, which has splits of 9 to 10 feet. The virtue of the greater split is not view preservation, but reduction in the amount of grading necessary to accommodate the homes. While the current proposal has far less foundation splits than the 1987 approval and involves more grading, the end result is that 12 of the 20 homes are plotted such that the roofiines are below, very near or slightly above (four feet) the existing curb line. Again, when taken as a whole, the current proposal far exceeds the 1987 project in terms of view preservation. "The new Concordia homes will be a traditional two-story style, which is not consistent with the current adjacent neighborhood." Response: The currently proposed homes are all two-story and they do have traditional styles. The home design was subject to substantial negotiation through the design review process. The Planning Commission and the Design Review Committee were not willing to accept anything less than the best home design because these homes will be visible from so many different directions. There are essentially no elevations that will be "hidden" as with typical fiat land tract homes. The Commission and Design Review Committee wanted the homes to appear to be custom built rather than have a tract home appearance. They wanted all sides of the homes to have the same level of architectural quality. Concordia's proposed homes exhibit true 360-degree architectural quality, so much so that it is difficult to tell which is the front or rear of a given home (the garage door is the only clue). There is substantial color and material variation, that combined with the variety of architectural styles fosters, a custom appearance. There are two-story homes in the neighborhood. "The elevations in the drawings given to me by Concordia Homes are not correct or misleading. The height of the homes on lots 2 - 4 is not correct; the elevations on the drawing of the same lot on the same drawing are different with top and side views." Response: The appellant provided a clarification of this item regarding Concordia's sight line plans for Lots 2 and 3, which are directly across the street from the Massey's. Staff has rechecked these plans in light of the appellant's comments and finds that in almost all cases, the plans are accurate and correct; however, there is one discrepancy. The sight line section for Lot 2 on Sheet 7B shows the home foundation approximately 10 feet lower than the plan indicates. In this case, the plan is correct and the sight line section is wrong. The information on Sheet 7B was not presented to the Design Review Committee nor the Planning Commission. Staff found the view-shed analysis that shows the front (north view) of the homes relative to the Camino Predera curb line as viewed from the north to be more useful to analyze view impacts of the project, and this was the exhibit relied upon for Design Review Committee and Planning Commission review of the project. This view-shed analysis has been reviewed and accurately reflects the project. "If these drawings are wrong and misleading, what other aspects of the submitted plans to Planning Commission and staff are wrong and misleading?" Response: The applicant has fully cooperated with the City to provide a set of development plans that accurately and comprehensively portray this project. An exhaustive view impact analysis was performed to clearly show what views would and would not be impacted. The plans were reviewed by City staff, the City's Civil Engineering consultant, and the Grading Committee. With the exception of the above item regarding a sight line cross section for one lot, the plans are accurate. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 0047 AND VARIANCE 00-09 APPEAL - CONCORDIA HOMES March 7, 2001 Page 4 The appellant also claims that the project alters the CC&R's for the tract. As stated previously, the CC&R's view provision limits homes to 24 feet above the curb line, and the Concordia Homes proposal fully conforms with this limitation. ALTERNATIVES: In light of the one error in the plans as noted above under item 5, the City Council may wish to request that the Planning Commission review the project again with this item corrected. Staff is of the opinion that the issue is minor; that other exhibits within the development package accurately reflect the view shed impacts related to the project. The Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission relied upon these plans, not the one with the error, for their deliberation and decision. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Appellant's Letter dated February 5, 2001 Exhibit "B" - Excerpts from previously approved Development Review Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 24, 2001 Exhibit "D"- Planning Commission Resolution 01-10 Exhibit "E" - Planning Commission Resolution 01-11 Exhibit"F"-Planning Commission Minutes dated January 10, 2001 January 24, 2001 Resolution to Deny Appeal for Development Review 0047 Resolution to Deny Appeal for Vadance 00-09 and H. Lynn Massey and Renee A. Massey 8088 Camino Predera ... RanchQ CuCamonga, CA 91730-1900 909~981-6499 02-05-2001 Rancho Cucamonga City Counsel, , ~'ItY(JFCR/W~C_HOC~7~71 Please consider this to be an official appeal to alter the development of Concordia homes on tract 10035. There are a few reasons I feel it should be changed, they are as follows: ~:e: 1. The elevation of the homes does not follow the original elevation of the filed plans in 1987. Those plans call for the view of the lots north of the development not to be unreasonably obstructed. 2. The new Concordia Homes plans are now 25 feet higher and will obstruct the total view of our property toward the valley. 3. The old plans were for split-level homes with part of the home cut into the slop of the property. This would keep with the consistency of the existing homes on the street. 4. The new Concordia Homes will be a traditional two-story style, which is not consistent with the current adjacent neighborhood. 5. The elevations in the drawings given to me by Concordia Homes are not correct or mis-leading. The height of homes on lots 2-4 is not correct. The elevations on the drawings of the same lot on the same drawing are different with top and side views. 6. If these drawings am wrong and mis-leading what other aspects of the submitted plans to planning commission and staff, are wrong and misleading. Please review this information. I feel the original plans elevation should be followed as not to unreasonably obstruct our view with this new development. The CC&R's were drawn upon the original plans and allowed for view preservation. The new builder has been allowed to alter the scope and frameworks of the plans thus altering the CC&Rs. Renee A. Massey ~"~~ CITY G~ R~tlGHO CITY ~LL FINA)ICE l~ C]VlC CE~ER DRIVE ~IPT: ~4~7 TDTAL Pi)I) l~.~ H L ~IP~EY FROM: PRIMEERICA FINANCIAL SERUICES FAX NO. : 909-SW9-9664 Feb. 15 2001 03:53PM P2 Mr. Le Count Here are the figures we am making reference about. Lot 3 Drawing 7A; Boyle Engineers for Concordia Homes: 1348' 1368' (12' higher then actual) 1362' (8' higher than actual) Foundation Line of sight elevations BalcOny elevation Actual elevations: Line of sight Foundation elevation Balcony elevation Lot 2 1356' (8088 Camino Predera) 1350' (8088 Camino Prodera) 1350' (8088 Camino Predera) Drawing 7B; Boyle Engineers for Concordia Homes: Foundation 1348' (Same as lot 3 even though it's 10' higher) 1356' (Per summary elevation sheet; Concordia Homes) 1358' (8088 Camino Prodera; 8' higher than other drawing) 1384' (8' higher than actual) 1374' (9' lower than summanJ sheet) Foundation Line of sight Roof Line Actuat elevations: Line of sight Foundation elevation Balcony elevation 1356' (8088 Camino Prodera) 1350' (8088 Camino Prodera) 1350' (8088 Camino Prodere) The drawings are being review by our attorney- We got these drawings from Concordia Homes on 12-'j~-bb. i couid meet with you i~dday the i6~ in the a~temoon but i know you are closed. The next time I can meet you is Tuesday morning at 8:00am. Let me know when we can meet. Thank you for your time T H E C ITY OF CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: January 24, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 00-09 - CONCORDIA HOMES - A request to allow retaining walls approximately 10 feet in height where a maximum height of 4 feet is allowed, and slope gradients of approximately 1.5:1 where a maximum gradient of 2:1 is allowed for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera, south of Red Hill Country Club Drive -APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11o Related Files: Development Review 00-47 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera, south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related Files: Variance 00-09 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. j% BACKGROUND: These items were continued from the January 10, 2001, meeting to provide staff the time to obtain and review Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) forTract 10035. This was as a result of testimony from property owners that the CC&Rs include view preservation provisions that they believe are contrary to the development proposal. A copy of the CC&Rs is attached. ANALYSIS: The CC&Rs contain view obstruction provisions (see Article II, Section 2.04). This section states, "the maximum roof height of Lots 1 to 21, inclusive, shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet above top of curb at the center of the lot." The proposed grading and home design have been analyzed in light of this restriction. All homes except for those on Lots 19 and 20 are in conformance with the 24-foot height limit. The homes on Lots 19 and 20 were found to be a mere 3 to 4 inches above the maximum height limit. The applicant has revised the grading and plotting of homes on Lots 19 and 20 to lower the homes 6 inches to comply with the 24-foot height limit.' Note that twelve of the twenty homes are designed to be 8 feet to 41 feet BELOW the 24-foot maximum height limit. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VA 00-09, DR 00-47-Concordia Homes January 24,2001 Page 2 The issue of view preservation was a major item of discussion during the Planning Commission Workshop and the Design Review meetings on the project. The project design and grading has undergone numerous significant changes in response to staff comments and neighborhood concerns regarding sight lines. Upon completion of the Design Review process, it was determined that the applicant had done an exemplary job of preserving views wherever possible. This is exemplified in light of the 24-foot maximum height limit established by the CC&Rs, as a majority of the lots are so far below this limit. Although the City has no authority to enforce private CC&Rs, staff believes that the project, as redesigned, fully complies with the CC&Rs. CORRESPONDENCE: The Variance was advertised as a public hearing for the January 10, 2001, Planning Commission meeting in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. At the January 10, 2001, meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for two weeks. Staff received a follow-up letter from a resident in opposition to the project and also attached is a letter provided to the Commission at the last meeting because it was received too late to be included with the January 10, 2001, staff report (Exhibit "C"). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Development Review 00-47, Variance 00-09, and Tree Removal Permit 00-41 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions and with issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:BLC\ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Tract 10035 Exhibit "B" - Compliance Matrix Exhibit "C" - Letter of Opposition received January 16, 2001 Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 10, 2001 Resolution of Approval for Variance 00-09 Resolution of Approval for Design Review 00-47 ~4, ~--..~,~'~ wHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Rsnchm Associates, Ltd. p.o... o0o-.1 /X Rancho Cucamonqa, CA 91701 55','Y 5 .....L)TT6.~lfir' RECORDED fN OFFICIAL RrcOr:D^ _ I:F3 ~UC 31 p,~ 4~ 39 EO., CALIF. TABIa OF CONTENTS OF DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDI'!IONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATION OF EASEMENTS FOR TRACT NO. 10035 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIND. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARTICLE ARTICLE II DEFIN/TIONS 1.01 Committee 1.02 Close of Escrow 1.03 Declarant 1.O4 Declaration 3.05 Dwelling Unit 1.06 Family 1.07 Improvement 1.O8 Lot 1.09 Mortgage 1.10 Mortgagee 1.11 Owner 1.12 Person 1.13 Projects 1.14 Record or Filed 1.15 Street ~LS/L.BES_T~XCT. IONS 2.01 2.02 2.03 ?..04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 Single Family Residence Buildings Signs View Obstructions Temporary Buildings Nuisance Antennae Animal and Insect Restriction Vehicles Business or Commercial Activity -i- P_A_G.F, NO. ARTICLE III ARTICLE IV ARTICLE V ARTICLE VI ARTICLE ARTICLE VII 2.11 Trash 2.~ No Ilazardous Activities 2 13 tlo Mining and Dr]llinqs · · 2.14 Further Subdivision 2.15 water and Sewer Syetem~ 2.16 Drainage 2.17 Solar [:.ergy lnet,lAat[on~ 3.01 Utility Easements 3.02 Acchss to Slopes and Drainage Wayt~ 3.03 Slope Maintenance 3.04 Sight Lines LANDSCAPE. IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE 4.01 Installation of Landscaping 4.02 Exterior Maintenance and Repair; Owner's Obligations ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING CO~I~T_T_E-~ 5.01 Members of Committee 5.02 Meetings of the Committee 5.03 No Waiver of Future Approvals 5.04 Compensation of Members 5.05 cu..Tection of Defects 5.06 Non-Liability of Committee Members 5.07 variance TEPdMINATION. AMENDMENT AND S=V_~RABIh~TJ. 6.01 Termination and Amendment 6.02 Severability E~EMpTION AND RIGMrS OF DECI.eaA~ MISCELLANEOUS 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 8.06 9 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 14 Enforcement Costs and Attorneys Fees 14 No Representations or Warranties 15 constructive Notice and 15 Acceptance Insurance Obligations of Owners 15 Notices 15 -ii- DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATION OF EASEMENTS FOR TRACT NO. 10035 CITY OF RANCIte CUCA~IONGA~ ~LCA~_T. LQ_E__~AtL~.E f~]j%RDINO. STATE O~_~ALX EOI~N~A TIllS DECLARATION is made by Rancho Ansociate~, Ltd., California general partnership hereinafter referred to am "Declarant." A. Daclarant is the Owner of certain real property ("Project") located in the city of Rancho cucamongs, county of San Barsardine, State of C~lifornia, more particularly described as follows: Lots 1 thru 38, inclusive, of Tract No. 10035, located in the city of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Barsardine, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 1'19 of maps, pages 33, 34 and 35, records of Said County. B. Declarant will convey the project, subject to certain protective covenants, conditions, restrictions end easements as hezeinafter set forth. C. Declarant hereby declares that all of the project shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to the following covenants, Conditions~ 'i;~strictions and easements, all and each of which ~re for the p~.cno%e of enhancing and perfecting the value, desirability, and attractiveness of the project, in furtherance of a general plan for the protection of the pro~ect, porLiu. Lhereof. All, and each of, these covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements of this Declaration are hereby imposed as equitable servitudes upon the project, shall run with the project, and shall be binding on all parties having or acquiring any rights, title or interest in the Project or any part thereof, and their successors and assigns. ARTICLE I Section 1.0~ "~m!ttee" shall mean the single architectural and landscaping committee formed pursuant to Article V hereof. ~_c~ 1.01- "~l~s_e__qf E~crow" shall mean the date on which a ~eed conveying any Lot is recorded in the Office of the San Bernardino County Recorder. -1- 88-291661 ~td., e California gen~ial par n P, ' person to which it shall h~v~ a~signad any rights hereund~r by an expressed written assignment. ~_~lQ31_l~{. ',p~lnra~lgn" shall mean this instrum~nt it may he amended from time to time. ~e_~%~9~ 1.0~. "~olli~ U~l~" shall mean s d~tached building located on $ Lot end dgsignsd end intended for u~e and occupancy a~ a residence b}' a single family. $eC~1933~. ,,[~" shall mean (1) ~ group of natural persons related to each other b~ blood o~' legally related to each other by marriage or ado~tion, or (2) a group of not more than six (6) persons not all ~o related, inclusive of their domestic savants, who maintain a common household in a Dwelling Unit. ~9ti~1.07. ,,~prov~men=" ehull mean all structures and appurtenances thereto of every type and kind, including but not limited to buildings, outbuildings, walkways, bicycle trails. sprialkler pip~3, garage~, carports, road[, driveways, parking areas, landscaping items, fences, screening walls, retaining walls, stairs, decks, landscaping, hedges, windbreaks, planrings, planted trees and shrub$, poles, signs, exterior air conditioning and water-softener fixtures or equipment. $ect~ok~. ,,.~- shall mean any residential plot of land shown upon anl' recorded subdivisioD map or recorded parcel map of the project which is subject to thi~ Declaration. ~c~0t. ,,~ortqa~" shall mean any mortgage or deed of t an obligation. which will be recnnveVed upon t~ such perromance. The tam "Deed of'Trust" or .Trust Deed" when used herein shall be syngnymous with the tam ,,Mortgage." S~- ,,~ortga~o" shall mean a Person to whom Mortgage is made and snell include the beneficiary of a Deed of Trust~ ,,Mortq~gor" shall mean a Person who mortgages his or ~ts property to another (I.e.. the maker of a Mortgage), and shall include the Trustor of a Deed of Trust. The tam "Trustor" shall be synon~ous with the term ,,Mor,.~agor", and the term "Eeneficiary" shall be syncnymou~ with the term ,,~ortgagee". including Declatent, holding fee simple interest of record to any ~t which is a p~rt of the Project, including sellers under axeoutcry contracts of ~ale, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. For purposes of Article II only, unless the context otherwise requires, "owner" shall also inc] ,e the family, 88-291tff;1 ~3~c~ion 1,12. ,,F_~r_~gn,, shall mean a natural individual, a corporation or any other entity with the legal right to hold title to real property. ~_~n ~3~-- "Pro~_q~" ~hail mean that certain real property described in Paragraph A of the preamble to thia Declaration. ~9Stion 1.14- "~cor~" or "[Skl~" shall mean. with re~pect to any document. the recorda~ion or filing of snell document IB the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardinn County, State of California. Section 1,1~. "street" shall mean any street or other thoroughfare, shown on any recorded subdivision map or parcel map of the Project. The foregoing definitions shall be applicable to this Declaration and also to any Declaration of Amendment, unless otherwise expressly provided, recorded pursuant to the provisions of this Declaration. ARTICLE II USE RESTRICTIONS All real property within the Project shall be held, used and enjoyed subject to the following limitations and restrictions, subject to the exempt/ons of Declarant set forth heroin: Sect~qB.2~O.~. Sinule F~milv Residence. Each Lot shall have a Dwelling Unit constructe~ thezeon which shall bc used as a residence for a single Family and for no other purpose. Section 2,02. Buildings. No Dwelling Unit shall be erectea, altered, placed, or permitted to remain in any Lot other than one detached Dwelling Unit designed to accommodate no more than a single fatally and its servants and occasional guests, plus a garage and fencing and such other Improvements as are necessary or customarily incident to a single Family Dwelling Unit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an accessory structure (i.e., gazebe, cabana, etc.) may be erected with the express written consenz of the Committee formed pursuant to Article V of this Declaration. Anything contained in this section to the contrary notwithstanding, no accessory structure may be placed on the Lot until Owner obtains all permits and complies with all governmental laws, including, but not limited to, the setback requirements required by zoning ordinance(s). In addition to the foregoing, the precise design and placement of all ~tructures on all Lots with the Project shall be subject to approval by the Design Service -3- Committee of the City of Rancho Cucamonge prior to the issuance of building permits. ~ection 2.03. ~Lg~. No sign, poster, billboard, advertising device or other display of ~ny kind ~haIl be displayed to the public view on any portion of the pro]net or any Lot, without the prior written consent of the Committee, except one sign for each Dwelling Unit, of not more than s~x (6) ~qusre feat, advertising the property for Bale or rent, or except signs, regardless of size, used by Declarl;nt, its successors or assigns, for directional or information purposes or to advertise the project during the construction and sale period. All signs cr billboards end the conditions promulgated for the regulation thereof shall conform to the requirements of all applicable governmental ordinances. ~ction 2.0~. View Obstructlq]!~. Sub~e~.t to the exemption of Declatent as set forth in this peclaratlon, no vegetation, Improvement, or other obstructions shall be planted, constructed, or maintained on any Lot in such location or of such height as to unreasonably obstruct the view from any other Lot in the Project. Each Owner of a Lot shall be responsible for the periodic trimming and pruning of all hedges shrubs and trees located on his Lot, so as to not u:]reasonably obstruct the view from adjacent Lots. In the event of a dispute bet~een Owners as to the obstruction of view from a Lot, such dispute shall be submitted to the Committee, whose decisions on such matter shall be binding. Any such obstruction shall, upon request of th~ Committee, be removed or otherwise altered to the. satisfaction of the Committee, by the Owner of the Lot upon which said obstruction is located. In the event that any Owner shall fall to remove or otherwise alter any such obstruct~.o~ with the requests of th~ Ccm~i~tue, t~e Committee or its duly ~,/thozi~d appointees or agents, upon fifteen (15) days prior written notice to the Owner of the affected Lot, shall have the right to correct such condition, s nd enter upon such Owner's Lot for the purpose of doing so, and such Owner shall promptly reimburse the Committee of the cost thereof. Such cost shall be recoverable ~ the Committee in the same manner as set forth in Article IV of this Declaration. For purposes of this Section 2.04, an Owner's "view" shall be deem~.d to exclude any line of sioht from such Owner'~ Lot which intersects or traverses any neighboring Lot which is of equal or greater elevation at the time the grading and initial construction of Improvements on the ~roJect is completed by Declatent. Each Owner, by accepting a deed to a Lot, hereby acknowledges that ~he line of sight from I~t~ in the Project at the time such Lots were originally offered for sale to the public by peclarant may be subject to subsequent cbstruction as e result of ~uture construction or plantings by Uecla~ant or by other Owners pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the Committee in accordance wi~h this Scotion 2.04 and Article V of this Declaration. The maximum II/ roof height of Lots I to 21 inclusive shall not exceed twehty-four (24) feet obove tcp of curb at the center of thn lot. 5_~ilg/]_L-O~. Tempor~/~V_l~%Ltl/U. figeL Subject to the d provisions of Article vII of this Declaration, ~,o outbull ing, 'basement, tent, privy, shack, shed or other temporary building or I~provement. or any kind 8hall be plauea upon any portion the Pro~ect either temporarily or perw;~anently. Pie trsller, camper, motor home, boa~ or recreation vehicle uhall be used as a residence in the Project, either temporarily or permanently. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an acceBsory structure (i.e., 9azebo, cubann, etc.) ~ay be erected with the express written consent of the Committhe formed pursuant to ~rttcle V of the Declaration- Anything contained in this 6ectlon to the contrary notwithstanding, no accessory structure may be placed on the ~t until Owner obtains all permits and complies with all governmental laws, including, but not 'limited to, the setback requirements required by zoning ordinaDce(s). ~g~e. ~ui~n~e- No ~t shall be used 'in such manner a~ to obstruct cr in:erfere unreasonably with the residential uses of other ~ts, nor in such manner a~ to unreasonably annoy the occupants of ~elltng Units located on other ~ts by unreasonablP noises, offensive odors. noxious or offensive trade or activity. or otherwise- l~ctio~3~l. Antennae. ~o exterior r~dio antenna, C.B. antenna, television antenna, ~atellite dish, pole or ~ther antenn~ of any type ~hall be erected or maintained on any l~t. A master antenna or cablevision antenna may be provided for the use of all Owners, ~nd Declara~ may gran~ easements for such purposes. Section 2.08. Animal and Insect Restriction. No livestock, reptiles. insects, poultry or o~her animals of any kind sl~all be rai~ed, bred or kept on any ~t, except domestic dog~, cat~, fish, birds and other household pets may be ke~,t on Lots, provided that :hey are not kept, bred or mainruined for commercial purpoee~ or in unreasonable quantities. As used this Declaration, .unreasonable quantities" shall ordinarily mean more than three (3) pets per Dwellinq Unit, provided, hewever, that the Committee may determine that a reasonable number In any instance may be more or less. Th~ Committee have the right to prohibit maintenance of any animal whlclx in lt~ opinion constitutes a nuisance to any other Owner. Animals belonging to Owners, occupants or their licensees, tenante or inviteus within the Project must be either kept within un e.closure, or enclosed patio or on a leash being held by a person capable of controlling the animal. Furthermore, any Owner shall be absolutely lisble to each and all remaining Owners, their JamIlls., auests. tenant. nn,t tnvtte-~, fur animals brought or kept ~pon the Project by an Owner or by members of his family, his tenants or his gue6ts. -5- ~tjaZU_~A~. ~e. bJQl~- No trailer, trailer coach, camp trailer, motor home, recreational vehicle, truck, camper, or boat shall be kept or maintained anywhere on the Project, including without limitation, any Street (public or private), In such manner a~ to be visible from a neighboring l~t, unles~ screened in a designated sideyard behind tensing approved by the Architectural Committee. Ho vehicle or boat shall be constructed or repaired upon any Lot or Street [public or private} in such a manner as to be visible from any Lot. No inoperable vehicle shall be stored or allowed to remain on any Lot or Street (public Or private) in such a manner as to be visible from any other Lot. Vehicles owned, spursted or within the control Of any owner shall be parked in the garage of such Owner, tn the extent of the space available therein, and each Owner shall ensure that his garage is maintained so as to be capable Of accommodating at least two (2) full-sized automobiles. Notwithstanding the foregoing, these restrictions shall not be interpreted in such manner so as to permit any activity which would be contrary to any ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Section 2.10. BusiLess or Commercial ActivitY. No part of the Project shall ev'~V be used or caused to be use,'. or allowed or authorized in any way, directly or indirectly, for any business, commercial, m3nufacturing, mercantile, storing, vendtag or other such non-residential purposes; except Declatent, its successors or assigns, may use any portion of the Project owned by Declarant for model home sites, display and sales office during the construction and sales period in accordance with this Declaration, and except professional and administrative occupations without external evidence thereof, for so long as such occupations are in confo~nance with local governmental ordinances and are merely incidental to the use of the Dwelling Unit as a single Family residential home. Each Owner may rent or lease the Dwelling Unit on his Lot by means of Of this Declaration. The terms of any such lease or rental agreement shall be subject in all respect~ to the prsvi~ion~ of this Declaration, and any failure by the lessee Of such Dwelling Unit to comply with the terms of this Declaration shall constitute a default under the lease or rental agreement. ~Gio3~_Z~/1. Trash. No rubbish, trash or garbage or Other waste material shall be kept or permitted upon any Lot, except in s~nitary containers located in appropriate areas screened and concealed from view, and no odor shall be permitted to arise thuret~uh, so as to render the Project, or any portion thereof, unsanitary, unr~.ghtly, Offensive or detrimental to any other property in the vicinity thereof or to its occupants. Trash containers shall be exposed to the view of neighboring Lots only when set out for a ~easonable period of time {not to exceed twelve (12) hours before and after scheduled trash collection houko~. There shall be no exterioz fires whatsoever except barbecue fires centained within receptacles therefor and fire -6- 88-231661 pits in the enclosed yards designed in such a manner that they do not create e fire hazard. ~Io clothing or household fabrics shall be hung, dried or aired in such a way in the Project as to be visible tO other property in the project, and no lumber, grass, ehruu, or tree clippings or plant waste, metals, bulk materials, scrap, refur~ or trash shall be kept stored or ~llowed to accumulate on any portion of tho Project except within an enclosed structure or appropriately screened from VieW, ~ection 2.12. ~9_H~zar~ous A~yl~l~fi. No acti,,itie~ shall be conducted on any Lot, and no Improvements shall be c~nstzucted on any Lot which are or might be unsafe or hazardous to any Person or property. ~q~3~19333.13. MO Mi~tDq and Drilling. No portion of the Project shall be used for the purpose of mining, quarrying, drilling, boring, or exploring for or removing water, oil, gas, or other hydrocarbons, minerals, rocks, stones, gravel o} earth. ~Io gravel or earth shall be exported from any lot in the Project so lon4 as any other Lot in the project has a need for grPvel or earth. $ection 2.14. [_grther Subdivision- No Owner shall further subdivide or partition his Lot; provided, however, that this provision shall not be construed to limit the right of an Owner (1) to rent or lease all of his Lot by means of a written lease or rental agreement subject to the restrictions of this Declaration, so long as the Lot is not leased for transient or hotel purposes; (2) to sell his Lot; or (3) trans'er or sell his ~t to more than one Person to be hold by them as tenants in common, Joint tenants, tenants by the entirety or as community property. Terms of any such rental or lease agreement shall be ~,.h~ect ,n all respects to the provisions of this Declaration, and'any failure by the Lessee of ..... ~. ,.~ +n ~mD!V with the terms of this Declaration shall constitute a default under the lease. Section Z,15. '4a~3r and Sewer Systems. No individual water supply system, water so£~ener ~ystem or sewage disposal system shall be permitted on any Lot unless such system is designed, located, constructed and equipped in accordance with the requirement, ~tandards and recommendations of any applicable water district and any applicable governmental health authority having Jurisdiction. ~_¢_c_~19333~j~. Drainage. There shall be no interference with or obstruction of the establlshe~ surface drainage pattern over any Lot within the Project, unless an adequate alternative provision is made for proper drainage and is first approved in writing by the Committee. Any alteration of the established drainage pattern must at all times comply with all applicable local governmental ordinances. For the purpose hereof, "e~tablished" drainage is defined as the drainage which exists -7- I f! 88-291661 at the time the overall grading of any Lot is completed by Declatent, or that which la shown on any plans apEroved by the Committee. Each Owner shall maintain, r~patr and replace and k~6p free from debris or 5b~t~uctions the drainage system and devices, if any, located on ht~ Lot. ~ction 2.17. ~91ar B/lelav Ill~ila~ens. The Committee shall approve tile plans and specifications for the installation oi residential (including swimming pools} solar ~ystems, provided that the Committee determines that such plans and specifications demonstrate the exercise of reasonable measures to minimize the potential adverse aesthetic impact of the installation on other portions of the project. The Committee shall promulgate reasonable standards end guidelines against which to examine any such plans and specifications, in accordance with Article V of the Declaration. Notwithstanding tale foregoing, any such Committee approval shall have no effect upon. the enforceability Of any other use restriction in the Declaration. ARTICLE III ]~ASEMENTS Section 3,Q~. Utility Easements. Each Owner agrees, by the acceptance of his d~ed, that his Lot is granted subject to easements for utility installations and maintenance. Easements for installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are reserved as shown on any recorded Subdivision Map Of the Project. Within these easements, no structure, planting or ether material shall be placed or permitted to remain which may damage or interfere with the installation and maintenance of utilities arid drainage facilities. The utility easement areas of each Lot and all Improvements in it shall b~ m~inta~n~d uontinuously Dy the Owner of such Lot, except for those Improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible- ~ection 3.02. AC~e~s_to Slopes and Dlai~aqe ~ays. Each Owner agrees for himself and his successors in interest, by the acceptance of his deed, to permit free access by Owners of other Lots to slopes or drainage ways, if any, located on his Lot, which slopes or drainage ways affect said other E.ots, when such access is essential for the maintenance of permanent stabilization on such slopes or for the maintenance of said drainage ways for the protection or use of said other Lots. ~_9~t_lqiL9_~91. SloPe Maintenance- The slop~ areas, if any, of each Lot and all Improvements in them shall be maintained continuous]y by the Owner of the Lot, except for those Improvements for which a public authority or utility company is re~ponsible. -8- -291661 $~tion 3.0~. ~lgh~._~*18~' No fence well, hedge or shrub ~evations between two ~l~ing which obstructs sight lines at a to end six feet above the Street shall be placed or permitted remain on any corner Lot within the triangular area formed by the Street property limmes and a line connecting them at points twenty-five (25) feet from the intersection of'the Street lines, or in the case of a rounded property corner from the intersection of the Street property lines mxteedod a~ if the Streets intersected. The ~ame sight-line limltationr: shall apply to any I~t within ten (10) feet from the intersection of a Street property line with the edge of driveway or alley pavement. No trees shall be permitted to remain within such distance c:? such intersections unless the foliage line is maintained at sufficient height to prevent obstruction of the sight lines. ARTICLE IV ~__H~SiApE, IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE S_e~tiO~ ~.01. installation of J_n_jd.sa~. Within ninety (90) days after the close of escrow for the sale of a Lot ~ith a DWelling Unit thereon in the project from Declatent to a purchaser, the Owner shall plant lawns or otherwise landscape the front yard and side yard in a neat and attractive condition, in accordance with a landscape plan approved in writing by the Committee pursuant to Article V of this Declaration- Within twelve (12) months after close of escrow for the sale of a Lot with e DWelling Unit thereon in the project from Declarant to a purchaser, the Owner shall plan~ lawns or otherwise landscape his rear yard, and thereafter maintain the landscaping of his rear yard in a neat and attractive condition, in accordance with a landscape plan apFroved in writing by the Committee pursuan~ t$ Arti$!c V cf this Dec!~.r~tion, In th~ ev~n~ ~,,~h l~nd~cap~ng is not completed within the time-frame above mentioned, Declarant or the Committee may enter on to such Lot and carry out landscaping plans approved by the Committee at the expense nf the Owner of such Lot. Said plan shall provide for landscaping sufficie~ to prevent drainage or flow of water from said Owner'~ Lot onto any adjacent Lot. All vegetation on the Lots shall be irrigate,' and fertilized regularlY. Each Owner o[ a Lot shall cut, prune, irrigate and maintain regularly the landscaping thereon, including a permanent irrigation system. In the event of a failure of an Owner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements (which failure shall be regarded as a nuisance), the Committee or its duly authorized appointees or agents shall so notify the Owner and direct such Owner to do whatever work is necessary to secure compliance wit. this Section- If within thirty (30) days after such Owner's rc3eipt of said written notice, the Owner's Lot still does not conform to the requirements of this Section, the Committee or its duly authorized ann~intcc~ cr agent~ shall h~ve the right ofther to seek any remedies at law or in equity which it may have or to enter upon the ~ffending Lot and remove weeds, rubbish or other materials and do all things necss~ary to place such Lot in -9- 88- 1661 compliance with this Section, including the installation, irrigation und fertilization of vegetatiun end other landscaping. The Committee shall h~v~ the right to order such work to be ~ccomplished by any third party at any time after sending notice to such Owner. The Committee shall have the right to commence an action at law sgslnst any such Owner to recover the cost of su,~h work. ~nterest shall ac;crue on such delinquent amounts at the rate'of ten perce[,t (10%) p,r annum fz.~m and after expiration of such thirty (30) day period, and any Judgment in favor of the Committee shall include all cost suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. Section ~02. Exterior Ma]~teDan~e and Repair; Own{;'$ b~_llg~tion~- No Improvements anywhere within the project shall be permitted to fall into disrepair, and ~ach Improvement shall at all times be k~t in good condition and repair. In the ev~.,t that any Owner shall permit any Improvement, which is the responsibility of such Owner to maintain, to fall into disrepair so as to create a dangerous, unsafe, unsightly or unattractive Condition, the Committee upon fifteen (15) days prior written notice to the Owner of such property, shF~l have the right to correct such condition, and to enter upon such Owner's Lot for the purpose of doing so, and such Owner shall promptly reimburse the Committee for the cost thereof. Such cost shall be recoverable by the Committee in the same manner as set forth in Section 4.01 of this Article. The Owner of the offending Lot shall be personally liable, and his Lot may be subject to a mechanic;s lien, for all costs ard expenses incurred by the Committee in taking such corrective acts, plus all costs incurred in collecting the amounts due. Each Owner shall pay all ~mounts due for such work with ten (10) days after receipt of written demand therefor. ARTICL~ V A~C~ITECTURA~ AND L~NDSCAPING COM~IIT~_E_E_ SectiPD 5.01. ~embers of Committee. The Architectural and Landscape committee, sometimes referred to in this Declaration as the "Committ-e", snell consist of representatives of Declatent whose business address is P.O. Box 7000-311, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701. Declarder shall have the un-estricted right to appoint and remove a majority of the members of the Committee and to fill any vacancy of such majority of the members of the Committee and to fill any vacancy of such majority until the ,,turnover date" which shall be the date On which -[ther (I) ninety percent (90%) Of the Lots subject t~ this Declaration have been sold and the deeds recorded ("Close of Escrow"), Or (2) five years following the date of issuance of the Final subdivision Publ}c Report far the Project, whichever occurs earlier. Dec]stunt may at any time assign in writing such powers of removal and appointment to any developer of I,ot~ in the Proj-ct, subject to conditions as Declarant may impo~e. Commencing one (1) year from the date of Close of Escrow for the sale of the first Lot in the -10- 88-2 1G 1 project to n purchaser (other than a developer) from Declatent, the Owners Of a majority o~ the Lots (excluding Lot owned by Declatent) sh~ll have the power to appoint in writing on,i (1) member to the Committee, until the turnover date. Thereafter, the Owners of a majority of the Lots (including Lots o~ned by Declatent) shall hart, th) power to appoint and remove all cf the members of the Committee. Members of the Committee appointed to the Committee by Declarant need not be residents of the Project but all other members of the Committee mustbe full time residents of'the Project. ~_~D 5-02. M3etinqs of the Committee. The Committee shall meet from time to time as necessary to perZorm its duties hereunder- T~e Committee may from time to time, by resolution unanimously adopted in writing, designate a Com;~:ittee Representative (who may, but need not, be one of its members) to take any action or perform any duties for and on b3half of the Committee, except the granting of variances pursuant to Section 5.08 hereof. In the absence of such designation, the vote or the written consent of a majority of the Committee taken without a meeting shall constitute an act of t~e Committee. Section 5.03. ~q waLv_eC o~_I ~re A~Drov~s,. The approval of the Committee to any proposals or plans and specifications or drawings for any work done or proposed or in connection with aey other -~tter requiring the approval and consent of the Committee shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any right to withhold approval or consent as to any similar proposals, plans and specifications, drawings or matter whatever subsequently or additionally submitted for approval or consent. ~_eCtion 5.04- Compensation of Membe[s. The members of the Other than reimDursement for expenses actually incurred by them in the performance Of their duties hereunder. Section 5.05. Correction of Defects. Inspection of work and correction of defects therein shall proceed as follows: (a) The Committee Or its duly authorized representative may at any time inspect any Improvement for which approval of plans is required ilnder this Article V: provided, tiewaver, that the Commit~ee's right of inspection of Improvements far which plans have been submitted and approved shall terminate sixty (60) days after such work of Improvement shall have been completed and tile respective Owner shall have given written notice to the Committee of such completion. The Committee's rights of inspection shall not terminate pursuant to this paragraph in the event that plans for the work of Improvement have not previously been submitted to and approved by tile Committee. If, as a result of such inspection, the Committee finds that sucl~ improvemeet was done without obtaini~g approval of the plane tilerefer or was not done in substantial compliance with the plane approved by the Committee, it ~hal[ -ll- notify the Owner in writing of failure to comply with this Article V within sixty (60) days from the inspection, specifying the particulars of noncompliance. The Committee shall have the authority to require the owner to take such action sq may bc necessary to remedy the noncompliance. (b) If upon thL expiration of sixty days from the date of such notification, the owner shall have failed to remedy such noncompliance0 the Committee shall determine the estimated cost of correcting or removing the same, and the Committee, at its option, may record a notice of noncompliance in the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino and may peacefully remedy the noncompliance, and the Owner shall reimburse the Committee, upon demand, for all expenses incurred in connection therewith. If such expenses are not promptly repaid by the O.fner to the Committee, then the Committee shall have all rights at law Or in equity to collect such.expenses, in accordance with the provisions of Sect]on 4.01 of this Declaration. (c) If for any reason the Committee fail~ to notify the Owner of any noncompliance with previously submitted and approved plans within sixty (60) days after receipt of said written notice of completion from the Owner, the Improvement shall be deemed to be in accordance with said approved plans. Section, 5.06. Non-Liability of Committee Members. Neither Declarant, the Committee nor any member thereof, nor their duly authorized representative shall be liable to any Owner for any loss, damage or injury arising out of or in any way connected with the ~erformance of the Committee's duties hereunder, unless due to the willful misconduct or bad faith of the Committee The Committee shall review and approve Or disapprove all piuu~ submitted to it for any proposed Improvement, alteration or addition, on the basis of satisfaction of the Committee with the grading plan, location of the Improvements on the Lot, the finished ground elevation ~he color scheme, finish, desigm, proportions, architecture, shape, ~qight, style and appropriateness of proposed Impr~vements to views from adgoinlng Lots, the materials used therein, the kinds, pitch or type of roof proposed to be placed thereon, the planting landscaping, size, height or location of vegetation on a Lot, or on the basis of aesthetic considerations and the overall benefit or detriment wnici~ would result to the immediate vicinity end the Project generally. The Committee shall take into consideration the aesthetic aspects of the architectural designs, placement of buildings, landscaping, color schemes, exterior finishes a~d materials and similar features, but shall not be responsible for reviewing, not shall its approval of any plans or design be deemed approval of, any plan or design from the standpoint of structural safety or ccnfermance with building or other codes. Se~.tjan 5.07. V_a.Li~D~. The Committee may authorize variances from compliance with any of the architectural -12 ~ 88-291e31 provisions of this DeclarAtion, including without limitation restrictions upon height, Rile, floor area or placement of structures, or similar regtrictions when circumstances such as topography, natural obstructions, hardship, aesthetic or environmental consideration may require. Such variances must be evidenced in writing, must be signed by at least a majority the Com~ittee and shall become effective upon recordation in the Office of the Count}' Recorder ot San Bernardins- If such variances are granted, no violation of the covenants, conditions sad restrictions contained in this Declaration shall be deemed to have occurred with respect to the matter for which the vaziance was granted. The granting of such a variance ~hall not operate ~o waive any of the terms and provisions of this Declaration for any purpose except as to the particular property and particular provision hereof covered by the variance, not shall it effect in any way the Owner's obligation to comply with all governmental laws and regulations affecting the use of his Lot, Including but not limited to zoning ordinances and Lot setback. lines or requirements imposed by any governmental authority. ARTICLE VI T~To/gj~MENT AND SEVERABILIT/ Section 6.01. Ter~._lXL~tion and Amendment. All the covenants, conditions, and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall run with the Project and shall be binding on, and enforceable by, all Owners for a period of time extending until December 31, 2023, and thereafter said covenants, conditions and restrictions shall automatically be extended for successive periods of ten (10) years, unless, by a written instrument signed by the owners of seventy-five percent (75%) of theSeUs e~ ally time and recorded in the O£fice of the Bernardino County Recorder, the Owners determine to revoke or change in whole or in part this Declaration, subject to the provisions of Article VII of this Declaration. ~_e.~tion 6.02. Se~erabi]ity. Invalidation of any one of the easements, co,,enants, conditions or restrictions of this Declaration by Judgment or court order shall not affect any other provlMlon3 shall remain in full force and effect. ARTICLE VII EXEMPTION AND RIGHTS OF DEClARANI Nothing in this Declaration shall limit the right of Declarant t.o complete construction of Improvements on the Project or to alter the foregoing, or to construct such additional Improvements as Decinfant deems advisable prior to the completion and the sals by DecInfant, of all of the I,ct~ in the Project. Such rights shall include, but shall not be limited to, erecting, constructing, and maintaining on any portion of the Prujeot owned by Declarant such structures and .] t displays as may be reasonably necessary for the conduct of its business of completinq the work and disposing of the same by Pals, lease, or etherwise. Declatent apeci£tcally r.serv~s the right to use any upsold Lots on the Project for models and salon offices, and further reserves the right to rent any ellaold Lots. This Declaration shell not limit the right of Declatent st any time prior to ac~uieition of title to a Lot by a purchaser from Declatent to establish on the Lot additional easements, reservations and rights-of-way for itself, utility companies, or other as may from time to time be reasonably necessary for the property development and disp3sal of the Project. Declatent reserves the right to alter its construction plans and designs as it deems appropriate. Declarant further reserves the r~ht to alter floor plans, styles, quality, size and cost of Dwelling Units Owned by Declatent in the Project without first seeking the approval oZ the Committee. Declarant may further subdivide any Lot owned by Declazant. The rights of Declarant hereunder may be assigned by Declsrant to any successor to all or part of Declarant's/riterest in the Project. The provisions of this Article shall not be altered or terminate/without the prior written consent of Declatent fo so long as any Lots in the Project remain unsold. ARTICLE V~II ~ISCELL~NEOUS Section 8.01. ~ent. Breach of any of the easements, coveannts, conditions, or restrictions containe~ in this Declaration and thw continuation Of any such breech may be enJ~ined, abeted, or remedied by appropriate legal or equitable proceedings by an Owner, by the Committee (or member thereof), by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or by Declarant' provided, provided heroin shall ~e deemed nut to be in violation of any provision of this Declaration. It is hereby agreed that recovery of damages at law for any breach of the provisions of this Declaration would not be an adequate remedy. Preach of any easements, covenants, conditions, or restrictions contained in this Declaration shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any recorded Mortgage, or any part thereof, made in good ~aith covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be binding and effective against any Owner of a Lot or Lots whose title thereto is acquired by foreclosure, trustso's sale or otherwise. Section 8,02. Costs an_d_AtJ~Lr~Y~_le3~. If an action is instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce any of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, or easements contained in this D?claration, the party against whom the Judgment decree, order~ or declaration is entered shall, and agrees to, pay all costs of suit and a reasonable attorney's fee, such as may be established by said court. -14~ 12{ 88-2sle,61 Section 8,0L HQ.R~or~ent~ns or WarrantLe_$... He representations Or wart&sties of any Rind, express or implied, have been given or made by Declatent, or its agen'~;s Or em[./o~ees in connection with the Project Or any portion Of the Project dealing with its physical condition, zoning, compliance with applicab]p laws, purpose for intended use, nor in connection with the subdivision, sales operation, or use of tile ProidoL except as specifically and expressly sot forth in this DeclaraLlon and exce~ as may be filed by Declarahc from time to time with the Californ~n Department n[ ~sa] Estate or w~th nnV other governmental authority. Sec~lD/]_8.9/. ',Qnotructive Notice and Acce~:~D~. Every person who owns, o~cupies or acquires any right, title, estate or interest in or to any ~t or other portion of the Project does and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and a~reed to the reasonableness and binding effect of every limitation, restriction, easement,reservation, condition and covenant contained heroin, whether or not any reference to Declaration is contained ~n the instrument by which such person ac~i=ed an interest in the Project, or any portion thereof. ~cticn 8,0~. Insurance Oblic~ions of OwnerS. Each Owner shell be solely responsible for insuring all of his Dwelling Units, ~ncluding without limitation the structural portions of such ~el]ing Units, against loss or damage by fire or other casualty. Each owner shall al~o be solely responsible for obtaining adenate comprehensive public liability insurance, including medical pa~ents and malicious mischief, insuring against liability for bodily injury, death and property damage arising from his activities on his ~t. ~tlCn ~.O~- M~ce~. ~ny notice petitted or required to be de~ivered as provided herel~ shall be in wr)ting and may be delivered either personally or by mall. If delivery is made by mail, ~t shall be deemed to have been delivered forty-eight (48) hours after a copy of the same has been deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to any person at the address given by such person to the Committee for the purpose of seaice o= such notice, or to the residence of such person if no address has been given to the Committee, Such address may be changed from time to time by notice ~n writing to the committee. of ~ ~CHO ASSOCIATES, Ltd., a -15- iZZ 88-201' .t STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) on this 29thday of August , 19"A, before ::;e the unders{gned a notary public ]n and for said State, persollally appeared Kenneth F. LeBay, Attorney-in-Fact of Rancho Associates, Ltd., a California general p-rtnership, known to me to be the person who executed tile within Instrument on behalf of the Partsership therein ~emed, and he acknowledged to me that stir:|] Partnership executed the same, and also known to be the persen whose name is subscribed to the with{n Instrument as Attorl~ey-in-Fact of Rancho Associates Ltd. ,' and acknowledged to me that he subscribed the name o£ Rancho Associates, Ltd., thereto as a Partnership and his own name as Attorney-in-Fact. Concordia's Alta Vista Tr 10035, DR 00-47 Rancho Cucamonga Curb at Approximate ot Number Plan Type Centedine of Lot Prepared by John Snell with assistance from Joe Long of Boyle Engineers and Kent Wu, Architect 1/16/01 House Height Maximum Roof Line Finish Floor measured Over/Under Elevation Per Elevation at from Garage Roof Line Maximum CCR's Garage Entrance Finished Floor Elevation Height 1 2R DN 1371.00 1395.00 1368.75 26.08 1394.83 (0.17) BELOW 2 3R DN 1361.20 1385.20 1358.25 25.25 1383.50 (1.70) BELOW 3 3R DN 1351.50 1375.50 1348.70 25.25 1373.95 (1.55) BELOW 4 2R DN 1343.40 1367.40 1340.10 26.08 1366.18 (1.22) BELOW 5 3R DN 1338.75 1362.75 1336.00 25.25 1361.25 (1.50) BELOW 6 3R UP 1335.90 1359.90 1293.50 25.25 1318.75 (41.15) BELOW 7 1 UP 1332.50 1356.50 1294.53 28.50 1323.03 (33.47) BELOW 8 2R UP 1331.50 1355.50 1296.50 29.33 1325.83 (29.67) BELOW 9 1 UP 1329.50 1353.50 1295.00 28.50 1323.50 (30.00) BELOW 10 2R UP 1327.60 1351.60 1291.40 29.33 1320.73 (30.87) BELOW 11 1 UP 1325.40 1349.40 1285.38 28.50 1313.88 (35.52) BELOW 12 2R UP 1322.90 1346.90 1283.50 29.33 1312.83 (34.07) BELOW 13 3 UP 1320.90 1344.90 1284.50 28.50 1313.00 (31.90) BELOW 14 2R UP 1318.70 1342.70 1286.00 29.33 1315.33 (27.37) BELOW 15 1R UP 1315.90 1339.90 1292.33 28.50 1320.83 (19.07) BELOW 16 3 UP 1312.80 1336.80 1296.61 28.50 1325.11 (11.69) BELOW 17 2 UP 1306.50 1330.50 1292.66 29.33 1321.99 (8.51) BELOW 18 1 DN 1298.90 1322.90 1296.00 25.58 1321.58 (1.32) BELOW 19' 1 DN 1295.20 1319.20 1293.50 25.58 1319.08 (0.12) BELOW 20** 3R DN 1293.00 1317.00 1291.50 25.25 1316.75 (0.25) BELOW Curb elevation calculated by Boyle Engineers based on existing topographic map. Maximum roof line per CC&R's based on Section 2.04, last sentence which states maximum height of 24 feet above top of curb House height based on current design and architect accurately calculating elements. These differ from initial submittal due to a more accurate calculation at this time. *Lot 19 was lowered 0.50 feet by moving back 5 feet. **Lot 20 was lowered 0.50 feet by increasing the drive slope by 1.67%. Thursday, January 11, 2001 Planning Comm~slon City of ~ncho Cucamonga 10500 Ci~c Center D~ve ~ncho Cucamonga CA 91 730 Re: Variance 00-09 (Tract No. 10035 - Concordia Homes) De~r Commissioners: Following the continued hearing last evening on this matter, Fm compelled to urge you again to consider not allowing the placement of two-story, high-roofline homes on lots 1-5 of this tract. Surely a better result for all adjacent property owners would be to build a style of home on these lots more in keeping with the fezrain--single main story, with a lower floor down the slope. This was done for many homes on Red Hill Country Club Drive, as well as for the Red Hill Condos which adjoin the development to the West to not intrude into neighbors' sight lines. If you do not move to require low-profile homes on these lots, it appears we have little de{ense available to us except purchase of Lot 1 ~rom Concordla-as CommiSSioner Marmerino suggested at the hearing. For us, it would be a real financial challenge, having to spend $175,000 for a lot we'd need to develop ourselves in order to recover. Thank you {or your consideration. Sin~ere~l'~"" JanuaW 8,2001 BrentLe Count, AICP City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 Re: Variance 00-09 (Tract 10035); Environmental Assessment and Development Review 00-47 - Concordia Homes Dear Brent: This is as a follow-up to previous discussions with you, John Snell of Concordia Homes and a neighborhood meeting with adjacent property owners the end of last week at our home. It is our understanding the project submittal is seeking approval of 20 production homes and a variance from the City's Hillside Grading Ordinance requirements to facilitate the proposed development. As a result of this activity, we are requesting Planning Commission consideration and favorable determination of the following at the January 10, 2001, Public Hearing for the referenced project: Street Tree Deletion: We are requesting that the street trees (Albizia J. 'Rosea'/Silk Tree) shown on the project Conceptual Landscape Plan for Camino Predera be deleted from the plan. We are asking that this area be planted with low growing Xeriscape materials more in keeping with the existing hillside contour of this street. Slope and Yard Tree Replacement: We are requesting that the Platanus Acerifolia 'Bloodhound'/London Plane and Schinus Molle/California Pepper trees shown on the Conceptual Landscape Plan be replaced with low growing trees or shrubs that will reduce canopy impact for existing views enjoyed by adjacent property owners in the area. Grading Study Options Review: We are requesting that the developer modify the project to incorporate Grading Study Phase 1 - Lots 1 Through 5 Option 3 that they prepared and provided to adjacent property owners before our recent neighborhood meeting. This Option 3 will provide for the following pad grade changes: Lot 3 reduced to 39.2' below top of curb; Lot 4 reduced to 35' below top of curb; and Lot 5 reduced to 44' below top of curb. The homeowner living in the existing residence located at the Southwest corner of Red Hill Country Club and Camino Predera continues to express his concerns about the impact of development of Lot 1 on his property. He has requested that careful consideration be given to reducing the profile of the home contemplated for construction on Lot 1. We are sensitive to his continuing concern, as he has lived in his home before the original custom lot subdivision was approved by the City. Pad Grade and Building Hei.clht Certification: The project developer has prepared and provided various exhibits that depict conceptual grade and related line-of-sight illustrations for residents impacted by the proposed project development. We are requesting that the developer provide adjacent property owners with section exhibits that clearly depict the project pad grade and top of residential structures in relationship to Camino Predera top of curb. As we discussed at our neighborhood meeting, we are looking forward to development of quality homes for what we believe is the last good opportunity to develop on Red Hill. As you will recall, the tract in question is part of what was originally a custom lot subdivision that was adversely affected by an economic downturn some years back. A component of this subdivision is Conditions Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) that were recorded with the original tract. These CC&R's provide for architectural and landscape design review by the property owners and provide for consideration of view preservation and protection for the property owners in the original tract. While we are supportive of a quality development endeavor, we want to ensure that the CC&R provisions pertinent to the referenced project review are respected as part of consideration and deliberation for any approval action contemplated by the City. Thank you for your continuing courteous and professional assistance with this matter of considerable importance to the adjacent property owners. We also want to acknowledge the courtesy and cooperation also extended by John Snell on behalf of Concordia Homes with this process. We believe that this cooperative spirit will result in a project approval that all adjacent residents can and will support. Please feel free to contact me at your eadiest opportunity should you have any questions or need of additional information concerning this matter. Sincerely, Charles J. Buquet Cc: John Snell, Concordia Homes THE CITY OF I~ANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: January 10, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 00-09 - CONCORDIA HOMES - A request to allow retaining walls approximately ten feet in height where a maximum height of 4 feet is allowed, and slope gradients of approximately 1.5:1 where a maximum gradient of 2:1 is allowed for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential Distdct (24 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related Files: Development Review 0047 and Tree Removal Permit 0041. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 0047 (TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (24 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related Files: Variance 00-09 and Tree Removal Permit 0041. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Vacant land and single-family homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) South- Abandoned Pacific Electric Railway right-of-way, vacant land, and Foothill Boulevard; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) and Office and Public land use districts of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan East Single-family homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) West Single-family homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) North - Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) South - Community Trail within former Pacific Electric Railway corridor East Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) West - Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VA 00-09, DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes January 10, 2001 Page 2 C. Site Characteristics: The project site has steep grades ranging from approximately 8 percent to 32 percent; hence, is subject to the Hillside Development regulations. The current Hillside Development regulations prohibit development of land in excess of 30 percent gradient but the site was subdivided prior to adoption of these regulations. All of the lots within the tract have frontage on Camino Predera to the north and all but five back onto the Pacific Electdc Railway railroad right-of-way that will eventually accommodate a regional multi-purpose trail. BACKGROUND: Final Tract Map 10035 was recorded in 1985. That portion of the subdivision on the south side of Camino Predera contained 21 lots. The applicant proposes to reduce the number of lots to 20. A condition of approval requires a lot line adjustment process to accomplish the reduction in lots. This site has been the subject of several Planning Commission workshops with different developers. The proposed project was presented in a Planning Commission Workshop on February 23, 2000 (Exhibit "M"). At the most recent workshop, the Commission provided the following direction: A. It is recognized that steep slopes and high retaining walls are necessary to accommodate the development given the steep terrain on the site; however, reduce retaining wall height as much as possible. The developer showed the Commission retaining walls as high as 15 feet at the workshop. The current plans include 10-foot high retaining walls. B. Mitigate the appearance of high retaining walls by use of creative landscaping. Ce Include a one-story home plan. Preserve views for existing homeowners to the degree possible. It is acceptable to have no street trees along Camino Predera if that would help preserve views for existing homes. The Commission is willing to accept a minimal (3 foot) step in the home foundations so long as the overall quality of the project is commensurate with the eventual home values given the prime view location. ANALYSIS: General: The homes are tastefully designed and include 3 feet of elevation difference in the foundations to accommodate the terrain. Three home plans are proposed, each with 3 to 4 elevation types. The homes range in size from 2,759 square feet to 3,359 square feet. The homes are all two story with hip style roofs to preserve views. The homes have been designed to appear as though they are custom homes as opposed to typical tract homes. The homes exhibit true 360-degree architectural quality so much so that it is difficult to tell the difference between front and rear elevations except for garage doors. The project will have a minor impact on views of the valley for existing homeowners on Camino Predera. The applicant has provided view-shed cross sections to show these view impacts. The project will also impact views of the site from the south because of the substantial number of trees that are to be removed and because of the visual prominence of the site. The homes on Lots 1 through 5, 16, and 17 will have 6- to 7-foot high sound walls along the top of the slope in their rear yard areas. The bottom 3 feet of these walls is proposed to be decorative masonry with the remainder constructed of glass panels to preserve PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VA 00-09, DR 00-47-Concordia Homes JanuaW 10,2001 Page 3 views. These sound walls will provide a barrier between the future homeowner's useable rear yard area and the remaining slope area beyond which may result in property maintenance issues. Staff suppods the developer's proposal that a homeowner's association be established to maintain these slope areas. Desiqn Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on October 3, 2000 (McNiel, Stewart, Coleman). The Committee requested that the project be revised to reduce retaining wall height, lower pad grades as much as possible, and provide a custom home appearance with high quality 360 degree architecture. The revised plans were reviewed again by the Committee on November 14, 2000, (McNiel, Stewart, Coleman) and the Committee requested further architectural refinement of the homes. The project was reviewed again on December 5, 2000, (McNiel, Stewart, Coleman) and the Committee recommended approval. The Committee believes that the developer has exceeded all of the Planning Commission's design expectations. Referto the attached Design Review Action Agendas for further details (Exhibit "L"). Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. Variance: A Variance is necessary to allow development of the site as proposed with retaining walls as high as 10 to 11 feet and slopes as steep as 1.5:1 (1 foot of vertical rise per 1.5 feet of horizontal run or 66 percent slope). The Variance is necessary due to the steepness of the site and the shape of the existing lots. The Variance is also necessary to lower house pad grades to preserve views for existing homeowners to the degree possible along Camino Predera. In many areas, the site is in excess of 30 percent natural slope falling directly away from the street. This means that for a given area of 30 percent slope, the terrain must be more than doubled in steepness to accommodate a reasonably flat area for placement of a home, yard, and driveway. The alternative would be to either use drastically raised foundations on top of a pier system or stepped foundations. In either case, the amount of vertical foundation change in a typical 80 foot deep home built on a 30 percent slope would be approximately 24 feet. This would still not include any flat area for driveways or yard areas. It would be an unnecessary physical hardship if a developer were required to provide this degree of vertical step in home foundations due to the extreme cost involved. Furthermore, the resulting homes would be difficult to market with such extreme changes in foundation elevation. The steephess and overall topography of the site are also exceptional circumstances not applicable to a majority of other properties in the Low Residential District. Strict or literal interpretation of the requirement for 2:1 slopes and 4-foot high retaining walls would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in this district who are able to develop their properties with reasonable and normal grading and home construction techniques. This would not constitute a granting of special privilege because the site is not proposed to be developed with overly large homes or excessive density but instead with reasonably sized single-family homes. Specialized slope stabilization methods, specialized wall construction with walls that can accommodate landscaping on their surfaces, decorative block, and intensified landscaping offset any potential detriment to public health, safety, or welfare. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VA 00-09, DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes January 10, 2001 Page 4 Tree Removal Permit: The site contains 32 mature Eucalyptus trees, a row of Silk Oak trees along the railroad right-of-way, 1 Coast Live Oak, 1 California Pepper, and 1 Brazilian Pepper, which will be removed to accommodate the proposed project. An Arbor/st Report was prepared by Jim Borer (dated June 29, 2000) for the project to assess the number, condition, and value of the existing trees. The report found that while the trees offer an appealing common canopy, none of the specimens are individually outstanding or unique. Many of the trees are extremely mature and represent a clear risk of shedding large limbs during heavy winds. The Silk Oak trees are planted too close to one another and are stunted in size and form from their natural disposition to grow. The trees do provide an aesthetic resource, as they are visible from Foothill Boulevard. Tree replacement with project landscaping will in time provide a similarly aesthetic resource and if anything, will enhance natural aesthetics because of the large number of trees and HOA maintenance and upkeep of the trees. Environmental Assessment: There are potential impacts related to noise, geological hazards, tree removal, and air quality. The site is subject to noise from Foothill Boulevard traffic. A noise study was conducted which establishes minimum solid wall heights for certain lots and upgrading window installation to mitigate traffic noise. The site falls within the City's Red Hill Fault Zone so a Geotechnical and Fault investigation was required forthe project. The study found that development of the site as proposed is feasible if certain construction and grading design techniques are used. The City required independent third party review of the Geotechnical Study and this review confirmed the findings and recommended mitigation as being accurate and adequate. There are several trees on the site, which will be removed to accommodate the project. While the trees do offer some aesthetic value, none of them are of exceptional quality and project landscaping will mitigate their removal. Finally, there may be air quality impacts during grading of the site. There is a series of mitigation measures derived from Air Quality Management District requirements, which will reduce air quality impacts to less than significant. With the recommended mitigation measures, all potential environmental impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant. If the Planning Commission concurs, issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is in order. Neighborhood Meeting: The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on December 18, 2000, and 12 surrounding homeowners were in attendance. The primary concerns were as follows: None of the homes should take access off of Cam/no Predera. This will increase traffic in the neighborhood. Why are there any driveways on Cam/no Predera and why are they so steep? Cam/no Predera provides the only public street access to the site. These are existing lots of record; no subdivision request is before the Planning Commission. The homes will generate some increase in local traffic but this will not be in excess of the per home traffic generated by the existing homes. Only 9 out of 20 lots are proposed with driveways on Cam/no Predera. A majority of the lots will take access off of one common drive. This is a unique design solution, which allows the majority of homes to be located well below the level of Cam/no Predera, thus preserving views for the existing homeowners. The five lots at the western end of the site as well as the three lots at the eastern end cannot be reasonably accessed from this common driveway without provision of substantial grading and retaining walls (as high as 21 feet). This would be inconsistent with the intent of the Hillside Ordinance to reduce grading as much as PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VA 00-09, DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes January 10, 2001 Page 5 possible. The driveways off of Camino Predera are as steep as 15 pement to allow the pads to be as low as possible to preserve views to the degree possible. 2. Why can't the site take access off of another street? The only available public street access for the site is off of Camino Predera. This is consistent with the intent of the original subdivision. It would be unreasonable to require the developer to extend San Bernardino Road westerly due to grade differential, separate property ownerships, and bridges that would be required over the flood control channel and rail corridor. Again, this is moot because the tract was already recorded and the application only deals with the design review of the homes. 3. Are the existing trees going to be removed? Yes, there is no reasonable way to develop the lots without removing the existing trees. While the trees offer some aesthetic value, this will be more than offset by project landscaping. 4. Is the building height in conformance with the Hillside Standards? Yes, the homes are weft within the 30-foot building envelope established by the Hillside Development Standards. The project is also in conformance with side yard setbacks. Can the street trees along Camino Predera be relocated further down slope to preserve existing views? Yes, in fact, this issue was discussed at the Planning Commission Workshop and it was decided that this would make sense for preserving views. A condition of approval will require that there be no street trees along Camino Predera. Where will all the coyotes and rabbits go when the project is developed? Will someone trap the animals for relocation? The project will displace the wildlife that may currently inhabit the site just as the existing homes displaced wildlife when they were built. There is undeveloped land to the west and south where animals may move to. The site is not indicated as supporting habitat for any sensitive or endangered species. The developer is encouraged to provide the concerned homeowners with a schedule for when the site will be cleared and grubbed so that the homeowners may initiate any trapping and relocation efforts they feel is necessary. The applicant has verbally agreed to permit entrance to the site for such trapping efforts. 7. What's the price range for these homes? According to Concordia, the homes will start at approximately $350,000. 8. When will construction start? According to Concordia, grading will begin towards the first part of summer 2001 with home construction in fall of 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VA 00-09, DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes January 10, 2001 Page 6 9. Will there be a homeowners' association? Yes, a homeowners' association will be necessary to ensure maintenance of the common driveway as well as maintenance of the large slope areas. 10. Is the grading "balanced" for the site? No, the site will require 15,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of fill material to be imported. CORRESPONDENCE: The Variance was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Dailv Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. On January2, 2001, staff received one letter from a resident in opposition to the project (Exhibit "O"). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Development Review 00-47, Vadance 00-09, and Tree Removal Permit 00-41 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions and with issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:BLC\Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Exhibit "1" Exhibit "J" Exhibit "K" Exhibit "L" Exhibit "M" Exhibit "N" Exhibit "O" Resolution Resolution of of Site Utilization Map Grading Plan Grading Cross Section Landscape Plan Elevations Profile Looking South Profile Looking North Viewshed Analysis Lot Cross Sections Building Envelopes Variance Justification Letter Design Review Committee Action Agendas dated October 3, November 14, and December 5, 2000 Pre-Application Review Minutes dated February 23, 2000 Initial Study Opposition letter from resident received on January 2, 2001 Approval for Variance 00-09 Approval for Design Review 00-47 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ALTA LOMA EB'rATE8 INDEX MAP CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRACT NO. 10035 PREC~ PLOT AND GRADING PLAN CONCORDIA'S ALTA VISTA DESI(!~PiEVIEWSUeMITTAL NOT FOR C(:~elI~UC'rt(~4 CI~{ OF F~ANCH0 CUCAMONGA TRACT NO. 10035 PRECISE F~LOT AND GRADING PLA LOTS= 7 'R-IFIOUGH 12 CONCORDIA'S ALTA VlS"rA ' ~~=~ ~ TRACT NO. 10035 PRECIS~ PLOT AND C:/~DING PLAN LO"PS~ 13 'IIIROUGH 17 CONCORDIA'8 ALTA VISTA ,',% Clef OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRACT NO. 10035 PI~-CBE PLOT AND GRADING PLAN CONCORDIA'8 ALTA V]S"FA ' ~~__ = ~ DESlGNIL~/IE'WBU6MITTAL NOT FOR CON91RLIC'IlON CI]~ OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA TRACT NO. 10035 PRECISE PLOT AND GRADING PLAN LOTS= 4 THROUGH 6 CONCORDIA'8 ALTA VISTA SECTION A-A SECTION SEC11ON D-D DESIGNREVEWSUEMITTAL NOTFORCO~ CrP,' OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA TRACT NO. 10035 CROSS SECTIONS AND DETAILS CONCORDIA'S ALTA VISTA 7+00 8+O0 9+00 3+00 Station 10+00 Station 4+00 11+00 5+00 12+00 6+00 13+00 280 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 StaLion ALL LOTS C) SEC'I1ON DESIGNREVIEWSUEIaTTAL NOTFCR~ CI]'( OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRACT NO. 10085 CROSS SECTIONS LON(:~Y ~ ALL LOTS CONCORDIA'8 ALTA V18"I'A ~OT1 SEC'I]ON O ,~2o I ...... ' ..........1''''~ .....' ........I Station 0+00 1 +00 2+00 Station 3+00 4+00 LOT 2 SECTION LOT 5 SEC'RON Clef OF R,SNCHO CUCAMONGA TRACT NO. 10035 CROSS ~IEC"RONS LOTS 1, 2 Ak~ 5 CONCORDIA'S ALTA VISTA ' ~,, 1340 1330 1330 1320 C 1310 0 ~ 1300 > 1290 L~ 1280 1270 1260 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 134D 1330 1320 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 0+00 Station I +00 2+00 9+00 LOT 6 SECTION LOT 9 SECTION LOT 10 SECTION ~REVEWBUeMTTAL NOT FOR CONSlI1JCIlON Ci1~' OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA TRACT NO. 10035 CROSS SECTIONS LOT86,9AND10 CONCORDIA'8 ALTA VISTA 0+00 I+00 2+0o 3+oo 4+oo Station ~,_L:i.Z:=.?I:--- ~ Z7~___ 0+00 1+00 2+00 Station 3+00 4+00 LOT 15 LOT 16 SEC'IION SCALE, 0+00 I +00 2+00 3+00 Station ,: ' LOT ~0 SECTION TRACT. NO. 10035 CROSS SECTIONS LOTS 15, 16 AND 20 CONCORDIA'S ALTA VISTA ' ~.,. t I'{PICAL SECTION-SEGMENTAL CONCRETE BLOCK RETAININg WALL NBTES PLAIN DOWN I~RAIN SECTIO__N A - A SPLASH WALL DETAIL D~IL=VIEWSt~AL NOTFOHCON~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRACT NO. 10085 DETAILS CONCORDIA'8 ALTA VIS'I'A PROPOSED pLANTING LEGEND RIGHTELEVATION REAR ELEVATION CONCOR~A*S ALTA VISTA BUILDING ELEVATIONS PLAN ID-A AID-3A REAR ELEVATION ELEVAT1O~{S AIU*3B RIGWF ELEVATION CONCOR~IA'S ALTA V1STA BUILDING ELEVATIONS PLAN 2D-C RIGHTELEVATION FRONTELEVATION CONC(M~gA S ALTA VISTA BUILDING ELEVATIONS PLAN 2U-D A2U~-3D LEFTELEVATION FRO~T ELEVATION CONCORDIA'S ALTA VISTA CONCORDIAgOMYS BtJTLDING ELEVATIONS PLAN 3D-E PLAN 3D-----: B CONCORD1A'S .72TA KENT C.IC WU CONCORDIA HOMES CONCORDIA'S VISTA KENT C.K. WU CONCORDIA HOMES RIGHT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION PLAN ~U ~'~340 -- LOT 17 LOT 16 {l LO"rS101~OLIOH~O TRACT NO, 10035 LOOKING SOU'ff'iERLY LOTS 1-~0 CONCORDIA'S ALTA VISTA 1390 -- LOT 3 . LOT2 LOTSlY9 SECq3ON LOOKING SOUTHERLY LOTS 1-20 CONCORDIA'S ALTA VISTA 55O -- 1550 -- IOT 9 2+00 LOT 10 LOT 11 LOT 6 5+00 6+00 7+00 3+00 LOT 12 LOT 7 LOT 8 4+00 0 0 8+00 LOTS4~13 8EC:TION CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA TRACT NO. 10035 NOFtlHERLY LO'T~ 4-'20 CC)NCORDIA'8 ALTA VISTA LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 18 0 0 ~D 1370 -- ~330 ~ ~'~ ~ LOT19 LOT20 ~;-.-.-.~-.....¢....~,.....~......~... . .z:g:,;2:,,,,: :,.,,.. LOT814TROUC~I20 8EC]~I CI]Y Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRACT NO. 10035 CONCO RDIA'8 ALTA VISTA ,--,q ' I i _-V .............L_ 1~ _1 ....I .....t ....i ......I ......I .....1 I.!J , II I ' I , I ......J .......I .....~.__ I I [l // // // ALTA LOf~A ESTATES SITE UNE STUDY I I I I ALTA LOMA ESTATES SIT~ LINE STUDY §t 3+00 0+00 1+00 2+00 5+00 4+00 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 LOT1 8ECTI~ LOT 2 SECTION LO~ ~ 8EOTION ec~e DEGIGi!REVEWSLli. ITrAL NOTFOR~ CIl'{ OF RANCH0 CUCAMONOA TRACT NO. 10035 CROSS 8[-C'RONS 'fi'RO U(~ I'{XvlD UAL LOT8 ALTA LOMA ESTATES 1540 -- -- , 3+00 4+00 LOT 6 SECTION LOT 9 SECTION 1340 -- ,~! 1 +00 2+00 3+00 LOT 10 SECTION DESIGNREVIEWSUS.!ITAL NOTFOR~ Ctl'f OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA ]T~ACT NO. 10035 CROSSSECtIONS ll'IROUGH INDMDOAL LOTS ALTA LOMA ESTATES 1320 -- 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 LOT 15 SEC11ON 1340 1320 1300 1280 1260 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 LOT 16 SEC'RON 1320 2+00 3+00 LOT 20 CI7'( OF R,~NCHO CUOAMONGA TRACT NO. 10035 CRO~SSECTIONS ~ IkCq'V1DUAL LOTS ALTA LOMA ESTATES 1080 -- 19-00 "' .~~~ ~ REVIEW liJlaI~rTAL NOTFORC~ ~ ~ -- ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRACT NO, CROSS SECTIONS L~Y "IHROUGH ALL LOTS ALTA LOMA E,BTATES~ October 24, 2000 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Brent LeCount, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729 RE: DR 00-47, Lots 1 through 21 of Tract 10036, Variance request for wail height and slope gradient in Hillside Development Area Dear Brent, Please find with this letter our completed applications, a check for $871.00, and reduced copies of our grading plan with retaining walls in excess of 4 feet high called out and slopes that are over a 2:1 ratio labeled as such. This project is the remainder of a subdivision of 38 lots that was recorded in May of 1981. This site, like most of the Redhill area, is subject to development under the Hillside Development Regulations. Because of the shape of our lots, the topography of the site and our surroundings the strict application of the Hillside Development Regulations would deprive our property the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area which are also under the Hillside Development Regulations. The granting of this variance will enable this site to develop to the same extent as others have enjoyed in this same vicinity. The granting of this variance will enable the development of this property for single family development for which the current zoning is intended. We have incorporated some design features to offset or mitigate the potential negative impact the granting of this variance might allow. The proposal for development that we have submitted reflects a reduction of one lot, resulting in 20 single family homes. This reduction was made to minimize the slopes and walls that will be required for this development, despite the fact that the final map has been recorded and a right for the development of 21 lots exists. The shape of our project along with the topography create a hardship unique to this project in the immediate area. The area, depth and width of the lots exceed the minimum standards of the zoning ordinance. The elevation differential of the site is over 90 feet from our highest point to the lowest. We have followed the recommendations in the Hillside Development Regulations in the design of our proposal. We have sloped the yards to follow the existing topography. We have introduced steps in our buildings that also follow the existing terrain. We are also proposing to give up one of our lots to minimize the grading and walls. To the extent possible we have aligned our roof lines to follow the slope of the ground. We have also attempted to break up our roof lines. Despite all of these efforts, we still have areas where we are proposing slopes as steep as 1.5: 1 and walls in excess of 3 feet up to 11 feet in two locations. It is our goal to build homes that are comparable to 1131 West Sixth Street · Suite 110 · Ontario, CA 91762 · Tel (909) 988-9000 · Fax (909) 988-5122 WWW.CONCORDiAHOMES.COM those in the area and to have building pads of similar shape and size. The granting of this variance will allow us to meet this goal and allow us to build our lots and homes to the same character that are typical of those in the area. All of our walls over 4 feet in height will be made of attractive block systems that use earth tone colors and a rough surface, "splitface". We will also be incorporating irrigation and planting at intervals of 4 feet vertically on the wall. When mature, the majority of the wall will be covered with plants. Our slopes will also be planted with a combination of ground cover, bushes and trees. This will not only provide for an attractive slope, but will also provide the surface stability necessary for the long term maintenance of the slopes. All slopes over 2:1 will be maintained by the Home Owners Association that we will be establishing for this project. It should be noted that the granting of this variance will allow this property, that has remained undeveloped for so many years, to be completed in charac.ter with the rest of the area. This variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges with the limitations upon other properties in this vicinity and zone. Concor ' Homes of outhem California, Inc. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRACT NO, 10035 pRECBE PLOT AND G~IADING PLAN PHASE1-LO'rS=ITI-BOUGH6 CC)N(~::)RDIA'S ALTA VISTA CI~'{ OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TFIACT NO. 1(X:)35 PE-~ PLOT AND GBADING PLAN CON(X:)RD IA'8 ALTA VISTA ' ~r ~:~,~.__~ CITY OF ~NCHO CUCAMONGA ~CT ~. 1~ ~ ~OT ~ ~ ~ ~I-LO~~ CC)NC.C~DIA'8 ALTA V18TA ' ~,,,= ~,,~.'--__~ / TRACT NO. 10035 RL=CISEPLOTANDCI:IAEXNGPLA PHABE1-LOTB:18'T1-IRO~:;~21 CONCORC)IA'8 ALTA VlB'TA 7:45 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Brent Le Count October 3, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 21 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential Distdct (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Pradera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 07-641-01 through 10, 207-631-01 through 11. Desian Parameters: The project site has steep grades ranging from approximately 8% to 32%; hence, is subject to the Hillside Development regulations. The current Hillside Development regulations prohibit development of land in excess of 30% gradient but the site was subdivided prior to adoption of these regulations. All of the lots within the tract have frontage on Camino Predera to the north and all but five back onto an old railroad right of way that will eventually accommodate a trail. The project will impact views of the valley for existing homeowners on Camino Pradera. The applicant has provided view-shed cross sections to show these view impacts. The project will also impact views of the site from the south because of the substantial number of trees that are to be removed and because of the visual prominence of the site. The homes on lots I through 5, 16 and 17 will have 6 to 7-foot high sound walls along the top of the slope in their rear yard areas. The bottom three feet of these walls is proposed to be decorative masonry with the remainder constructed of glass panels to preserve views. These sound walls will provide a barder between the future homeowner's useable rear yard area and the remaining slope area beyond which may result in property maintenance issues. Staff supports the developer's proposal that a homeowner's association be established to maintain these slope areas. The homes are tastefully designed and include 3 feet of elevation difference in the foundations to accommodate the terrain. While this is not nearly enough to truly "fit" the terrain, it is the most foundation stepping the applicant is willing to provide. Three home plans are proposed, each with three to four elevation types. The homes range in size from 2,759 square feet to 3,359 square feet. The homes are all two story with hip style roofs to preserve views. There is less than dramatic differentiation from home to home, especially for side and rear elevations. Pre-Application Review: The project was subject to two workshops with the Planning Commission ......... (~'~e att~chei:l minutes):'At th~ost~e~ht ~'fk~jS, th~C~ffn~i~iorf providdd the 'followifig direction: It is recognized that Steep slopes and high retaining walls are necessary to accommodate the development given the steep terrain on the site. However, reduce retaining wall height as much as possible. The developer showed the Commission retaining walls as high as 15 feet at the workshop. The currant plans include retaining walls as high as 22 feet. 2. Mitigate the appearance of high retaining walls by use of creative landscaping. 3. Include a one-story home plan. Preserve views for existing homeowners to the degree possible. It is acceptable to have no street trees along Camino Predera if that would help preserve views for existing homes. The Commission is willing to accept a minimal (three foot) step in the home foundations so long as the overall quality of the project is commensurate with the eventual home values given the pdme view location, DRC COMMENTS DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES October 3, 2000 Page 2 Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. Grading: The grading design for the project includes two alternatives: 1 ) off-site grading within the Pacific Electdc Trail railroad corridor along the south of the site, and 2) on-site grading. The proposed off-site grading within the rail corridor appears to respect the minimum of 70 feet needed to accommodate the trail design and future rail of the Pacific Electric Trail corridor (see Sections on Sheet 6). Under the off-site grading alternative, the retaining wall will be 6 feet high. Under the on-site grading alternative, the retaining wall will have to be up to 17 feet high. Both alternatives include substantially high retaining wails on- site up to 22 feet high. It is staff's opinion that the alternative with no off-site grading will have substantial visual impacts as it results in two very high retaining walls in close proximity to one another, visible from Foothill Boulevard. On the other hand, the developer will have to provide a viable means for long term maintenance of the off-site slope/wall area within the rail right-of-way for the other alternative. The high retaining walls are proposed to be of a "Loefelstien" type crib wall. This is e type of wall that has a slight slope to it and has pockets that can be planted with vines or other plants. The developer used this type of wall for Tract 14207 on Beryl Avenue, south of Heritage Park. The wall is now built and landscaped and looks better than a traditional retaining wall. A Variance will be necessary to allow the high walls as the maximum 4-foot height allowed retaining wall height per the Hillside Development regulations is 4 feet. The developer had shown conceptual plans to the Planning Commission at workshops that included a slope stabilization technology referred to as "geo-grid." This has been dropped from the project as the slopes have been reduced from a 1:1 to 1.5:1 slope gradient. However, the Hillside Development regulations allow a maximum slope grade of 2:1; therefore, a Variance is required for the steeper 1.5:1 slope. Further, under the off-site grading alternative, slopes must be maintained by the Homeowners Association. No Variance application has been filed as of this date; hence, staff has not fully analyzed the proposal. 2. View Impacts:' Lower the pad elevations for lots 16 through 21 to preserve views from existing uphill neighbors, as much as possible, or use 1 -story homes. The developer claims that there is insufficient room to accommodate single story home plans given the size of the lots and the amount of grading required. Architecture: Provide stronger 360 degree architecture because the homes will be visually prominent from all angles. Upgrade the side and rear elevations of the homes to have the similar level of architectural detail and quality as the fronts including; increased use of corbels, window treatments (shutters, pot shelves, keystones, and divided light), trim, stone or brick wainscoting, and column treatments. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES October 3, 2000 Page 3 Secondan/Issues:. Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. The "loefelstien" walls should be planted with a hardy vine or shrub that will eventually completely cover the walls and irrigated accordingly. The down slope side of the high retaining walls should also be well landscaped to soften the walls. Provide low maintenance landscape plant materials for the slope areas. Provide railroad tie steps or similar means to facilitate maintenance. Home sites with rear yard sound walls such as lots 1 through 5, 16, and 17 will have to have some form of gate or wall opening to permit slope maintenance. Provide cascading vines or similar plant types along the top of retaining wails and train them to cascade down over walls. 3. All manufactured slopes shall have a natural or "contoured" look as opposed to a harsh, angular look. 4. Slope drainage features shall have a naturalized, dry streambed appearance through the use of river reck application. 5. Provide landscape planters around the base of the homes where possible to soften their appearance and reduce visible bulk. PolicV Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. All walls shall be decorative masonry (split faced block - both sides) with decorative masonry caps. No wood fencing shall be permitted (even between homes) given the visual prominence of the development. All pilasters shall have river rock or similar treatment on all sides. All river-rock treatment shallbe natural-rive~rock asopposed to manufactured.~/eneer~ Other rock treatment, such as slate, may be of a manufactured product. 3. Provide a minimum of 15 feet of usable rear yard depth at the rear of all homes. 4. Provide additional landscaping (additional trees, large sized trees and shrubs) along the south down slope side of the homes to screen down slope elevations. Staft Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and brought back for further review. Desieln Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count DRC COMMENTS DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES October 3, 2000 Page 4 The Committee requested that the project be redesigned and brought back for further review subject to staff's comments and the following additional comments: The Committee is in favor of using variation in slope gradient in order to reduce the height of the 22-foot high retaining wall. Lower the pad elevations on Lots 16 and 17 by utilizing the sewer access easement as access similar to lots to the west. 3. Lower the pad elevatioNhome elevation of Lot 18 by providing longer, steeper driveway. Significantly upgrade the architectural design of the homes to provide 360-degree architecture and greater differentiation from home-to-home. Homes should have a custom look as opposed to tract home appearance. Provide a mix of architectural styles. Provide divided light windows throughout. Provide second story balconies on rear elevations. Use upgraded building materials (stone, brick, etc.) on all elevations. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 p.m. Brent Le Count November 14, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 21 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Pradera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive- APN: 207-641-01 through 10, 207-631-01 through 11. Backqround: The Committee reviewed the project on October 3, 2000 and requested that the project be revised and brought back for further review. The Committee had the following comments: The Committee is in favor of using variation in slope gradient in order to reduce the height of the 22-foot high retaining wall. The applicant was able to reduce the height of the 22-foot high retaining wall down to 10.5 feet by utilizing a variable slope gradient and by introducing retaining wall terraces on the slopes. The current wall configuration is a lO-foot wall along the south edge of the site (within the rail road right-of-way), a lO.5-foot high wall along the mid portion of the site (previously 22 feet high), and scattered segments of 2- to 6-foot high retaining walls throughout the slopes. The grading has also been contoured to have a more natural, rounded appearance. Lower the pad elevations on Lots 16 and 17 by utilizing the sewer access easement as access similar to lots to the west. The project has been revised to lower the pad elevations for Lots 16 and 17 substantially. The homes on these lots will now utilize the sewer easement as suggested by the Committee. 3. Lower the pad elevation/home elevation of Lot .18 by providing longer, steeper driveway. The driveway has been steepenned to approximately 9 percent grade and the garage sits about a foot below the level of Camino Predera. The Hillside Development Ordinance allows a maximum driveway grade of 20 percent, which would allow the garage to be lowered an additional 3 feet. Significantly upgrade the architectural design of the homes to provide 360-degree architecture and greater differentiation from home-to-home. Homes should have a custom look as opposed to tract home appearance. Provide a mix of architectural styles. Provide divided light windows throughout. Provide second-story balconies on rear elevations. Use upgraded building materials (stone, brick, etc.) on all elevations. The revised architecture has been minimally upgraded with some window treatment (shutters and pot shelves on some windows), some rear waft change of plane, and the use of an occasional second story balcony. Staff is of the opinion that substantially more enhancement is necessary to provide true 360-degree architectural qua~ty, as there are still substantial areas of blank stucco walls. The homes still have a very tract-like appearance. There is substantial room to provide greater differentiation from home-to-home (custom appearance) by changing architectural styles, use of divided light windows, and material upgrades. Upgrade DRC COMMENTS DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES November 14, 2000 Page 2 the side and rear elevations of the homes to have the similar level of architectural detail and quality as the fronts. The rear elevation of the Plan 3 homes comes closest to the desired level of detailing. With the addition of upgraded building materials and divided light windows the rear elevation of Plan 3 serves as a good example for the remaining plan side and rear elevation treatment. Outstandinq Secondan/Issues: The following issues have not been addressed in the revised plans but staff is of the opinion that they can be conditions of approval once an acceptable level of architectural design is achieved: Reduce the elevation of the pad for Lot 18 by increasing the driveway grade to the maximum grade allowed, 20 percent if possible. The "loefelstien" walls should be planted with a hardy vine or shrub that will eventually completely cover the walls and irrigated accordingly. The down slope side of the high retaining walls should also be well landscaped to soften the walls. Provide low maintenance landscape plant materials forthe slope areas. Provide railroad tie steps or similar means to facilitate maintenance. Home sites with rear yard sound walls such as Lots 1 through 5, 16, and 17 will have to have some form of gate or wall opening to permit slope maintenance. Provide cascading vines or similar plant types along the top of retaining walls and train them to cascade down over walls. The manufactured slopes on Lots 1,2, and 3 shall have a natural or "contoured" look as opposed to a harsh, angular look. Slope drainage features shall have a naturalized, dry streambed appearance through the use of river rock application. Provide landscape planters around the base of the homes where possible to soften their appearance and reduce visible bulk. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All walls shall be decorative masonry (split faced block - both sides) with decorative masonry caps. No wood fencing shall be permitted (even between homes) given the visual prominence of the development. All pilasters shall have river rock or similar treatment on all sides. All river rock treatment shall be natural river rock as opposed to manufactured veneer. Other rock treatment, such as slate, may be of a manufactured product. 3. Provide a minimum of 15 feet of usable rear yard depth at the rear of all homes. Provide additional landscaping (additional trees, large sized trees, and shrubs) along the south/down slope side of the homes to screen downslope elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in light of the above comments, especially related to home design, and brought back for further review. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES November 14, 2000 Page 3 Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee was in favor of the revised grading concept but directed the applicant to revise the architectural design of the homes to provide better 360 degree architecture, more variation from home to home (a custom appearance). The rear elevation of Plan 3C-U is a good example of how rear elevations should be designed. Avoid several homes of the same plan type adjacent to one another. The applicant agreed to restudy the design. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:30 p.m. Brent Le Count December 5, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035)- CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 21 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Pradera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive- APN: 207-641-01 through 10, 207-631-01 through 11. Note: No comments provided for this project. Plans to be provided at meeting. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the revised plans and recommended approval subject to the following: 1. The brick veneer on the left elevation of the Plan 3 home shall terminate near the support column by providing a furred out feature for the veneer to die into. 2. The wood siding may be removed from the Plan 2 home at the discretion of the applicant. 3. Avoid use of wood siding on chimneys. Chimneys shall either be stuccoed or covered with stone VeReeF. 4. Any slope drain devices that are visible from surrounding streets or property shall have a naturalized appearance which may include use of river rock to evoke a dry stream bed appearance and colored concrete to visually blend with surrounding landscaping. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjoumed Meeting February 23, 2000 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Randno Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: John Mannedno, Larry McNiel, Pare Stewart STAFF PRESENT: ABSENT: Rich Macias, Peter Tolstoy Bred Buller, City Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner NEW BUSINESS A. pRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 00-02 - CONCORDIA HOMES - Review of grading concepts for 21 lots within approved Tentative Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related File: pre-Application Review 99-04. Bred Buller, City Planner, reviewed the purpose and basic procedures of the pre-application review. John Snell, Vice President, Concordia Homes, introduced himself to the Commission and reviewed the project. He stated that Concordia is now in escrow on the property and needs to decide whether or not to purchase the property. He indicated the purpose of this second meeting was to ascertain whether the Commission would be willing to accept the grading and home design concepts. He explained the greding will include up to a 15 foot high retaining wall along the south property line, 15 foot high Loffelstein walls (which are similar to crib walls and allow some amount of landscaping on the wall surface), and one-to-one slopes in the southwest comer area. He said the one-to-one slopes will be stabilized with a synthetic matedal called geo-grid and they will work with the City's engineering staff to demonstrate structural viability of the slope stabilization method. He reported it will be used to remedy the slope failures at the Padtic golf course and said that is an example of how capable the method is. Mr. Snell recognized the City's concern for ensudng a high level of aesthetic appeal with substantial landscaping and high quality home design. He also recognized neighborhood issues, primarily view preservation and he thought the proposed design minimizes view blockage to the degree possible. He felt the homes will have tasteful design and reported they will step with the pads 2 to 5 feet. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, reviewed staffs concerns. He indicated that he and Mr. Snell had visited a Concordia project now under construction in Monterey Park that utilizes the geo-grid slope stabilization method. He said that the one-to-one slopes appeared sparsely landscaped with few trees, and that this style of slope landscaping would not be consistent with the City's Hillside Ordinance. He also said that Mr. Snell has assured staff that so long as trees no larger than 15 gallon are used, Concordia can plant as many trees as are required (minimum 1 tree per 150 square feet of slope area). Mr. Le Count reviewed the other issues associated with the project: design; view blockage, high retaining walls, visual impacts to Foothill Boulevard treffic, and steep driveway slopes. Commissioner Stewart said that the developer still needs to satisfy staff and the Commission that the geo-gdd system is viable. She expressed concerns about preserving views as much as possible and recognized that neighbors may have concems. She preferred the 15 foot high retaining wall be lowered as much as possible and said it should be designed to be as visually pleasing as possible. She felt the 20% driveway grade is acceptable because it allows several of the lots to have homes set far below street level which will preserve views. Commissioner Stewart liked the architectural design of the homes but felt a one story home plan should be included. Commissioner Mannerino stated he is open to the use of the geo-gdd but that the developer would have to resolve viability issues. He acknowledged that the City does not have a view preservation ordinance but he felt the developer should preserve exjsting views as much as possible. He thought not having street trees would be acceptable to that end. He indicated he would like to see some sort of Route 66 mural or other historic feature included on the high retaining wall along the south property line. Commissioner Mannerino liked the home design and recognized that an avant-garde engineedng solution is necessary for grading of the site (geo-grid). Chairman McNiel said that the high Loffelstein walls can be obscured with vine planting. He indicated he is in favor of the project. He agreed with Commissioner Mannerino that the developer should give due consideration to view preservation even though the City does not have a view preservation ordinance. He suggested clustering of street trees. He was not in favor of using the high retaining wall along the south property line for Route 66 features. He thought the project appears workable and he supported going forward with it. He concluded by stating that the overall quality of the project should reflect the eventual home prices the developer will be able to charge. Brad Buller, City Planner, summarized the Commission's concerns and comments that the project appears to be viable and the site constraints necessitate a unique style of grading and landscaping to make the lots developable.. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chuck Buquet. neighbor on the north side of Camino Predera was present. He indicated that he looks forward to implementation of the project, and thought it will rid the neighborhood of an attractive nuisance. He felt the project is an opportunity for a high quality development. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -2- February 23, 2000 C;ty of Rancho Cucamonga planning Oivls~on (909) 477-2750 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM · (Part I - Initial Study) The purpose of this f0r~ 'iS to inf0'~m 'the': City 'dr the'basic.com'l~0'nents of the"p:~oposed project sO that the City '~'a~ re~iew'th'~:iS~j~ct:~G~s~i~t to::"City p61iCie~',0i~c~i~n'~es,' ~n'd guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and' Pr6cedures to Implement CEQA. I~ is important that the ira'formation:requested in this application be provided in full, :.:: . .. .... . . .:: :':: .' .. GENERAL INFORMATION: INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS VWLL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the b~ne of submitlal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: ProjectTitle: 'CONCORDIA'S ALTA VISTA, Lots 1 - 21, Tract #10035 Name & Address of preject owner(s): CONCORDIA HOME 1331 .W. 6th Street, Rancho Cucamonga CA91729 Name & Address of developer or project sponsOn Ditto Contact Person & Address: Telephone Number:, Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): John Snell, PE Executive V.P. Planning and Engineering 1131 W. 6th Str. Rancho Cucamonga CA 91729 (909) 988-9000 ~xf ~q Sophie Chen Telephone Number:. (909) 988-9000 ext.303 PROJECT INFORMAi70N & DESCRIPTION: Information indicated by astedsk (') is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. · 1) Provide a full scale (8- I/2 x 1 I) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views int__o and from the site from the pdmary access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): 4) AssessoFa Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessaOt): '5) Gross Site Area (adsq. ft.): '6) Net'Site Area (total site size minus area d public streets & proposed dedications): 7) Oescn'be any proposed genera/plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary: 8) Include a description of aft pen'nits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: INITSTO1,WPO - 4/96 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists befora the project including informalion on topography, soil stability. plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structuras. Attach photographs of significant [eatures described. In addition. site all sourues d in formation (i.e., geological ancYor hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): The project slopes-st,eepiy to the south and is covered with grasses & weeds, Trees exist, on t,he sout,h and west edges o£ t,he properties, we have submitted an arborist report on'these. There are slopes existing at the south property line along the railroad right of way, we are working with metrolink to regrade this slope. 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources dinformation (books, published reports and oral histoO'): Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, madway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: N/A 12) Descdbe ~e proposed project ~ ~ ~ ~ould provide an a~quate ~sc~n ol ~e site ~ terms of ultimate use wh~h will result Am ~e pmsed projecL Indicate ~ ~em am praposed phases ~r ~velopmen~ ~e extent of development to occur w~ each phase. and ~e anticipated comp~n of each ~c~menL A~ additional sheet(s) if necessaO,: Grade 20 lots and build 20 homes on 21 existing lots. 10 lots will have direct access to Camino Predera and 10 lots will have access off of a common drive. All lots are set below the street and the homes step down from Camino Predera. Care has been give to the preservation of reviews of existing owners by grouping street trees along vacant areas, walls and oversteepened slopes have been reduced from previous submittals. 13) Descdbe the surrounding properties, including informab~n on p)ants and animals and any cultural. historical. or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commeroial, etc.). intensity of land use (one-family. apartment houses. shops. department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height. frontage. setback, rear ya~. etc.): Vacant and underused commercia] property to the south and single family zesidential to the east, north and south. 14) wTII the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? NO 15) Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including soume and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. What methods of sound proo~ng are proposed? Only noise will be during site grading. All equipment to~ have mufflers that function and all work to be done during allowable hours as approved by the city. '1~ ~dicate proposed removals an~or replacements of mature or scen~ trees: see attached arborist report. 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: N / A 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachrnent A for usage estimates). For further cladfication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gallday) 12,000 gal/daypeakuse (gallDay) 24,000 gal/day b. Commercial/ind. (ga~/day/ac) Peak use (gal/min/ac) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal __ Septic Tank X S~wer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is p,:i~posed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage esb~nates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-259 I. 5~400 gal/day a. Residential (gallday) b. Commercial/ind. (ga~/day/ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: Detached (indicaterangeofparcelsizes, minimum lotsizeandmaximurnlotsize: 21 existing lots to be adjusted to 20 lots and one common lot for drive way. Lot sizes from 12,878 sf. (0.30 acres) to 28,048 sf. (0.64 acres). AiTa~hed (indicate whether units am rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sate Price(s) $ 3 2 0,00 0 Rent (per month) to $ 380,000 to $ 2~ Specifynumberofbedroomsbyunittype: plan 1 2,759 sf. 3 bed rm, 1 plan 2 3,030 sf. 4 bed rm1 plan 3 3,359 sf. 5 bed rmll loft/option bed rm. 1 den/option bed rm. den/option bed rm. 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 2 'to 6 members not by house type. 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project.' Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elemental: 15 b. Junior High: 15 c. Senior High 3 0 COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe ~ype ~~ use(s) and rna~~r functi~n(s) ~f c~rnmen;ia~~ industria~ ~r ins~ituti~na~ uses: 26) Total floor area of comrnereial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: 27) Indicate hours of operation.' 28) Numberof employees: Total: Maximum Shift: TTme of Maximum Shift: 29) Previde breakd~wn ~f anticipatedj~b c/assi~cati~ns~ inc~uding wage and sa~ary range~~ as we~~ as an indicati~n ~f the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the Cib/: '31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of airpollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water~ sewer~ ~re~ and ~~~d c~ntr~~ agencies se~~~ing the project been c~ntacted t~ deterrnine their abi~ity t~ provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage. or discharcje o( haza~ous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB 's.' radioactive substances,' pesticides and heroicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage. and/or discharge on the property. as weft as the dates of use. i( known. No 3,I) tMft the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use. storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials. including but not lirafled to those examples listed above? If yes. provide an inventory of aft such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shaft be shown and labeled on the application plans. NO I hereby certify that the statements fumished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Date: Aug. 4, 2000 Signature: ~eciu~~John Snell PE. Title: tive V.P. Planning i Enginnering , INITSTOl .WPO - 4196 Page 8 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 00-47 2. Related Files: Variance 00-09, Tree Removal Permit 00-41 m Description of Project: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 {TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed Site Plan for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Pradera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10, 207-631-01 through 11. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Concordia Homes of Southern California 1131 Nodh Sixth Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 General Plan Designation: Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) Zoning: Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), The site is subject to the Hillside Development Standards because the existing grade exceeds 8 percent slope. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North - Vacant land and single-family homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre). South- Abandoned railroad right-of-way, vacant land, and Foothill Boulevard; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) and Office and Public land use districts of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. East Single-family homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre). West - Single-family homes; Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre). Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None. tq9 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing (,/) Geological Problems (,/) Water ('/) Air Quality (~') Transportation/Circulation (,/) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (v') Hazards (,/) Noise (v') Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services {,/) Utilities and Service Systems (,/) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signed: Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner December 13, 2000 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Potentiagy Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Signiticant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact () () () () () () (z) Initial Study for DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the () () () (,/) vicinity? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) established community? Comments: a-d) The project site is located along the south and east sides of Camino Predera on the landform known as Red Hill The lots are recorded lots of record. The homes are designed in conformance with the Hillside Development Standards. A Variance has been requested to allow slopes as steep as 1.5:1 where a maximum steephess of 2:1 is allowed and retaining walls approximately 10 feet in height where a maximum of 4 feet in height is allowed. No increase in density or plan amendment is proposed; therefore, no impacts will result from the project. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 2. POPULATION AND HOUS~IG. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Potentially Significant Impact Less POtentially Unless Than S~gnilicant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (,/) (v') Comments: a-b) The project consists of building single-family homes on existing lots of record. No increase in density or plan amendment is proposed; therefore, the project will not result in a change in population projections. c) The site is currently vacant so no existing housing will be displaced by the project. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant trapact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Signigcant No Impact Incarporated Impact Impact GEOLOGIC PROBI_B'~ Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) (¢) ( ) (¢) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (¢) ( ) ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Signfficanl () d) Seiche hazards? e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil ( ) ( ) ( ) conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) (v') Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact () () No (¢) (,/) (v') () Comments: a-e~) The site is located within a City adopted Special Studies Zone for fault rupture hazard. A Geotechnical Investigation was performed for the project site by GeoSoils, Inc. (dated July 26, 2000). The report includes review of previous studies conducted by the RMA Group (prepared in 1998), and Gary Rasmusen and Associates (prepared in 1997). The report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical and geologic viewpoint provided that the recommendations presented in the report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The GeoSoits, Inc. study was reviewed by an independent registered geologist, RGS Geosciences, that validates the findings of the study. f) The topography will be altered to accommodate the project as the site is currently vacant. Grading will be done in accordance with a Grading Plan approved by the City Engineer and in compliance with the recommendations of the GeoSoils, Inc Geotechnical Investigation dated July 26, 2000 (which indicates that slope stability is adequate). With mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. i) The site has slopes up to 30 percent in steephess and is located on the southeast side of the landform known locally as Red Hill. The site topography will be modified to accommodate construction of the homes but the basic sloping trend of the site from north to south will be maintained. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Potentially S~gni~cant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitiga~on Significant NO Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, () or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? () (v) () () () () (¢) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than MLtigat~on Significant Incorporated Impact (¢) (v') f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (,/) (,/) ( ) Comments: a) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new hardscape proposed on a site which is currently devoid of structures. A Hydrology Report was prepared for the project by Boyle Engineering Corporation, which indicates that the general drainage patterns for the project will emulate the existing drainage patterns and points of discharge. The flows will be conveyed to existing facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The impact is not considered significant. b-e) The project site is not located near a body of water. The applicant has provided a drainage study showing how stormwater runoff will be conveyed. f-i) The project will not interfere with groundwater management practices in the area because the site is not used for groundwater recharge. Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources: AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) (,/) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentiatly Significant c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or ( ) cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) Potentially Signi~car~t Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant NO () () (,/) () () Comments: a-b) Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super-Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. While the homes anticipated by the project are not expected to have air quality impacts; during construction, there is the possibility that fugitive dust will be generated from grading the site. Sources of emissions during this phase include exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated as a result of construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces. NOx and PM~0 levels may be exceeded during this phase; however, with implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts will be reduced to less-than-significant levels. The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~0 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Camino Predera shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~0 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 3. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~0 emissions from the site during such episodes. Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~0 emissions. m The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on low-emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in Use. Initial Study for DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 The construction contractor shall ensure that all bare ground surfaces will be sprayed with water or other acceptable dust palliatives to minimize wind erosion and fugitive dust emissions. c-d) The proposed project is the construction of 20 single-family homes on existing lots of record. The homes anticipated by the project will not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes or objectionable odors. m Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant Impacl Less Polentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., () () sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to () (v') nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ( ) ( ) alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (v') () (v) () ( ) (v) Comments: a) The project will increase the number of vehicle trips with development of single- family homes since the site is currently vacant; however, the project does not propose development of the site with a density in excess of that provided for by the Development Code and the General Plan. There is no impact. b-d) Access to the site is provided by Camino Predera. This street allows full access without impeding the through traffic. There is a common driveway proposed to take access to the homes off of Camino Predera. The driveway terminus will be finished with a hammerhead to allow access for emergency vehicles; however, the driveway is very steep at certain points, which will prevent emergency vehicles from entering the site. As mitigation, each of the homes shall be installed with fire sprinklers. e-f) The proposed development will not cause a hazard or barrier to pedestrians or cyclists because adequate points of ingress/egress have been provided. d) Located approximately 3 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not be dangerous to users or aircraft. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mgigafion Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, ( ) (,/) ( ) ( ) eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a, d-e) The project proposes development of 20 single-family homes on approximately 16 acres of land. The surrounding area is vacant home sites and developed with single-family homes to the north, east, and west, and abandoned railroad right-of-way to the south. The site is located on the southeastern slope of Red Hill, which is essentially built out with single-family homes. There is no wetland habitat on or in the vicinity of the site; and because of the development in the area, no wildlife corridors exist. The site is not identified on maps as potential habitat for any rare or endangered species of plant or animal. b &c) The site contains 32 mature Eucalyptus trees, a row of Silk Oak trees along the railroad right-of-way, one each Coast Live Oak, California Pepper, and Brazilian Pepper, which will be removed to accommodate the proposed project. An Arborist Report was prepared by Jim Borer (dated June 29, 2000) for the project to assess the number, condition, and value of the existing trees. The report found that while the trees offer an appealing common canopy, none of the specimens are individually outstanding or unique. Many of the trees are extremely mature and represent a clear risk of shedding large limbs during heavy winds. The Silk Oak trees are planted too close to one another and are stunted in size and form from their natural disposition to grow. The trees do provide an aesthetic resource as they are visible from Foothill Boulevard. Tree replacement with project landscaping will in time provide a similarly aesthetic resource. Those trees removed to accommodate the project, which meet the criteria for Heritage Trees, shall be replaced at a ratio of one to one with the largest nursery grown trees available and incorporated into the project landscaping. It is not necessary to match the species of the existing trees. With mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Significant impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (,/) (,/) Comments: a-b) The project will be required to conform to applicable City standards for energy Conservation. c) The site is not designated by State Aggregate Resources Area according to the City General Plan, Figure IV-2 AND Table IV-1 .nt of Mines and Geology; therefore, there is no impact. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Potentially Significant Impact Less POtentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of () () () (,/) hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential () () () ('/) health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of () () () (v') potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable () (v) () () brush, grass, or trees? Comments: a-d) There is no evidence of previous commercial or industrial uses. No evidence of discarded drums, containers, or hazardous wastes was observed. There was no indication of underground storage tanks or illegal dumping of refuse on-site. e) The site is not indicated to be in a high fire hazard area, but because of the upslope orientation of the homes, specialized construction methods will be required during Initial Study for DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 plan check to reduce fire potential. The homes shall be installed with fire sprinklers to mitigate lack of emergency vehicle access due to the steep common driveway. The impact is not considered significant. 10. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ( ) (/) ( () () ( () Comments: a) The proposed project may produce noticeable project-related noise during grading and construction. The following measures are provided to mitigate the short-term noise impacts: Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA, plus the limits specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120oD, as measured at the property line. Weekly, the developer shall monitor noise levels, monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Planning Division. Developer shall report their findings to the Planning Division within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the Developer shall immediately notify the Planning Division. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. b) The site is subject to traffic noise from Foothill Boulevard. A noise study was prepared for the project by Gordon-Bricken and Associates (dated August 23, 2000), which indicates that 6 to 8-foot high noise barriers will be necessary for Lots 1 through 5 and 16 and 17. The report also suggests barriers for Lots 18 through 20 to avoid future occupant complaints (though not technically necessary). The report also recommends window upgrades for certain homes to mitigate interior noise levels. The project is designed with clear acrylic sound barriers in conformance with the recommendations of the Gordon Bricken study. The project shall comply with all recommendations of the noise study prepared by Gordon Bricken, dated August 23, 2000, including noise barriers and window upgrades. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 11 11. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the fo~owing areas: Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation SigniScant No Impact Incorporated impact Impact a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) Comments: a-e) Fire Protection - The project site, located on the south and east sides of Camino Predera, would be served by a fire station located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, west of Archibald Avenue. The homes are required to be installed with fire sprinklers. Standard Conditions of Approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project so no impacts to fire services will occur. Police protection - Police protection for the area is provided under a contract with the County Sheriff's Department. Additional police protection is not required, as no residential homes are proposed for development at this time. .Schools - The Central School District serves the subject site. The homes are proposed to be built on existing lots of record and school impact fees will be paid at the time of building permit issuance. Parks - The proposed project will result in the construction of 20 new single-family homes on existing lots of record, and will not generate a substantial number of new people to the area; therefore, the project will not adversely impact local parks or recreational opportunities. Public Facilities - The proposed project will not significantly increase traffic on adjacent streets and it is consistent with the Development Code, which designates the area as Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) with suspected future traffic after development. 12. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially s~gai.cant UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Less Unjess Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact NO () () (¢) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pote.,ia,y Significant b) Communication systems? ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ( ) facilities? Potentially Significant Impact Unless M~tigation incorporated Less Than Significant NO Impact Impact ( ) (¢) ( ) (¢) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) () (¢) (¢) () () () Cornmerits: a-g) The project will use existing gas, electrical, and communication systems. Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler who disposes the refuse at a permitted landfill. The project will increase demand upon storm drain systems due to the increased runoff from new hardscape proposed on the currently vacant site. Storm drain improvements will be constructed to direct drainage to existing facilities located south of the site, and will not result in substantial alterations to the master plan of storm drainage. The impact is not considered significant since it can be mitigated by providing proper stormwater drainage per the City Engineer. 13. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially 1]~an Signil~cant Significant No AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) (,/) ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) Comments: a-b) The project will be visually prominent relative to Foothill Boulevard. The design of the grading, landscaping, and home architecture are subject to review by the City's Design and Grading Review Committees to ensure compliance with community design policies. The homes have been designed to appear as large custom houses consistent with the character of the Red Hill area. The proposed project will blend with current and proposed surrounding development. c) The project will create new light and glare with future development of single-family homes; however, the site has been identified as a residential site so future light will not significantly affect sensitive receptors such as other residential development in the area. .21b Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 13 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impam No 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb Paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical or cultural resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () () () () (¢) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (v') () Commellts: a-e) The site is approximately 15.7 acres. There are no known cultural or historic resources on the property. The Red Hill area, in general, was inhabited by native Indians; however, due to the severe topography of the site, it is highly unlikely that any habitation actually occurred here. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped with eucalyptus and silk oak trees on-site. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during grading and site construction, the contractor shall contact the property owner and the San Bernardino County Museum for proper recovery or documentation. 15. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: RECREATION. Would the proposal,' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact or () () () (v) () () () (v) Comments: a) The developer of the project will be required to pay park development fees as a condition of approval. The impact is not considered significant, b) The proposed project will be constructed on vacant land, which is designated low residential. Surrounding and adjacent land are also designated residential and are either currently developed or vacant to be developed. ,?,// Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes Page 14 16. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated impact No Impart a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) (,/) (,/) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) Comments: a) The Initial Study did not identify any significant adverse impacts to biological resources. b) The construction activities on the 15.7-acre site could generate fugitive dust during site grading. The contractor will be required to minimize dust generation through water applications per the City's Standard Conditions of Approval. Additional mitigation measures presented in Section 5 of this Initial Study will reduce impacts to less than significant. Noise associated with site construction will not result in a significant impact given the small size of the site and the short-term nature of the construction activity. Roadway noise will be mitigated by providing noise barriers and specialized sound attenuating windows. 2/2. DEC-19-0B 05:0BPM FROM-CONCORDIA H0kES OF SOUTHERN CALIFO~IA 9899885122 T-370 P.001/001 F-320 Inrdal Study for DR 00-47 - Concordia Homes 0ity of F~ncho Cucarnon~a Page 15 c) Cumulative effects of a residen6al subdivision in fie Low Residential Distr. l~ warn identified in a previous environmental documem. Appropriate analysl~ and mitigalion measures were developed with adoptio~ of the General Plan. No additional mitiga:t. ien meesures beyond these and those proposed in this InitiaJ Study are requb~d. d) Constru~on of 20 single-tartly homes.will not cause substmi;;;,i adverse effects on humanS, either direcCJy or indirectly, The Initial Study did not identify any Impacts that would have a potentially significant effect to the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level of Insignificance, EARLIER ANALYSES Eadier analyses my be used where, pumuant to the tiering, program EER, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately .analyzed in an eadier EIR or Negative Declaration per Seelion 1506S(e)(3)(D). The effects icbsa;,Ted above for this project were within th~ scope of and adequately analyzed in the foflowfng earlier document(s) pursuant t~ appllP.4tble legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation me-_~_,res based o~ the earlier anaJySis.- The following earlier analyses were utilized in compl~ing this Initlal Study and are available for mvbw In the City of Rancho Oucamonga, Planning Division otfioee~ lOeO~ Civic Center Drive (check all thEt apply): General Plan EIR (Certified Apdl 6, I881) Master Environmental AsseSsrru~nt for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH 188020115, certified January 4, 1989) ' APPUCANT CEKtlRCATION I certify that I am the applicant for the prc>jec~ described in thi~ lniti~ Study. I ac~knowledge that I have read this Inilkd SNdy and the proposed mitigation measures. Fulther, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitlcjate me effeots to a point where dearly no signfficant envirorlmerttaJ elfec~s would occur. Dear Mr. Le Count am o TM ....... Our names are H. Lynn and Renee Massey. We live at 8088 C in .l~q 0 2 Predera in Rancho Cucamonga, We're writing to you to expresscl~laF RANCHEl concerns with the property development of Concordia Homes on the 15.7 acres in that area, Our desire is not to stop this development but to protect our rights with the property we own. Please review our concerns and respond to us in a timely fashion. We are working on a tight time schedule and need to have your written response before the January 10th meeting. The issues are as follows: '1. The fair market value of our home will drop. We paid a premium for the city views our property provides. With the building of these 5 new homes our view will be reduced by more than 80%. Our home was $32,000 more than similar homes because of the view. We believe the elevation of the new homes should be lowered to maintain the views and added property value. 2. There could be a "breach of privacy" issue with 5 additional homes being built across the street. Our front door will be in direct view of 5 homes all within 100 yards, compared to none now, 3. The additional traffic of 5 new homes across from us as well as the building of 15 other new homes using the street to access the new properties is a concern. The street has a very pronounced turn with a steep slope, 10° or more, and people misjudge the speed. It's logical that with more traffic, there's a greater chance of an accident. With 20 more new families using this street, the increase of accidents are bound to happen. There is no other access to this new area provided but there are three other possible entries to the new area. 4. There are fire safety issues to be considered. The environmental checklist form initial study part II, completed by you states that the entrance to the site is a concern. The study states that the driveway is very steep at certain points and the emergency access might be inadequate. It also states that if the builder puts sprinklers into the homes the lack of access will not be an issue. If the sprinkler system fails (which could happen) our home could be put in jeopardy if firefighting equipment can't get to a burning structure. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. RESOLUTION NO. 01-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 00-09 TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET IN HEIGHT WHERE A MAXIMUM OF 4 FEET IS ALLOWED, AND SLOPE GRADIENTS OF APPROXIMATELY 1.5:1 WHERE A MAXIMUM GRADIENT OF 2:1 IS ALLOWED FOR 20 LOTS WITHIN APPROVED TRACT 10035 ON 15.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO PREDERA, SOUTH OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-641-01 THROUGH 10 AND 207-631-01 THROUGH 11 A. Recitals. 1. Concordia Homes filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 00-09 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 10, and continued to January 24, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on January 10, and January 24, 2001, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located along the south side of Camino Predera with a street frontage of 3,300 feet and lot depth of 260 feet and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and developed with single family homes, the property to the south consists of vacant land and abandoned rail corridor (future regional multi-purpose trail). the property to the east is developed with single family homes, and the property to the west is vacant and developed with condominiums; and c. Absolute compliance with the maximum slope gradients and retaining wall heights per the Hillside Development Regulations would cause a physical hardship for the property owner due to the steepness and topography of the site as well as the size and shape of the existing lots of record; and PLANNING COMMISSIOIESOLUTION NO. 01-10 VA 00-09 CONCORDIA HOMES JANUARY 24, 2001 Page 2 d. There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property that do not apply to a majority of other properties in the Low Residential District which have much lesser slopes and less drastic topography; and e. Stdct interpretation of the maximum slope gradient and retaining wall height would deprive the property owner of development pdv!leges enjoyed by other properties in the Low Residential District which are able to take full development potential with normal and reasonable grading and construction practices; and f. The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege as it accommodates reasonable and provident use of the land with homes of reasonable size in conformance with the density provisions of the district; and g. Specialized and sophisticated grading and construction methods as well as intensified landscaping will prevent any detrimental affects to the public health, safety, or welfare, h. Retaining walls are necessary to lower house pad grades to minimize impact upon viewshed of existing homes to the north. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. c. That strict or literal interpratation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. d, That the granting of the Vadance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSIOIESOLUTION NO. 01-10 Va 00-09 CONCORDIA HOMES JANUARY 24, 2001 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucemonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, MANNERIN0, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ,l/7 RESOLUTION NO. 01-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 00-47, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR 20 LOTS WITHIN APPROVED TRACT 10035 ON 15.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO PREDERA, SOUTH OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 207-641-01 THROUGH 10 AND 207-631-01 THROUGH 11 A. Recitals. 1. Concordia Homes filed an application for the approval of Development Review 00-47, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 10, and continued to January 24, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved bythe Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting on January 10, and January 24, 2001, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located along the south side of Camino Predera with a street frontage of 3,300 feet and lot depth of 260 feet and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and developed with single family homes, the property to the south consists of vacant land and abandoned rail corridor (future regional multi-purpose trail), the property to the east is developed with single family homes. and the property to the west is vacant and developed with condominiums; and c. The potential environmental impacts related to air quality, tree removal, noise, and geological hazards can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through compliance with the recommended environmental mitigation measures; and d. The proposed homes are of very high architectural design quality with 360-degree enhancement; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-11 DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES Janua~ 24,2001 Page 2 e. The project is designed with a majodty of the homes set well below the level of the street thereby preserving existing views far beyond what is typically achieved elsewhere in the City; and f. The design includes a sophisticated retaining wall system that allows landscaping to be planted on the surface of walls, intensified slope landscaping, and decorative block walls that will enhance the visual quality of the project; and g. The project is designed to be consistent with all requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations with the exception of slope gradient and retaining wall height for which a Variance application has been requested; and h. The project will enhance the surrounding area by virtue of high quality home and landscaping design that exceeds that of the area; and i. The project fosters provident use and development of existing lots of record; and appearance. The grading design includes rounded slopes to provide a softer, more natural 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located; and c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-11 DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES January 24,2001 Page 3 b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project, which are listed below as conditions of approval. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources orthe habitat upon which wildlife depends. FuRher, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragrephs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incerporated herein by this reference. Planning Division 1) Approval is hereby granted for Tree Removal Permit 00-41 subject to replacement of the trees with the largest available nursery grown trees at a ratio of one to one to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 2) All walls shall be decorative masonry (split faced block - both sides) with decorative masonry caps. No wood fencing shall be permitted (even between homes) given the visual prominence of the development. All pilasters shall have river rock or similar treatment on all sides. 3) All dver rack treatment shall be natural dver rock as opposed to manufactured veneer. Other rock treatment, such as slate, may be of a manufactured product. 4) Provide a minimum of 15 feet of usable rear yard depth at the rear of all homes. 5) Provide additional landscaping (additional trees, large sized trees and shrubs) along the south/downslope side of the homes to screen downslope elevations. 6) The street trees and trees planted near the Camino Predera frontage shall be retocated down slope to preserve valley views for the existing homes to the north. 7) The "loefelstien" walls shall be planted with a hardy vine or shrub that will eventually completely cover the walls and shall be irrigated accordingly. Z.Z D PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-11 DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES January 24,2001 Page 4 8) The down slope side of the high retaining walls shall be well landscaped to soften the appearance of the walls. 9) Provide low maintenance landscape plant materials forthe slope areas. Provide railroad tie steps or similar means to facilitate maintenance. 10) Provide cascading vines or similar plant types along the top of retaining walls and train them to cascade down over walls. 11) All manufactured slopes shall have a natural or "contoured" look as opposed to a harsh, angular look. 12) Slope down drain features shall have a naturalized, dry streambed appearance through the use of dver rock application. The dver rock shall be applied to convey a meandering appearance. The area approximately 1 foot on either side of the center line of the down drains may be left as exposed concrete to facilitate water flow and maintenance, 13) Provide landscape planters around the base of the homes where possible to enhance their visual appearance. 14) The bdck veneer on the left elevation of the Plan 3 home shall terminate near the support column by providing a furred out feature for the veneer to die into. 15) The wood siding may be removed from the Plan 2 home at the discretion of the applicant. 16) Avoid use of wood siding on chimneys. Chimneys shall either be covered with stucco or covered with stone veneer. 17) Naturalize the riprap outlet to have a dry riverbed like appearance. 18) The developer shall obtain permission from SANBAG for offsite grading along the south boundary. 19) The developer shall clearly demonstrate the grading technique for the site prior to issuance of a Grading Permit to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. Of concern is how the site will be graded without disturbing the neighboring properties to the east and west. En.qineerin.~ Division 1) Existing improvement per Tract 10035 shall be protected in place, replaced, or upgraded to current City Standard. 2) The common ddve aisle access shall have a reciprocal access easement granted to each lot. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-11 DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES January24,2001 Page 5 3) 4) A Homeowner's Association shall be formed and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be prepared to provide for assessments for maintenance of slopes and common areas. Process a lot line adjustment for the new lot configurations. The lot line adjustments shall be recorded pdor to issuance of building permits. Environmental Miti{~ation 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) lo) The project design and construction shall be in compliance with the recommendations of the GeoSoils, Inc Geotechnical Investigation dated July 26, 2000. The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Camino Predera shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with construction vehicles tracking of soil off-site. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions. Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours. The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on low-emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean altemative fuel powered equipment where feasible. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. The construction contractor shall ensure that all bare ground surfaces will be sprayed with water or other acceptable dust palliatives to minimize wind erosion and fugitive dust emissions. Hedtage trees which are removed shall be replaced at a ratio of one to one with the largest nursery grown stock available. Location and species to be approved by the Planning Division. The homes shall be installed with fire spdnklera to mitigate the length of the common driveway. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-11 DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES January 24,2001 Page 6 12) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a,m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 13) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA, plus the limits specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Weekly, the developer shall monitor noise levels, monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Planning Division. Developer shall report their findings to the Planning Division within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the Developer shall immediately notify the Planning Division. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 14) The project shall comply with all recommendations of the noise study prepared by Gordon Bdcken, dated August 23, 2000, including noise barriers and window upgrades. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall cerHfy to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: arty ~.~iel. Chairman I, Bred Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucemonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 223 City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Development Review 00-47 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamongao A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigation Monitoring Program Development Review 00-47 Page 2 Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development, All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: DR 00-47 Applicant: Concordia Homes Initial Study Prepared by: Brent Le Count- Date: December 14, 2000 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Geologic Problems The project design and construction shale be in compliance with the recommendations of the GeoSoils, Inc Geotechnical Investigation dated July 26, 2000 Air Quality The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Camino Predera shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~0 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions. Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be apptied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours. The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on low-emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification CP/CE/BO B/C Ongoing A/C CP/BO B/C Ongoing A CP/BO B/C Ongoing A CP/BO B/C During high A winds CP/BO B/C Ongoing A CP/BO/CE B/C Ongoing A/C CP/BO B/C Ongoing A CP/BO/CE B Plan Check C Verified Sanctions for Date/Initials Non-Compliance 2,3,4 4 4 4 4 t 4 4 2 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action The construction contractor shall ensure that all bare CP/BO ground surfaces will be sprayed with water or other acceptable dust palliatives to minimize wind erosion and fugitive dust emissions. Biological Resources Heritage trees shall be replaced at a ratio of one to one. CP Location and species to approved by the Planning Division. Hazards The homes shall be installed with fire sprinklers to BO/FC mitigate lack of emergency vehicle access due to the steep common driveway Noise Construction or grading shall not take place between the BO/CP hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA, plus the limits specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Weekly, the developer shall monitor noise levels, monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Planning Division. Developer shall report their findings t9 the Planning Division within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the Developer shall immediately notify the Planning Division. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. The project shall comply with all recommendations of the noise stddy prepared by Gordon Bricken, dated August 23, 2000, including noise barriers and window upgrades. Responsible for Monitoring BO/CP CP/BO/CE Monitoring Frequency B/C B/C B/D C C B/C/D Timing of Verification Ongoing Ongoing Prior to occupancy Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Method of Verification A NC NC A D NC/D Verified Sanctions for Date/Initials Non-Compliance 4 2/4 2/3 4 4 2,3,4 Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Person CDD - Community Development Director CP - City Planner or designee CE - City Engineer or d~signee BO - Building Official or designee PO - Police Captain or designee FC - Fire Chief or designee Monitoring Frequency A -With Each New Development B - Prior To Construction C - Throughout Construction D - On Completion E - Operating Method of Verification A - On-site Inspection B - Other Agency Permit / Approval C - Plan Check D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies / Plans) Sanctions 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy 4 - Stop Work Order 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds 6 - Revoke CUP VARIANCE 00-09 (TPACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - A request to allow retaining walls approximately 10 feet in height where a maximum height of 4 feet is allowed, and slope gradients of approximately 1,5:1, where a maximum gradient of 2:1 is allowed for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Ddve - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related files: Development Review 00-47 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. NEW BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEVV00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Ddve- APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related files: Variance 00-09 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. He noted that a change had been made in the Resolution of Approval found on Page F & G 99, number 11. He stated the reworded condition should read 'q'he homes shall be installed with fire spdnklera to mitigate the length of the common driveway," He mentioned that correspondence was received from several residents, Paul Gomez, Gloda Romero, Wallace and Charlotte Schultz, and Renee Massey citing issues of view obstruction, slope alternatives, water run-off. the removal of trees, and the possible endangerment of the local wildlife. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Snell, Concerdia Homes, 1131 West 6th Street, Ontado, complimented staff for their assistance. He commented that this project has evolved through many changes and that numerous options were considered. He mentioned that he understands that the project is a balance between the intent of the Grading Ordinance, preserve views, technical issues, steep grades, retaining walls and landscaping and that they tded to minimize the impact of the project. He appreciated the compliment in regard to the architectural design. He stated that following the neighborhood meeting, suggestions were brought up and the engineer has completed some early studies regarding slopes, preserving views, wall height and estimated costs. He noted that the Planning Conditions call for street trees but the conditions from Transportation call for street trees and sidewalks. He commented that they would work with staff on conflicting conditions and that he presumed the special conditions would prevail. He indicated the existing sidewalks would remain and that they will repair any damaged sidewalks. Renee Massey, 8088 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lives across from Lot 3 and that Lots 1-5 are in the line of sight of her home. She noted that she moved to the Red Hill area because of the attractive views and that the original CC&Rs for her area addressed the issue of views. She noted that she attended the Neighborhood Meeting and that John Snell agreed to draw optional plans to address the issue of a blocked view. She reported that she is in favor of Option ~3. Chuck Buquet, 8725 Predera CoUrt, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he lives across from Lot 15. He reported that he met with staff and Mr. Snell and his engineer. He indicated that he is not in opposition of the development, but that he feels the development should be compatible with the neighborhood. He reported that the original approval in 1985 was for a custom subdivision and that now it is a tract and the slopes have been revised. He commented that he understands that these Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 10, 2001 slope issues can be difficult to deal with and that the developer has shown a good effort. He noted that the neighbors have made good comments about the development and that the CC&Rs are an important factor and that they include some pretection for the buyers and some provisions for design review, landscape review and they apply to this development. He added that the correspondence documents were provided to Mr. Snell after the neighborhood meeting. He noted that a vadance request cannot be a special privilege and that there are 5 cdteria that must be satisfied by the vadance request. He indicated fiat he assumes all 5 findings were actually made. He asked that the Rosea Silk trees shown on the plans should be deleted and that there should be no street trees on that street. He added that they would like low growing shrubs and Xeriscape should be used in the rear yards. He also asked that the developer not use certain varieties because if they are tall with large canopies it would defeat the purpose of dropping the pad elevations of the homes because the foliage would create a view blockage. He indicated Mr. Snell previded 3 Options to address the view blockage issue. Mr. Buquet favors dropping Lots 3, 4, & 5 to the area where the lower private drive is located. He also suggested adjusting the Pad grades and building heights and he asked what the actual pad elevations would be for each of the lots. Vince Elefante, 7966 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga, indicated that his view is impacted the most over the other residents but that he did express cencem about the blocked view and he voiced his concern that the entrance to the homes will cause treffic impact on the neighborhood. Wallace Schultz, 8513 Red Hill Country Club Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, reitereted his concerns about the blocked views, the blocky design of the proposed homes, the high roof lines of the proposed homes, and the possible adverse affect on his property value. He noted that he supports development but he believes the CC&Rs prevents him from building a second floor and that he would appreciate the same consideretion from the developer. Shirley O'Morrow, 8547 Calle Carebe, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is cencemed about the loss of trees, the possible shooting of coyotes and the access for the abandoned reil treil. Tom Snedeker, 7949 Camino Predere, Rancho Cucamonga, voiced his concem about the wall shown in the plans and how that would affect floor control. Donald O'Morrow, 8547 Calle Carebe, Rancho Cucamonga, noted that the storm drain currently has 3 feet of water in it, which runs 30 mph. He reported that water percolates into the drein off the property all year round and that this development may be hampered by the drainage situation because the water flows dght threugh the lots. He also voiced concern about 100 year old trees that are slated to be removed from the property. Ray Keeley, 8837 Calle Corizon, Rancho Cucamonga, said that the City seems to be building on every bare piece of land and that allowing this development changes the pleasant aspects of the Red Hill area. He cited issues of view, tree removal, treil access, and the stripping of wildlife. He added that he did not receive notice of the project and that he only lives one street away from the proposed project. Mr. Snell asked staff to respond to the issue of the trees and the trail. He responded to the residents by indicating that he does not believe it is up to the City to become involved with the CC&Rs, but that we do acknowledge them. He noted that the plans submitted are consistent and that they plan to move ahead to plan check with them as they are. He reported that the traffic issues have been addressed because the street designed for the project have been reviewed by staff and they are acceptable. He noted that they do not intend to shoot, kill, or poison coyotes. He indicated that since they will not begin the development for several months, the City may trap or remove animals if they desire. He added that the drainage issue has been accounted for because there is a storm drain at the east end of the project and the drainage should not be a major issue. Planning Commission Minutes -10- January'10,2001 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if staff or the Design Review Committee had asked the developer to use single-story designs. Commissioner Stewart reported that single-story designs are not feasible on this project and that they had come to that conclusion following 2 Preliminary Design Review Workshops and 3 Design Reviews following that. Joe Long, Boyle Engineering presented 3 alternatives to address the view issue. He reported that Alternative #1 is the least costly and the net result is that Lots 3,4,&5 are pushed down 3-3 ~ feet. Alternative #2 pushes down Lots 3 &4 approximately 9 feet. He noted that Alternative #.3 is the most drastic grading, the most costly, and because of the excessive high wall, is the least desirable. It creates a common drive for Lots 6-17 and drops the homes 38 feet from the current design and would result in a 37-foot retaining wall. He added that Mr. Buquet submitted his own idea, which would swing the extension of the common drive further up the slope, but he noted that it has some of the same issues as the other options but would lessen the wall height to 20 feet. Chairman McNiel clarified the impact on the height of the proposed wall and summarized them: Altemative #1 has a 16-foot wall, AItemative #2 has a 16-foot wall, Alternative #3 has a 37-foot wall and the Alternative #4 (Buquet Plan) has a 25-foot wall. Commissioner Mannerino asked if the homeowners had seen all of the altematives with exception to Altemative #4 (Buquet Plan). Mr. Long replied affirmatively. Chairman McNiel asked if Altemative #3 is a crib style wall. Mr. Long said that it is. Chairman McNiel asked what the degree of angle is on Alternative ~3. Mr. Long said the slope is 1:32 foot slope but with the planting boxes it comes back to about 25:1, straight up and down. Chairman McNiel asked how a wall that high would be maintained. Mr. Long replied with a very long ladder (tongue in cheek). Mr. Snell stated that the impacts of the grading and the proposed alternative wall would be too great to consider and that he felt sure the City would not approve a 37-foot wall. He said that now he has had a chance to review these alternatives, he would elect to go with the plans that they have already submitted. Mr. Bulier asked Brent Le Count to respond to the issues of the trees. Mr. Le Count indicated that 200 trees are to be removed and that the Landscape Plan includes more than that to be put in place that more than mitigates the loss of the existing treeS. He noted that most of the. trees, although old, are not of special quality and an arbodst recommended they be removed with replacements as recommended. Mr. Buller reported that the City, in cooperation with our neighboring cities, will be constructing a multi-purpose trail using the abandoned rail mute which will eventually connect us with our neighboring cities via this trail. He noted that there is a provision for a light rail system in the future. Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 10, 2001 He added that the trail is in the Master Plan but it is not required to be built by the developer or at the same time as this proposed development. Commissioner Mannedno noted that Mr. Buquet eluded to CC&Rs recorded against this property and asked if there are any restrictions for height and view that may be impacted by this development. He asked that if we have reviewed the CC&Rs if only for informational purposes even though the City has no jurisdiction over CC&Rs. Mr. Le Count said that he had not seen any CC&Rs. Mr. Buller noted that although the City gives consideration to their restrictions, but it is not the City's responsibility to enforce them. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, clarified the matter and stated that the City has no jurisdiction to enforce CC&Rs but that the City may take into account existing legal arrangements regarding the property, however, even if the CC&Rs clearly preclude 2-story homes, the City does not need to use its power to effectuate those private agreements. The Commission can chose or not chose to be guided by their provisions. You are not required to enforce them. He added that the Resolution of Approval for the Variance does have a section which outlines sufficient facts and findings made for the Variance found on Page F&G-63 of the agenda packet. Commissioner Mannerino indicated that he is opposed to the project at this time after considedng counsel's comments. He noted that he is not opposed because of the issues of diminishing the view, the removal of the trees and the diminishing wildlife, but that at this time he is opposed to the project until they have the opportunity to consider the CC&Rs. He added that if the CC&Rs pertain to the tract in question and if the developer is aware of CC&Rs, and that the Commission knows they exist, and if in fact the height of the proposed homes violate the CC&Rs, and the Commission can consider them, then the Commission should be aware of what they say. He noted that if there is no way to avoid the CC&Rs restrictions then the owners are free to take civil action. He indicated that the other concems previously mentioned are hollow and ingenuous. Chairman McNiel stated that he had not seen the CC&Rs but that he did not believe the homes are greater in height than homes already built. Commissioner Mannerino indicated that he would be surprised if the CC&RS have truly been violated by the design of this project, however, if someone alleges that CC&Rs on the property in question have been violated, then he wants to see them to determine is the statement is true or false. He strongly encouraged that the CC&Rs be reviewed. Chairman McNiel stated that tonight was the first time anyone has mentioned CC&Rs that might apply to the project being built. Commissioner Mannerino emphasized the point that the developer has acknowledged the existence of CC&Rs, which apply to his tract. He indicated that perhaps the developer had not been totally forthright in Design Review about telling staff about their existence. He noted that he would be surprised if in fact those CC&Rs limit the height of these homes. Commissioner Stewart agreed. Mr. Ennis noted that one of the required findings for the Design Review is in the Resolution of Approval for the variance states 'q'hat the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity." He added that the Commissioners should take the CC&Rs into account if they should desire to do so, but that it is not the City's job to enforce them, that is a private matter. Planning Commission Minutes -12- Janua~ 10,2001 Commissioner Mannedno stated that he would rather not deny the project but would move to continue the headng until the Commission can confirm the existence of the CC&Rs, determine if they actually apply to this project, and confirm any restrictions that may be in the CC&Rs. Commissioner Stewart agreed. Mr. Bullet recommended the public headng be re-opened so that it can be continued and ask Mr. Snell how available the CC&Rs would be for the Commissioner's review. Chairman McNiel re-opened the public headng and Mr. Snell came forward. Mr. Snell stated that he has a copy of the CC&Rs in his office and that he can forward a copy to the Commissioners tomorrow. Commissioner Mannedno clarified his position by stating that he was not suggesting the developer was trying to conceal facts. Butthe during the course of the hearing, facts are sometimes disclosed and the purpose of the hearing is to hear the relevant facts. Mr. Buller recommended the CC&Rs be delivered to the City tomorrow and that copies can be provided to any interested parties and the item be continued to the January 24th meeting to allow staff the opportunity to evaluate the CC&Rs. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he finds the architectural design of the homes acceptable and that there is no view ordinance in the City and no one likes to lose a view and the Planning Commission tdes to preserve views if feasible. CC&Rs are not our business; it is a civil matter, he agreed that they should know what they say. Commissioner Tolstoy continued stating he would not vote in favor because of the excessive slopes and that cdb walls do not work well in floods. He noted that he has never seen a cdb wall in a desert area that grows and are not viable in this situation. He also felt that steep slopes are not managed properly, and for those reasons he would vote no on the project. Mr. Snell clarified and said that the walls are not crib walls, they are closed cell walls. Chairman McNiel interjected that the crib walls were part of the alternative wall plans, which were open to discussion. The reason the slopes were treated that way was to lower the homes to get the homes to a lower view level. Commissioner Tolstoy reiterated that he feels the slope management presented is not acceptable. Chairman McNiel stated that he did not feel the CC&Rs are their problem. He commented that the design team worked hard and that the project as presented is acceptable, He noted that this is a difficult piece of property and the developer made exceptional efforts to bring the project to this point. He said he would approve it dght now but he added that Alternative #3 is not acceptable. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to continue Variance 00-09 and Environmental Assessment and Development Review 00-47 (Tract 10035) to the January 24, 2001 meeting to allow staff the opportunity to review the CC&Rs. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MANNEP, INO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS, ~ carried The Planning Commission recessed from 9:20 p.m. to 9:25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2001 'IVlUL;~,, ,, ~ ~'~!~d by Mannedno, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolution approwng L,U~ ~ulL,u...~ Use Permit 00-49. Iwuuu,~.,--.iDd bV the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, Mu~,E'. , STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ~ ~ _ _ _ ABSENT: NONE - carried ~- VARIANCE 00-09 (TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - A request to allow retaining walls approximately 10 feet in height where a maximum height of 4 feet is allowed, and slope gradients of approximately 1.5:1, where a maximum gradient of 2:1 is allowed for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related files: Development Review 00-47 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. (Continued from January 10, 2001) NEW BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES - The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related files: Variance 00-09 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. (Continued from January 10, 2001) Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel indicated the public hearing remained open. John Snell, Concordia Homes, 1131 West 6th Street, Ontario, thanked the Planning Commission for the continuance. He said they had gotten the CC&Rs to staff immediately. He noted that the spreadsheet in the staff report (Exhibit "B") shows compliance with the CC&Rs and he showed an exhibit of the house plotting which illustrated the chart. Renee Massey, 8088 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga, stated her property is located across the street from Lots 1 through 5. She said that the Fire Protection District Technical Review comments dated September 30, 2000, state that the project is located in a high fire hazard area, but the Initial Study indicates the site is not indicated to be in a high fire hazard area. She stated that the Initial Study references a report from Gary Rasmussen and Associates prepared in 1997 but the GeoSoils, Inc. study states that the Rasmussen report was prepared in 1987. She said the Commission approved the CC&Rs in 1988 and she believed the Commission originally requested single story homes because of the CC&Rs. She noted that Commissioner Stewart had indicated it had been determined that single story homes were not feasible. She hoped the determination was not based on cost and felt the builder could modify its plans to build single story homes. Mrs. Massey stated that she had been told by staff that a variance had never before been granted for a 10-foot retaining wall and that such a variance could not be granted unless there are unusual circumstances or the lots are unusually small. She did not see any special circumstances or reason to grant a variance. She noted that the Hillside Ordinance calls for slopes to be as gentle as possible and not manmade. She felt the 2:1 slope is substantial and observed a gradient of 1.5:1 would increase the grade even more. She said staff could not recall such a request having been granted in the past. Mrs. Massey observed that she and her husband had gone on record at the previous meeting to request Option 3 offered by Concordia Homes but had never been consulted on Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 24,2001 a fourth option. She stated that Mr. Snell had indicated none of the options was feasible. She withdrew her previous support of the project and asked that the project be denied because it does not reflect the type of homes in character with the community, is not in keeping with the CC&Rs, requests variances which have not previously been approved by the Commission, and is at odds with the Hillside Ordinance. She agreed with sta~'s comment that a portion of the homes are below the level of the street, but said that there are no homes opposite those lots and the upper five and the lower five homes will obstruct the view from existing homes. She said they would exercise their right to seek civil action against all parties involved if the project were approved. Lynn Massey, 8088 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked the Commission for allowing him to present his concerns. He thought the facts presented were misleading. He showed a picture of his house and indicated that the level of sight from his front door and his balcony is equal or within 6 inches. He felt the line-of-site drawings were misleading because they show two different elevations for his house. He stated his view of the valley and city lights will be obstructed by homes on Lots 2 through 5. He felt that 75 percent of his view will be obstructed and that he will lose all of his view when trees are grown by the new homeowners. He read from two advertising flyers from Concordia Homes from other communities and severel real estate advertisements which highlighted a view as one of their selling features. Mr. Massey stated the community is semi-custom homes with the majority being split level or single story. He thought the Commission originally requested single story homes but staff felt Concord ia's proposal for two-story homes was feasible. He believed the property is better suited for split-level homes and that property values may not be increased because the new homes are not congruent with the community. He indicated that if the Commission approved the plan, it may be encouraging a civil matter between a voter, taxpayer, and citizen toward an entity that can't vote or pay taxes and is not in the community. Chuck Buquet, 8725 Predera Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his is one of the homeowners who spoke at the last meeting regarding CC&R issues and sensitivity to the fact that it was previously a custom lot subdivision which is now being transitioned to a production lot development. He agreed with the Massey's comments and noted that the variance is needed to enable the project to move forward. He stated that variances are granted only when there are overwhelming reasons and specific findings must be made. He felt there should be a reliance on the requirements and ordinances. He said he had seen some bad projects which have not made it this far. He asked that the Commission carefully weigh the granting of a variance to facilitate development on the last good spot on Red Hill to ensure that what is built is consistent with the neighborhood and the rural topography of the area. He appreciated that alternatives had been presented. He said he and a lot of other residents spent a lot of time attending meetings amongst themselves and with the developer and City staff reviewing options which were then stated to be infeasible. He explained he had not seen the staff reports and his only question was what the recommended conditions are. He appreciated that Concordia had made a considerable investment, but said he plans to be there for a long time and he hopes it is a win/win scenario. He felt it is impo~ant to keep a balance between view capture and view hoarding and he asked for careful evaluation of the impacts that will occur with a proposed two-story product sitting on a pad created for a two-story product rather than a split level product which currently exists in the area. Mr. Snell felt that most of the comments had been addressed more than adequately by staff and had been discussed at the previous meeting. He said the house and elevations on Mr. Massey's house appeared to have different elevations because the engineer drew the section through the house where that view would be from. He said at one position he was over the garage and at the other, he was at ground level. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino asked staff to review the supporting findings for the retaining wall for the Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 24, 2001 benefit of the audience. Mr. Le Count stated the site has slopes in excess of 30 percent. He indicated a site with 30 percent slope could not be developed under current standards; however this is an existing subdivided property and the only way to achieve development of the site is to have some slopes as steep as 1.5:1 and some retaining wails as high as 10 feet. Commissioner Mannerino stated that would be true regardless of the height of the houses being built on the property. Mr. Le Count confirmed that was correct. Chairman McNiel stated there have been proposals for th is particular property for almost as long as he has been on the Commission. He observed several projects have come and gone and they were not built because the timing was not right or the product turned out to be not doable. He said if nothing is ever built there at all, he would not be unhappy and noted he also lives on Red Hill. He noted a comment had been made that the character of the community of Red Hill might be damaged because of these houses. He observed that there are two tracts of houses that defy any simulation of character and there are houses of every conceivable architecture style, size, and configuration and various lot sizes from large to small. He did not think there is a "Red Hill character" and it is an eclectic community. He thought Concordia had gone a long way in an effort to satisfy the wants and desires of the neighbors in the community. He noted the bulk of the houses are below street level. He said they are not small houses and he did not think they would negatively effect anyone's property values. He observed the Commission needs to deal with whether or not the project is approvable. He noted that if civil action is taken elsewhere, it is not the Commission's concern. He expressed suppod for the project. Commissioner Mannerino said it is a tough situation because it is a tough property. He indicated he knows a number of the people who spoke this evening and earlier. He noted it is a tract which was approved in 1985 and the developer purchased the property with an expectation of being able to build on the property. He said the Commission was not considering the approval of a tract map. He believed it was unfair to say that view is not important to the Commission. He felt view is important but it is not within the Commission's jurisdiction to ensure it unless there are conditions elsewhere such as in the CC&Rs. He observed it had been his suggestion that the matter be continued so that the CC&Rs could be reviewed. He said staff and the Commissioners had reviewed them and the project is within the stated height as modified by Concordia. He said there is a reasonableness standard set forth in Section 2.04 with regard to view obstruction and that standard sets a maximum roof height on these lots at 24 feet. He did not feel it was the intent of the draffers of the CC&Rs to make that at the discretion of the Planning Commission and it is a contractual relationship among the people who buy into the tract. He understood that the variance for the wall is necessary regardless of the height of the homes. He thought that if the Commission finds the variance is inappropriate, that would take away the developer's right to build on a recorded tract map. He was reluctant to support the project because he understood the concerns raised regarding obstructing the view which they thought would always be there, but he saw no legal reason to deny the project. Commissioner Stewart agreed with the comments made by both Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Mannedno. She noted that Section 2.04 of the CC&Rs also stated in part that each owner by accepting lots in the project may be subject to subsequent obstruction as a result of future construction or plantings. She felt the developer had done everything possible to look at resolving view issues, traffic issues, planning issues, wall issues, etc. presented by citizens, staff, and Commission members. She noted there had been two workshops and three Design Review Committee meetings. She said there have been other developers on the same property and each time elaborate geo grid patterns for berming sections. She felt everything had been done to get a Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 24,2001 good quality development for the neighborhood. She noted there is 360 degree architecture and the homes had been redesigned in many areas including retaining walls. Based upon what she had seen and reviewing the CC&Rs, she supported the project. Commissioner Macias stated he had not been at the last meeting but he listened to the tape and reviewed the minutes and the CC&Rs and had also been involved early in the design review process. He did not feel the variance request is unreasonable and is no different from variances which are routinely approved. He felt the issue is view shed and it is hard because people want to hold on to what they have with respect to surrounding undeveloped land. He felt that approving this project would not be inconsistent with how those issues have been dealt with in the past. He supported the project and moved approval. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he heard a lot of talk about the CC&Rs at the last meeting. He said he had reviewed the CC&Rs and did not feel this project violates them in any way. He felt the architecture will add value to the neighborhood but said he could not support the project because of the treatment of the slope area adjoining the old railroad right of way. He acknowledged he is not an engineer but said he has witnessed a number of slope failures in other cities. He thought the slope area will be a problem for the owners to maintain and thought it could have been designed better in that respect. He said he would vote against the project only because of that issue. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Stewart to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Variance 00-09 and Development Review 00-47, Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: TOLSTOY ABSENT: NONE - carried \-.'~,~ City Planner denial of a sign permit request for additional signage for the Target store in Teh _ Vista Town Center - APN: 1077-421-068 and a portion of 087. Related file: Conditional Use P~, '~it 99-40. Debra Meier, Contr._'l Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked'if ~ '~ff supports the alternative location for the Pharmacy sign. Brad Buller, City Planner, resp~..ded affirmatively. He noted that staff was looking to the Commission for interpretation. He ~a, ' that staff is aware that any time such signs are approved, requests from other stores with secondary- ~ntrances may follow. However, he observed that Target is a major tenant and the sign fits architectQli !,v on the building. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. David Randolph, Pacific Neon Company, 1576 Silica AvenUc~acramento, expressed appreciation to Ms. Meierforworking with themon alternative locations. He b~_/~rvedthesignwill be set back 28 feet from the front of the building and will be blocked significantly b~.'qid that Target felt a sign in that location is better than none. He stated the Garden Center is reall~-./'narate building with its own entrance and he suggested it be considered a minor tenant with Target. ?ing a major tenant with the Target sign as the prima~y sign and the Pharmacy sign as the secondal~ --ign. Commissioner Macias felt that was essentially what staff had suggested .... Planning Commission Minutes -7- Janua~ 24,2001 City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The fofiowing Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 00-47 (Tract No. 10035) Public Review Period Closes: March 7, 2001 Project Name: Project Applicant: Concordia Homes of Southern California Project Location (also see attached map): Located On the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-641-01 through 10, 207-631-01 through 11. Project Description: The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 21 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre). Related files: Variance 00-09 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (I) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. March 7. 2001 Date of Determination Adopted By 3/8/o~ Mayor and City Council: The attached are handouts from last night's Council meeting. Debbie March 7, 2001 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of DR 00-47 and Variance 00-09 We have performed a quick study that shows that it is feasible to lower Lots 4 and 5. This design seems to address the primary concern of the Massey's and we hope will be acceptable to them. This appears to have about the same slope area as the prior design. These design appears to reduce the amount of retaining walls in comparison to the prior design. We have not been able to complete a review of a suggestion to use split level homes on the lots that access Camino Predera. We wish to continue to review this option and if it is feasible, to work with staff on the design of these homes. We request that the following approval and guideline be incorporated in a resolution. Lots 4 and 5 shall be lowered and have access off of the private drive. Slopes to accommodate this may be as steep as 1.5:1 and walls may be necessary up to 10 feet in height. Detailed review to be done by engineering and planning staff during development plan review. Homes on lots 1,2,3, 18, 19 and 20 may be revised to be split level (garage and living space at street level with one floor below) at the developers discretion. Exteriors and project grading shall be subject to staff approval and shall be of the same nature and character of the elevations approved by Planning Commission. Heights and building envelopes shall comply with the project CC&R's and the Hillside Ordinance. 1131 West Sixth Street, Suite 110, Ontario, Ca 91762 909-988-9000, ext 329 909-988-5122 fax RESOLUT,ON NO. a l - a A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 TO APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR 20 PROPOSED HOMES WITHIN 21 EXISTING LOTS WITHIN RECORDED TRACT 10035 ON 15.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO PREPERA, SOUTH OF RED H ILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE - APN: 207-641-01 THROUGH 10 AND 207- 631-01 THROUGH 11. A. Recitals. 1. Concordia Homes has filed an application for the approval of Development Review 00-47, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 10th day of January 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on Development Review 00-47 and continued that meeting to allow time for analysis of tract Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. 3. On the 24th day of January, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 4. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was appealed in a timely manner to this Council. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on March 7, 2001, including, but not limited to, written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-11, and together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located along the south side of Camino Predera with a street frontage of 3,300 feet and lot depth of 260 feet and is presently vacant; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 - MASSEY March 7, 2001 Page 2 b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and developed with single-family homes, the property to the south consists of vacant land and abandoned rail corridor (future regional multi-purpose trail), the property to the east is developed with single-family homes, and the property to the west is vacant and developed with condominiums; and c. The potential environmental impacts related to air quality, tree removal, noise, and geological hazards can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through compliance with the recommended environmental mitigation measures; and d. The proposed homes are of very high architectural design quality with 360-degree enhancement; and e. The project is designed with a majority of the homes set well below the level of the street, thereby preserving existing views far beyond what is typically achieved elsewhere in the City; and f. The design includes a sophisticated retaining wall system that allows landscaping to be planted on the surface of walls, intensified slope landscaping, and decorative block walls that will enhance the visual quality of the project; and g. The project is designed to be consistent with all requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations with the exception of slope gradient and retaining wall height for which a Vadance application has been requested; and h. The project will enhance the surrounding area by virtue of high quality home and landscaping design that exceeds that of the area; and i. The project fosters provident use and development of existing lots of record; and appearance. The grading design includes rounded slopes to provide a softer, more natural 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on March 7, 2001, including, but not limited to, written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meetings, the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-11, and together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows with reference to points raised by the appellant: a. The proposed project differs from the design associated with the Design Review for Tract 10035 approved by the Planning Commission in 1987, but this previous approval has since expired and has no bearing on the current project; and b. The home design associated with the Design Review for Tract 10035 approved by the Planning Commission in 1987 is of a split level concept, however the design would not have substantially preserved views for the appellant, and would have far greater overall view impacts for the neighborhood than would occur with the current project application; and c. The proposed homes will be no higher than 24 feet above the mid-point of the curb line of Camino Predera, consistent with the view obstructions section of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restriction for Tract 10035; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 0047 - MASSEY March 7, 2001 Page 3 d. A majority of the homes will be located below, very near, or nominally above the curb line of Camino Predera; thus maximizing view preservation for a majority of the existing neighborhood and future home sites on the nodh side of Camino Predera, far in excess of what would be achieved via conformance with tract CC&R's; and e. The project will enhance the surrounding area by virtue of high quality home and landscaping design that exceeds that of the area; and f. The conceptual plans submitted for review by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission have been found to accurately reflect the existing conditions in the area and the proposed project design with the exception of one sight line cross section shown on Sheet 7B which, while included in the overall set of exhibits, was not relied upon during Design Review meetings nor the Planning Commission hearings; and 4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on March 7, 2001, and upon the specific findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan in that it includes high quality residential design appropriate to the site and neighborhood; b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is responsive to the environmental resources of the site, promotes development that preserves views to the degree possible for existing homes, and minimizes the impact of grading through the creative use of landscaping and specialized retaining wall construction; c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that it minimizes potential fire, seismic, and flood related hazards. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby denies the appeal, upholds the action of the Planning Commission, and approves the application subject to all Conditions of Approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-11, attached hereto. 6. This Council hereby provides notice to John Snell and Lynn and Renee Massey that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought in governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to John Snell of Concordia Homes and Lynn and Renee Massey, at the addresses identified in City records. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Development Review 00-47 Single Family Tract Concordia Homes South side of Camino Predera, south of Red Hill Country Club Drive ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements 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. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits 1. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. FOR Completion Date / / __/__/ / /__ / / / /__ SC-12-00 I Project No. DRO0-47 Completion Date Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and __/ / State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance, The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy, Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be __/ / submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. / / All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. /__/ / / /__/ 9. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. 10. All walls shall be decorative masonry. / / _J / 11. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. __/ / D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. / / E. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. / / / / / / SC-12-00 2 Project No. PRO0-47 Completion Date For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously / maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prier to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of J / Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. F. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special __/ / Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the ___/ / issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. 3. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of J / implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719 prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. G. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location / _/ of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. SC-12-00 3 Project No. DR00-47 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: / / a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., TT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. / / 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. / / 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workera' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. / / I. Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availabi!ity of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. /./__ / / 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. /__/ For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. /_ / 5. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. / / SC-12-00 4 Project No, DR00-47 Como~etion Date J. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistivaness. / / / / / / 2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). 3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. K. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. L__/__ 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. / / / / 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the CC&Rs. __/ / M. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name Curb & Camino Predera Gutter A.C. Side- Drive Pvmt walk Ap;r. X Street Street Comm Median TBrlak~l Lights Tr:es Trail Island Other / / / / 3. Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. / / SC-12-00 Project No. DR00-47 Completion Date Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction __/__/ permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any other permits required. C= Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and / / interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. / Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. f. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. L / __J / N. Public Maintenance Areas A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. O. Utilities Provide separate utility services to each parcel including Sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case'of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. P. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: SANBAG for all Railroad corridor grading. / / A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. / / SC-12-00 Project No. DR00-47 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. General Fire Protection Conditions Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. Fire flow requirement shall be: 1750 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 5, (b) (Table). -OR X A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. X For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. / / Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. /_ / 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. X Other: To mitiQate access. 7. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, fiammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 8. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: 9. X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. / / 10. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. ___/ / 11. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. __/ / 12. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows: X $132 for Single Family Residential Tract (per phase). **Note; Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. /__J SC-12-00 7 13. Project No. DR00-47 Completion Date Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, UFC, /_ / UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. 14. Project is located in a high fire hazard area and is subject to special wildland/urban interface hazard mitigation requirements. Such requirements may include requirements related to vegetation management plans, special construction enhancements, emergency access, water supply, automatic fire extinguishing systems, and other special requirements. AN EXTRA SET OF PLANS IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITFED TO THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTAL. THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT COORDINATES ALL PLAN SUBMITTALS AND WILL FORWARD THE EXTRA SET TO THE FIRE PREVENTION NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT FOR FIRE PLAN REVIEW. If you have any questions regarding your plan review in fire, please contact the Fire Prevention New Construction Unit located in the Building and Safety Department at (909) 477-2730. /. / A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING VARIANCE 00-09 A REQUEST TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET IN HEIGHT WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 4 FEET IS ALLOWED, AND SLOPE GRADIENTS OF APPROXIMATELY 1.5:1 WHERE A MAXIMUM GRADIENT OF 2:1 IS ALLOWED FOR 20 PROPOSED HOMES ON 21 EXISTING LOTS WITHIN APPROVED TRACT 10035 ON 15.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO PREDERA, SOUTH OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE - APN: 207-641-01 THROUGH 10 AND 207-631-01 THROUGH 11. A. Recitals. 1. Concordia Homes has filed an application for the approval of Variance 00-09, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Vadance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 10th day of January 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on Variance 00-09 and continued that meeting to allow time for analysis of tract Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. 3. On the 24th day of January, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 4. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was appealed in a timely manner to this Council. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public headng on March 7, 2001, including, but not limited to, written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-10, and togetherwith public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located along the south side of Camino Predera with a street frontage of 3,300 feet and lot depth of 260 feet and is presently vacant; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPEAL OF VARIANCE 00-09 - MASSEY March 7, 2001 Page 2 b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and developed with single- family homes, the property to the south consists of vacant land and abandoned rail corridor (future regional multi-purpose trail), the property to the east is developed with single-family homes, and the property to the west is vacant and developed with condominiums; and c. Absolute compliance with the maximum slope gradients and retaining wall heights per the Hillside Development Regulations would cause a physical hardship for the property owner due to the steepness and topography of the site, as well as the size and shape of the existing lots of record; and d. There are exceptional circumstances, such as shape and size of lots which limit development alternatives given the extreme 30 percent existing natural slope and a grade difference of over 110 feet, applicable to the subject property that do not apply to a majority of other properties in the Low Residential District which have much lesser slopes and less drastic topography; and e. Strict interpretation of the maximum slope gradient and retaining wall height would deprive the property owner of development privileges enjoyed by other properties in the Low Residential District which are able to take full development potential with normal and reasonable grading and construction practices; and f. The Variance will not constitute a grant of special pdvilege, as it accommodates reasonable and provident use of the land with homes of reasonable size in conformance with the density provisions of the district; and g. Specialized and sophisticated grading and construction methods as well as intensified landscaping will prevent any detrimental affects to the public health, safety, or welfare. h. Retaining walls are necessary to lower house pad grades to minimize impact upon view shed of existing homes to the north. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on March 7, 2001, including, but not limited to, wdtten and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-10, and togetherwith public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows with reference to points raised by the appellant: a. The increase in retaining wall height and slope gradient are necessary in order to locate a majority of the proposed homes below, very near, or nominally above the curb line for Camino Predera, thus maximizing view preservation for a majority of the existing neighborhood including future homes on the north side of Camino Predera; and b. The appellant did not present any information that would refute any of the findings established by the Planning Commission in their decision to grant approval of the subject Variance application 4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on March 7, 2001, and upon the specific findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPEAL OF VARIANCE 00-09 - MASSEY March 7, 2001 Page 3 a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same distdct. c. That stdct or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. d. That the granting of the Vadance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. e. That the granting of the Vadance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby denies the appeal, upholds the action of the Planning Commission, and approves the application subject to all Conditions of Approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-10, attached hereto. 6. This Council hereby provides notice to John Snell and Lynn and Renee Massey that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought in governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to John Snell of Concordia Homes and Lynn and Renee Massey, at the addresses identified in City records. I~ANCHO CUCAHONGA S 3ffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 7, 2001 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT (JAIBG) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the allocation of the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant to the Regional Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (RJCEC) for San Bernardino County to support youth, school and community safety. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: In 1999, the California Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) issued funds under the JAIBG Program. The purpose of this Program is to provide funding to local governments to develop programs that promote greater accountability in the juvenile justice system. There are 12 program purpose areas that can be funded by this grant: (1) Facilities including building, expanding, renovating or training correctional staff; (2) Developing and administering accountability based sanctions for juvenile offenders; (3) Hiring juvenile judges, probation officers or defenders; (4) Hiring prosecutors; (5) Prosecution funding to address drug, gang and youth violence prosecutions; (6) Technology and equipment for prosecutors; (7) Juvenile court and juvenile probation officers for accountability and reducing recidivism; (8) Establish juvenile gun courts that target young firearm offenders; (9) Establish youth drug courts; (10) Establish and maintain interagency information-sharing programs to make more informed decisions; (11 ) Establish and maintain accountability-based programs designed to protect students and school personnel from drug, gang and youth violence; and/or (12) Implement a policy of juvenile drug testing within the juvenile justice system. The JAIBG also allows for the creation of a Regional Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (RJCEC) to develop a coordinated juvenile enforcement program and to allow lesser fund amounts allocated to cities to be leveraged as a larger regional amount. The City is scheduled to receive $17,489, which is slightly higher than last years allocation. A greater impact was created because of this collaborative partnership between the cities, county and high schools. The grant was used last year to hire seven juvenile probation officers and one juvenile hearing officer that were assigned to school campuses. While it is too early to evaluate objective statistics about the program, the participating schools, including the Chaffey Joint Union High School District, have affirmed their support for continuing the program. This program is designed to insure that juveniles are held accountable for their actions and not lost in the system. With increased probation officers and a presence on schools the chances for keeping juveniles from repeating mistakes increases. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution that will pool our JAIBG funds with other cities, school districts and the county. This will enable this cooperative program of juvenile accountability to continue for a third year. ~::~T, ub~,,/~,/~,,,,~--_,,__ Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager -2- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT (JAIBG) FUNDS ADMINISTERED BY THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING (OCJP) TO THE REGIONAL JUVENILE CRIME ENFORCEMENT COALITION (RJCEC) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga declines to directly accept funds made available through the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block grant (JAIBG) Program administered by the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga waives its right to its entire direct subgrant award and authorizes the funds to be expended by the County of San Bernardino, Regional Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (RJCEC), for the mutual benefit of both units of local government. IT IS AGREED that any liability arising out of the performance of this Grant Award Agreement, including civil court actions for damages, shall be the responsibility of the grant recipient and the authorizing agency. The State of California and OCJP disclaim responsibility for any such liability. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that grant funds received hereunder shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by this body. the Rancho city of Cucamonga S ffReport DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 7, 2001 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Salvador M. Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner ANNEXATION 00-02 - A request to approve the Tax Revenue Exchange for annexation proceedings (LAFCO No. 2872) between the County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for approximately 60 acres of the San Bernardino County unincorporated area, generally located at the northeast corner of Banyan Street and Milliken Avenue. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution approving the Tax Revenue Exchange between the County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. BACKGROUND The Tax Revenue Exchange negotiation is part of the annexation proceedings before the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (Los Osos High School), located in the unincorporated area of San Bernardino County (Exhibit "B"). This annexation is tentatively scheduled for public hearing before LAFCO on March 21, 2001. Approval of the Property Tax Revenue Exchange by the City and the County is a prerequisite of the annexation proceedings. The County of San Bernardino uses a formula to determine properly tax allocation for annexations. The school district, as other public agencies, is not required to pay any property tax. Therefore, the estimated property tax revenue to be received by the City of Rancho Cucamonga for this area is $0. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ANNEXATION 00-02 - LOS OSOS HIGH SCHOOL March 7, 2001 Page 2 CONCLUSION Adoption of the attached Resolution is required to proceed with annexation proceedings for the subject property. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:SS:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A"-Tax information Exhibit "B"-Vicinity Map Resolution INTEROFFICE MEMO DATE: February 6, 2001 FROM: LARRY ROSS Office of the Auditor COntroller PHONE: 386-8831 FEB 0 7 2001 TO: KATHY MCDONALD LAFCO LAFCO S~n Bemaxi~ County SUBJECT: ESTIMATED TAX REVENUE SUBJECT TO A NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OUTLINED IN SENATE BILL 180 AMENDING SECTION 99 OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE, THE ENCLOSED INFORMATION IS PROVIDED FOR LAFC # 2872 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND PROPORTIONS BY AGENCY AS ESTIMATED BY THE AUDITOR/CONTROLLER PER SENATE BILL 180, SECTION 99(B) 1-3 LAFCO# 2872 ANNEXATION TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REVENUE % IN MAJOR TRA: TRA # 70008 ASSESSED VALUE $0 TAX REVENUE $0 5.189656% COUNTY AGENCIES GENERAL OPERATIONS FLOOD ZONE # I FLOOD CONTROL ADMIN LIBRARY OTHER AFFECTED AGENCIES RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE CSA 70 - COUNTY WIDE INLAND EMPIRE WEST RCD INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGCY INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGCY PREPARED BY: LARRY ROSS CHECKED BY: BOB WRIGHT FY 2000-01 ESTIMATED CURRENT TAX DISTRIBUTION % TAX REVENUE 15.024424% 0 2.625228% 0 0.186616% 0 1.458952% 0 COUNTY REVENUE TOTAL $0 FY 2000-01 TAX DISTRIBUTION % 12.471371% 2.703569% 0.185997% 1.547058% 2.936929% ESTIMATED CURRENT TAXREVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER AGENCIESTOTAL REVENUE GRAND TOTAL $0 DATE: JANUARY 26, 2001 FD 2' Bt~A3S CAP MON. FD 2' BRASS CAP MON. PER CS 10072-1 PER CS t0072-1 - T~/t~ I 1~ ~ ~DARY OF ~ ~ T/ON SB~&M ~ ~ J THE M~TROPOL / TAN WA~ J .... J ~ANYAN e~ ~ FD 2~ BRASS ~P ~N. PER CS 10072-1 ACCEPTED AS W. I/4 ~R. SEC. 30. T. I N.. R. 7 W. SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN BY: R.J DATE; 10/09/00 CHECKED BY: $HH JN: 55992.00 EXHIBIT 'A' Legal Description That portion of the n6rthwest quarter of Section 30, Township 1 North, Range 6 West, San Bemardino Base and Meridian, situated in the County of San Bemardino, State of California, being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the west line of said northwest quarter of Section 30, said point lying 40.00 feet northerly of and parallel with the south line of said northwest quarter of Section 30; THENCE along the west line of said northwest quarter of Section 30, North 00°20'14" West, 1391.29 feet; THENCE parallel with the south line of said northwest quarter of Section 30, South 89°34'39' East, 1662.86 feet; THENCE SoUth 34010'48'' East, 420.69 feet; THENCE parallel with the west line of said northwest quarter of Section 30, South 00°20'14' East, 1064.98 feet to a point on the north line of land quitclaimed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by deed recorded March 6, 1986 as Document No. 86-059443, Official Records; THENCE along said last mentioned north line, North 89°34'39" West, 1707.15 feet; THENCE leaving said last mentioned north line, parallel with the west line of said northwest quarter of Section 30, North 00°20'14" West, 20.00 feet; THENCE parallel with the south line of said northwest quarter of Section 30, North 89034'39" West, 190.02 feet to the point of BEGiNNiNG. Containing an area of 60.44 acres, more or less. And as shown on Exhibit 'B', attached hereto and made a part hereof. No. 5129 ESOLUT,ONNO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO GUGAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES TO BE EXCHANGED BETVVEEN AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF RANGHO GUGAMONGA RESULTING FROM THE JURISDICTION CHANGE DESCRIBED BY LAFGO NO. 2872. SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds and determines that: a. Pursuant to Section 99 of the Tax Revue and Taxation Code, pdor to the issuance of a certificate of filing by the Local Agency Formation Commission Executive Officer, the governing bodies of all local agencies whose service area of service responsibilities will be altered by a proposed jurisdiction change shall negotiate and determine by resolution the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged between and among such agencies. b. Except as provided in Section 99(b)(5) of the Revenue and Taxation Code, in the event that a jurisdiction change would affect the service area or service responsibility of one or more special districts, the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino shall, on behalf of the district(s), negotiate any exchange of property tax revenues. c. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino have determined the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged as a result of the following jurisdictional change: LAFCO No. 2872 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolved and orders that: a. The negotiated exchange of property tax revenues between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bemardino, attached hemto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, resulting from the above-described jurisdictional change is hereby approved and accepted. b. The annual tax increment generated in the area subject to the jurisdictional change and attributable to the local agencies whose service area of service responsibilities will be altered by the proposed jurisdiction change shall be allocated in future years pursuant to the provisions of Section 98 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. SECTION 3: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify the passage of this Resolution and to cause a certified copy to be sent to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of San Bemardino. THE CITY OF I:~ANCIIO CUCAMONGA Staff Report Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, City Manager Mayor Pro Tem, Diane Williams and Council Member Jim Curatalo, Members of the Public Safety Subcommittee BY: DATE: SUBJECT: March 7, 2001 Red Light Camera Enforcement Program RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council award a contract for Red Light Camera Enforcement services to Nestor Traffic Systems. BACKGROUND: Over the past year, the Public Safety Subcommittee has been discussing the issue of traffic safety and the increasing occurrence of red light running and collisions due to red light violations. To reduce the number of red light violations, the Subcommittee researched a variety of red light camera enforcement programs designed to produce photographic evidence of vehicles that illegally run red lights. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued in the Spring of 2000, which resulted in a total of three (3) proposals for red light camera enforcement services. After careful review of each proposal, Nestor Traffic Systems (NTS) was selected as the apparent successful bidder. NTS has more than four (4) years experience in the digital/video traffic monitoring industry, and provides services to a number of California and non- California cities. NTS Program Overview CrossingGuard, NTS' red light monitoring system, captures red light runners through a digital video sequence of a violation, recording the full context of each red light running event. The digital video provides solid evidence of the violation and the identity of the vehicle so that it can be successfully defended in court if necessary. Moreover, NTS' equipment monitors both the front and rear images of violating vehicles to ensure that the license plate is recorded. Currently, at least 20% of California vehicles do not display the required front license plate. The CrossingGuard system can automatically detect a vehicle that is violating the red traffic signal; measure and record the time of the violation; the preceding amberphase time; the elapsed time between the onset of the red light and the time of the violation; and the speed of the vehicle when it enters the intersection. This information is captured by the CrossingGuard equipment at the intersection, transmitted in real time to a central monitoring facility and stored in a violation database. The CrossingGuard system operates day and night, under a variety of weather and visibility conditions to provide 24-hour, 7-days-a-week monitoring. Approaches from north, south, east or west bound traffic, including left hand turn signals can be monitored. The estimated time frame for implementation is between 90-120 days. Site Selection NTS will conduct an engineering analysis of the candidate intersections to determine the extent of the red light running and to assess installation requirements. As a part of this analysis, NTS will review available data on traffic flows, traffic patterns, peak traffic times and violation and crash data. This information will help provide a snapshot of violation behavior that will aid in a "before and after" analysis to document the program's effectiveness on an intersection by intersection basis. Equipment Installation The CrossingGuard installation makes use of two different kinds of video cameras at an intersection to capture red light violations. All video camera equipment will be mounted under a 9-inch camera dome suspended from pole mast arms over the roadway. NTS will provide CALTRANS approved poles that meet the City's requirements. CrossingGuard's communication equipment, known as a Roadside Station, performs the vehicle detection and violation enforcement, and is housed in a standard traffic controller cabinet which is weatherproof, vandalproof and lockable. A benefit of this above ground system is that it does not rely on inductive loops, and as a result, no roadway will be torn up or damaged. During the life of the contract, NTS has agreed to maintain and operate the CrossingGuard equipment. Citation Processing NTS' citation processing system includes citation preparation, citation approval and citation mailing, specially tailored to meet the needs of the City. NTS will provide all citation preparation and processing services which includes the review of violation data and retrieval of DMV data for the approval of law enforcement. No citation will be issued for mailing without the approval of the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. -2- Electronic copies and all citation files and associated violation video will also be available at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department for review by the public. The citation form will be generated subject to Court approval and in the format required by State law. The form will contain all required information about the actual violation, the registered owner information, color copies of the image frames depicting the violation and payment information. Changes to the content, format or design can easily be modified to meet the City's needs. Warning Perrod In conformance with the California Vehicle Code, NTS will operate the CrossingGuard system for the first 30 days to issue warnings to drivers caught running red lights at monitored intersections. No citations will be issued during this warning period. The CrossingGuard system will operate at no charge to the City during the 30-day warning period. Court Suppod/Expert Witness Testimony For those citations that are contested in court, NTS will prepare and provide a complete evidence packet for court support. The evidence packet will include a color printed copy of the citation, as mailed to the violator, a certificate of mailing, as well as all associated electronic files of video information from which the citation violation images were selected. The evidence packet will also contain a record of equipment test data and relevant electronic log files certifying proper equipment operation at the time of violation. NTS will also provide law enforcement with adequate training to ensure that they are thoroughly prepared to testify about the principles of the CrossingGuard equipment, operation and citation processing steps. If necessary, NTS can provide additional expert witness testimony to support law enforcement needs. Public Education Campaign and Outreach NTS will work closely with the City to develop a public education program that will both inform the public and build support for the new traffic enforcement system. The public education campaign will highlight the features of the red light camera system, the location of the cameras, the ticketing process and penalties, and the goal to improve intersection safety. Methods of informing the public may include, but are not limited to: Roadway signage at monitored intersections and entrances to the City; press releases; City publications; cable television (including RC'I'V-3); informational meetings; and the City's web page. -3- ANALYSIS: Cost NTS' proposed traffic monitoring contract is for a three (3) year period and is based on a per paid citation fee for two (2) intersections. At each intersection, four (4) different directions of traffic, commonly referred to as "approaches" will be monitored. NTS will charge the City approximately $94 for every paid citation. NTS has also established monthly minimums it must receive per monitored intersection. NTS' monthly minimum per intersection approach is $4,230. However, for the first year of the program, NTS has agreed to waive its monthly minimum requirements. The Red Light Camera Enforcement Program will be funded through funds received from red light citations, The City receives $132 per red light citation. The Subcommittee recommends that any additional revenue received as a result of the program be placed in a special fund to be used to expand the program. Program Efficiency Due to glare from the sun, extreme weather conditions, missing license plates or unclear photos of the ddver, the issuance rate for red light violations is 40%, Of that 40%, 70% of violators will pay the citation· FOr the program to be cost effective, each monitored "approach" should detect a minimum of 5 to 6 violations per day. Taking the issuance and actual payment rate in consideration, the number of paid violations per approach per day needed for maximum efficiency is 1.7. If for any reason the number of citations issued drops significantly, making the program inefficient, the City will have the option to relocate the equipment to an alternative intersection. Conclusion The Public Safety Subcommittee recommends monitoring two (2) intersections within the City limits. North, south, east and westbound traffic should be monitored at each intersection. Intersection candidates include: Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue and Base Line Road and Carnelian Avenue. Both intersections have been surveyed by NTS and meet the minimum number of violations required for program efficiency. Pending Council's approval, it is anticipated that the Red Light Camera Enforcement Program will be implemented by July 2001. ReSpectfully Submitted, Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tem -4- · urata 0, cou.C. NOTICE OF VIOLATION Automated Red Light Enforcement System NOTICE OF VIOLATION Automated Red Light Enforcement System NOTICE: The vehicle identified on this Notice, registered in your name, was in violation of the California Vehicle Code Section 21453(a). The details of the violation are recorded on the enclosed Notice to Appear. In an effort to reduce the number of accidents and the associated injuries and deaths due to red light violations, the City of Irvine has implemented an automated red light enforcement program, in compliance with 21455.5 of the California Vehicle Code. OPERATION: This Notice is based on video evidence recorded at the time of the violation, along with the intersection location, direction of travel, how many seconds the light had been red prior to the vehicle crossing the stop line and the date and time of the violation. Images of the vehicle in violation, the driver and the vehicle's license plate extracted from this recording appear on the front of this Notice. WHAT TO DO: Your options will be explained in a Courtesy Notice that the Court will mail to the address shown on this Notice. If you do not receive a Courtesy Notice within two weeks from the date you were issued this citation, you must appear in court on or before the time and date specified on the front of this Notice. For more inh~rmation, see "WHAT TO DO" on the enclosed Notice to Appear. AFFIDAVIT OF NON-LIABILITY: If you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation, please complete the Affidavit of Non-Liability below and mail to: Automated Red Light Enforcement, PO Box 2081, Tustin, CA 92781-2081. A return envelope has been enclosed. You must affix proper postage. Please ensure that all information is complete. Submitting an Affidavit of Non-Liability will not result in the automatic dismissal of a citation. VIOLATION VIDEO VIEWING: The video evidence may be reviewed by appointment only at the Irvine Police Department, One Civic Center Plaza, Irvine, CA 92713. To schedule an appointment, call (800) 565-0148. Picture identification is required for all appointments. COURT: The Harbor Justice Center is located at 4601 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, CA 92660. The Court Information telephone number is (949) 476-4749 and its web site is www.oc.ca.gov/superior. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you have questions concerning this Notice, or for additional information about the automated red light enforcement program, call (800)-565-0148. INSTRUCTIONS: If you were not driving the vehicle as descdbed on this Notice at the time of this violation, complete this Affidavil of Non-Ltabilgy, and return it within 30 days of Ihe mailing date on this Notice using the enclosed envelope (or mail to: Automated Red Light Enforcement, PO Box 2081. Tusfin, CA 92781-2081 ). This Affidavit will be disregarded if the information is incomplete. or il it has not been signed and dated Submitting an Affidavit of Non-Liability may not result in the dismissal olI a citation. [] THIS VEHICLE WAS LEASED OR RENTED AT THE TIME OF THIS ViOLATiON. A wdtten lease or rental agreement, which includes the name, address and drivers license number of the lessee or renter should be submitted along with this Affidavit (40520 CVC). [] I WAS NOT THE DRIVER. If you were not the operator of this vehicle at the time of this violation, provide the ddver intermarion requested below. Driver's Name: (First) (Middle) (Last) Ddver's License Number; State: Ddver's Date of Birlh: (Month) (Day) (Year) Ddver's Address: (Number &Street) (Apt.) (City) (State) (Zip) An Affidavit of Non-Liability is subject to review and approval by a sworn Police Officer. Submitting false information is a violation of the law. Signature: Date: