HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/03/06 - Agenda Packet OI'T YOF
RAN C HO~G~CAM O N GA
1 ~edter/t~'r ye
~ancho ~ucamon~a, GA 0~730
City Office: (~0~) 477-2700
AGENDAS
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETINGS:
IsT and 3rd Wednesdays, 7:00 p.m.
March 6, 2002
A¢lencv, Board & City Council Members
William J. Alexander .................... Mayor
Diane Williams ............... Mayor Pro Tem
Paul Biane ............................... Member
Grace Curatalo ......................... Member
Bob Dutton .............................. Member
Jack Lam ......................... City Manager
James L. Markman ............. City Attorney
Debra J. Adams ..................... City Clerk
ORDER OF BUSINESS
5:30 p.m. Closed Session .................................. Tapia Conference Room
7:00 p.m. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting ...... Council Chambers
Regular City Council Meeting ...................... Council Chambers
City Council Agenda
March 6, 2002
1
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
1. Fire Explorer presentation to the City Council and Fire Chief Dennis
Michael in appreciation for all the support they have given to the
Exploring Organization.
2. Presentation of an Energy Conservation Rebate Check from Southern
California Edison (SCE) to the City Council for retrofit work done in the
City.
3. Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to the Public Works
Maintenance Manager and City Facility Supervisor on behalf of the
Public Works Staff who worked to promote energy conservation as a
part of the retrofit project.
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 Minutes: February 20, 2002
February 21,2002 (Adjourned Meeting)
2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 2/23/02 and 2/20/02 and Payroll 1
ending 2/24/02 for the total amount of $3,229,609.09.
City Council Agenda
March 6, 2002
3. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for '19
the Modification of Traffic Signals and Safety Lighting at the
Intersection of Banyan Street and Fredericksburg Avenue, to be funded
from Account No. 11243035650/XXXX124-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-059 21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MODIFICATION
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY
LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
BANYAN STREET AND FREDERICKSBURG
AVENUE IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS
4. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the ;26
Modification of Traffic Signals and Safety Lighting at the Intersection of
Carnelian Street and La Vine/La Grande Streets, to be funded from
Account No. 11243035650/XXXX124-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-060 28
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MODIFICATION
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY
LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
CARNELIAN STREET AND LA VINE/LA
GRANDE STREETS IN SAID CITY AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS
5. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with ABS Consulting $3
(CO 02-010) for architectural, engineering, design and bid services for
seismic upgrades of the Civic Center, and approval of a budget
appropriation of $187,500 to be funded from Capital Facilities Repair
Account No. 1025-001-5300.
6. Approval of a Resolution adopting the updated General City Master 35
Plan of Drainage Repod and approval of a Resolution establishing an
Updated Drainage Improvement Fees for all development within the
General City Local Drainage Area.
City Council Agenda
March 6, 2002
3
RESOLUTION NO. 02-061 37
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING UPDATED
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT FEES (FOR
CALENDAR YEAR 2002) FOR ALL
DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL
CITY LOCAL DRAINAGE AREA OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
RESOLUTION NO. 02-062 40
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE UPDATED
GENERAL CITY AREA MASTER PLAN OF
DRAINAGE REPORT
7. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and 4'1
Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and
Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 for DR 00-61, located on the
south and west sides of the Knuckle Intersection of Malvern Avenue
and Salina Street, submitted by Southern California Housing
Development Corporation and Malvem Housing Partners, L.P.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-063 44
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT
SECURITY FOR DR 00-61
RESOLUTION NO. 02-064 45
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
NQS. 1 FOR DR 00-61
8. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities 52
and Monumentation Cash Deposit and Ordering the Annexation to
Landscape Maintenance District No. 9 and Street Light Maintenance
District Nos. 1 and 8 for Tract 16021, located at the northwest corner of
East Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way,
submitted by Crestwood Corporation, a California Corporation.
City Council Agenda
March 6, 2002
4
RESOLUTION NO. 02-065 55
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP
16021, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT,
IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND
MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT
RESOLUTION NO. 02-066 56
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION
OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 9 AND
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NOS. 1 AND 8 FOR TRACT MAP 16021
9. Approval to accept the Bids received and award and authorize the 64
execution of the Contract in the amount of $2,271,522.00
($2,065,020.00, plus 10% contingency) to the apparent Iow bidder,
Mike Bubalo Construction Co., Inc. (CO 02-013), for Construction of
the Hermosa Avenue Storm Drain and Street improvements from 400'
north of Church Street to 500' north of Base Line Road, to be funded
from Measure I Funds, Acct. No. 11763035650/1301176-0, Drainage
Funds, Acct. No. 11123035650/1292112-0, AD 84-2 Funds, Acct. No.
16043035300, and AD 86-2 Funds, Acct. No. 16063035300.
10. Approval of a Contract Amendment with JDC, Inc. for the "City Wide 68
Concrete Repair, Tree Removal and Tree Planting Annual
Maintenance Agreement (CO 01-075).
11. Approval of the Construction and Maintenance Agreement between the
City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Southern California Regional Rail 69
Authority (SCRRA) (CO 02-014), for the proposed widening
improvements to the Etiwanda Avenue At-Grade Railroad Crossing,
located south of Whittram Avenue, designated as CPUC Crossing No.
101 SG-44.10 and U.S. Department of Transportation No. 026151P.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-067 72
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BE'I'WEEN
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL
AUTHORITY (SCRRA), FOR THE PROPOSED
WIDENING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
ETIWANDA AVENUE AT-GRADE RAILROAD
CROSSING, LOCATED SOUTH OF WHITTRAM
AVENUE, DESIGNATED AS CPUC CROSSING
NO. 101 SG-44.10 AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION NO. 026151P
City Council Agenda
March 6, 2002
5
12. Approval of the Construction and Maintenance Agreement between the 73
City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (SCRRA) (CO 02-015), for the proposed widening
improvements to the Hermosa Avenue At-Grade Railroad Crossing,
located south of 8th Street, designated as CPUC Crossing No. 101 SG-
40.60 and U.S. Department of Transportation No. 026160N.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-068 76
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL
AUTHORITY (SCRRA), FOR THE PROPOSED
WIDENING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
HERMOSA AVENUE AT-GRADE RAILROAD
CROSSING, LOCATED SOUTH OF 8TM
STREET, DESIGNATED AS CPUC CROSSING
NO. 101 SG-40.60 AND U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION NO. 026160N
13. Approval of an Underground Communication Facilities Agreement 77
between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Verizon California, Inc.
(CO 02-016) for the Lower Hermosa Avenue-Phase 2, Storm Drain,
Street Widening and Utility Underground Improvements from 350 feet
south of 8th Street to north of the Metrolink Railroad Tracks.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-069 80
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION
FACILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY AND VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC., FOR
THE REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD WITH
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES FOR THE
LOWER HERMOSA, PHASE 2, STORM
DRAIN, STREET WIDENING AND UTILITY
UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS FROM 350
FEET SOUTH OF 8TM STREET TO NORTH OF
THE METROLINK RAILROAD TRACKS
14. Approval of a Cooperative Agreement with the County of San 81
Bemardino (CO 02-017) relating to the provision of First Time
Homebuyer Programs.
City Council Agenda
March 6, 2002
6
15. Approval to execute an Addendum to the Epicenter Rental Contract 8:3
with the Rancho Cucamonga High School for Waiver of Rental Fees
associated with Graduation Ceremonies at the Rancho Cucamonga
Epicenter in exchange for City use of the Rancho Cucamonga High
School's Gymnasium for the City's Youth Basketball Program for 2003
and 2004.
16. Approval to release the Labor and Material Bond for Tract 13812, 86
submitted by Wealth V, LLC, located west of Etiwanda Avenue,
between Summit and Highland Avenues.
17. Approval to accept the construction of the Lower Hermosa Storm Drain
and Street Widening-Phase I, Contract No. 00-078, as complete, 88
release the bonds and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of
Completion.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-070 90
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE LOWER
HERMOSA STORM DRAIN AND STREET
WIDENING, PHASE 1, CONTRACT NO. 00-078
AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A
NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
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 upon them at one time without
discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be
removed for discussion.
1. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-02 (CO 02-012) - FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC. - A request to establish a
Development Agreement and the detailed review of a master plan for a
project known as Victoria Gardens, a mixed use development
consisting of approximately 2.45 million square foot retail, office, and
civic uses as well as 600 multiple family residential units, on
approximately 175 acres of land. The project site is within the City
boundary and the Victoria Community Plan, generally bounded by
future Church Street to the north, Foothill Boulevard to the south, 1-15
Freeway to the east, and the future Day Creek Boulevard to the west.
APN: 227-161-35, 36 and 38; 227-171-22 and 23; 227-201-30, 33, 35
and 36; and 227-211-24 and 39 thru 43. Related files: Victoria
Community Plan Amendment 01-01, Tentative Parcel Map 15716.
City Council Agenda
March 6, 2002
7
CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 01-01 - FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC. - A request to amend the
Victoria Community Plan by changing the land use designation from
Regional Center to Mixed Use and modifying various text sections and
graphics in the Community Plan to accommodate the proposed project
known as the Victoria Gardens on approximately 175 acres of land,
generally bounded by future Church Street to the north, Foothill
Boulevard to the south, 1-15 Freeway to the east, and the future Day
Creek Boulevard to the west. APN: 227-161-35, 36 and 38; 227-171-
22 and 23; 227-201-30, 33, 35 and 36; and 227-211-24 and 39 thru 43.
Related flies: Development Agreement 01-02, Tentative Parcel Map
15716.
ORDINANCE NO. 678 (second reading) 91
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO. 01-02, A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND VICTORIA
GARDENS-C, LLC. INCLUDING A MASTER
PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING
APPROXIMATELY 2.45 MILLION SQUARE
FEET OF RETAIL, OFFICE, AND CIVIC USES
AS WELL AS 600 MULTIPLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, ON APPROXIMATELY
175 ACRES OF LAND. THE PROJECT SITE IS
WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARY AND THE
VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AND IS
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY FUTURE
CHURCH STREET TO THE NORTH,
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH, 1-15
TO THE EAST, AND FUTURE DAY CREEK
BOULEVARD TO THE WEST, AS PROVIDED
FOR IN SECTION 65864 OF THE CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE, FOR REAL
PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
APN: 227-161-35, 36 and 38; 227-171-22 and
23; 227-201-30, 33, 35 and 36; and 227-211-24
and 39 thru 43
City Council Agenda
March 6, 2002
ORDINANCE NO. 679 (second reading) 93
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA
COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 0%01
CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
FROM REGIONAL CENTER TO MIXED USE
AND MODIFYING VARIOUS TEXT AND
GRAPHICS IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN TO
ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED PROJECT
KNOWN AS VICTORIA GARDENS ON
APPROXIMATELY 175 ACRES OF LAND,
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY FUTURE
CHURCH STREET TO THE NORTH,
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH, 1-15
FREEWAY TO THE EAST, AND FUTURE DAY
CREEK BOULEVARD TO THE WEST, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
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.
1. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAl 95
ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16257 -
FORECAST CORPORATION - The appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to approve a request to subdivide 24.2 acres of
land into one lot for condominium purposes in the Medium Residential
District (8-14 dwelling units per acre}, Etiwanda South Overlay District,
and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific
Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill
Boulevard - APNs: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, 29 and a
portion of 17. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00557
and Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00567. Staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAl
ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00557 -
FORECAST CORPORATION - The appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to approve a request to construct 340
apartments on 24.2 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-
14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and
Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the Et[wanda Specific Plan,
located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill
Boulevard - APNs: 227-211-02, 04-, 05-, 09, 10, 15, 20, 29 and a
portion of 17. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUTT16257 and Tree
Removal Permit DR2001-00567. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
City Council Agenda
March 6, 2002
RESOLUTION NO. 02-071 264
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT16257, A CONDOMINIUM
SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT, AND THE
RELATED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
DRC2001-00567, FOR 340 APARTMENTS ON
24.2 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE), ETIWANDA SOUTH
OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND ETIWANDA
AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT WITHIN THE
ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE,
NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APNs: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, 29
AND A PORTION OF 17
RESOLUTION NO. 02-072 267
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
DRC2001-00557 TO CONSTRUCT 340
APARTMENTS ON 24.2 ACRES OF LAND IN
THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), ETIWANDA
SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND
ETIWANDA AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT
WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN,
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
ETIWANDA AVENUE, NORTH OF FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APNs: 227-211-02, 04,
05, 09, 10, 15, 20, 29 AND A PORTION OF 17
G.~. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have no legal publication or posting
requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public
testimony.
1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA 270
FACIE SPEED LIMIT OF 40 MPH ON WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN
CARNELIAN AND AMETHYST AVENUF
City Council Agenda
March 6, 2002
10
ORDINANCE NO. 680 (first reading) 277
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.20.020
OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY CODE
REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT OF
40 MPH ON WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN
CARNELIAN STREET AND AMETHYST
AVENUE
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.
1. PRESENTATION ON THE CITY'S FIRST EDITION OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA REPORTER COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER. (Oral)
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. UPDATE ON LEGISLATIVE ISSUES (Oral)
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.
L. 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 February 28, 2002, seventy two (72) hours
prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic
Center Drive.
February 20, 2002
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES
A. CALL TO ORDER
The Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a closed session on Wednesday, February 20, 2002, in the
Tapia Room of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairman William J. Alexander.
Present were Agencymembers: Paul Biane, Grace Curatalo, Bob Dutton, Diane Williams and Chairman
William J. Alexander.
Aisc present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; and Linda D. Daniels,
Redevelopment Agency Director.
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM,<;
Chairman Alexander announced the closed session item.
B1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA VS INTEX
PROPERTIES NLAND EMPIRE, ET AL - SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO.
RCV 058755 - CITY
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
No one was present 1o comment on the closed session items.
D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION
Closed session began at 5:35 p.m.
E. RECESS
The Council recessed at 6:25 p.m. No action was taken in closed session.
City Council Minutes
February 20, 2002
Page 2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Regular Meeting
A. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 in
the Council Chambers of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. The meeting was called to order at 7:17 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander.
Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, Grace Curatalo, Bob Dutton, Diane Williams and Mayor
William J. Alexander.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels,
Redevelopment Agency Director; Jan Reynolds, RDA Analyst; Kevin McArdle, Community Services
Director; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II1: Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Joe O'Neil, City
Engineer; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Sr. Planner; Brent LeCount, Associate Planner; Donald
Granger; Assistant Planner; Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner; Jim Frost, City Treasurer; Larry Temple,
Administrative Services Director; Lorraine Phong, Information Systems Analyst; Shelly Munson,
Information Systems Specialist; Deborah Clark, Library Director; Robert Karatsu, Library Services
Manager; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Captain Pete Ortiz, Police
Department; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Britt Wilson, Management Analyst II; Kimberly
Thomas, Management Analyst II; Kathy Scott, Deputy City Clerk and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk.
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
B1. 2001 Awards for Design Excellence Program.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, introduced the staff that worked on this project. A power point presentation was
given which displayed all the project winners and their projects.
B2. Presentation of a Proclamation and Certificates to Ruth Musser Middle School in recognition of
their award-winning city planning school project.
Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Patricia Carlson, parent and mentor of the school, and
the school principal. They assisted with the distributing of the certificates to the students.
B3. Presentation of a Proclamation in recognition of YMCA Month 2002.
Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Diana Lee-Mitchell and Jeannie McClellan of the YMCA.
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
C1. John Lyons, Etiwanda, mentioned that Jeffrey King is now a judge and used to be on the Council.
He added that Dennis Stout, Bob Dutton and Paul Biane are now running for other elected offices. He
told about a letter he received from Sheriff Penrod stating that Rancho Cucamonga is the 10t*~ safest
City. He also mentioned the crime stats for the City.
City Council Minutes
February 20, 2002
Page 3
C2. Janet Klotz, 9990 Banyan, stated she would like the City to participate in the Rose Parade by
building a float. She stated at this stage there is no financial obligation, but indicated there were spots
open in the parade if Rancho Cucamonga wanted to participate. She felt this would be a wonderful
opportunity for the City to get involved with.
C3. Jim Frost continued to talk about the possibility of a float in the Rose Parade and the information
he received from the City of Ontario explaining how they previously did this. He asked that the City
Council put this on their next agenda to consider signing the application to be considered for a parade
spot.
C4. Gwen Frost also spoke about the possibility of a Rancho Cucamonga building a float for the
parade. She stated she supported this and asked for the Council to consider it.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
D1. Approval of Minutes: January 16, 2002
February 6, 2002
D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 1/30/02 and 2/6/02, and Payroll ending 1/27/02 for the total
amount of $2,790,846.12.
D3. Approve to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of January 31, 2002
D4. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Construction of Church
Street Right Turn Lane Improvement from Haven Avenue to 500' west, to be funded from Account No.
11243035650/1336124-0 (Transportation).
RESOLUTION NO. 02-045
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CHURCH STREET
RIGHT TURN LANE IMPROVEMENT FROM HAVEN AVENUE TO 500'
WEST IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS
D5. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Construction of the In-
Roadway Warning Light System at the Intersection of 19th Street and Jasper Street, Federal Aid Project
STPLHSR-5420 (007), to be funded from Account No. 12343035650/1439234-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-046
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE "IN-ROADWAY
WARNING LIGHT SYSTEM AT THE INTERSECTION OF 19TM STREET
AND JASPER STREET, FEDERAL AID PROJECT STPLHSR-5420
(007)" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS
City Council Minutes
Februa~ 20,2002
Page 4
D6. Approval for the purchase of two 92) Cushman Turf-Trucksters from Pacific Equipment & Irrigation,
Inc., of Chino, in the amount of $33,669.72, funded from Fund No. 1134-303-5603 and 1712-001-5603.
D7. Approval of a recommendation for Reorganization of the Community Services Network.
DS. Approval of a request from Rancho Cucamonga ACE Softball for Waiver of Rental Fees for their
Opening and Closing Ceremonies at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium on March 2, 2002 and
June 1, 2002.
D9. Approval to determine the rate for Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 for fiscal year 2001-02
and providing a method of collection thereof.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-047
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE RATE FOR
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-01 FOR FISCAL YEAR
2001-2002 AND PROVIDING A METHOD OF COLLECTION THEREOF
D10. 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
DRCDR01-03, on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, north of Sharon Circle, submitted by Paragon
Development Corporation.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-048
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DRCDR01-03
RESOLUTION NO. 02-049
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 DRCDR01-03
Dll. 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
DRC2001-00497, on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, north of 6th St., submitted by Auto Facilities
Real Estate Trust 2001-1, a Delaware Business Trust, owner.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-050
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY DRC2001-00497
RESOLUTION NO. 02-051
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 DRC2001-00497
D12. Approval of an Agreement (CO 02-010) for Plan Check Services.
City Council Minutes
February 20,2002
Page 5
RESOLUTION NO. 02-052
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH
DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES, AUFBAU CORPORATION AND
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP, RESPECTIVELY, TO PROVIDE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKING SERVICES
D13. Approval of an Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Verizon California, Inc.,
(CO 02-011) for the Conveyance of the Underground Conduit and Substructure Facilities for Verizon as
part of the Lower Hermosa Avenue, Phase I, Utility Underground and Street Light Improvements
between 4th and 8th Streets.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-053
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
BETVVEEN THE CITY AND VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC., FOR THE
CONVEYANCE OF THE UNDERGROUND CONDUIT AND
SUBSTRUCTURE FACILITIES FOR VERIZON AS PART OF THE
LOWER HERMOSA AVENUE, PHASE I, UTILITY UNDERGROUND AND
STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENTS BETVVEEN 4TM AND 8TM STREETS.
D14. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bonds, accept Maintenance
Bonds, and file a Notice of Completion for Tract 15871-1, submitted by William Lyon Homes, Inc.,
located on the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Victoria Park Lane.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-054
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
TRACT 15871-1 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
D15. Approval to accept the construction of the Marine Avenue (Humboldt Avenue to 26th Street) and
26th Street (Center Avenue to Haven Avenue) pavement rehabilitation, Contract No. 01-088, as
complete, retain the Performance Bond as a Guarantee Bond, release the Labor and material Bond and
authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of
$127,546.88.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-055
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE MARINE AVENUE (HUMBOLDT AVENUE TO 26TM STREET) AND
26TM STREET (CENTER AVENUE TO HAVEN AVENUE) PAVEMENT
REHABILITATION, CONTRACT NO. 01-088, AS COMPLETE AND
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE
WORK
City Council Minutes
February 20, 2002
Page 6
D16. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 3438954 in the amount of $6,255.86, for
the Hermosa Avenue Street and Storm Drain Improvements on the east side of Hermosa Avenue 2000
feet south of Wilson Avenue, Contract No. 00-068.
D17. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 8161-44-71M in the amount of $16,879.07,
for the Banyan Street at Fredricksburg Avenue Traffic Signal and Widening Improvements, Contract No.
00-051.
MOTION: Moved by Dutton, seconded by Biane to approve the staff recommendations in the staff
reports contained within the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RECONVENED AT 7:55 P.M. FOR A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. ALL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT.
E. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
El. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VICTORIA COMMUNITY
PLAN AMENDMENT 01-01, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-02, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
SUBTT15716 - FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC. - A public hearing to consider
certifying the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approving the Statement of Facts and
Findings and Overriding Considerations for the proposed project known ad Victoria Gardens, a mixed
use development consisting of approximately 2.45 million square feet of retail, office, and civic uses, as
well as up to 600 multiple family residential units, on approximately 175 acres of land. The project site
is within the City boundary and the Victoria Community Plan and is generelly bounded by future Church
Street to the north, Foothill Boulevard to the south, 1-15 Freeway to the east, and future Day Creek
Boulevard to the west - APN 227-161-35, 36 and 38, 227-171-22 and 23; 227-201-30, 33, 35 and 36;
and 227-211-24 and 39 through 43.
CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-
02 (CO 02-012) - FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC. - A request to establish a
Development Agreement and the detailed review of a master plan for a project known as Victoria
Gardens, a mixed use development consisting of approximately 2.45 million square foot retail, office, and
civic uses as well as 600 multiple family residential units, on approximately 175 acres of land. Te project
site is within the City boundary and the Victoria Community Plan, generally bounded by future Chumh
Street to the north, Foothill Boulevard to the south, 1-15 Freeway to the east, and the future Day Creek
Boulevard to the west. APN: 227-161-35, 36 and 38; 227-171-22 and 23; 227-201-30, 33, 35 and 36;
and 227-211-24 and 39 thru 43. Related files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01, Tentative
Parcel Map 15716.
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL CONSIDERATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 01-01 -
FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC. - A request to amend the Victoria Community Plan
by changing the land use designation from Regional Center to Mixed Use and modifying various text
sections and graphics in the Community Plan to accommodate the proposed project known as the
Victoria Gardens on approximately 175 acres of land, generally bounded by future Church Street to the
north, Foothill Boulevard to the south, 1-15 Freeway to the east, and the future Day Creek Boulevard to
the west. APN: 227-161-35, 36 and 38; 227-171-22 and 23; 227-201-30, 33, 35 and 36; and 227-211-24
and 39 thru 43. Related files: Development Agreement 01-02, Tentative Parcel Map 15716.
City Council Minutes
February 20, 2002
Page ?
CONSIDERATION MAP SUBTT15716 - FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT - A request to subdivide
approximately 147 acres of land into 97 parcels and 39 lettered lots (private and public street) to
accommodate the proposed project known as Victoria Gardens on approximately 175 acres of land,
generally bounded by future Church Street to the north, Foothill Boulevard to the south, 1-15 Freeway to
the east, and future Day Creek Boulevard to the west. APN; 227-161-35, 36 and 38; 227-17'~-22 and 23;
227-201-30, 33, 35 and 36; and 227-211-24 and 39 thru 43. Related files: Development Agreement 01-
02, Tentative Parcel Map 15716.
Jack Lam, City Manager, introduced the item and turned the presentation over to Linda Daniels,
Redevelopment Agency Director.
Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Director, introduced Brian Jones of Forest City.
Brian Jones, Forest City, introduced Randall Lewis, Frank Fuller, Josh Gottheim, Colm Macken, and
Victor Grgas.
Brian Jones, Forest City, continued to talk about the process they have gone through to get the project to
this point. He thanked everyone involved with this. He stated they want to move very quickly to get this
through. Mr. Jones indicated they have tenants who are interested in locating to this center, but that they
could not be announced at this time.
Frank Fuller, Field Paoli Architects, thanked the City and staff for all the work on this project. He also
gave a power point presentation.
Staff report was presented by Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Director, on the Disposition and
Development Agreement and information on the actions and steps they would be taking to get the mall
built. She talked about the financing for this project through the Redevelopment Agency.
James Markman, City Attorney, referred to changes in the documents that have been submitted for the
record to the City Clerk. He referred to the findings the Council would be making.
Nancy Fong, Sr. Planner, presented the staff report on the EIR.
Brent LeCount, Associate Planner, made the presentation on the Development Agreement between the
City and the Developer, the Victoria Community Plan Amendment and the Tentative Parcel Map. He
stated the Planning Commission is recommending approval of these documents.
Councilmember Dutton wanted to make sure the public knew that if the project failed, the property would
come back to the City. He also wanted clarification that along with sales tax generation there would be
property tax revenue generated from this.
Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Director, stated there would be approximately $2,000,000
generated in property tax revenue.
Councilmember Dutton asked Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, to talk about the infrastructure because of this
project.
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated Day Creek Boulevard would be extended and stated Foothill Boulevard
would also improve. He felt the streets would be landscaped very nicely including the streets inside the
mall project.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council was:
John Lyons, Etiwanda, felt this was a great night. He commended the City for the vision they had
to go forward with this project.
City Council Minutes
February 20, 2002
Page 8
There being no further input, the public hearing was closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-056
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#20010301028) AND
APPROVING THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS AND
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN
AMENDMENT 01-01, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-02,
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15716, AND A DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETVVEEN THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND VICTORIA
GARDENS-C, LLC., ("THE DDA") CONCERNING A PROPOSED
PROJECT KNOWN AS VICTORIA GARDENS, A MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 2.45 MILLION
SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, OFFICE, AND CIVIC USES, AND UP TO
600 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 175 ACRES OF LAND,
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY FUTURE CHURCH STREET TO THE
NORTH, FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH, 1-15 FREEWAY TO
THE EAST, AND FUTURE DAY CREEK BOULEVARD TO THE WEST
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-161-35,
36 and 38; 227-171-22 and 23; 227-201-30, 33, 35 and 36; and 227-211-
24 and 39 thru 43
MOTOIN: Moved by Biane, seconded by Dutton to approve Resolution No. 02-056. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0.
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 678.
ORDINANCE NO. 678 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO. 01-02, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND VICTORIA GARDENS-C,
LLC. INCLUDING A MASTER PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEVELOPING APPROXIMATELY 2.45 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF
RETAIL, OFFICE, AND CIVIC USES AS WELL AS 600 MULTIPLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, ON APPROXIMATELY 175 ACRES OF
LAND. THE PROJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARY AND
THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AND IS GENERALLY BOUNDED
BY FUTURE CHURCH STREET TO THE NORTH, FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH, 1-15 TO THE EAST, AND FUTURE DAY
CREEK BOULEVARD TO THE WEST, AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION
65864 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, FOR REAL
PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF. APN: 227-161-35, 36 and 38; 227-171-22 and 23;
227-201-30, 33, 35 and 36; and 227-211-24 and 39 thru 43
MOTION: Moved by Dutton, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and set second reading of
Ordinance No. 678 for the March 6 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 679.
City Council Minutes
Februa~ 20,2002
Page 9
ORDINANCE NO. 679 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA COMMUNITY
PLAN AMENDMENT 01-01 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
FROM REGIONAL CENTER TO MIXED USE AND MODIFYING
VARIOUS TEXT AND GRAPHICS IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN TO
ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED PROJECT KNOWN AS VICTORIA
GARDENS ON APPROXIMATELY 175 ACRES QF LAND, GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY FUTURE CHURCH STREET TO THE NORTH,
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH, 1-15 FREEWAY TO THE
EAST, AND FUTURE DAY CREEK BOULEVARD TO THE WEST, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Curatalo to waive full reading and set second reading of
Ordinance No. 679 for the March 6 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-057
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15716, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 175
ACRES OF LAND INTO 97 PARCELS AND 39 LETTERED LOTS
(PRIVATE AND PUBLIC STREETS) TO ACCOMMODATE THE
PROPOSED PROJECT KNOWN AS THE VICTORIA GARDENS ON
APPROXIMATELY 175 ACRES OF LAND AND IS GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY FUTURE CHURCH STREET TO THE NORTH,
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH, 1-15 FREEWAY TO THE
EAST, AND THE FUTURE DAY CREEK BOULEVARD TO THE WEST
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. APN: 227-161-35,
36 and 38; 227-171-22 and 23; 227-201-30, 33, 35 and 36; and 227-211-
24 and 39 thru 43
MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve Resolution No. 02-057. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0.
E2. CONSIDERATION OF A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CO RA 02-002)
BETWEEN THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND VICTORIA GARDENS
C, L.L.C. FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER WITH ANCILLARY
COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND RESIDENTIAL USES, ON APPROXIMATELY 147 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF CHURCH STREET, EAST OF FUTURF
DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND WEST OF 1-15
SEE DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM UNDER ITEM El.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-058
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND VICTORIA
GARDENS-C, L.L.C. AND MAKING FINDINGS RELATED THERETO
MOTION: Moved by Dutton, seconded by Williams to approve Resolution No. 02-058. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0.
City Council Minutes
February 20, 2002
Page l0
RESOLUTION NO. RA 02-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH VICTORIA
GARDENS-C, L.L.C. AND MAKING FINDINGS RELATED THERETO
MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve Resolution No. RA 02-002. Motion
carried unanimously 5-0.
THE REMAINDER OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEMS WERE CONSIDERED AT THIS TIME.
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJOURNED AT 8:33 P.M., AND THE CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERED THE BALANCE OF THEIR AGENDA.
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
No Items Submitted.
G. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
No Items Submitted.
H. COUNCIL BUSINESS
H1. CONSIDERATION OF LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES INLAND EMPIRE DIVISION'S
LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE PROGRAM OF WORK
Staff report presented by Councilmember Williams.
MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve the recommendation. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0.
H2. PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATF
ACTION: Report received and filed.
I. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETINC~
No items were identified for the next meeting.
City Council Minutes
February 20, 2002
Page ! !
J. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No communication was made from the public.
K. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to adjourn to Thursday, February 21, 2002, 9:00
a.m. in the Training Conference Room at the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga, California, for the annual team building/goal setting maintenance workshop.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra J. Adams, CMC
City Clerk
Approved: *
February 21, 2002
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adiourned Meetinq
A. CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, February 21,
2002 in the Training Conference Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander.
Present were Councilmembers: Paul Blanc, Grace Curatalc Bob Dutton, Diane Williams, and Mayor
William J. Alexander.
Aisc present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager; Linda D. Daniels,
Redevelopment Agency Director; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Bill Makshanoff,
Building Official; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Tamara Layne, Finance Officer; Deborah
Clark, Library Director; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director; Pete Ortiz, Police Chief; Dennis
Michael, Fire Chief; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Britt Wilson, Management Analyst III;
Kimbedy Thomas Management Analyst II; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk.
B. ITEM OF BUSINESS
1. ANNUAL TEAM BUILDING/GOALS MAINTENANCE WORKSHOP
The City Council and Department Heads met to discuss goals for the year 2002. (A copy is on file in the
City Clerk's office.)
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No communication was made from the public.
D. ADJOURNMENT
The workshop adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra J. Adams, CMC
City Clerk
Approved: *
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/13/02 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 1
WED, FEB 13, 2002, 5:01 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FINA/~CE---job: 75485 #S031 ..... prog: CK200 <1.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179490 000001 ~3~ EQUIP~NT P~EN"~ALS CO INC 02/13/02 1,058.77 ~ OH
AP00179491 001334 AB~C 02/13/02 294.06 MW OH
AP00179492 000007 ABLETRONICS 02/13/02 42.02 F~ OH
AP00179493 006937 ACCEI~% 02/13/02 700.00 MW OH
AP00179494 002579 ACCOUNTABILITY CONCEPTS 02/13/02 750.70 ~5~ OH
AP00179495 000014 ACTION TRAVEL AGENCY 02/13/02 194.50 MW OH
AP00179496 000211 mT SECURITY SERVICES INC 02/13/02 564.00 ~5~ OH
AP00179497 005679 ;~DVD/~CED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS 02/13/02 362.37 ~ OH
AP00179498 006489 AES 02/13/02 450.00 ~4W OH
AP00179499 006904 ALAS, EDGAR 02/13/02 100.00 ~4W OH
AP00179500 005673 ALLEN, SYLVESTER R 02/13/02 216.51 ~ OE
AP00179501 006172 ALTA LOMA C}L~RTER LI~r~S 02/13/02 391.98 N/~ OH
AP00179502 002693 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 02/13/02 658.36 MW OH
AP00179503 006930 AP~%MBb-LA, A~NGELIC 02/13/02 48.75 MW OH
AP00179504 000024 ARBOR N~3RSERY INC 02/13/02 1,589.31 MW ON
AP00179505 005807 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 02/13/02 628.12 MW OH
AP00179506 000667 AP~ROWNEAD CREDIT UNION 02/13/02 1,288.84 MW OH
AP00179507 006255 ASSI SECURITY 02/13/02 3,602.50 MW OH
AP00179508 000026 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS 02/13/02 9,675.25 ~ OH
AP00179509 000402 AUTO RESTORATORS 02/13/02 10,597.72 ~ OH
AP00179510 004102 B ~ K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 02/13/02 1,608.41 MW OH
AP00179511 006934 BARKSDALE, SHAWN 02/13/02 36.00 MW OH
AP00179512 004475 BARNES ~ NOBLE 02/13/02 276.11 MW OH
AP00179513 006372 B~qRONS 02/13/02 245.00 MW OH
AP00179514 000033 BASELINE TRL~E V~J~UE ~ARDWARE 02/13/02 71.64 MW OH
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/13/02 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 2
WED, FEB 13, 2002, 5:01 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loe: FINANCE---job: 75485 #S031 ..... prog: CK200 <1.37>--report id: C~-REG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179515 002820 BER/~ELL HYDRAULICS INC 02/13/02 16.00 MW OH
AP00179516 004441 BEST BUY CO INC 02/13/02 293.98 MW OH
AP00179517 006301 BLUE OCEA/g SO~rWARE INC 02/13/02 3,326.50 ~ OH
AP00179518 004833 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 02/13/02 357.76 ~5~ OH
AP00179519 005525 BOWERY, ROBERT 02/13/02 500.00 ~K~ OH
AP00179520 006828 BRIAN HEBB 02/13/02 100.00 MW OH /LR
AP00179521 VOID.CONTINU Void - Continued Stub 02/13/02 0.00 %q4 OH Void
AP00179522 004369 BRODART BOOKS 02/13/02 4,696.57 ~K~ OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179523 006931 Bbq{DETTE, DAVID 02/13/02 25.00 ~ OH
AP00179524 001001 BURTRONICS BUSINESS SYSTEMS 02/13/02 420.76 ~ OH
AP00179525 002559 C~LBO 02/13/02 650.00 MW OH
AP00179526 000068 CENTP~L CITIES SIGNS INC 02/13/02 349.38 MW OH
AP00179527 032438 CH29~{ILL CONTRACTORS 02/13/02 60,439.50 ~K~ OH
AP00179528 001061 C~L~MPION AWARDS ~ SPECIALIE 02/13/02 14.01 MW OH
AP00179529 000947 C~LARTER COMMUNICATIONS 02/13/02 48.76 ~ OH
AP00179530 000488 CHEVRON USA INC 02/13/02 69.77 MW OH
AP00179531 006933 CHI/N, JULIA 02/13/02 93.00 MW OH
AP00179532 000074 CITY P~ENTALS 02/13/02 99.00 MW OH
AP00179533 002698 CL~%IM JT~4PER 02/13/02 160.00 MW OH
AP00179534 004279 CIg%RK, DEBOR/~H 02/13/02 22.56 9H4 OH
AP00179535 006929 CLAVILLE, JEREICJ% 02/13/02 22.00 MW O~
AP00179536 006932 CLIFFOR/3, SUZI 02/13/02 72.00 MW OH
AP00179537 006464 COASTAJ~ BUILDING SERVICES INC 02/13/02 15,723.00 MW OH
AP00179538 006936 COMMIRqICATION BRIEFINGS 02/13/02 49.00 MW OH
AP00179539 004301 COMP USA INC 02/13/02 40.33 MW OH
CITY OF RC IFAB (PROD) 02/13/02 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 3
WED, FEB 13, 2002, 5:01 PM --req: KFINCHER--le~: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 75485 #S031 ..... prog: CK200 <1.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179540 001328 CONCANNON, SHARI 02/13/02 199.50 MW OH
AP00179541 006709 COPP CRUSHING, DM 02/13/02 130.00 MW OH
AP00179542 006935 CORBETT, BRItoN 02/13/02 16.06 MW OH
AP00179543 001321 COURT TRUSTBE 02/13/02 200.00 MW OH
AP00179544 001321 COURT TRUSTEE 02/13/02 118.50 MW OH
AP00179545 001437 CPRS 02/13/02 415.00 MW OH
AP00179546 000085 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIET 02/13/02 4,908.62 MW OH
AP00179547 000284 DAISY WHEEL RIBBON CO INC 02/13/02 2,564.45 MW OH
AP00179548 000105 DD2q GL~RRA ~_ND ASSOCIATBS 02/13/02 12,938.13 MW OH
AP00179549 006948 DAVID, LOUIH 02/13/02 200.00 MW OH
AP00179550 006949 DE LEON, STBPHANIB 02/13/02 36.00 MW OH
AP00179551 004366 DEMCO INC 02/13/02 56.43 MW OH
AP00179552 004544 DICK, ERIC 02/13/02 75.00 MW OH
AP00179553 004544 DICK, ERIC 02/13/02 330.00 MW OH
AP00179554 004466 DOUBLETREB HOTEL 02/13/02 925.00 MW OH
AP00179555 003364 EIGHTH AVEN~3E GRAPHICS 02/13/02 2,884.43 MW OH
AP00179586 005137 EMPIRE MOBILE HOME SERVICE 02/13/02 6,189.50 MW OH
AP00179557 090520 EMPLOYMENT SYSTEMS INC. 02/13/02 2,838.57 MW OH
AP00179558 004436 EPIXTECH INC 02/13/02 2,142.00 MW OH
AP00179599 005262 EVANS SPORTING GOODS 02/13/02 148.03 MW OH
AP00179560 000229 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02/13/02 971.50 MW OH
AP00179561 004817 FATLAND, SA/gDRA 02/13/02 30.06 MW OH
AP00179562 000123 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 02/13/02 181.70 MW OH
AP00179563 000124 FENCE CRAFT OF UPLAND INC 02/13/02 75.43 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179564 001846 FIELDING, RICHARD 02/13/02 25.00 MW OH
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/13/02 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 4
WED, FEB 13, 2002, 5:01 PM --req: KFINCHHR--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 75485 #S031 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179565 006556 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 02/13/02 5,853.40 ~ OH
AP00179566 006950 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 02/13/02 821.41 MW OH
AP00179567 005892 FIRST PLACE TROPHIES 02/13/02 2,033.95 MW OH
AP00179568 004371 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 02/13/02 117.71 MW OH
AP00179569 004762 FOOTHILL F/~4ILY SHELTER 02/13/02 250.00 MW OH
AP00179570 001082 FR/L~KLIN COVEY CO 02/13/02 64.43 MW OH
AP00179571 006074 FUkq3SHIMA, Oq3DITH 02/13/02 1,215.00 MW OH
AP00179572 005113 FUTURE COMPUTING SOLUTIONS IN 02/13/02 258,050.16 MW OH
AP00179573 001815 G W ENTERPRISE 02/13/02 450.09 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179574 006951 GAi~TE, SARAH 02/13/02 55.00 MW OH
AP00179575 080050 GEOGRAPHICS 02/13/02 2,994.95 MW OH
AP00179576 041163 GILLI, CHRIS 02/13/02 136.00 ~4W OH
AP00179577 006952 GILLUM, CONNIE 02/13/02 22.00 MW OH
AP00179578 006952 GILLUM, CONNIE 02/13/02 28.00 ~W OH
AP00179579 000650 GRAINGER, WW 02/13/02 27.11 MW OH
AP00179580 003827 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 02/13/02 427.44 MW OH
AP00179581 006953 GUZ~{~N, ~ 02/13/02 40.00 MW OH
AP00179582 005699 HARALA/~BOS BEVERAGE COMP/%Ny 02/13/02 1,471.99 MW OH
AP00179583 000462 HCS CUTLER STEEL CO 02/13/02 52.12 MW OH
AP00179584 006920 HENDERSON, LARRY 02/13/02 35.00 MW OH
AP00179585 006921 HERRERA, KIM 02/13/02 77.50 MW OH
AP00179586 006922 HICKS, IRIS 02/13/02 83.00 MW OH
AP00179887 000158 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 02/13/02 363.11 MW OH
AP00179588 006923 HOLLOWAY, AMY 02/13/02 110.00 MW OH
AP00179589 001234 HOSE MAN INC 02/13/02 11.01 MW OH
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/13/02 c H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 5
WED, FEB 13, 2002, 5:01 PM --req: KFINCHER--le~: GL JL--loc: FIAULNCE---job: 75485 #S031 ..... pro~: CK200 <1.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179590 000161 HOYT LU~4BER CO, S M 02/13/02 39.87 ~4W OH
AP00179591 001325 HURST, CHERYL 02/13/02 313.50 ~ OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179592 000495 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 02/13/02 397.00 NW OH
AP00179593 006513 IAPMA 02/13/02 50.00 MW OH
AP00179594 004254 IBM CORPORATION 02/13/02 8,029.20 MW OH
AP00179595 000167 ICBO 02/13/02 250.00 MW OH Payee Name'different in Check DB
AP00179596 002733 ICMA 02/13/02 82.00 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179597 000607 IKON TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 02/13/02 39,238.06 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179598 002577 IMAGE CON~V~3NICATIONE 02/13/02 52.68 ~ OH
AP00179599 006682 INLY=ND FAIR HOUSING A/gD MEDIA 02/13/02 1,770.74 MW OH
AP00179600 000122 INL~/gD VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 02/13/02 559.46 ~D~ OH
AP00179601 000122 INLA~{D VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 02/13/02 2,964.00 MW OH
AP00179602 000092 INI~ND V/LLLEY DAILY BULLETIN 02/13/02 84.50 MW OH
AP00179603 000092 INLJLND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 02/13/02 156.00 ~ OH
AP00179604 002315 INfJ~gD WHOLESD~LE ~3RSERY 02/13/02 64.00 ~ OH
AP00179605 005193 INTER-ACTIVE DATA CORPOP~%TION 02/13/02 78.50 MW OH
AP00179606 090933 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 02/13/02 447.92 MW OH
AP00179607 003452 INTRAVAIA ROCK A~ND SAND 02/13/02 210.00 MW OH
AP00179608 005616 ISA 02/13/02 93.95 MW OH
AP00179609 006812 JDJ4ES WILSON 02/13/02 100.00 FS~ OH AR
AP00179610 006925 JOHNSON, TRACI 02/13/02 40.00 MW OH
AP00179611 006939 KIEWIT PACIFIC COMPANY 02/13/02 1,038.71 FfN OH
AP00179612 006940 KOH, AMPARO 02/13/02 72.00 MW OH
AP00179613 004982 KORD/gDA CONSTRUCTION 02/13/02 14,032.70 F~ OH
AP00179614 004447 LASTING IMPRESSIONS PRINTING 02/13/02 525.68 MW ON
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/13/02 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 6
WED, FEB 13, 2002, 5:01 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 75485 #S031 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check ~%mount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179615 000849 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 02/13/02 561.74 MW OH
AP00179616 005468 LEXINGTON TECHNOLOGY INC 02/13/02 1,508.04 MW OH
AP00179617 003275 LIGHT El]LES ETC 02/13/02 68.37 MW OH
AP00179618 001005 LIL STITCH 02/13/02 184.68 NW OH
AP00179619 005662 LOS A/~GELES COCA COLA BTL CO 02/13/02 816.88 MW OH
AP00179620 000200 LOS A/~GELES TIMES 02/13/02 66.80 MW OH
AP00179621 001336 LOWER, DARLENE 02/13/02 251.00 MW OH
AP00179622 003156 LUS LIGHTHOUSE INC 02/13/02 6.16 ~ OH
AP00179623 006882 M J S}[~TTUCK 02/13/02 300.00 MW OH
AP00179624 006942 MAGNUS, DELO~S 02/13/02 69.00 MW OH
AP00179625 006941 MAHONEY, DONALD 02/13/02 30.00 MW OH
AP00179626 006943 ~GOLD, DAWN 02/13/02 40.00 MW OH
AP00179627 000549 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT IN 02/13/02 26.54 MW OH
AP00179628 000250 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 02/13/02 180.00 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179629 006085 MCARDLE, KEVIN 02/13/02 9.80 MW OH
AP00179630 004458 MCGRAW HILL INC 02/13/02 119.05 MW OH
AP00179631 005852 MIDWEST TAPE 02/13/02 367.83 MW OH
AP00179632 000749 MIJAC ~ COMPANy 02/13/02 96.00 MW OH
AP00179633 006944 MORENO, MARIA 02/13/02 40.00 MW OH
AP00179634 000521 MOSS, ANGELAISE 02/13/02 54.13 MW OH
AP00179635 001020 MOUNTAIN VIEW GLASS D/qD MIRRO 02/13/02 172.58 MW OH
AP00179636 000842 MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAI 02/13/02 22.72 MW OH
AP00179637 004442 FNJNICIPAL 5~%NAGEMEAFr 02/13/02 20.00 MW ON
AP00179638 006945 bK/NOZ, TRACEy 02/13/02 33.00 MW OH
AP00179639 006965 MYCK-P~AWSON, KIMBEP~Ly 02/13/02 32.00 95q OR
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/13/02 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 7
WED, FEB 13, 2002, 5:01 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 75485 #S031 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179640 001332 N M A DUES C/O BA~ WHITE 02/13/02 13.85 MW OH
AP00179641 002248 ~APA AUTO P~TS 02/13/02 43.67 MW OH
AP00179642 000744 NATIONAL DEFERRED 02/13/02 23,626.88 MW OH
AP00179643 001228 NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK 02/13/02 450.00 MW OH
AP00179644 006137 NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 02/13/02 472.10 MW OH
AP00179645 006137 NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 02/13/02 103.44 MW OH
AP00179646 006687 NATIONS RENT 02/13/02 40.41 MW OH
AP00179647 002361 NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES 02/13/02 110.00 MW OH
AP00179648 004527 NIKPOUR, MON3~v~ED 02/13/02 105.00 ~f~ OH
AP00179649 000433 NIXON EGLI EQUIPMENT CO 02/13/02 386.95 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179650 006646 NJUGUNA, SAMMY 02/13/02 70.00 MW OH
AP00179651 002582 NOBLE COMP/~NY, R J 02/13/02 12,754.68 MW OH
AP00179652 002582 NOBLE COMPANy, R J 02/13/02 114,792.20 MW OH
AP00179653 003192 NORTHKIRK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 02/13/02 500.00 MW OH ~
AP00179654 006964 NYEMA, NATHANIEL 02/13/02 100.00 MW OH
AP00179655 000523 OFFICE DEPOT 02/13/02 5,337.25 MW OH
AP00179656 000232 O~ITRANS 02/13/02 139.50 ~{W OH
AP00179657 002821 PEEK TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENAN 02/13/02 15,385.00 MW OH
AP00179658 022061 PENINSUT_~ LIBRARY SYSTEM 02/13/02 75.00 MW OH
AP00179659 006522 PERALTA, GIO 02/13/02 50.00 MW OH
AP00179660 006206 PLAI~NING CENTER, THE 02/13/02 427.29 MW OH
AP00179661 006681 POMONA INIJ~ND VA~SLEY COUNCIL 02/13/02 675.00 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179662 006958 PRINT TO MAIL 02/13/02 805.78 MW OH
AP00179663 000734 QUICENO, PATRICIA 02/13/02 60.00 ~ OH
AP00179664 001323 QUINT~/qA, ZITA 02/13/02 193.00 MW OH
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/13/02 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 8
WED, FEB 13, 2002, 5:01 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FIN~NCE---job: 75485 #S031 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179665 001890 R ;%ND R LIGHTING 02/13/02 105.73 MW OH
AP00179666 000345 R D O EQUIPMENT CO POWERPLAN 02/13/02 6.40 MW OH
AP00179667 005876 P~ADULESCU, DD.N 02/13/02 35.00 MW OR Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179668 000264 RALPRS GROCERY COMPly 02/13/02 77.09 MW OH
AP00179669 003497 REG~kN, SARA~ 02/13/02 40.00 MW OH
AP00179670 001324 REIN}L~RDTSEN, DEBRA 02/13/02 282.50 MW OH
AP00179671 006926 RENNIE, JAMIE 02/13/02 53.00 MW OH
AP00179672 000443 REI CONSULTING 02/13/02 3,536.00 MW OH
AP00179673 006927 RISTOLA, R~CREL 02/13/02 40.00 ~ OH
AP00179674 000276 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 02/13/02 162.30 MW OH
AP00179675 001322 RIVERSIDE CO DEPT CHILD SUPPO 02/13/02 226.00 MW OH
AP00179676 006928 ROBERTS, F~R~N 02/13/02 191.54 MW OH
AP00179677 001004 S ~ S WORLDWIDE 02/13/02 366.41 MW OH
AP00179678 006117 S B D/gD O INC 02/13/02 1,170.00 MW OH
AP00179679 004438 S C A C E O 02/13/02 120.00 MW OH
AP00179680 001590 SAN BERN COUNTy CRILD SUPPORT 02/13/02 200.00 MW OH
AP00179681 001990 S~ BERN COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT 02/13/02 289.68 MW OH
AP00179682 001089 SD-N BERNARDINO, CITY OF 02/13/02 900.00 MW OH
AP00179683 006492 S~CHEZ, JOE 02/13/02 395.00 MW OR
AP00179684 001441 SBC/PACIFIC BELL 02/13/02 3,450.39 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179685 006946 SCEOLTZ, DEBORD~q 02/13/02 29.00 MW OH
AP00179686 002185 SETON IDENTIFICATION PRODUCTS 02/13/02 1,489.08 MW OH
AP00179687 005308 SILVIA CONSTRUCTION INC 02/13/02 133,403.40 MW OH
AP00179688 000692 SIR SPEEDY 02/13/02 244.59 MW OH
AP00179689 001327 SMART ~ FIN~.L 02/13/02 132.01 MW OH
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/13/02 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 9
WED, FEB 13, 2002, 5:01 PM --req: KFINCHER--le~: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 75485 #S031 ..... proD: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179690 012139 SMITN, GISELLA 02/13/02 59.00 ~ OW
AP00179691 000319 SO CA, IF GAS COMPANY 02/13/02 3,648.25 MW OH
AP00179692 001825 SOFT CHOICE CORP 02/13/02 1,576.71 MW ON
AP00179693 VOID.CONTINU Void - Continued Stub 02/13/02 0.00 VM OH Void
AP00179694 VOID.CONTINU Void - Continued Stub 02/13/02 0.00 VM OH Void
AP00179695 001432 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 02/13/02 19,585.64 MW OH
AP00179696 006728 SPECTRA CONTRACT FLOORING:ORA 02/13/02 498.00 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179697 000682 SPEEDWAY MUFFLER INC 02/13/02 206.37 MW OH
AP00179698 006947 STATE FARM INS 02/13/02 1,624.17 MW OH
AP00179699 001335 STATE OF CALIFORNIA FP~NCHISE 02/13/02 49.65 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179700 003597 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 02/13/02 48,122.02 MW OH
AP00179701 005281 STERICYCLE INC 02/13/02 537.40 MW OH
AP00179702 007256 STOFA, JOSEPN 02/13/02 25.00 MW OH
AP00179703 005685 Sb-RE SHRED DOCUMENT DESTRUCT! 02/13/02 252.00 MW OH
AP00179704 003735 T~NER, O C 02/13/02 188.77 MW OH
AP00179708 002344 TARGET 02/13/02 119.38 MW OH
AP00179706 011916 TAYLOR, CHERI 02/13/02 36.00 MW OH
AP00179707 006955 THOMAS, MIC~ELLE 02/13/02 38.00 MW OH
AP00179708 003204 TOGO'S 02/13/02 93.90 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179709 003893 U.S. IDENTIFICATION MANUAL 02/13/02 88.48 MW OH
AP00179710 002958 UMPS D~RE US ASSOCIATION 02/13/02 3,125.50 MW OH
AP00179711 003437 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 02/13/02 90~.61 MW OH
AP00179712 003912 UNIQUE CREATIONS 02/13/02 235.81 MW OH
AP00179713 000919 UNITED WAY 02/13/02 632.32 MW OH
AP00179714 000350 US POSTMASTER 02/13/02 6,500.00 MW OH
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/13/02 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 10
WED, FEB 13, 2002, 5:01 PM --req: KFINCHER--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 75485 #S031 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check ~ount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179715 002210 VARNEY, G~Y 02/13/02 139.64 MW OH
AP00179716 000137 VERIZON CALIFORigIA 02/13/02 1,225.87 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179717 000137 VERIZON CALIFOP~NIA 02/13/02 74.90 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179718 006661 VERIZON WIRELESS 02/13/02 94.65 MW O~
AP00179719 006616 VILLAGOMEZ, CHARLEI 02/13/02 27.75 MW OH
AP00179720 006957 VILLEGAS, TONY 02/13/02 300.00 MW OH
AP00179721 001329 VOLM, LIZA 02/13/02 112.50 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179722 006959 WHEELER, KIM 02/13/02 67.50 MW OH
AP00179723 003985 WILLID~4S, PAT 02/13/02 153.00 MW OH
AP00179724 006960 WINDSHIELDS OF CUCAMONGA 02/13/02 182.88 MW OH
AP00179725 006961 WOLFF, STEVE C/O RANCHO CUCAM 02/13/02 53.86 MW OH
AP00179726 006962 WORD & BROWN 02/13/02 209.63 MW O~
AP00179727 006963 WYNDHAM EMERALD PLAZA 02/13/02 680.00 MW OH
AP00179728 000509 XEROX CORPORATION 02/13/02 216.99 MW OH
AP00179729 004624 YEE, LARRY 02/13/02 15.00 MW OH
GRAND TOTALS:
Total Void Machine Written 0.00 Number of Checks Processed: 3
Total Void Hand Written 0.00 Nunlber of Checks Processed: 0
Total Machine Written 927,553.15 Number of Checks Processed: 237
Total Hand Written 0.00 Number of Checks Processed: 0
Total Reversals 0.00 Number of Checks Processed: 0
Total Cancelled Checks 0.00 Number of Checks Processed: 0
G R A N D T O T A L 927,553.15
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/20/02 C E E C K R E G I S T E R CEECK REGISTER Page 1
WED, FEB 20, 2002, 4:16 PM --req: CGONZALE--le~: GL JL--loc: FINA~NCE---job: 76272 #S033 ..... proD: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179817 006791 411 Pb-BLISEING 02/20/02 80.34 MW OF
AP00179818 004635 A ~ K 30 MIN PHOTO ~ INC 02/20/02 99.48 5fW OF Payee Name different in Cheek DB
AP00179819 000014 ACTION TRAVEL AGENCY 02/20/02 238.00 MW OH
AP00179820 006309 A/D~4SON, RONALD 02/20/02 896.00 MW OH
AP00179821 005679 ADVA/~CED DPJ%INAGE SYSTEMS 02/20/02 4,207.46 ~ OH
AP00179822 005231 AEF SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC 02/20/02 175.00 ~5~ O~
AP00179823 005650 ALTA LO~ PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC 02/20/02 3,700.00 ~ OH
AP00179824 006994 APODACA, ~ECTOR 02/20/02 60.00 MW O~
AP00179825 000026 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS 02/20/02 2,979.85 MW OH
AP00179826 000402 AUTO RESTORATORS 02/20/02 1,198.10 MW OH
AP00179827 002981 BEARD PROVENCEER ~ ASSOC 02/20/02 1,460.00 ~ OH
AP00179828 006855 BOOKPA~E 02/20/02 216.00 MW OH
AP00179829 003863 BOPRO, CHRISTOPHER 02/20/02 481.40 MW OH
AP00179830 006993 BOWHAY, JEILNNIE 02/20/02 200.00 ~ OH
AP00179831 006695 BOYLE ENGINEERING 02/20/02 14,007.00 ~5~ OH
AP00179832 006991 BRONZE Y~EY CORPOP3%TION 02/20/02 4,660.70 MW OH
AP00179833 003754 BSNUG 02/20/02 100.00 .MW OH
AP00179834 006990 BURNETT, STEVE 02/20/02 100.00 MW OH
AP00179835 006545 CAFE JUSTICE 02/20/02 619.56 MW OH
AP00179836 004403 CALIFORNIA PAVEMENT ~INT CO 02/20/02 53,829.12 MW OH
AP00179837 006992 CARLTON O~(S GOLF COURSE 02/20/02 312.70 ~ OH
AP00179838 000266 CERTIFIED AUTO CARE 02/20/02 62.00 MW OH
AP00179839 000069 C~L~FFEY JOINT UNION HS DISTRI 02/20/02 35.00 ~ OH
AP00179840 001061 CHAMPION AWARDS ~ SPECIALIE 02/20/02 33.94 MW OH
AP00179841 006052 CHARTER ~DIA 02/20/02 1,768.00 NW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/20/02 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CEECK REGISTER Page 2
WED, FEB 20, 2002, 4:16 PM --req: CGONZALE--le~: GL JL--loc: FIN/%NCE---job: 76272 #S033 ..... proD: CK200 <1.37>--report id: C~REG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179842 006644 CHE TANG 02/20/02 500.00 MW OH ~
AP00179843 005361 CISNBROS, CORY 02/20/02 712.50 MW OH
AP00179844 000073 CITRUS MOTORS ONT~RIO INC 02/20/02 1,155.31 MW OH
AP00179845 005533 CLAYTON GROUP SERVICES INC 02/20/02 977.18 MW OH
AP00179846 002228 COMMUNITY BA/~K 02/20/02 295.48 MW OR
AP00179847 006857 COX, JACQUIE 02/20/02 29.93 MW OH
AP00179848 002456 CSUSB COLLEGE OF EXTENDED LEA 02/20/02 548.00 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179849 VOID.CONTINU Void - Continued Stub 02/20/02 0.00 VM OH Void
AP00179850 000085 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 02/20/02 7,995.20 MW OH
AP00179851 005596 CUC~J~ONGA CONSTRUCTION CONSUL 02/20/02 1,120.00 MW OH
AP00179852 000105 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 02/20/02 1,570.00 MW OH
AP00178853 005063 DE LA MORA, MARIO 02/20/02 35.00 MW OE Payee Name different in Check DS
AP00179854 004366 DEMCO INC 02/20/02 31.49 MW OR
AP00179855 003875 DUNN EDW~J{DS CORPORATION 02/20/02 31.93 MW OH
AP00179856 003364 EIGHTH AVENUE GRAPHICS 02/20/02 721.94 MW OH
AP00179857 001577 ELEF~NTE, LINDA 02/20/02 38.00 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179858 005137 EMPIRE MOBILE HOME SERVICE 02/20/02 7,121.61 MW OH
AP00179859 001231 ENVIRONMENT PLANNING INC 02/20/02 1,000.00 MW OH AR
AP00179860 002349 ESGIL CORPORATION 02/20/02 33,524.04 MW OH
AP00179861 006447 ETIW;~Xq~A INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL 02/20/02 68.00 MW OH
AP00179862 003806 ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT 02/20/02 3,080.00 MW OH
AP00179863 005521 RXPERIAN 02/20/02 50.00 MW OH
AP00179864 005917 FASTENAL COMPAlqY 02/20/02 11.26 MW OH
AP00179865 000123 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 02/20/02 51.17 MW OH
AP00179866 006556 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 02/20/02 7,079.46 MW OH
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/20/02 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 3
WED, FEB 20, 2002, 4:16 PM --req: C~ONZ~LE--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 76272 #S033 ..... pro~: CN200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179867 006999 FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALIST 02/20/02 1,000.00 MW OH
AP00179868 004540 G~E GROUP,THE 02/20/02 94.37 MW OR
AP00179869 005928 GE SUPPLY 02/20/02 656.02 ~5~ OH
AP00179870 007000 GON~LES SAIZA, NANCy 02/20/02 30.00 ~5~ OH
AP00179871 004014 GR3%NT, RITA 02/20/02 30.04 MW OH EX
AP00179872 004972 H.V. GROUP LLC 02/20/02 500.00 MW OH AR
AP00179873 006044 HAPPy ELVES DBCOP~TING 02/20/02 4,050.00 ~ OH
AP00179874 005699 HARA~BOS BEVERAGE COMPS%NY 02/20/02 322.76 MW OH
AP00179875 006920 HENDERSON, I~ARRY 02/20/02 71.00 MW OH
AP00179876 006972 HERRBRA, YVETTE 02/20/02 45.00 ~ OH
AP00179877 000616 HIGHSMITH CO INC 02/20/02 14.96 ~5~ OH
AP00179878 000158 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 02/20/02 948.67 ~ OH
AP00179879 090904 IAPMO 02/20/02 73.45 MW OH
AP00179880 004254 IBM CORPORATION 02/20/02 838.99 ~ OH
AP00179881 006973 IBS PRI~F~ING 02/20/02 92.07 MW OH
AP00179882 002577 ISU%GE COM~3NICATIONS 02/20/02 482.72 5~W OH
AP00179883 005682 INL~i~D INDUSTRIAL ~DICAL GRO 02/20/02 437.02 ~5~ OH
AP00179884 006259 INI~ND ~ILING SERVICES INC 02/20/02 359.46 ~ OB
AP00179885 006974 INTEGRATED CO~ERCIAL ELECTRI 02/20/02 70.00 ~ OH
AP00179886 032043 J~ECK, LINDA 02/20/02 50.53 MW OH
AP00179887 006881 K~2qDACE R Pb-LLIN 02/20/02 250.00 ~ OH AR
AP00179888 006975 KELLY BLUE BOOK 02/20/02 165.55 MW OH
AP00179889 002220 KELLY PAPER COMPly 02/20/02 34.52 MW OH
AP00179890 000149 KING, LD 02/20/02 8,102.34 ~g~ OH
AP00179891 005295 K~US ~ SONS 02/20/02 2,160.00 MW OH
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/20/02 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CEECK REGISTER Page 4
WED, FEB 20, 2002, 4:16 PM --req: CGONZALE--le~: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 76272 #S033 ..... pro~: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Cheek Amount T~rpe Subs Rel To Note
AP00179892 006976 KONGMEBONL, EING 02/20/02 46.00 ~ OH
AP00179893 004982 KOR~/qDA CONSTRUCTION 02/20/02 14,943.10 ~{W OH
AP00179894 006833 LARSON, LINDA 02/20/02 86.00 MW OR
AP00179895 000979 LEWIS OPERATING CORP 02/20/02 17.00 MW OH
AP00179896 005468 LEXINGTON TECHNOLOGY INC 02/20/02 571.63 MW OH
AP00179897 031959 LIGETFOOT, DAVID 02/20/02 100.00 N~ OH
AP00179898 005884 LILBURN CORPORATION 02/20/02 13,000.08 MW OH
AP00179899 005274 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 02/20/02 1,000.00 MW OH
AP00179900 007164 MANELA, ROS~IO 02/20/02 60.05 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179901 006986 F~RTIN, RAQUEL 02/20/02 51.00 NS~ ON
AP00179902 006579 MARTINEZ, JOELLEN 02/20/02 375.00 MW ON
AP00179903 006987 MICHTAVY, LESLEY 02/20/02 23.00 ~ OH
AP00179904 006170 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 02/20/02 1,621.19 MW OH
AP00179905 005852 MIDWEST TAPE 02/20/02 39.98 MW OH
AP00179906 006988 MIPJ~u~R COLLEGE 02/20/02 72.00 MW OH
AP00179907 006989 MIXON, CAROLYN 02/20/02 33.00 MW OH
AP00179908 007004 MORELS_ND ~ ASSOCIATES 02/20/02 275.00 MW OH
AP00179909 006996 NGUYEN, LAN 02/20/02 9.37 MW OH
AP00179910 003600 NIELSEN, NETTIE 02/20/02 145.60 MW OH
AP00179911 006649 NIKPOUR, MOE 02/20/02 100.00 MW OH
AP00179912 004853 OCLC INC 02/20/02 88.31 MW OH
AP00179913 000523 OFFICE DEPOT 02/20/02 2,575.08 MW OH
AP00179914 006971 OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS OF 02/20/02 1,955.69 MW OH
AP00179915 006998 OFFICE TED34 02/20/02 132.64 MW OH
AP00179916 005461 ORCHARD SUPPLY F~WARE 02/20/02 1,381.01 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
CITY OF RC IPAB (PROD) 02/20/02 C H E C K R E O I S T B R CEECK REGISTER Page 5
WED, FEB 20, 2002, 4:16 PM --req: CGONZALE--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 76272 #S033 ..... prog: CK200 <i.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Cheek D2mount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179917 003741 PALLOTTO, BILL 02/20/02 184.00 ~ OH
AP00179918 002833 PARAGON ROCHESTER LLC 02/20/02 1,675.00 ~ OH
AP00179919 004952 PARKER DIRECTORY 02/20/02 71.55 ~W OH
AP00179920 004529 PARBAC 02/20/02 7,480.11 MW OH
AP00179921 006623 PENWORTHY 02/20/02 835.12 MW OH
AP00179922 007001 PICKARD ARCHITECTUPd~ & CONSTR 02/20/02 53.25 5~W OH
AP00179923 000272 PITNEY BOWES 02/20/02 317.11 MW OH
AP00179924 000251 R ~LND R AUTOMOTIVE 02/20/02 3,212.40 MW OH
AP00179925 000264 RALPHS GROCERY COMP~NY 02/20/02 70.70 MW OH
AP00179926 006329 RANCHO TRANSMISSION SERVICE 02/20/02 1,878.78 ~ OH
AP00179927 004130 RBM LOCK ~2~D REy SERVICE 02/20/02 30.28 ~W OH
AP00179928 006995 RED LION/SACP~A~ro I~r~ 02/20/02 382.24 ~4W OH
AP00179929 004472 P~EDINGER, TOM 02/20/02 35.00 ~4W OH
AP00179930 006978 P~ESOURCE CE~ER NON PROFIT MG 02/20/02 125.00 ~W OH
AP00179931 000443 REI CONSULTING 02/20/02 1,792.00 MW OH
AP00179932 004474 RIVAE, MIGL~EL 02/20/02 100.00 ~ OH
AP00179933 000276 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 02/20/02 61.42 MW OH
AP00179934 004257 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION COM~ 02/20/02 6,610.82 MW OH
AP00179935 003314 ROBINSON FERTILIZER 02/20/02 1,839.90 MW OH
AP00179936 003369 RODRIGUEZ, ALICIA 02/20/02 250.00 NUN OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179937 006979 ROSSI, RENZO 02/20/02 100.00 MW OH
AP00179938 001298 SAN BERN COUNTy ~SSESSORE OFF 02/20/02 55.00 MW OH
AP00179939 000301 B~N BERN COLEqTy SHERIFFS 02/20/02 1023,181.00 ~ OH
AP00179940 000301 S~N BERN CO~TY SHERIFFS 02/20/02 118.00 ~K~ OH
AP00179941 000150 SAN BER/4 CODqqTy 02/20/02 30.90 MW OH Payee Name different in Cheek DB
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/20/02 C B E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 6
WED, FEB 20, 2002, 4:16 PM --req: CGONZALE--le~: GL JL--loc: FIN/~NCE---job: 76272 #S033 ..... pro~: CK200 <1.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check ~Jnount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179942 005704 SAN DIEGO LEATHER JACKET FACT 02/20/02 1,354.30 MW OH ======================================
AP00179943 000132 SAN DIEGO ROTARy BROOM CO INC 02/20/0~ 191.35 MW OB
AP00179944 006997 SANCREZ, EST~LA 02/20/02 179.00 MW OH
AP00179945 003689 SCHAFER DEVELOPMEN~f GROUP INC 02/20/02 1,000.00 MW OH AR
AP00179946 006604 SCHNEIDER, DANIEL 02/20/02 46.51 MW OB
AP00179947 006980 SEA LODGE HOTEL 02/20/02 570.00 MW OB
AP00179948 006621 SEARCB SYSTEMS INC 02/20/02 6,089.03 MW OB
AP00179949 006982 SEATON, MONICA 02/20/02 45.00 MW OB
AP00179950 006981 SKILLE, STEVE 02/20/02 81.00 MW OB
AP00179951 001327 SMART ~=ND FINAL 02/20/02 263.93 MW OB
AP00179952 000317 SO CALIF EDISON CO 02/20/02 109,909.26 MW OB
AP00179953 000319 SO CALIF GAS COMP~/qY 02/20/02 1,598.19 MW OB
AP00179954 001432 SOUTBERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 02/20/02 3,387.76 MW OB
AP00179955 004192 SPAIN JR, WILLIAM V 02/20/02 737.50 MW OB Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179956 006355 SUNGARD BI TECB INC 02/20/02 736.92 MW OE
AP00179957 004733 SUNRISE FORD 02/20/02 644.91 MW ON
AP00179958 006983 SW/%N-PRUNG, JUA~E 02/20/02 100.00 MW ON
AP00179959 012566 TAPIA, ALVIN 02/20/02 250.00 MW OB AR
AP00179960 000836 TARGET SPECIALTy PRODUCTS 02/20/02 1,488.35 MW OB
AP00179961 002344 TARGET 02/20/02 39.24 MW OH
AP00179962 002344 TARGET 02/20/02 143.68 MW OB
AP00179963 006955 THOMAS, MICEELLE 02/20/02 27.22 MW OH
AP00179964 006984 THOMPSON, STEPHANIE 02/20/02 168.00 MW OH
AP00179965 004351 TOBIN, RENEE 02/20/02 5.00 MW OB
AP00179966 003388 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 02/20/02 142,238.47 MW OB
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/20/02 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CRECK REGISTER Page 7
WED, FEB 20, 2002, 4:16 PM --req: CGONZALE--leg: GL JL--loc: FINANCE---job: 76272 #S033 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To Note
AP00179967 002958 UMPS ~ US ASSOCIATION 02/20/02 147.00 MW OH ======================================
AP00179968 001226 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 02/20/02 19.25 MW OH
AP00179969 002682 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 02/20/02 4,500.00 MW OH
AP00179970 006004 UNITEK TECHNOLOGY INC 02/20/02 2,336.02 MW OR
AP00179971 080127 URBAN LAND INSTITUTE 02/20/02 81.54 MW OR
AP00179972 000137 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 02/20/02 22.53 MW OH Payee Name different in Check DB
AP00179973 003742 VIGI~/qCE, TERRENCE 02/20/02 96.00 MW OR
AP00179974 004002 WASTE MANAGEMENT 02/20/02 1,154.77 MW OR
AP00179975 000213 W~XIE 02/20/02 2,679.46 MW OH
AP00179976 000399 WEST VALLEY VECTOR CONTROL DI 02/20/02 12,985.72 MW OH
AP00179977 005003 WHITE, LARRy 02/20/02 73.00 ~W OR
AP00179978 007005 WIERSMA CONSTRUCTION 02/20/02 9.78 MW OR
AP00179979 000212 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 02/20/02 27,135.50 MW OH
AP00179980 012510 WILLIA24S, MELANIE 02/20/02 29.84 MW OH
AP00179981 004827 WORLD BOOK DIRECT MARKETING 02/20/02 24.40 MW OH
AP00179982 005658 X PECT FIRST AID ~ SAFETy 02/20/02 30.39 MW OH
AP00179983 004624 YEE, LARRy 02/20/02 41.00 MW OH
CITY OF RC IFAS (PROD) 02/20/02 C H E C K R E G I S T E R CHECK REGISTER Page 8
WED, FEB 20, 2002, 4:16 PM --req: CGONZ~LE--leg: GL JL--loc: FI~L~NCE---job: 76272 #S033 ..... prog: CK200 <l.37>--report id: CKREG---
Check Payee ID. Payee Name Date Check ~ount ~ype Subs Rel To Note
G R A N D T O T A L S: ====== ======================================
Total Void Machine Written 0.00 Number of Che~ks Processed: 1
Total Void Hand Written 0.00 Nu~er of Checks Processed: 0
Total Machine Written 1591,994.76 Nun~ber of Checks Processed: 166
Total Hand Written 0.00 Number of Checks Processed: 0
Total Reversals 0.00 Number of Checks Processed: 0
Total Cancelled Checks 0.00 Number of Checks Processed: 0
G R A N D T O T A L 1591,994.76
E A N C H O C U C A M O N G A
~ NC INI~EI~IN C D~:DADT~I~N T
R l ort
DA'IF_: March 6, 2002
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY: James T. Harris, Associate Engineer~'¥~
SUBJEC'r: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING
BIDS" FOR THE MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING
AT THE INTERSECTION OF BANYAN STREET AND FREDERICKSBURG
AVENUE TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 11243035650/XXXX124-0
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve plans and specifications for the MODIFICATION
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF BANYAN STREET
AND FREDERICKSBURG AVENUE and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk
to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids".
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS:
The MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION
OF BANYAN STREET AND FREDERICKSBURG AVENUE scope of work in general consists of,
but is not limited to, the installation of east bound left turn phasing, emergency vehicle preemption
for the nearby fire station and pertinent signing, striping and pavement markings. The project is to
be funded from Account No. 11243035650/XXXX124.0. 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 Modification of Traffic Signals and Safety Lighting at the Intersection of Banyan
Street and Fredericksburg Avenue project is $20,000. Legal advertising is scheduled for March 19
and 26, 2002, with bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 2, 2002.
Res~y/,~.,,~.,~ ~ f submi~ed,
cWiil a~ J. Oty Enginee~
WJO:JTH
Attachments
Figure "A"
Banyan ~t Fredericksburg
Modification Project
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC
SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
BANYAN STREET AND FREDERICKSBURG 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 caused to be 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 "MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND
SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF BANYAN STREET AND
FREDERICKSBURG 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
Bemardino 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, March 19, 2002, sealed bids or proposals for the "MODIFICATION
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
BANYAN STREET AND FREDERICKSBURG AVENUE" in said City.
Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic
Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia 91730.
Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC
SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF BANYAN
STREET AND FREDERICKSBURG AVENUE".
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 2
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 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
22
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 3
D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered
apprenti.ces 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.
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 Iow bid and the second lowest
bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder.
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 4
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.
No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has
not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
On the date and at the time of the execution of the contract for this project the
Prime 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) in accordance with the provisions of
the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code,
Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
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.
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 5
Dated this 6th day of March, 2002.
Publish Dates: March 19 and 26, 2002
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, California, this 6th day of March, 2002.
William J. Alexander, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and
adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a
regular meeting of said City Council held on the 6th day of March, 2002.
Executed this 6th day of March, 2002, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Debra J. Adams, OMC, City Clerk
ADVERTISE ON: March 19 and 26, 2002
~ A N C H O C U C A M O N G A
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DA31~: March 6, 2002
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:. William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY: James T. Harris, Associate Engineer~¥~
SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING
BIDS" FOR THE MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING
AT THE INTERSECTION OF CARNELIAN STREET AND LA VINE/LA GRANDE
STREETS TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 11243035650/XXXX124-0
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve plans and specifications for the MODIFICATION
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF CARNELIAN
STREET AND LA VINE/LA GRANDE STREETS and approve the attached resolution authorizing
the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids".
BACKGROUND I ANALYSIS:
The MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION
OF CARNELIAN STREET AND LA VINE/LA GRANDE STREETS scope of work in general consists
of, but is not limited to, the installation of north and south bound left turn phasing and pertinent
signing, striping and pavement markings. The project is to be funded from Account No.
11243035650/XXXX124-0. 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 Modification of Traffic
Signals and Safety Lighting at the Intersection of Carnelian Street and La Vine/La Grande Streets
project is $30,000. Legal advertising is scheduled for March 19 and 26, 2002, with bid opening at
2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 2, 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Cit~-Engineer
WJO:JTH
Attachments
Figure "A"
Carnelian, LaVine and
LaGrande Tragic Signal
Project
27
RESOLUTION 0 2-~~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC
SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
CARNELIAN STREET AND LA VINE/LA GRANDE STREETS 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 caused to be 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 "MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND
SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF CARNELIAN STREET AND
LA VINE/LA GRANDE STREETS".
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, March 19, 2002, sealed bids or proposals for the "MODIFICATION
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
CARNELIAN STREET AND LA VINE/LA GRANDE STREETS" 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 MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC
SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF CARNELIAN
STREET AND LA VINE/LA GRANDE STREETS".
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 2 ' '
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 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
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 3
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.
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 Cbntractor 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 Iow bid and the second lowest
bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder.
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 4
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.
No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has
not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
On the date and at the time of the execution of the contract for this project the
Prime 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) in accordance with the provisions of
the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code,
Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
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.
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 5
Dated this 6th day of March 2002.
Publish Dates: March 19 and 26, 2002
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, California, this 6th day of March, 2002.
William J. Alexander, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and
adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a
regular meeting of said City Council held on the 6~h day of March, 2002.
Executed this 6th day of March 2002, at Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia.
Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk
ADVERTISE ON: March 19 and 26, 2002
R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A
CITY ]~AN A GE R' S OFFICE
Staff Report
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager
DATE: March 6, 2002
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
ABS CONSULTING FOR ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING, DESIGN
AND BID SERVICES FOR THE SEISMIC UPGRADE OF THE CIVIC
CENTER AND APPROVAL OF A BUDGET APPROPRIATION OF
$187,500 FROM CAPITAL FACILITIES REPAIR ACCOUNT 1025 001-
5300
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve an agreement with ABS Consulting to
perform architectural, engineering, design and bid services for a seismic upgrade of the
Civic Center, which includes the Council Chambers. The amount of the agreement
would not exceed $187,500 and would be funded from Capital Facilities Repair Account
1025 001-5300.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
In May 2001 a contract was approved with ABS Consulting (formerly EQE International)
to complete a seismic evaluation of the Civic Center and Council Chambers. Even
though the Civic Center and Council Chambers were designed to exceed the building
code at the time of their construction, the Northridge earthquake uncovered some
issues with steel "moment frame" construction similar to that used here. ABS has
completed their seismic analysis and cost analysis to retrofit the Civic Center and
Council Chambers to meet the post-Northridge earthquake codes. The agreement
before the Council tonight would cover the design, engineering and bid services for the
seismic upgrade of the Civic Center and Council Chambers. If approved, it is
anticipated that construction would begin in December 2002 and last up to six months.
Because the public services we provide are critical and need to continue without
interruption during construction, staff has developed interim service plans. The work in
the Civic Center and Council Chambers will be localized to certain sections of the
building. Generally the work will involve placing additional bracing in specific walls and
in specific sections of some ceilings. However, the main walls that will require bracing
are in the rotunda behind our service counters. This will require us to close the rotunda
to complete this work. We also need to close the rotunda because scaffolding and
equipment for lifting beams to the upper level and dome will have to be placed in the
middle of the rotunda floor.
While the rotunda is closed, we will continue to provide service to our customers. All
offices and functions not located in the rotunda will still be open. The counter staff
actually stationed in the rotunda will be relocated to temporary offices set-up in the
employee parking lot where the carpool spaces are located. The functions that will be
relocated will be the counter staff for Building and Safety, Engineering, Planning,
Business Licenses and Cashier. Customers will either be able to use the walkway
around the Council Chambers to reach these functions or enter through the main
entrance to the Civic Center and use the hallway between Community Services and the
Council Chambers to access the north parking lot. To help lessen the inconvenience,
we also plan to install canopies over the walkway leading from the door to the north
parking lot to the entrance of the temporary offices.
When the upper level of the rotunda is closed, the Serrano Conference Room will have
a temporary counter installed to house a receptionist for the all of the Upper Level
Departments. A customer needing service from Administration, RDA or the City Clerk
will be directed to this counter. Staff from the upper level offices can then come down to
help the customers there or the customer can be escorted up the back stairs to the
appropriate office.
The seismic upgrade will also require that the Council Chambers be closed for up to
four months. During that period we would have to hold public meetings in alternate
locations. Staff is currently exploring the options available to us. Some of these
alternate locations are the CCWD Board Room, Central School District Board Room
and Lions West.
While this work will cause some inconvenience to our staff and customers, service will
not be interrupted. During construction we will continue to provide our full array of
services. After construction we will have a Civic Center that will incorporate the building
safety lessons learned from the Northridge earthquake helping to insure that essential
services will always be available from City Hall. For these reasons, it is recommended
that the City Council approve this Professional Services Agreement and the associated
budget allocation of $187,500 from account 1025 001-5300.
Respectfully submitted,
Duane A. Baker
Assistant to the City Manager
-2-
R A N H O C U C A M O N g A
E NC. INEEI~I NC, DIVI&ION
Memorandum
DATE: March 6, 2002
TO:. Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager' '~
William J. O'Neil, City Engin~//~--
FROM:
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM D-6 - APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE UPDATED GENERAL CITY MASTER PLAN OF
DRAINAGE REPORT AND APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
ESTABLISHING AN UPDATED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT FEES FOR
ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE GENERAL CITY LOCAL DRAINAGE
AREA
Please remove item D-6 from the City Council agenda. This items is being reviewed by
the City Attorney's ofl~ce and will come before the City Council at a later date.
WJO:dlw
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: Mamh 6, 2002
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE UPDATED GENERAL
CITY MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE REPORT AND APPROVAL OF A
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN UPDATED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT
FEES FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE GENERAL CITY LOCAL
DRAINAGE AREA
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council approve a resolution adopting the updated General City
Master Plan of Drainage Report, and that City Council approve a resolution establishing an
updated drainage improvement fee for all development within the General City Local
Drainage Area.
BACKGROUNDIANALYSlS
The General City Local Drainage Area of the City encompasses that area generally west of
Deer Creek Channel. It is intended to address any area of the City that is outside a master
planned development such as Victoria or Terra Vista, or not included in an drainage
assessment district, or outside the Etiwanda area that due to its unique drainage
requirements has its own master plan. The Master Plan of Drainage performs three
objectives. First it identifies those areas of the City where nonexistent drainage
improvements are necessary. That necessity is based on a need to protect the City from
flooding. Secondly, it addresses a need to provide drainage improvements to
accommodate future development. And third, it identifies facilities needed to relieve existing
streets and drainage facilities that are overtaxed.
In 1985 the City revised its General City Drainage Fee to $5,000 per acre. Since that time
the fee has remained unchanged. Recently the City reviewed and updated its master plan
study for the General City area and based on the adjustment of proposed drainage facilities
sizes and locations, as well as the update of the cost of installing those facilities, has
calculated an updated fee amount of $15,300 per acre. This amount represents a fair share
amount for development in the General City drainage area. The drainage fee is the
developers fair share cost of the General City drainage improvements.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
GENERAL CITY DRAINAGE
March 6, 2002
Page 2
The resolution provides this fee will be adjusted on an annual basis according to the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for Los Angeles.
Respectfully submitted,
William .~O'Nei~
City Engineer
WJO:dlw
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. OZ- ~)~-~ /
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
UPDATED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT FEES (FOR CALENDAR
YEAR 2002) FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL
CITY LOCAL DRAINAGE AREA OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Rancho Cucamonga has adopted
Ordinance No. 286 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a
General City Area Drainage Improvement Fee; and
WHEREAS, a master plan of drainage study, and subsequent updates to said
study, of the impacts of contemplated future development on existing public facilities in
the General City Local Drainage Area, along with an analysis of the need for new
development was conducted, and said study set forth the relationship between new
development, the needed facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements.
The update to said study, entitled "General City Area Master Plan of Drainage", was
prepared by DGA, is dated 2001, and was adopted on January 2, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of this fee is to finance drainage facilities to reduce the
impacts of flooding caused by new development, within the General City Local Drainage
Area;
B. The drainage fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to
finance only the public facilities described or identified in the "General City Area Master
Plan of Drainage";
C. There is a need in this described impact area for drainage facilities which
have not been constructed or have been constructed, but new development has not
contributed its fair share towards these facility costs and said facilities have been called
for in or are consistent with the City's Public Health and Safety Element of its General
Plan;
D. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable
relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the impacts on
development for which the corresponding fee is charged, and, also there is a
reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development for which
the fee is charged, as these reasonable relationships or nexus are in more detail
described in the study referred to above;
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 2
E. The cost estimates set forth in the "General City Area Drainage Fees
Adjustment-2001" are reasonable cost estimates for constructing these facilities, and
the fees expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total of
these costs.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does
hereby resolve that:
1. Definitions. For purposes of this resolution:
(a) "Benefit area" is that property which is generally tributary to that
particular drainage facility.
(b) "Net area" is the net of the area of the entire parcel, after exclusion
of the area of all public street and highway rights-of-way and public
lands, with respect to which a Building Permit is issued.
2. A drainage improvement fee shall be assessed upon approval of a
tentative map, a parcel map, the waiver of a parcel map, director reviews, site approval,
location and development plan, conditional use permit, or the issuance of a building
permit for development in the General City Local Drainage Area and shall be paid either
prior to the recording of a subdivision map, a parcel map, the waiver of a parcel map or
the issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first, in the benefit area depicted
and described in the "General City Area Master Plan of Drainage". When fees are
collected upon the issuance of a building permit, the amount of the fee and the area for
which the fee shall be considered paid shall be determined by the Building Official.
When fees are collected prior to the recording of a final or parcel map, the amount of
the fee and the area for which the fee shall be considered paid shall be determined by
the City Engineer. In either case, the Building Official or the City Engineer shall
determine if the development lies within this benefit area, the type of development and
the corresponding fee to be charged in accordance with this resolution.
3. Fee. The fee structure shall apply to all development in the benefit area
and shall equal $15,300.00 per net acre.
4. Funds. Fees collected shall be placed into a separate fund designated for
the construction of the applicable drainage facility.
5. Use of Fee. The fee shall be solely used to pay (1) for the described
public facilities to be constructed by the City; (2) for reimbursing the City for the
development's fair share of those capital improvements already constructed by the City;
or (3) to reimburse other developers who have constructed public facilities described in
the "General City Area Master Plan of Drainage", where those facilities were beyond
that needed to mitigate the impacts of the other developers' project or projects.
6. Fee Review. The City Council shall review and adjust this fee to
determine whether the fee amounts are reasonable related to the impacts of
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 3
developments whether the described public facilities are still needed. This fee shall be
adjusted on January 1 of each year by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost
Index for Los Angeles of January 1 of that year in proportion to a base index of 7228
(November 12, 2001).
RESOLUTION NO. 0,~- ~--~
a RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE CITY Of
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE
UPDATED GENERAL CITY AREA MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE
REPORT
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes that
the public health and safety require that adequate flood control and drainage facilities
accompany additional land development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the General City Area Master Plan of
Drainage Report; and
WHEREAS, minor alterations of a technical nature have occurred since that
adoption which have warranted a need for the City Council to adopt an updated version
of that plan; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1: That the City Council adopts the updated General City Area Master
Plan of Drainage Report.
SECTION 2: That the City Engineer may make minor modifications of a
technical nature to said Plan and Policy upon more detailed reviews of the physical
characteristics and hydrology/hydraulic analyses within the General City Area.
RAN H O C U C a M O N G A
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Staff Report
DA[E: Mamh 6, 2002
TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROffi: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY: Mark N. Brawthen, Contract Engineer
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT
SECURITY AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR DR 00-61, LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH AND WEST SIDES OF THE KNUCKLE INTERSECTION OF
MALVEN AVENUE AND SALINA STREET, SUBMITTED BY SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND
MALVERN HOUSING PARTNERS, LP.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving DR 00-61,
accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape
Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and
authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
DR 00-61, located on the south and west sides of the knuckle intersection of Malven
Avenue and Salina Street, in the High Residential District with a Senior Housing Overlay
District of the Consolidated Development Code Residential Development District, was
approved by the Planning Commission on December 13, 2000, for the development of
49 senior apartments on 1.31 acres of land.
The Developer, Southern California Housing Development Corporation, is submitting an
agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in
the following amounts:
Faithful Performance Bond $12,600.00
Labor and Material Bond: $ 6,300.00
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DR 00-61
March 6, 2002
Page 2
Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office.
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:MNB:sc
Attachments
Vicinity Map
City of Rancho Cucamonga
RESOLUTION NO. O2-- 0~3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT
. SECURITY FOR DR 00-61
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its
consideration an Improvement Agreement by Southern California Housing Development
Corporation as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property
specifically described therein, and generally located on the south and west sides of the knuckle
intersection of Malven Avenue and Salina Street; 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 00-61; 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:
1. 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 NO. O~- gO ~-~ 5r/'
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 NO. 1 FOR DR 00-61
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, and
Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 (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 lew
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
RESOLUTION NO.
DR 00-61
March 6, 2002
Page 2
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
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:
SECT__ION 1: That the above recitals are all tree and correct.
SECTION 2.: The City Council hereby finds and determines that:
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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 m amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth m Exhibit B
SECTION 4: All future proceedings °f the Maintenance Districts' including the levy °f all
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:
MALVEN HOUSING PARTNERS, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
The legal description of the Property is:
PARCEL 1:
That portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section
11, township 1 South, Range 7 West, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino,
State of California, as shown on the map of Cucamonga Lands, recorded in Book 4, Page 9 of Maps
in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest comer of the East half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter
of the Southwest quarter of said Section 11, said point being in the South line of Arrow Route
Highway (40.00 feet wide) and also being the Northeast comer of the parcel of land conveyed to
Stanley D. Weaver, ey ux, by Instrument No. 135, recorded July 19, 1966 in Book 3990, Page 594,
Official Records; thence South along the East line of said Weaver property, 273.00 feet, more or less,
to the Southeast comer thereof; thence Westerly to the Northeast comer of the property conveyed to
Chino Basin Municipal Water District, by Instrument No. 27, recorded November 12, 1954 in Book
3504, Page 160, Official Records; thence Southerly along the Easterly line of said Chino Basin
Municipal Water property 333.20 feet to the Southeast comer thereof; thence West along the South
line of said Chino Basin Municipal Water property, 302.71 feet to the East line of Archibald Avenue
60.00 feet wide; thence South along the East line of Archibald Avenue, 57.00 feet, more or less, to
the South line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said
Section 11, thence South 89° 42' 56" East along the said South line of the Northwest quarter of the
Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 11,665.45 feet, more or less, to the Southeast
comer thereof, said point also being the Southwest comer of Lot 36, Tract No. 5347, as per plat
recorded in Book 66 of Maps, Page 12; thence North along the East line of the said Northwest
quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 11, beingalso the Westerly line
of Tract No. 5347, said West line extended Northerly 663.98 feet to the South line of Arrow Route
Highway; thence West along the South line of Arrow Route Highway 332.70 feet, more or less, to
point of beginning.
Except the interest conveyed to the County of San Bemardino for road purposes by deed recorded
May 3, 1960 in Book 5127, Page 402 of Official Records, in the office of the County Recorder of
said County.
Also except that portion thereof described in the deed to the County of San Bemardino recorded May
28, 1964 in Book 6158, Page 909 of Official Records.
Excepting therefrom that portion Northwest quarter, Southwest quarter, Section 11, Township 1
South, Range 7 West commencing at the Northwest comer of Lot 53, Tract No. 5347; thence North
89° 42' 34" West along the Westerly prolongation of the North line of said lot, 85.00 feet to the tree
point of beginning; thence continuing North 89° 42' 34" West 116.85 feet to the beginning of a
tangent curve concave Southeasterly having a radius of 20.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along said
curve, through an angle ofg0° 25' 05" a distance of 31.56 feet; thence tangent to said curve South 0°
07' 39" East 184.00 feet; thence South 89° 42' 34" East 136.83 feet; thence North 0° 07' 39" West
204.00 feet more or less to the tree point of beginning.
^-1
Exhibit "A" continued
Together with any interest in that 60foot wide strip of land known as Alpine Street (unimproved)
lying within the above described parcel.
Also excepting therefrom that portion of the Northwest one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of
the Southwest one-quarter of Section 11, Township 1 South, Range 7 West, Cucamonga Lands, in
the County of San Bemardino, State of California, as per map in Book 4, Page 9 of Maps, in the
office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest comer of Lot 37 of Tract No. 5347, as per map recorded in Book 66,
Page(s) 11 and 12 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County; thence North along
the West line of said Lot 37 and the West line of Lot 52 of said Tract No. 5347, to the Southeast
comer of the land conveyed to the County of San Bemardino by deed recorded April 28, 1978 in
Book 9421, Page 1867 of Official Records of said County; thence West along the South line of said
County property to the Southwest comer thereof, said point also being the Easterly line of Malvem
Avenue as conveyed to County of San B emardino, by deed recorded May 3, 1960 in Book 5127,
Page 402 of Official Records of said County; thence Southerly, Southeasterly and Easterly along the
Easterly line of Malvem Avenue and the North line of Salina Street to the point of beginning.
Also excepting therefrom that portion of said land as described by deed recorded August 21, 1978 in
Book 9500, Page 578 of Official Records of said County, also known as Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No.
4875 as per map recorded in Book 46, Page(s) 91 and 92 of Parcel Maps, records of said County.
Except therefrom that portion thereof lying Northerly of the following described line:
Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly prolongation of the Easterly line of the property
conveyed to Chino Basin Municipal Water District, by instrument No. 27, recorded November 12,
1954 in Book 3504, Page 160, Official Records with the South line of the Northwest quarter of the
Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 11; thence Northerly along said
prolongation and said Easterly line North 00° 07' 22" West 245.15 feet to the Tree Point of
Beginning; thence South 89° 50' 52" East 129.84 feet, more or less to the Westerly line of Malvem
Avenue 66.00 feet wide.
Also except therefrom that portion thereof lying Westerly of above-described Southerly prolongation
of the Easterly line of the property conveyed to Chino Basin Municipal Water District, by Insmunent
No. 27, recorded November 12, 1954 in Book 3504, Page 160, Official Records.
As per Certificate of Compliance No. 479 for Lot Line Adjustment recorded February 21, 2001
as Instmmen~JFile No. 20010063631 of Official Records.
The above-described parcels are shown on sheet A-2 attached herewith and by this reference
made a part hereof.
EXHIBIT "A"
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
Tp.ELANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE D!STPJCT NO. I
ET LIGH ! lNG MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO, 1
·
1'AN=~9.20' -
AREA TO
BE
~ 69.20' $0UTHRLY LINE OF'
~ NSg'42'l 1 "E: SAUNA $1'REE'I'
TR. NO. 5,54.7
',4'
00-61
-° LOREN C. PHILLIPS, DATE:
P.L.$. 3173
$ ,
$sg'42'$g"E 332.g 1'
LEGEND
PREPARED DY
~ DENOTES VACAT~O~ OF R-O-W
BY CiTY TO OWNER. LOREN PHILUP$ &
22632 e, OLDEN SPmNC$ D~. SUITE
~SE~ENT LINE DIAMOND DA~, OA.
Exhibit B
To
Description of the District Improvements
Fiscal Year 2001/2002
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (GENERAL CITY):
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (LMD #1) represents 33.93 acres of landscape area and 41.88
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 41.88 acres of parks consist of Bear
Gulch Park, East and West Beryl Park, Old Town Park, Church Street Park, Golden Oaks Park
and the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center.
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.
Proposed additions to Work Program {Fiscal Year 2001/2002)
For Project: DR 00-61
Number of Lamps
Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L
SLD # 2 1 .........
Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees
Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA
L#1 --- --'
*Existing items installed with original project
Assessment Units by District
Parcel DU S I L 1
N/A 49 1 0.5
Exhibit C
Proposed Annual Assessment
Fiscal Year 2001/2002
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (GENERAL CITY):
The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $92.21 for the fiscal year 2001/02. The following table
summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City):
# of Assessment # of Rate Per
Physical Units Factor Assessment Assessment
Land Use Type Units Units Unit Revenue
Single DU 7573 1.0 7269 $92.21 $670.274.49
Family
Multi-
DU 5952 0.5 2976 $92.21 $274,416.96
Family
TOTAL $944,691.45
The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DR 00-61) is:
49 DU x 0.5 A.U. Factor x $92.21 Rate Per A.U. = $2,259.15 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 # of Rate Per
Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment
l.and ITse lTnit Tyne lTnits l Inlts g'netnr lTnit~ 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 (DR 00-61) is:
49 DU x 1 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $870.73 Annual Assessment
c-1
R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A
E NGIN E E [~l N G DE PAI~TI~EN T
DATE: March 6, 2002
TO: Mayor and members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT
SECURITIES, MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT AND ORDERING THE
ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 9 AND
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 8 FOR TRACT
NO. 16021, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST AVENUE
AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SUBMI~ lED
BY CRESTWOOD CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract No.
16021, accepting the Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, Monumentation
Cash Deposit and ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 9 and
Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 8 and authorizing the Mayor and the City
Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Tract No. 16021, located at the northwest corner of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific
Railroad right-of-way, in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), of the
Etiwanda Specific Pan, was approved by the Planning Commission on December 8, 2001
for the development of 16 single family lots on 7.53 acres of land.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TRACT NO. 16021
March 6, 2002
Page 2
The Developer, Crestwood Corporation, a California Corporation, is submitting an
agreement and securities to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the
following amounts:
Faithful Pe[formance Bond $593,300.00
Labor and Material Bond: $296,650.00
Monumentation Cash Bond $ 3,200.00
Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's Office.
The Consent and Waiver to Annexation forms signed by the Developer are on file in the
City Clerk's office. A letter of approval has been received from the Cucamonga County
Water District.
Respectfully submitted,
City Engineer
WJO:WV:dlw
Enclosures
5.5
BASELINE ROAD
CITY OF rrEM: ~
RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'rrlx~~
ENGINE. ERING DIVISION
RESOLUTION NO. (~) 2- ~ '~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT
MAP NUMBER 16021 AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT,
IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH
DEPOSIT
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 16021, submitted by Crestwood Corporation, a
California Corporation, located at the northwest comer of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific
Railroad Right-of-way, for the dev. elopment o.f 16 single family lots on 7.53 acres of land, was
approved by the Planning Commission of the Cxty of Rancho Cucamonga on December 8,2001, and
is in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pursuant
to that Act; and
WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 16021 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown
on said Tentative Tract Map; and
WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map
by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an Improvement Agreement
guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Securities by Crestwood Corporation, a California
Corporation, as developer; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Securities
submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved, and the Mayor is hereby
authorized to sign said Maintenance and Improvement Agreements on behalf of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that said Tract Map No. 16021 is hereby approved and
the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record.
KESOLUTION NO. O2-O~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 9 AND STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 8 FOR TRACT 16021
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. 9, Street
Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 8 (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 Califomia
("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
RESOLUTION NO.
TRACT 16021
March 6, 2002
Page 2
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
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:
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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 mounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B.
SECTION 4: AIl furore proceedings of the Maintenance Districts, including the levy of all
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:
CRESTWOOD coRPoRATION, a California Corporation
Thc l~gal description ofth~ Property is:
Thc above-dcscrib~ parcels are shown on sheet A-2 attached herewith and by this reference made a
part hereof.
ASSE$$NIENT DIAGRA~
LAnDsCAPE IVLAfl~AI~CE DISTRICT
sTI~EET LI6HTIIqG kiAIlqTE~ANCE DISTRICT 1~/O$.
CITY OF R~NCItO CUCAMONGA ~o~
COUNTY OF SAN BE~A~INO ~
Exhibit B
To
Description of the District Improvements
Fiscal Year 2000/2001
LANDSCAPE MARqTENANCE DISTRICY NO. 9 (LOWER ET1WANDA):
Landscape Maintenance District No. 9 (LMD #9) represents landscape sites throughout the Lower
Etiwanda Area. 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 sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands and street trees
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 easemems of streets dedicated to the City.
STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 8 (SOUTH ETIWANDA):
Street Light Maintenance District No. 8 (SLD #8) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation
of street lights and traffic signals located on local streets in what is termed the South Etiwanda area
of the City. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Efiwanda Avenue, north of
Foothill Boulevard and south of Highland Avenue within the incorporated area of the City. 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 local streets and traffic signals (or a
portion thereof) on local street within the South Etiwanda area.
B- 1 TR 16021
Exhibit "B" continued
Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2001/2002)
For Project: Tract 16021
Number of Lamps
Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L
SLD # 1 --- 3 .........
SLD # 8 9 .........
Community Trail Cobble Non-Turf Trees
Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA
L9 ... 3381 1895 83
*Existing items installed with original project
Assessment Units by District
Parcel DU S 1 S 8 L 9
--- 16 16 16 16
B - 2 TR 16021
Exhibit C
Proposed Annual Assessment
Fiscal Year 2000/2001
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 9 (LOWER ETIWANDA)
The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $375.91 for the fiscal year 2001/02. The following table
summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 9 (Lower Etiwanda):
# of Physical # of Rate Per
Units Assessment Assessment Assessment
Land Use Type Units Factor Units Unit Revenue
Single Parcel 269 1.0 269 $375.91 $101,119.79
Family
The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 16021) is:
16 SFR x 1 A.U. Factor x $375.91 Rate Per A.U. = $6,014.56 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 # of Rate Per
Physical 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 (TR 16021) is:
16 SFR x 1 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $284.32 Annual Assessment
C-1 TR16021 ~
Exhibit "C" continued
STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 8 (SOUTH ETIWANDA)
The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $193.75 for the Fiscal Year 2001/02. The following table
summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 8 (South Etiwanda):
# of Rate Per
Physical # of Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment
l,and line IInit Tyne l/nit~ 1 Ioit~ Fac. tot lInits llnit Revenue
Single Parcel 350 1.00 350 $193.75 $67,812.50
Family
The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 16021) is:
16 SFR x 1 A.U. Factor x $193.75 Rate Per A.U. = $3,100.00 Annual Assessment
C - 2 TR 16021 ~,~
~ A N C H O C U C A M O N G A
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Staff Report
DATE: Mamh 6, 2002
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY: Lucinda Hackett, Associate Engine~
Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Tech~-ciah;~
SUBJEC'r: ACCEPT THE BIDS RECEIVED AND AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION
OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,271,522.00 ($2,065,020.00,PLUS
10% CONTINGENCY) TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, MIKE BUBALO
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HERMOSA
AVENUE STORM DRAIN AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM 400' NORTH OF
CHURCH STREET TO 500' NORTH OF BASE LINE ROAD, TO BE FUNDED
FROM MEASURE I FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 11763035650/1301176-0, DRAINAGE
FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 11123035650/1292112-0, AD 84-2 FUNDS, ACCOUNT
NO. 16043035300, AND AD 86-2 FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 16063035300
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 $2,271,522.00 ($2,065,020.00 plus 10% contingency) to
the apparent Iow bidder, Mike Bubalo Construction Co., Inc., for the construction of the Hermosa
Avenue Storm Drain and Street Improvements from 400' north of Church Street to 500' north of
Base Line Road, to be funded from Measure I funds, Account No. 11763035650/1301176-0,
Drainage Funds, Account No. 11123035650/1292112-0, AD 84-2 Funds, Account No.
16043035300, and AD 86-2 Funds, Account No. 16063035300.
BACKGROUNDIANALYSlS:
Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on February 19, 2002, for the
subject project. The Engineer's estimate was $3,278,457.50. 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 Engineer
HERMOSA AVENUE STORM. DRAIN AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS
(FROM 400'+ N. OF CHURCH STREET TO 500'± N. OF BASE LINE ROAD)
: - ................... ~..~. :-'
.............
~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
VICINITY MAP
BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING FEBRUARY 19, 2002 Avoarent Low Bidder
HERMOSA AVENL~ STORM DRAIN & STREET ENGINEERS Mike Bubalo Steve Bubalo
IMPROVEMENTS ESTIMATE Construction Co.? Inc. Construction Co. KEC Engineering
AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT
NO (~T~ UNIT DESCP.~]?TION COST AMOUNT COST
]. LS ;leafing & Grubbing (ind. removals, unclas, excav.~[I & disp.)$25,000.0( $25,se0.0( $40.000.00 $40,000.00 $66,000.0( $66,000.0( $30,000.00 $30,000.0(
;~. ]70( TONS .;rushed A~l~m~ate Base (0.50') $20.0( $34,000.0( $15.00 $25,500.00 $20.0( $34,000.0( $25.00 $42,500.0(
3. 160( TONS ~,sphalt Concrete (incl, pavement preparation) $50.0( $80,000.0{ $40.00 $64,000.00 $30.0( $48,000.0( $40.00 $64,000.0(
4. 190( TONS ~,RHM Ove~},, ind. pavement prop., mulJng & crack seal $55.0( $t04,so0.o~ $75.00 $t42,$00.00 $60.0c $!14,000.0( $45.00 $85,500.0(
5. 410( SY /aiable Cold Plane horn 0' to 0.12' Deep $t.2c $4,920.0( $2.50 $10,250.00 $2.0c $8,200.00 $4.00 $16,400.0(
6. il EA ~,djust Manhole to Finished Grade $200.0c $3,200.01 $500.00 $8,000.00 $400.0( $6,400.00 $620.00 $9,920.0(
7. 2( E^ ~,disst Water Valve, Water Meter & PB to FG $150.0( $3,000.c~ $200.00 $4,000.00 $200.0( $4,000.00 $520.00 $10,400.00
s. 2 ~A ,;arch Basin, W=60', including local depression $20,o0o.o( $40,000.0~ $:zo,ooo.oo $40,000.00 $15,000.00' $30,0c0.00 $20,000.0(3 $40,000.c0
9. i F~ ;atchBasin, W=42',indudinglocaldepression $15,0c0.0( $15,000.0~ $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $ll,000.00 $11,000.00 $17,000.0c $17,000.00
lo. 3 EA ,;atch Basin, W=28', including local depression $i2,e00.0( $36,000.0~ $7,500.oo $22,500.00 $6,000.o0 $18,000.00 $11,o00.0( $33,000.~0
I 1. 5 EA 3arch Basin, W=21', includin~l local depression $8,000.0( $40,000.c~ $6,0c0.00 $30,0~0.0( $(;,000.00 $30,000.00 ss,000.0c $40,000.00
12. 11 EA ',,lonolithic Catch Basin Connection $soo.o( $5,500.c0 $250.00 $2,750.0( $300.00 $3,300.00 $540.0( $5,940.0v
36 LS Relocate exisL 8' CML & C Water Line {see CCWD Ptan) $9,sse.0( $9,800.0( $17,500.00 $17,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $30,000.0( $30,000.0u
39 EA ConsL Blkt Prat. for exist 8" VCP Sewer per Cit'/Std. 340 $500.0c $1,000.0{ s250.00 s500.0e $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,200.001 $2,400.uu
40.I EA Pipe Closure Ty~e 'A", per SBCFD SP.176 $2,000.0c $4,~00.0~ $2,soo.oo $5,000.00 $1,000.00 S2.000.00 $t,000.00 $3,600.uu
43.i LS IInsL SL Lk~ht Conduit, Pull Rope & PB & Coord. wi SCE $10,000.0( $10,000.0~ $10,000.00 $10,000.0c $10,000.00 $10,~00.00 $30,0o0.00 $30,000.0(
45. LS :~emove and Replace Dama~led Ldssp. & Ini~l. in like and kind $5,000.0( $s,ooo.o~ $5,000.00 $5,000.0( $8,000.00 $8.00o.00 $11,000.00 $1 l,ooo.oc
46. LS rreffic Sil)nir~, Stdpin~,l & Pavement Markings S~O,00o.0( $2o,ooo.o $2o,ooo.oo $~o,ooo.0( $15,ooo.o0 $15,ooo.00 StO,Oeo.oo $1o,ooo.o(
Page I
BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING FEBRUARY 19, 2002 Southern California Sean Malek .
HERMOSA AVENUE STORM DRAIN & STREET Underground Engineering &;
IMPROVEMENTS Albert W. Davies~ Inc. Cornish Construction Contractors, Inc. Belczak & Sons~ Inc. Construction, Inc.
24. 120 LF Masonry Retaining Wall, Type B (City Standard No. 604) $76.00 $9,120.0( $100.OO $12,0OO,0C $75.0( $9,OO0.OO $45.00 $$,400.0( $100.OC S ~ 2,OO0.OO
39 EA 3onsL BIk~ Prot. for exist 8" VCP Sewer per City Std, 340 $2,420.00 $4,840,0c $1,ooo.oo $2,000,00 $1 ,~00.00 $2,oo0.0{ $soo,oo $1 ,ooo.o£ $2,oo0.0c ~4,0oo.oo
43J LS InstSlLightConduiLPullRope&PB&Coord. w/SCE S26.800.OO $26.800.C( $15,OOO.OO $15,OO0.0~ S2,OO0.0~ $2,000.00 $22,OO0.OO $22,OO0.00 S13,OO0.00 $13,OOO.I,,
45. I.S Tralfic Si~lnin~, Stdpi~ & Pav~iiie~iMarki~s $12,840.00 $12,840.0( $15,000.00 $15,oo0.0c $15,0c0.0c $15,0oo.00 $3o,o00.oo $30,0oo.oo $10,000.00 $10,000.{~
~ Page 2
R A lq C H O C U C A M O N G A
]~ NGINZI~DING D~DAI~TM~NT
Slaff Report
DATF_z March 6, 2002
TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer -
BY: Dave Blevins, Public Works Maintenance Manager
SUBJECT: APPROVE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH JDC, INC. FOR THE
"CITY WIDE CONCRETE REPAIR, TREE REMOVAL AND TREE
PLANTING ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (CO001-075)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council ap~r.o, ve .a. contract am~end.me~ to increase the
agreement by the amount of $180,000 for the C~tyw~de Uoncrete tcepmr, ~ree Removal and
Tree Planting Annual Maintenance Agreement (CO-01-75).
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
For several years now the City has been fortunate enough to sustain an aggressive sidewalk and
street tree replacement program which helps to, be.autify our neighbo,[h.oods and to, mak,e them
safer by replacing damaged sidewalk.s an, drep)antmg street tr. ees.~ ms,,year we nave .naa~,an
unusually mild winter that has penmttea work to progress at a roster man normat rate. ~ ne
contract amendment being recommended will per~.it us t.o ta~.e, a, dv. an~tag,e of. the mild winter and
to keep up a good momentum of badly needed repmrs to the c~ty s ~ntrasrructure.
City Engineer
WJO:DC:ju
R A N C h O C U C A M O N G A
ENGINEERING DEPART~IENT
DATE: Mamh 6, 2002
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (SCRRA), FOR THE
PROPOSED WIDENING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ETIWANDA AVENUE
AT-GRADE RAILROAD CROSSING, LOCATED SOUTH OF WHITTRAM
AVENUE, DESIGNATED AS CPUC CROSSING NO. 101 SG-,!.,!.10 AND U.
S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NO. 026151P
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the
Construction and Maintenance Agreement between the City and SCRRA, and authorizing
the City Clerk to attest and the Mayor to sign the agreement, for the proposed widening
improvements to the Etiwanda Avenue at-grade railroad crossing, located south of
Whittram Avenue, designated as CPUC crossing No. 101 SG-44.10 and also designated as
U. S. Department of Transportation No. 026151P.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Execution of this agreement is required prior to constructing improvements to the railroad
crossing, which include automatic signal protection system, track structure, and crossing
pad surfacing. The railroad improvements will be 90% Federally funded with 10% local
matching funds. Etiwanda Avenue will be widened to its ultimate width to provide future two
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
RE: CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH SCCRA
MARCH 6, 2002
PAGE 2
lanes in each direction across the railroad tracks then transition to meet the existing
improvements. This project will only widen the street a sufficient distance north and south
of the tracks to complete the crossing to its ultimate configuration.
Respectfully submitted,
William ~J(. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:JAD
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Resolution
Construction and Maintenance Agreement
· .,.._j~l ,,~_- _~z~E~'./-~f~-17-- ,. //
"~ ~- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,o~ I~
.,; ~-- ~ ~ ·
PROJECT LOCATION ~
~~ CI~ OF RANCHO CUC~ONGA
~ ETIW~DA
STREET AND RM~OAD IMPRO~MENTS
VICINITY MAP
7/
RESOLUTION NO. i~2.'O~) ?
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL
AUTHORITY (SCRRA), FOR THE PROPOSED WIDENING
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ETIWANDA AVENUE AT-
GRADE RAILROAD CROSSING, LOCATED SOUTH OF
WHI'I-rRAM AVENUE, DESIGNATED AS CPUC CROSSING
NO. 101 SG-44.10 AND U. S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION NO. 026151P
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has for its
consideration an Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and
Southern Califomia Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), for the proposed widening
improvements to the Etiwanda Avenue at-grade railroad crossing, located south
of Whittram Avenue, designated as CPUC crossing No. 101 SG-44.10 and U. S.
Department of Transportation No. 026151 P.
WHEREAS, the Agreement is for the construction and maintenance of at-
grade railroad crossing improvements that include automatic signal protection
system, track structure, and crossing pad surfacing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, hereby resolves that said Agreement between SCRRA and City for the
construction and maintenance of at-grade railroad crossing improvements be
hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Agreement on
behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
?2_
R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A
~NCIN~EI~ING D~PAI~T~q~T
Staff Report
DATE: March 6, 2002
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
BETVVEEN THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (SCRRA), FOR THE
PROPOSED WIDENING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HERMOSA AVENUE
AT-GRADE RAILROAD CROSSING, LOCATED SOUTH OF 8TM STREET,
DESIGNATED AS CPUC CROSSING NO. 101 SC-40.60 AND U. S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NO. 026160N
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the
Construction and Maintenance Agreement between the City and SCRRA, and authorizing
the City Clerk to attest and the Mayor to sign the agreement, for the proposed widening]
improvements to the Hermosa Avenue at-grade railroad crossing, located south of 8"'
Street, designated as CPUC crossing No. 101 SG-40.60 and also designated as U. S.
Department of Transportation No. 026160N.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Execution of this agreement is required prior to constructing improvements to the railroad
crossing which include; rehabilitation of the railroad tracks, placing of concrete crossing
panels, and the installation of new railroad signals and street improvements. These
improvements are funded with Redevelopment Agency funds and will be constructed with
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
RE: SCRRA AGREEMENT-HERMOSA AVE.
March 6, 2002
Page 2
the Lower Hermosa Phase II storm drain, street widening, traffic signal, and utility
underground improvements. When completed Hermosa Avenue will be striped for two
lanes in each direction from 4"~ Street to north of the Metrolink tracks north of 8t~ Street.
Respecff~ly submitted,
William 3:'. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:JAD
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Resolution
Construction and Maintenance Agreement
24TH 5T
NT$
DT
~ GTM ~T
4TM ~T
PRO J E CT ONTAP. IO CITY LIMIT
LOCATION
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
LOWER HERMOSA AVENUE PHASE 2
ST. ~IDEN, S.D., T.S., UPGRADE R/R TRACKS & UG UTILITIES
S/0 8TH ST. TO N/0 METROLINK TRACKS N/O 8TH ST.
VICINITY MAP
RESOLUTION NO. ~)2"~)/z) ~'
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL
AUTHORITY (SCRRA), FOR THE PROPOSED WIDENING
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HERMOSA AVENUE AT-GRADE
RAILROAD CROSSING, LOCATED SOUTH OF 8TM
STREET, DESIGNATED AS CPUC CROSSING NO. 101
SG-40.60 AND U. S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION NO. 026160N
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has for its
consideration an Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), for the proposed widening
improvements to the Hermosa Avenue at-grade railroad crossing, located south
of 8th Street, designated as CPUC crossing No. 101 SG-40.60 and U. S.
Department of Transportation No. 026160N.
WHEREAS, the Agreement is for the construction and maintenance of at-
grade railroad crossing improvements that include automatic signal protection
system, track structure, and crossing pad surfacing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, hereby resolves that said Agreement between SCRRA and City for the
construction and maintenance of at-grade railroad crossing improvements be
hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Agreement on
behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DATE: Mamh 6, 2002
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer ~'~
BY:
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AN UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND
VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. FOR THE LOWER HERMOSA AVENUE,
PHASE 2, STORM DRAIN, STREET WIDENING AND UTILITY
UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS FROM 350 FEET SOUTH OF 8TM
STREET TO NORTH OF THE METROLINK RAILROAD TRACKS
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the
Underground Communication Facilities Agreement between the City and Verizon California
Inc., and authorizing the City Clerk to attest and the Mayor to sign the agreement, for the
Lower Hermosa Avenue, Phase 2, Storm Drain, Street Widening and Utility Underground
Improvements from 350 feet south of 8th Street to north of the Metrolink railroad tracks.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Plans and specifications are currently being prepared for the second phase of the Lower
Hermosa Project, extending from south of 8th Street to north of the Metrolink Railroad
tracks north of 8th Street. The project will construct storm drain, widen the street, smooth
out the grade over the railroad tracks, construct a traffic signal at 8th Street, upgrade the
Metrolink crossing, and underground the existing overhead utilities. The attached
agreement pertains to the utility under grounding portion of the project. The City will install
underground conduit and related facilities for the utility companies. The attached
agreement covers the work to be done by the City and the reimbursement of Vedzon for
their cost to remove/relocate their existing overhead lines to the new underground conduit
installed by the City.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
LOWER HERMOSA- VERIZON AGREEMENT
March 6, 2002
Page 2
A copy of the Underground Communication Facilities Agreement is available in the City
Clerk's Office.
Respectfully submitted,
William O. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:JAD:Is
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Resolution (Underground Communication Facilities Agreement
~~ ~r ~~7~ ~ il
P~OJECT i~ ONTAK, O C,~ LIMIT
LOCATION
LO~R ~R~OSA AV~NU~ P~g g
ST. ~D~N, S.D., T.S., ~G~ R/R T~CKS & UG HTI~TI~S
VICINITY MAP
RESOLUTION NO. ~2- ~~z~)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND VERIZON
CALIFORNIA, INC., FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF
OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES FOR THE
LOWER HERMOSA, PHASE 2, STORM DRAIN, STREET
WIDENING AND UTILITY UNDERGROUND
IMPROVEMENTS FROM 350 FEET SOUTH OF 8TM
STREET TO NORTH OF THE METROLINK RAILROAD
TRACKS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has for its
consideration an Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and
Verizon California, Inc., for the replacement of overhead with underground
facilities for the Lower Hermosa, Phase 2, Storm Drain, Street Widening and
Utility Underground Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement is for the placement of underground conduit
and substructures by the City and for the replacement of the overhead with
underground facilities by Verizon along Hermosa Avenue and 8th Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, hereby resolves that said Agreement for the replacement of the
overhead with underground facilities be hereby approved and the Mayor is
hereby authorized to sign said Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
T H E CITY O F
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Staff Report
DATE: Mamh 6, 2002
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Director
BY: Lynda L. Thompson, Redevelopment Technician
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF FIRST TIME
HOMEBUYER PROGRAMS
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County
of San Bernardino relating to the provision of first time homebuyer programs.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Under Federal and State Law, Cities and Counties have the authority to issue bonds that
provide a public benefit. One of these benefits includes home ownership opportunities to help
Iow-to-moderate income households acquire their first home with a minimum down payment.
Cities and counties join together to form cooperative agreements to allow the issuance of bonds
to fund and administer homeownership programs that serve income-eligible households.
Mortgage funding generated in this manner poses no risk to the funds of the participating
entities. The proceeds of the monthly payments that are made by the homebuyers are used to
repay the bond investors.
In 1995, the City entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the County. During the past two
years, the County has implemented additional homeownership programs, now available
countywide based on the terms of the existing Cooperative Agreements that were executed in
1995, and which has been extended and expanded through subsequent amendments. The new
programs include a Lease Purchase Program administered by the California Cities Home
Ownership Authority (CCHOA) and the Extra Credit Teacher Home Purchase Program.
The changes to the Cooperative Agreement authorized in the resolution will: 1) allow the
Cooperative Agreement to be renewed automatically each year upon written notification to the
City by the Director of ECD; 2) add clarification that the Cooperative Agreement will
automatically apply to any additional homeownership programs to be developed by the County,
if not otherwise restricted by applicable federal or state program regulations; and 3) will require
the County to advise the City of any new programs that may be offered countywide under the
Cooperative Agreement. There is no cost to the City for participation in the County bond
program.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda D. Daniels
Redevelopment Director
-2-
R A N C H O C U C A M O N G a
~Ot~r~NITY
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director
BY: Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III
DATE: March 6, 2002
SUBJECT: Approval to Execute an Addendum to the Epicenter Rental Contract with the
Rancho Cucamonga High School for Waiver of Rental Fees Associated with
Graduation Ceremonies at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter in Exchange
for City Use of Rancho Cucamonga High School's Gymnasium for City's
Youth Basketball Program for 2003 and 2004.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends entering into a two-year agreement to provide Rancho Cucamonga High
School the Epicenter Stadium for high school graduation in the years 2003 and 2004. In
exchange, the City will receive the usage of the Rancho Cucamonga High School's
gymnasium for its City Youth Basketball Program in 2003 and 2004.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Rancho Cucamonga High School has requested that the City once again consider an
addendum to their Epicenter Rental Contract to allow its 2003 and 2004 graduation classes
to conduct their commencement ceremonies at the Epicenter Stadium. A similar
agreement has been in place since 1996.
In exchange for the stadium's base rental fee of $2,000, the City would continue to be
allowed use of the high school's gymnasium for its Youth Basketball Program. The City's
basketball program has continually grown over the past several years. The participant
levels have exceeded Community Services ability to provide in-door game space, which in
the past has resulted in games played outside or indoors on Sundays, which has not been
popular with parents.
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL TO EXECUTE ADDENDUM TO EPICENTER RENTAL CONTRACT WITH RCHS
FOR GRADUATION CEREMONIES AT THE EPICENTER IN EXCHANGE FOR CITY'S USE OF RCHS GYMNASIUM
MARCH 6, 2002
Fiscal Impact:
The $2,000 fee exchange applies only to facility rental. It does not include staff,
maintenance or operational expenses associated with usage of the Epicenter Stadium.
The high school would continue to provide comprehensive public liability insurance in the
amount of $2 million dollars. Dates for use of the Epicenter Stadium are coordinated with
Valley Baseball prior to approval.
In summary, the past has shown that this agreement is mutually beneficial to both the City
of Rancho Cucamonga and Rancho Cucamonga High School therefore staff recommends
that the City Council approve the attached addendum to the Epicenter Rental Contract.
~/~ ~~ed,
Kevin~ VlcArdle
Community Services Director
~:~C~MMSER~1c~unci~&B~ards~cityc~unci~Sta~Rep~rts~2~RcHSGraduati~nAddendum3~6. 02. doc
-2-
'~ITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL TO EXECUTE ADDENDUM TO EPICENTER RENTAL CONTRACT WITH RCHS
FOR GRADUATION CEREMONIES AT THE EPICENTER IN EXCHANGE FOR CITY'S USE OF RCHS GYMNASIUM
MARCH 6, 2002
ADDENDUM TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
OF PERMIT USE OF THE EPICENTER STADIUM
The terms and conditions of permit for facility use of the Epicenter are hereby modified to
incorporate the following provisions between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho
Cucamonga High School (RCHS):
1. Rancho Cucamonga High School shall be permitted to rant the Epicenter Stadium for its
2003 and 2004 senior graduation. The City and RCHS will coordinate and develop a
graduation event plan to insura a successful commencement program and to mitigate any
problems ralated to public safety and crowd control and potential damage to the Epicenter
Stadium Complex.
2. The rantal payment for RCHS's one day use of the Epicenter Stadium in 2003 and 2004
shall be exchanged for the City's use of the RCHS full gymnasium space for seven (7) to ten
(10) Saturdays between January and March of 2003 (January 4, 11,18, 25; February 1, 8,
15, 22; and March 1 and 8~) and 2004 (January 3, 10,17, 24; February 7, 14, 21, 28; and
March 6th and March 13th) from 11:30 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. The City and RCHS will
coordinate a procedura to insura a successful youth basketball program and to mitigate any
problems ralated to safety, crowd control, vandalism and damage to the RCHS gymnasium.
(a) If seven (7) to ten (10) Saturdays cannot be provided by the end of the basketball
program (2003 - March 8th; 2004 -- March 13th) the City will have the option of using
additional Saturdays through March 2003~2004 to extend its season. The City may or
may not utilize this option. Due to the basketball season time constraints, the City
requiras the use of ten Saturdays prior to March 8, 2003/March 6, 2004.
(b) The exchange applies to rantal fees only and does not include other facility use costs
such as staffing.
3. A meeting of the City and RCHS staff will be held no later than the first week of October to
raview the school's calendar and confirm the City,s gymnasium program usage. Facility
conflicts will be resolved by City and RCHS personnel
4. The rantal date of Epicenter Stadium for the RCHS graduation ceramonies shall be
coordinated with Valley Baseball Club, Inc. and the Quakes baseball season home
schedule.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga High School
Kevin McArdle Joann Cadwallader
Community Services Diractor ~ School Operations Manager
Date: ~"[~ate: '~//~ ~/,~.~-
-3-
R A N C h O C U C A M O N G a
F~ N C- IN E [: 1~ I N G L) t: PAI~ Tf~ E NT
$ Repor
DALE: Mamh 6, 2002
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer
SUBJECT: RELEASE THE LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND, FOR TRACT 13812, SUBMITTED BY
WEALTH V, LLC, LOCATED WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, BETWEEN SUMMIT
AND HIGHLAND AVENUES
RECOMMENDATION:
The required improvements for Tract 13812 have been completed and accepted, and it is
recommended that the City authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Material Bond at this
time.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
As a condition of approval of completion of Tract 13812, located west of Etiwanda Avenue, between
Summit and Highland Avenues, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. The
improvements have been completed and accepted. It is recommended that the City Council release
the Labor and Material Bond at this lime.
Developer: WEALTH V, LLC
1028 Westminster Avenue
Alhambra, CA 91803
Release: Labor and Material Bond LG 210042 $282,000
City Engineer
WJO:LRB:Is
:T
CITY OF rrE~ Tract 13812
RANCHO CUCAMONGA TrrL~:Vicinity Map
ENGINEERING DMSION l~l~nlT: '*A'
[~ A N C H O C U C A M O N G A
~NGINI~EI~ING D~ DAI~THI~NT
$t fRepo
DATE: March 6, 2002
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer
Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOWER HERMOSA STORM DRAIN &
STREET WIDENING-PHASE I, CONTRACT NO. 00-078 AS COMPLETE,
RELEASE THE BONDS, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND AUTHORIZE
THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council accept the construction of the Lower Hermosa Storm Drain
& Street Widening-Phase I, Contract No. 00-078, as complete, authorize the City Engineer to file a
Notice of Completion, accept a Maintenance Bond, release the Faithful Performance Bond and
authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of $3,087,182.00 six months
after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received and authorize the release of the
retention in the amount of $145,871.11, 35 days after acceptance.
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 final contract amount is pending litigation. The
original amount approved by Council was $3,395,889.20 ($3,087,172.00 plus 10%).
v'~al~m J. O ~eil
City Engineer
WJO:JAD/RO:Is
Attachments
LoWer Hermosa Avenue Storm Drain and Street Widening
VICINITY MAP
RESOLUTION NO. OZ-O?t~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE
LOWER HERMOSA STORM DRAIN & STREET
WIDENING-PHASE I, CONTRACT NO. 00-078 AND
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
WHEREAS, the Lower Hermosa Storm Drain & Street Widening-Phase I,
Contract No. 00-078, has 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, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
hereby resolves, 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.
ORDINANCE NO~ ~{:~ ? ~'~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 01-02,
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETVVEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA AND VICTORIA GARDENS-C, LLC. INCLUDING A
MASTER PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING
APPROXIMATELY 2.45 MILLION SQUARE FOOT RETAIL, OFFICE,
AND CIVIC USES AS WELL AS 600 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
UNITS, ON APPROXIMATELY 175 ACRES OF LAND. THE PROJECT
SITE IS WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARY AND THE VICTORIA
COMMUNITY PLAN, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY FUTURE CHURCH
STREET TO THE NORTH, FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH, 1-
15 FREEWAY TO THE EAST, AND THE FUTURE DAY CREEK
BOULEVARD TO THE WEST - APN: 227-161-35, 36 AND 38; 227-171-
22 AND 23; 227-201-30, 33, 35, AND 36; AND 227-211-24 AND 39
THRU 43.
A. Recitals.
1. California Government Code Section 6586~4 now provides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
"The Legislature finds and declares that:
a) The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a
waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other developments to the consumer, and
discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning, which would make
maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public.
b) Assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the
project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules
and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning
process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic
costs of development.
2. California Government Code Section 65865 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
"Any city...may enter into a Development Agreement with any person having a legal
or equitable interest in real property for the development of such property as provided in this
article..."
3. California Government Code Section 65865.2 provides, in part, as follows:
"A Development Agreement shall specify the duration of the Agreement, the
permitted uses of the properbj, the density of intensity of use, the maximum height and size of
proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes.
The Development Agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for
subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
DA01-02 - VICTORIA GARDENS-C, LLC
February 20, 2002
Page 2
requirements for discretionary actions shall not prevent 'development of the land for the uses
and to the density of intensity of development set forth in the Agreement..."
4. Attached to this Ordinance, Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference is
proposed Development Agreement 01-02, concerning that property generally bounded by future
Church Street to the north, ,Foothill Boulevard to the south, 1-15 Freeway to the east, and the
future Day Creek Boulevard to the west as legally described in the attached Development
Agreement. The Development Agreement includes a Master Plan that establishes design
guidelines and development standards and criteria for the Victoria Gardens Regional Center.
Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the Development Agreement with included Master Plan attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" is referred to as the "Development Agreement."
5. On January 23, 2002, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
held a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Development Agreement and concluded said
hearing on that date and recommended approval through adoption of Resolution No. 02-20.
6. On February 20, 2002, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucemonga conducted
a duly noticed public hearing conceming the Development Agreement.
7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucemonga does hereby find,
determine, and ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: This Council hereby specifically flpds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
SECTION 2: Prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, this Council has reviewed an
Environmental Impact Report and certified said report as legally sufficient for the Victoria
Gardens Regional Center project.
SECTION 3: It is expressly found that the public necessity, general welfare, and good
zoning practice require the approval of the Development Agreement.
SECTION 4: This Council hereby approves Development Agreement 01-02, including the
Master Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
SECTION 5: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinanc_~ and the City Clerk shall cause the same
to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin,
a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in
the City of Rancho Cucemonga, California.
ORDINANCE NO. ~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA
COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 01-01 CHANGING THE LAND
USE DESIGNATION FROM REGIONAL CENTER TO MIXED USE
AND MODIFYING VARIOUS TEXT AND GRAPHICS IN THE
VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE THE
PROPOSED PROJECT ~NOWN AS VICTORIA GARDENS ON
APPROXIMATELY 175 ACRES OF LAND AND IS GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY FUTURE CHURCH STREET TO THE NORTH,
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH, I-1§ TO THE EAST, AND
THE FUTURE DAY CREEK BOULEVARD TO THE WEST.
A. Recitals.
1. Forest City Development California, Inc., filed an application for Victoda Community Plan
Amendment 01-01, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the
subject Victoria Community Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On January 9, and continued to January 23, 2002, the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and issued
Resolution No. 02-21, recommending to the CityCouncil ~that the application be approved.
3. On February 20, 2'002, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a
duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded sand headng on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption ofihis 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 February 20, 2002, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan;
and
b. This amendh~ent does promote the g0ais and objectives of the Land Use Element;
and
c. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding
properties.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
VCPA 01-01 FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
February 20, 2002 ·
Page 2
3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the "Final Environmental Impact
Report for Victoria Gardens SCH No. 2001031028," together with all written and oral reports, the
City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect
upon the environment beyond those impacts related to air quality and traffic that are significant and
unavoidable and will, therefore, necessitate a Statement of Overriding Considerations by the City
Council.
a. That the "Final Environmental Impact Report for Victoda Gardens
SCH No. 2001031028," has been prepared in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said
Environmental Impact Report prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City
Council; and, further, this Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said
Environmental Impact Repor~ with regard to the application.
b. The "Final Environmental Impact Report for Victoda Gardens
SCH No. 2001031028," identifies that all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable
level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project with the exception of those impacts related
to air quality and traffic that am significant and unavoidable and will, therefore, necessitate a
Statement of Overriding Considerations by the City Council.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the City Council finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the "Final
Environmental Impact Report for Victoria Gardens SCH No. 2001031028" for the project, there is no
evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources
or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained
in the "Final Environmental Impact Report for Victoria Gardens SCH No. 2001031028," the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council dudng the public headng, the
City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations
relative to signiflcent unavoidable impacts related to air qualityand traffic.
4. 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. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the
environment nor the surrounding properties; and
c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3 and 4 above, this
Council hereby approves Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. 01-01 attached as Exhibit "A"
and incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The Secretary to this Council shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance.
THE CITY OF
I~AN Cl~ 0 C~CAMONGA
Staff Report
DATE: March 6, 2002
TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AClP, City Manager
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Kirt A. Coury, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16257 - FORECAST CORPORATION - The
appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve a request to subdivide 24.2
acres of land into one lot for condominium purposes in the Medium Residential
District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and Etiwanda
· Avenue Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side
of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard - APNs: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09,
10, 15, 20, 29, and a portion of 17. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-
00557 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00567. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST CORPORATION -
The appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve a request to construct
340 apartments on 24.2 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14
dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and Etiwanda Avenue
Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of
Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard - APNs: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10,
15, 20, 29, and a portion of 17. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16257
and Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00567. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal filed in opposition to the project, thus
upholding the decision of the Planning Commission approving the Conditional Use Permit
application.
BACKGROUND:
Neighborhood meetings were conducted on November 20, 2001, and January 17, 2002.
Subsequently, the project was reviewed by the advisory committees. The project was redesigned
based upon recommendations of the Design Review Committee. The Planning Commission
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUBTT16257 AND DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST CORPORATION
Mamh 6, 2002
Page 2
conducted a public hearing to consider Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16257, and Conditional Use
Permit DRC2001-00557 on January 9, 2002, and continued the item to the January 23, 2002,
meeting (Exhibit "F"). Eight residents cited their concerns about the project, which included traffic
and blocked access to their properties, design and site layout of the project, and fire safety
concerns.
The subject appeal was filed in a timely fashion by six petitioners on January 31,2002 (Exhibit
ANALYSIS-,
The appellants pose the following points in their appeal:
January 31, 2002 Letter from Don Glover
1. The residents surrounded by the proposed project were not satisfactorily involved in the
City review process.
Response: The City followed established practice by mailing hearing notices, posting the property,
and publishing a legal advertisement in the local newspaper. In addition, residents were given the
additional opportunity of participating in various neighborhood meetings after the application was
deemed complete for processing (Exhibit "B"). Neighborhood meetings are not required by
ordinance. The City's ordinance provides primary opportunity for public comment through the duly
noticed public hearing of the Planning Commission.
2. The environmental study with subsequent Negative Declaration did not involve input
from the affected property owners. In addition, No written response was provided to
issues identified in a January 9, 2002, letter of concern.
Response: Neither CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) nor the City's Environmental
Guidelines require written response to comments on proposed Negative Declarations. A
neighborhood meeting was conducted before the Draft Initial Study was circulated for public
comment prior to the scheduled Planning Commission meeting. No written comments were
provided by the public until January 9, 2002 (the date of the original public hearing). The adopted
initial study addresses the environmental issues identified by the CEQA Guidelines, and is
compliant with said Guidelines. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
provided to the public 20 days prior to the public hearing, above and beyond the single method
required, by 1) publication in newspaper, 2) posting on site, and 3) mailing to residents. Lastly, at
the January 23 Planning Commission meeting, the environmental concerns and issues identified
by the adjacent property owners were discussed and addressed in the written staff report and
during the public hearing process (Exhibit "F").
3. Concerns raised in a letter dated January 8, 2002, regarding access, grading, utilities,
aesthetics and prescriptive easements were not addressed at the January 23, 2002,
Planning Commission Meeting.
Response: All of the concerns identified in the January 8, 2002, meeting were responded to in the
written staff report to the Planning Commission. Regarding alleged "prescriptive easement" rights;
staff consistently informed residents that the burden of proof is theirs. Despite repeated requests,
no evidence was submitted indicating a court decision establishing prescriptive easements.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUBTT16257 AND DRC2001-00557- FORECAST CORPORATION
March 6, 2002
Page 3
4. Issues identified in a letter dated January 23, 2002, to the Planning Commission were
not addressed.
Response: There was considerable overlap of issues in the letters received. Again, no evidence
was ever submitted by residents to substantiate that this project will create environmental effects
that warrant mitigation. One of the key decisions in the CEQA process is determining whether a
project will have a significant effect. In short, determining significant effect requires careful
judgment based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data and based on information in the
record. To date, no factual data has been provided to support such claims.
5. Resolution No. 02-18 imposing conditions on the developer in regard to utilities is in
error.
Response: The condition regarding utilities for the adjacent lots, as written in Resolution 02-18,
was read aloud and approved by the Planning Commission at their January 23, 2002, meeting. This
condition reads "The applicant shall provide underground utility connections to the lots surrounded
by the proposed project subject to City Planner review and approval." The minutes reflect the
discussion between the Commissioners and the developer in which the developer agreed to provide
the utility connections.
January 31, 2002 Letter from Other Residents
1. Resolutions imposing conditions on the developer in regard to utilities are in error.
Response: The condition regarding utilities for the adjacent lots, as written in Resolution 02-18,
was read aloud and approved by the Planning Commission at the January 23, 2002, meeting. This
condition reads, "The applicant shall provide underground utility connections to the lots surrounded
by the proposed project subject to City Planner review and approval." The minutes reflect the
discussion between the Commissioners and the developer in which the developer agreed to provide
the utility connections.
2. Issue regarding ingress and egress of an existing dirt road for property owners along
Chervil Street, as well as emergency access and proper turn-around area.
Response: Residents of a private dirt road, Chervil Street, have made no improvements to their
access. After visiting the street, Fire Marshal Ralph Crane, told the Planning Commission that the
street is not wide enough for fire trucks, nor have the trees been trimmed to allow access. The Fire
Marshal also stated that the proposed project would eliminate a fire hazard (open grassy fields)
around residences, and provide ample fire hydrants for water supply. The proposed development
will not change Chervil Street in any way, except to extend certain utilities or storm drains. The
residents have the ability to provide an access "turn-around" within their own properties,
Specifically, there is sufficient room for turn-around on the south side of Chervil Street (the rear yard
of APN 227-211-23).
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUBTI'16257 AND DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST CORPORATION
March 6, 2002
Page 4
3. Concerns of developing an apartment project to surround existing single-family
residences.
Response: The property for the proposed project has been designated for Multi-Family (8-14
dwelling units per acre) since the 1981 General Plan adoption. The 1981 General Plan designated
the properties owned by the petitioners at 4-8 dwelling units per acre. The recent General Plan
Update amended the designation of the petitioners' properties to 8-14 dwelling units per acre so
that all of the properties in this block have the same General Plan Designation of 8-14 dwelling units
per acre.
4. Statement regarding that it would have been beneficial to have further negotiations
between the developer and the surrounding residents.
Response: Two neighborhood meetings were conducted. In addition, the developer met with the
residents at least two times prior to the Planning Commission review and approval. Acceptable
terms between the developer and the residents could not be reached.
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
BB:KC:Is
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Appellants' Letters dated January 31,2002
Exhibit "B" - Chronological time line of project events
Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 23, 2002
Exhibit "D"- Planning Commission Resolution 02-17
Exhibit "E" - Planning Commission Resolution 02-18
Exhibit "F" - Planning Commission Minutes dated January 23, 2002
Draft Resolution to Deny Appeal for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16257
Draft Resolution to Deny Appeal for Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00557
TO: City Clerk, City of Rancho Cucamonga ~::~'C~'/~,~
City Council, City of Rancho Cucamonga
Don GIover
7954 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
RI; Appea[~f t~ Following; C/~.O/. ~, ~(.~,
41) DRC_2OO1=O0557 (Forec~sl Homes - Efiwanda Gardens)
(2) SUB-TT 16257 (Forecast Homes - Etiwanda.Gardens)
DATE: January 31, 2002
Dear Sirs & Madams:
I hereby appe{~l the vote of approval by the Plannin8 Commission of the City. of
Rancho Cucamonga'al their meefin8 on January 23, 2002 in regard to DRC 2OO1-
00557 and SUBTT 16257 (Forecast Homes - Etiwanda Gardens).
The reasons for the appeai include, among other reasons that will be presented to
the City Council, the following:
(1) The residents surrouhded by the above referenced project, said project
being referred to as the 'Donut Hole' project by city staff, failed to
satisfactorily involve the affected homeowners In the city review process as
has been previously done for other projects, thus violating well established
city practices. The only meetings that were noticed were on or about
November 21, 2001, January 17, 2002 and January 23, 2002. The affected
homeowners were not made aware of technical review or design review
meetings or provided with sufficient information In a timely manner by city
staff. '
(2) The environmenlal study by the city consultant, with subsequent negative
declaration, did not involve any input from the affected 'Donut Hole"
homeowners or. the surrounding community. The City failed to respond to
Trace Glover's questions, issues snd disagreement as outlined in her letre~
of January 9, 2002, to the Plannin8 Commission. It is ou.r understandin8
that Slate law requires that the City address these questmns, issues and'
concerns, point by point, and in writing. Addltionally~.we understand that
City policy has historically solicited input from the commur~!ty prior to
starting the study; this was completely ignored here. '
,!
; City Clerk, City of Rancho Cuc~monga/Cily Council, City of Rancho Cucamonga
January 31~ 2002
Page 2
(3) The Don Glover & Joe Rusling letter of January g, 2002 to the Plannin8
Commission was for the most part igflored. Issues of access, 8radiflg,
utilities, aesthetics, were left unanswered. Issues o[ prescriptive ~
easements both to the City and the 'Oonut Hole' homeowners were
brushed aside as not being relevant withou! any legal Justification or case
law cited by the City Attorney·
(4) The letter of January 23, 2002 to the Planning Commission by Glover and
most other affected residents was complelely ignored. This letter centered
on Chervil Street and Ihe need to provide adequate easements and utilities
to the residents. Additionally, the entire Issue of mltl..~J~Jga.U.~L that is, ...
mitigating the adverse impact to our homes caused by this development, is
completely ignored. This project is not an 'as of right' development, but
. instead, necessitated discretlona~ approvals by the Plannln8 Commissions.
As such, the Planning Commission had full authority to impose
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAl, on this project as to protect the h°meowners.
(5) Most regrettably, the resolution imposing conditions.on the developer in
re~ard ro utilities Is IN ERROR. A review of the meetin8 transcripts will .
show that the Plannin8 Commission intended that all utilities be provided
to the homeowners so as to Provide for maximum apartment density, about
65 units in total, on the homeowner lots if they were developed and that
the utilities would be provided at the west end of Chervil and the west end
of the Glover easement (:not stoppin8 at Etiwanda). : "
In short, we "Donut Hole" homeowners are being 'walled-in' and forgotten by
the City. We will no longer be part of !he community. We cannot use the. .
sidewalks or streets o[ this development. No City easements have been required
through conditions o! approval like other projects. We request that the C!ty
Council send this project back to the Planning Commission and involve the.
homeowners.
Please do not abandon usl
P.S. Further information shall be provided on February 4, 2002.
TO: C,i~' of Rancho Cuc~monga planning Commission . -'~O~:/[/~0 '
10721 Hillside Road, Alta ~
. . 12830 Cheil S~e~ R~ho
Dmiel & J~m S~d~ (~ ot~ a~s) '
. R~ to Ap~al ~e J~ 23, 2002 app~ of Fo~e~
Devel0pmem al Etiw~~ '
We ~ above ~d home O~ would like ~o appeal ~e d~c~i~.~e by
~e RC P~ Co--sion ~ app~ved
D~ng ~ ~llc'~ on Jan~ 23, 2002 it
o~ adja~nt pro~a~e~, how~vor, m r~e~
Repeatedly, ~ ~ ~e issm over ~ e~ d~ ~ ~t ~ ~n. in : ' "
pubic ~e f~ sev~l )~ (mo~ ~ 18 y~) ~ ~'e~ss ~ ~ess f~
the prope~ o~ ~n, '~ pubgc ut~ ~d ~ce ~m~. We"
~e Wo~d cut ~ss to (hb road offma~ng
~Omd, fo~g ~ m' b~k up ~ entke le~ ora 700' mad o~ o~ . "
Eti~ Ave, eHm;~ ~ alie~te way
othe~i~ block~ m~ duz m ~y ~ of~ad
would like to demand that the developer be required to research the
possibility ora set-back of thai wall to allow adequate space to turn vehicles
around at the vc~ lea.~t or considcr the poss~ility of leave.8 the entire road
as_is for thorough ingress and egress.
Another concem raised is the narrow entry to Chervil Street. The property on
the South-eastern portion of Chel~il street is owned by the Forecast
Development. Although, this property is not currently being developed, it
should be noted that in a master Plan for this community it would be
beneficlal for there to be at leas~ a 15' setback onto the Forecast property of
the proposed future perimeter wall to allow adequste space to widen Chervil
Street to min. 30' al the Etiwanda enUance to Chervil and on to the end.
Furthermore, leaving 9 single family residential homes comPletely sUrrOunded
by 368 unit lwo-story apartment complex just doesn't make sense in reran'of
master planning a cohesive community. We are diligent in requesting the
conditions of approval that we are for the sake Ofretalnlng real-estate value in
our homes for future 'development of our land since the proposed zonir~
change would be raised to sustain up to 14 units per acre. These ~ .r~luests do
little to alleviate our concerns as people being subjected to living in a.f°rtress'_ . .' '.
of apartments but hopefully these conditions will help protect our' ·
investments. It would make more sense to either develop the surromiding ',' '
land to conform to the existin~ land use of shale family homes,.re~grdlees of
the zoning, or to chance.the use of our land to n~t the rna~dinmu ~ ......
Petential to cOn,tm to the proposed development. 'To leave' 9hom~ ·
s~i'ounded by 368 apartments is not smart planning. !t seems that fuitlmr-'
consideration should be given to master-planning this co~)-),aulty before
Forecast breaks ground on this development.
Finally,, Planning Commission members refc-rred that "it would have been
beneficial" had there been further negotiations between the developer and us
the residents at neighborhood meetings. However, the project was approved
deSPite the/ipparent need for further discussion for us to come {o better '
terv~. We would like the opportunity to see the develO...l~, modify the
' apartmen[ complex plans to add_tess our concen~s in 'writinP~draWing before'
final approval ofthls project. Therefore, we request an appeal
approval of this project to.The City Council of Ranch0 CuoamoaSa.
Respectfully submitted by the above named property Owneo. · ....
Page2 of 2
CHRONOLOGY
FILING DESCRIPTION/ACTIVITY FILING DATE
Reviewed for completeness by Planning & Engineering Divisions September 11,2001
Application filed for second round process and review October 16, 2001
Deemed complete for processing November 1, 2001
Reviewed by Grading Review Committee November 20, 2001
~,pplicant conducted first Neighborhood Meeting November 20, 2001
Reviewed by Design Review Committee as consent calendar item December 4, 2001
Public Hearing Notices mailed out for January 9, 2002 P.C. Meeting December 20, 2001
Planning Commission Public Hearing/Environmental Consideration January 9, 2002
Item continued to next Planning Commission Public Hearing January 9, 2002
Planning Commission Public Hearing Review and Approval January 23, 2002
Public Hearing Notices mailed out for March 6, 2002 City Council Hearing February 21, 2002
City Council Appeal Public Hearing March 6, 2002
THE CITY OF
Staff Report
DATE: January 23, 2002
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Kirt A. Coury, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUB'I-1'16257
- FORECAST CORPORATION - A request to subdivide 26.7 acres of land into one
lot for condominium purposes in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling
units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay
Distdct within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda
Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 17, 20,
and 29. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00557 and Tree Removal
Permit DRC2001-00567. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from January 9, 2002)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-
00557 - FORECAST CORPORATION - A request to construct 368 apartments on
26.7 acres of land in the Medium Residential Distdct (8-14 dwelling units per acre),
Etiwanda South Oveday District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the
Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of
Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 17, 20, and 29. Related
files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16257 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-
00567. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration. (Continued from January 9, 2002)
BACKGROUND: The proposed project was continued from the January 9, 2002, Planning
Commission meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to conduct a second public
neighborhood meeting on January 17, 2002, (the original neighborhood meeting was held on
November 20, 2001) with the adjacent property owners to address identified issues and
concerns noted to date. The continuance was requested by both the applicant and the
surrounding residents. Attached are letters of correspondence received to date regarding
issues and concerns relating to the proposed project (Exhibit "A").
Additionally, attached is a letter dated January 17, 2002, by the applicant 'Forecast Homes'
noting an amendment to the project to delete the 2.5-acre parcel fronting Etiwanda Avenue
(APN: 227-211-17) from the application (Exhibit "B"). Removal of this parcel will eliminate two
buildings (one Building Type B, and one Building Type C) resulting in a reduction of
"C"
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUB'Fr 16257 AND DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST HOMES
January 23, 2002
Page 2
26 apartment units from the proposed project. The revised project area is 24.2 acres and the
revised total number of apartments is 342 units. Revised plans will be provided at the January
23, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting.
ANALYSIS: In their January 9 letter, Mr. Don Glover (7954 Etiwanda) and Mr. Joe Rusling
(12837 Chervil Street) request that additional conditions of approval be imposed to address
10 issues. Staff believes that the deletion of the 2.5-acre parcel from the proposed project
resolves many of these issues.
1. Utilities to Glover and Rusling Lots - The residents believe they have utility easement
and possibly prescriptive rights for certain utilities lines; however, no copies of the
alleged easements or legal documents establishing prescriptive rights have been
submitted. With the deletion of the 2.5-acre parcel, the proposed project will not alter
any existing utilities serving the surrounding residents. No condition is recommended.
2. Access to Sidewalks - The project is proposed to be developed under the Optional
Development Standards (Figure 5-3) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan which requires one
10-20 foot wide continuous on-site greenway easement across the project site for the
express purpose to "link pdvate common areas with public areas, such as streets or
community trails" and to "provide connections to existing or planned greenways located
on adjacent property." There are numerous sidewalk connections through the proposed
project. Although them am no existing greenways on surrounding properties, it is
reasonable to assume that development of the surrounding properties at a similar
density would also require a greenway. A condition of approval has been added to the
resolution.
3. Easement on Entry Road and Streets "A" and "B" - With the deletion of the 2.5 acre
parcel, which contains the existing access easement for Mr. Glover, the proposed
project will not alter the existing access via dirt roads to either parcel. Mr. Rusling's lot
takes access from Chervil Street, which is a private street that is not being altered by this
development. No condition is recommended.
4. Elimination of Masonry Barriers Along Streets "A" and "B" - The residents want the
block wall changed to a wrought iron fence. A condition of approval has been added to
the resolution.
5. Access Easements Along Streets "A" and "B" - Same as #3.
6. Electric Gates Eliminated - The proposed prOject is a gated development. Again, with
the deletion of the 2.5 acre parcel, which contains the existing access easement for Mr.
Glover, the proposed project will not alter the existing access via dirt roads to either
parcel. Mr. Rusling's lot takes access from Chervil Street, which is a private street that is
not being altered by this development. No condition is recommended.
7. Landscape Screening -' Residents desire "heavy landscape screening" around their
lots for privacy. The project design includes the desired extensive landscaping, in
particular trees. Per the City's standards, the project is required to plant 45 trees per
gross acre, including 20 percent in large "box" sizes. This condition was already
recommended as Planning Division Standard Condition F.2. in the CUP resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT 16257 AND DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST HOMES
January 23, 2002
Page 3
8. Construction Access - Residents desire construction access through the proposed
project in the future. See #3.
9. Existing Utilities for Single Family Homes - Same as #1. Residents want this
developer to connect their existing homes to his utility and telephone system. Again,
with the deletion of the 2.5 acre parcel, the proposed project will not alter existing utility
service to the existing homes. No condition is recommended.
10. Trash 8, MairRelocatlon - Residents want easement for trash and pick-up. Again, with
the deletion of the 2.5-acre parcel, the proposed project will not alter existing trash or
mail access. No condition is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the project through adoption of the
attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:KC/jc
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letters of Correspondence
Exhibit "B" - Letter from Forecast Homes dated January 17, 2002
Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 9, 2002
Draft Initial Study
Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16257
Draft Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00557
~'~Y OF R~NCHo CUC~fONGA
JAN 03 20~
· TO: Brad Buller, City Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga . RECEIVED ~ PLANNIN~
FROM: Don Gloat
7954 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cvcamon~a
Joe Ru;li~
12837 Chewil Street, Rancho Cucamon~a
SUBJECT: ;tiwanda Apartments - Impact on O~ Homestead Properties
January 2, 2002
Dear Sir:
· We are two contiguous home owners whose properties wou?d be surrounded on
three sides by the proposed £tiwanda Apartments, a project by Forecast Homes.
Rustll 's roperty Is lot 22 (approximately 2 acres) and Don Glover's property is
~e ng .P . . L ....... s.~ -.ached County AsseSsors Map.
lo? 23 (approximate y ~ acres~ as snown ~, ,,~ o ',
Also note the proposed [tiwanda Apartments development shown on the map.
We were invited, alon8 with other ne ghbors, to a meeting held by Forecast Homes
at City Hall on November 20, 2000. Forecast Homes presented their plan and asked
if we had any questions. We were frankly shocked. We expres~ed our concem
........ · ~- & ,,as from Etiwende
about access to our properties, how we wouia 8e~ w,e.~, e ...........
Avenue to our properties and expressed our 8enerai concern aoom ·
foot high' wall towering over our properties aton8 the property lines of the proposed
development.
Additionally, there was also nothing in the plans that indicated what the Impact
would be of surface water drainage on or over our properties from the proposed
development.
Ahhou h the plans showed some form of access to our properties, the developer
questi~nred o~rji,ght to a county easement to our properties, stares that the
easement was. h~s easement". Also, there was no discussion of how we would
access our properties while the project was being developed.
All in a I the meet ng 8ave us no assurances that our properties would not be
adversely affected. Additional y, the city representat ye that was present said very
little and did not advise us about our rights.
· i 1~e next meeting we had was on December 27, 2OOI with theJ~veloper. We
(GIover & Rus~'iing~ were lhere along with four of the six properly owners
Chervil Street, It uickly became apparent that the sole purpose of the meeting was
for Forecasl to buqy us out. However, in our opinion, Forecast was looking to buy our
properties at below market value. Don Glover asked the developer fo~ land sale
comparubJes, bvt the developer said it was not relevant.
We have subsequently received a lener from City Hall that there will be a Planning
Board meeting on January g, 2002 in resard Io the approval of the project. Frankly,
this was a great surprise to us.
We were surprised that ii has 8otten this far without any Input from us, the people
most affected. We do not believe that The developer or the city have adequately
provided us with the Information necessary for us to respond.
So, we request that you postpone any delJbe'atien In regard to EtJwanda Gardens
on your scheduled January g, 2002 meeting. Also, in order for us to adequately
evaluate the impact on our houses, we requesl thai you provide us with the
followln8 information needed by our planning consultanl;
i. The complete submittal set for Etiwanda Gardens, including all concepiual
8rodin8 and utility plans.
2. A copy of the ci~s negative declaration in regad to the project.
3. Forecast's application and all staff reports in regard 1'o the properly.
4. If available, transcripts of design review meetings between Forecast alii the
We believe the negative dec!aratten on this projecl was premature and that the oily
did not provide us with the reformation needed 1'o respond. ' ·
The ci of Rancho Cucamonga has a reputation for respecting, Ihe property r.i.ght,s of
,, ty ........... not iUSt bi, develol~ers Don Glover's family has owne. d ~ts lane
~lr Por~>ePrel~O~,~'r~'~ J~o~ Rusl~n8 has ~lso beene Ion8 lime resident. Ago,n, we
request that this project not 8o forwa.rd until we are adequately and faJdy informed
and thai we have an adequate and fair opp.ortuni~, to respond. We need
assurances from the cily ihai our property r~ghts wdl be protected through
conditions placed on this development, If It Is approved.
As a first step, we look forward to meeting with you and being provided with the
above requested information. Please call Don Glover at g0g-22~i-g465 if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Don Glover ~l~e RusJin8
We ~e a oonc~med ~mmunity ofb~me owners who are seeking to postl~m¢ thc public hearing
~ ,_.-__..~ Affl~ m~.~n~ until DsniM Sandoval th~
· .. _~.__ m~ltinned nnmertv owller$ were no{ mimm,~ o ~ ..'17~ ,_ __,. .s. · ,.,,. ~h~, ~ ·
not prepared to ..~ A~ a c~mmunity'w° haY° dJscu'~d thc imPaCt that this d°vol°pment w°uld haY°
iflho Etiw:mda Cmrdem Aparmlent$ were m °~
·thisdevclopmeat, re~rdkssofthe"upscale* desi~nationoftheseapartmmtbuildin~- (AsconsultM
by an experlmced Pollee Officer this is a knomi fitot.)
· Difficulty to Improve this eomm~mityw°uld result if the bl°ck wall pr°p°sed by the devel°pment
were to be put in place before property owners have time to research maklng the f°ll°win8
p!~nnlng and
development is c~nplet~d.
~' Aesthetic is..mes su~ as, lo~s ofmouataln view, tm'al nntore of the sm-rmmdlng prolong,
and inerensed noise and traffic due to the apanmant development.
e' Construcfian ofa bloctc wall around our properties, especially along the ex.lng dirt road
should the developer choose to purchase LOt #22 and Lot #23 leaving the other properties,
would limit the ability f~r vehicles to turn around on our road, would re~lt in a potential
b~rd should future construction cn our road be required since there would be no access by
As properly owners we feel like our concerns have not been given the forum to be addressed and resolved.
All meetln~ to this point with the developers er the city have been primarily focused on informing us
what is planned to go in aroand us rather than seriously considering our canc~s. We have attempted to
point out some of our concerns but to o~r knowledge these issues have not been f,~,,,aliy recorded ncr
given any atUmfion towards resolving these potential problems that could re~lt due to the devel,~ont
being started bef~e we could take any action.
· We respectfully request that the scheduled public hcerlns be postponed antil we have been giwn
time and council to formally address, research, and eventually resolve o~ concerns. According to
Notice of Public Hearing received by the Sandoval's the final statement alarms us to the pessibility that
rely those is.roes raised at the public hearing would be subjeot to uballen~ in a court ofinw.
Also in concernment with the above raised need to postpone the public hearing to allow time and cmmcil
i/l
TO: City Plan ommissio
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~'/),~,
FROM: Don Gl~ver ' .
7954 Et~wanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga '~'g,,- ~/4',~
Joe Rusling ' ' ~'~,
12~37 Chevil Street, Rancho ~camonga .. ~'/~'"
SUBJECT: Et,wanda Apartments - Add,tlonal C°ndlhons of Approval
January 9, 2002 .
Dear Members of the City Planning Commission:
We are the homeowners on lots 22 (Rusling) and 23 (Glover) that will be surrounded on
three sides by the above referenced project. .
Detailed plans and related staff reports were not made available. to us until January 8, ·
2002, just one day before this meeting. We were not notified about or invited to any
design review Or technical review committee hearings.~.. The only official city .m. eetin8 that
occurred was on November 20, -2001; no technical info~mati0n was made avadable to us
at that meeting. The only other meeting was one held by the developer on November 20,
2000 at City Hall to "unveiff his preliminary scheme. Although "open to questions', no
background information was volunteered by the developer. The city representative
present did not advise us of our rights.
Additionally, we believe this project was not adequately posted. The city Planner advised
us on January 8, 2002 that there was a public posting on Chervil Street. Frankly, this
posting, although it may have been there, was not visible to us. No posting was made
near the entry road to our property on Etiwanda. Additionally, there should have been a
posting on each of the legal parcels comprising this development, especially the ones
adjacent to our property. How would we know which parcels the posting applies to?
Don Glover and neighborhood friends met with the city planner and the project planner
on Tuesday evening, January 8, 2002; the meeting was at our request. Don asked that
additional "conditions of approval" be applied to the proposed development to protect
our utility and access rights, as well as to ensure that our properties can be feasibly
redeveloped in the future if we decide to move from our homes due to the great adverse
impact the development will have on our quality of life.
The 'city planner did not make any commitments, but requested that we do a conceptual
site Plan, embodying our proposed conditions for this planning commission meeting,
today, January 9, 2002.
Regrettably' the twenty-four hours available to us was not sufficient to meet his request.
Pnge I of 3
Proposed Additional Conditions of Approval
(1) Utilities to Donut Lots - Lot 23 (Glover) and Lot 22 (Ruslin~).
We understand that we have both a legal easement and possibly prescriptive rights for
certain utility lines to our properties through the proposed project. We request that the
city condition the developer to provide easements to any future development on our
Pdroperties to enable such development to nplug-into" the proposed project's water, gas,
rainage 8. sewer hnes, as well as telephone 8, cable conduits.· The infrastructure should
be upsized Jf necessary to accommodate at least 32 apartment units as shown on the
developer's conceptual plan for the development of our lots. We want these utility access
rights from streets A 8. B as labeled by. us for clarity on the attached site plan~
~2) Access to $ideWalks~ ·
We want access easements to sidewalks on streets 'A' & "B", as well as all ~idewalks
leading out of the development to Foothill Boulevard or Chervil Street. This can also be
possible in the form of a public easement to the city. Access to these sidewalks or roads
via pedestrians should be allowed at any reasonable location from our properties.
(3) Easement on Entry Road and Streets '^~ & 'B', . "
We want access easements to the entry road from Etiwanda Avenue (generally shown
were our existing easement lies) as well as easements to use streets UA' & 'B". This Can
be ·accomplished also by giving the city a public easement over these· areas. Emergency
easement access to any future connection by the project to Chervil Street should also be
given.
(4) Elimination of Masonry Barriers Alon8 ·Streets '~A" & ~B",'
The eight foot masonry walls should be eliminated on these streets and replaced with
aesthetically pleasing six foot wrought iron fencing. Also, a four foot landscape buffer
should be provided between the property lines and the fence on the side of the donut
home lots. The city has required this elsewhere.
.(S) Access Easements Alons~ Streets ~'A' & ~B', '
We require two access easements onto Street UA" and one onto street~"B', as shown on '
the attached plan. Again, we believe we may already have 'prescriptive easement
rights' along the roads bordering the property lines on two sides of our homes. Again,
we request that the city require public easements onto these roads. SimilarlY' we want
the right to have full driveways handling any level of development on our properties
connecting to these streets.
(6) Electric Gates Eliminated,
Consistent with our legal and prescriptive easement rights, there should not be any
electric gates along the access road from Etiwanda Avenue or alon8 Streets 'A' &
P~e 2 of 3
(7) Landscape$creening~ ·
Heavy landscape screening should be required for the buildings surrounding our property
to a/Iow us privacy. The city has required this elsewhere.
(8) Construction:Access.
A specific condition should be imposed on the project allowing for construction access in
the event the donut ·properties are developed. .
(9) Existing Utilities for Single Family Hom~.
The developer should be required to connect our existing homes on lots 22 and 23
directly to his utility and telephone system. The current connections to Etiwanda Avenue
will likely be disturbed during construction anyway. Adequate provisions for utility
meters should be made also.
,(10) Trash & Mail Relocatioo~
A condition for an easement for trash pick-up and also mail pick-up should be·included
for donut lots 22 and 23.
Conclusion~' :
These proposed conditions should be considered by the planning commission before any
vote is taken on this project. :
The staff report briefly touches on easement rights but is sketchy at best and prOposedno
clear conditions.
We request that a meeting be set up with the city planner, city engineer` water district,
the developer and us to work out anagreement.
Sincerely,
Do"'rrdl~ver
.,
Page 3 of 3
TO: Jack Lam, Cit~Manager
Brad Bullet, City Planner
Jim Markman, City Attorney , CITy OF RANCHo CUCAMONGA
City of Rancho Cucamonga
FROM: Don & Tra~y GloVer JAN ]
7g$4 E tlwanda Avenue, Rancho Cuc~ monga
Joe Ruslln8 RECEIVED. PLANNINg
12837 Chevil Street, Rancho Cucamor~a
SUBJECT: Request for Public Hearing on Environmental Issues Regarding the Etiwande
Apartments Project (The "Oonul ~oject~')
Dear Sirs: ·
?racy Glover submitted the attached letter commentin8 on the Negative Declaration prepared
by the City Consultant In regard to the above referenced project. This was to be presented at
the Plannln8 Commission meerin8 of January 9 on this project but this project was pulled.from
the agenda.
As can be seen from the attached letter, we believe the negative declaration was premature
and that the consultant's review of the issues Is woefully incomplete. Furthermore, because of
the impact that the a .bore development, referred to by city staff as the "Donut Project', has on
our homes and our n~ghbors lying In the "whole of ~he dc~ut", a public hearin~ should have
been held with the ci~/consultant to solicit questions end comments and to outline the scope
· ' of the environmental analysis. This.was not done.
In her letter, Tre~y has prepared comments and raised questions about the
environmental consultants report. These questions should be addressed In wrltln8 before
anything else happens on this project. Additionally, a public meeting or forum should be held
to brief and solicit questions and comments from our neighb~'s; lhese questions and
comments should then also be answered in writing.
It is our understanding that state law requited a public meetln$ a.~.. public input on projects
this magnitude before they are approved and that the public Is entitled to have their questions
and comments answered in writing.
Therefore, we believe that any Plannln8 Commission vote at the newly rescheduled meeting of
January 2.t, 2002 Is greatly premature. At best, this meetin8 should be a publicly noticed
meeting on the cons,ltanrs environmental reporl in which the public can ask questions and
make comments. 'This should be followed by follow-up meetings In which the consultant
addresses the community's concerns and subsequently answers these concerns in wrltin&
On a related matter, we understand that the city arranged to have a meetin8 room available
Mr. Prevlrl {Forecast) and we and our neighbors in the 'donut hole" presumably so that Mr.
Previti can make another bid for our homes. The city should know that in a previous 'group
meeting' in Mr. Prevltl's office a few weeks ago, Mr. Previfi appeared desirous of negotiating
with u~'and our fellow neighbors of the "donut hole' as a group. As we remember, he sold he
had only one million dollars to buy our houses and that we and our neighbors should decide
among ourselves how to split it up. It appeared to us as if Mr. Previti was throwing e bone
onto the middle of his conference table and expectin8 us and our nel8hbors to.fight over it like
a paci~ of wild dog.s,. This was quite hum liar ng to us, although wa hope to believe that this
was ~ot Mr. Previfi s intent. ' ' ·
In this regard, we think it was a very bad idea that she city provide city facilities :to facilitate
Forecast's "group negotiation' on Wednesday night, such action by the city can only be
mistakenly interpreted by the community that the city is involved in the "bone throwing" or,
tossing crumbs to the "donut hole' homeowners, as well. Therefore, and for your Information,
we have Informed Forecast that we w ~1 only negotiate wl~'h him in private and not with our
neighbors (or city staff present and that we believe that our other neighbors should get
same courtesy of 'confidentialily, that we seek).
In conclusion, we th nk the city was previously movin8 too quickly on this project up until ils
· planned January g, 2002 Planning Commission meerin8. Fortunately, this item was pulled from
the agenda at the January 9 meeting and the p~anned final vote of approval did not occur, We:
request that more public hearings and meetings and ex' forums will be held ~o Insure that any
final vote by the Planning Commission is fair and reasonable to all parties.
Finally. you should knOw that Don Glover's family has owned his homesite for over 100 years
and Joe Ruslin8 has lived Jn his home for many Ion8 years.
Don Glouer
cc: City Planning Commission
TO: Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
FROM: Tracy Glover
7954 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga
SUBJECT: Project: Etiwanda Apartments/DRC 2001-OO557
Initial Study: Proposed Negative Declaration
January 9, 2002
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I am greatly disturbed by the recommended negative declaration proposed by staff
for the above referenced project.
I believe that the city's Contract Environmental Analyst overlooked several key issues:
Issue 1. Land Use Planninl~.
(a) The consultant maintains that there is Uno impactn in regard to issue 1
(Land Use & Planning) on the Environmental Checklist. Specifically, no
impact is recorded for the following items:
(b) conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project.
(c) be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity.
(d) disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community.
In regard to item (b), the project does conflict with an established city planning policy
that projects should not be distorted and piecemeal. The city should have required
that the nhole in the donutn be acquired before this disjointed development be
approved.
In regard to item (c), this project is not compatible with existing land uses in that it
virtually surrounds nine residential homes on eight lots. My home (lot 23) and my
neighbor Joe Rusling (lot 22), are surrounded on three sides by this development.
-1-
In regard to item (d), t evelopment will significantly ud s t" or divide the
physical arrangement of an established community. The continuity of single family
homes along Etiwanda Avenue is being disrupted by placing this high-density
development between our single family homes and the single family homes to the
north on Etiwanda Avenue, some of which are historic. Additionally, the perceived
access to our homes from Etiwanda Avenue is virtually eliminated, forcing residents
to drive through a high density apartment complex with no indication from Etiwanda
that there are privately owned homes surrounded by this development. The
consultant views this issue in terms of building height compatibility, rather than as a
density and access issue.
.Issue 3: Geological Problems.
The consultant maintains that there is no impact in regard to item (e), landslides and
mudflows, and a potentially significant impact for item (f), erosion, change in
topography, etc., unless mitigated.
In regard to item e (landslides or mudflows) we believe that possible impacts may
result to lots 20 and 23 (the hole in the donut) because it appears that these lots are
at a lower level than the proposed development. Regardless, there is no evidence of
any engineering study addressing this impact on any of the residential lots.
In regard to item f.(erosion, change in topography, etc) the consultant makes no
reference to the impact on the "donut lots" and how any potential impact would be
mitigated.
Issue 4: Water.
Again, the consultant failed to consider the impact on the Udonut properties~ in
regard to all issues here. Because of the possible adverse impact in regard to the
"donut properties', the applicant should prepare a storm drainage study to the
engineering division addressing the impacts on the above referenced property and
the overall area before this project is approved. We understood that this is the
standard policy for large scale projects. The environmental consultant should have
this study available before making any findings here.
Issue 6: Transportation/Circulation.
The consultant did not address the transportation and circulation issues on the
"donut properties". In particular, the consultant states that there is no impact in
regard to item (c), ~inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses".
However, there is no discussion about emergency access/egress plans for the Udonut
properties~.
Additionally, the consultant maintains that there is no impact in regard to item (e)
~hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists". Specifically, the ~donut
properties" are ~walled-in" along the property their lines with no access to
sidewalks or surrounding internal streets (except disputed limited easements).
-2-
Issue 13: Aesthetics.
The consultant says there is no impact in regard to the above. I disagree.
(I) the architectural character of the development is not consistent with the
architectural character of the "donut properties".
(2) My property, and the others, is being surrounded by an eight-foot high
block wall, right on the property line, with no landscape setbacks as often
is required by the city so as to aesthetically protect adjacent properties
affected.
Issues Not Addressed by Consultant.
The consultant did not address the following:
a) Econ~
The Economic Impact on the Value of Donut Homes surrounded by
Development was not addressed. How much will the value of the homes go
down?
b) Impact of Construction On "Donut Homes".
In particular, 1) interrupted access to donut homes, 2) breakage of existing
utilities to homes, 3) construction site hazard protection during grading &
excavation, 4) security, 5)interruption of mail delivery, 6) mitigation measures
for dust and noise, and 7)interim drainage measures to protect donut homes
from water drainage, during grading operations.
c) ExistJn~ Utilities to "Donut Homes".
Can these utilities be integrated into proposed development at a later date, if
any of these properties are redeveloped? Can future development on the
donut lots "plug into" the proposed development's utility system as to
facilitate the permissible level of apartment development?
d) Alternative Buildin~ Plan Consistent with Surroundin~ Single Family, One-Story
Homes. -
Impact of one-story development vs. two-story development not addressed.
Also, single family homes are being eliminated, discouraging the traditional
home ownership pattern for the area. Was condominium development, rather
than rental housing, investigated as a better way to provide for the needs of
the community?
e) Le_gal Issues.
Outstanding issues remain unaddressed about both existing easements and
"prescriptive easements." My family and my neighbor, Joe Ruslin~, believe
that we have possible prescriptive easement rights that the city may not have
taken into consideration.
My Conclusions:
This initial study is woefully inadequate. It does not address the above stated issues
raised. A negative declaration is far to premature here.
I request that no vote be taken on this project until the following occurs:
1. The city consultant addresses these issues in writing.
2. The affected property owners have a public meeting with the city, consultant
and developer in regard to the above.'
3. Proper ~ion measures are put in place to protect the Udonut properties"
surrounded by this development.
I understand via my conversations with legal & environmental consultants that the
city must, by law, address in writing our questions and responses to the city
environmental consultant's report, before you vote on this project. Additionally, we
must also insist on a public forum on these issues before any action is taken.
Sincerely,
T~a cy~i~ver
ETIWANDA AVE.
ET1WANDA APART19~.NTS ~2
FORECAST HOMES
Jan~u~ry ] 6, 2002
Don Olovet
7954 l~tiwa=da Avenu~
P~ho Cuca~onga, CA 91730
~. OIo~
~ ~h~Fof Fo~st Hom~ ~ wo~d l~ke ~o ~ you ~ yo~ ~]l~s ~ re~ol~
~ iss~s ~olvin~ o~ pro~s~d a~t development. Ho~v~, I f~ ~ Fore.st
~ ~ g~-~ m~e a c~ncd effort m a~g yo~ pro~, ~d ~ p~scn~
ac~isi~ of 7o= pro~; ~ I fool, we ~ll n~ ~s~y ~lv= ~ dis~
be~een what w= ~ ~1~ to off= ~d yO~ ~ price, We ~l~me yo= ~
~vol~=~nt ~d ~ici~tion in ~ ~velopmont pr~s, as w~ ~vo ~hod~ a
for su~ p~os~ I app~ yo~ ~i~. ~ acgve ~t~g in ~s ma~.
.~b~cemly, ~
J~" vi~
Area Manager
Forecast Homes
3536 Conco~'= S'cree{ !~uJte 100 - Ozite'lo, CA 917~ - Phone 909,48,~.73~0 · l:'~x 909.980.1169
wv~w.~r~cuthomgs,com
TO: Brad BuIler, City Planner DATE: January 1~.~'1~2~Ai/i/~./~,.
Kirt Coury, Associate Planner
Planning Commission ".u Ci./CA~Oi~G
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ J4N
FROM: Undersigned Neighbors Surrounded by the "Donut Project'q£C£/l/£D. PLAtIIltlIIV~
PROJECT: Etiwanda Apartments
RE: January 17, 2002 Meeting Forecast Homes at City Hall
We, the undersigned, strongly obJect to the above referenced meetin8. We
understand that the purpose of.the meeting, accordin8 to the city, is for the
'developer and residents to work out their differences' and that a "city
representative will be available to answer technical questions'.
This meeting has no agenda and ~vas not publicly noticed.
If this meeting was intended to be another meeting between Forecast (the
developer) and the affected residents of the ~donut project' for the purpose of
allowing Forecast to 'collectively" negotiate with our fellow neighbors over the
acquisition of our homes, we strongly object. We insist on our right to
individual 'confidentiality' In any negotiation and refuse to be pitted against
our neighbors in dividing up the limited total amount Forecast may be willing
to pay.
However, if the purpose of the meetin8 was to work out a 'deal" with the
developer as to how he should develop his property, we likewise object
because this would be usurpln8 the authority of the plannin8 commission and
the 'right oF the public to know".
In either case. please be advised that the undersigned In good conscience carl
not attend the January 17. 2002 meeting. However, we do request that the city
hold additional public meetings and/or public forums on the following:
(1) Whether th. is project is the appropriate design for the nel8hborhood,
including the Issues of apartments vs. the benefit of home
ownership (like a one-story condominium development);
P~e ! of 2
(2) The proposed negative declaration by the city consultant on this
project (we believe the current s~udy end determination is woefully
inadequate and public environmental study ~scopin8~ meetings w~th
the city consullant are necessary); and,
(3) ~conditions of approvaF that may be placed on this project to
protect to protect our quality of life If we elect to remain or, if we
are forced to move out, protect the development potential of our
properties.
We appreciate your understanding in these matters and hope you w~II consider
the above requests.
Sincerely, the un~d~rsigned:
~Name ' ,~ddress
Na~ Address
Name Add,ss
Name Address
Page 2 or'2
TO: ~'ad Bullet, City Planner DATE: January 16, 2002
Jack Lam, City Manager
Jim Markman, City Attorney
City of Rancho Cucamonga
FR: Don GIover- 7954 Ellwands Ave, Rancho Cucsmonga
Joe Ruslin8 - 12837 Chervil Street, Rancho Cucamonga .
E:~twanda Apartments. Forecast Homes
January ]7, 2002 Msetin8
Dear Sirs:
I received a letter In my mall box on January 15, 2002 ~n regard to the above
referenced meeting. Kirt Coury, Associate Planner with the City, called me the
evening of January 15, 2002 to remind me about the meetin8. He said the
purpose of the meeting was for the developer and the residents surrounded
three sides of this development (referred to es the 'donut hole' project) to
"work out their differences~ and that'a city representative would be there to
answer technical questions
First, if this Is a meetin8 for Previti to negotiate f~ the purchase of eight
houses in a "colleclive" settln8 with all the effected 'donut hole' residents
present, as he has previously attempted to do, then this is highly unacceptable
to us. As we pointed out to all of you In our letter of January 15, 2002 {copy
enclosed), we believe that tt Is our right, ss well as that of the other "donut
hole" homeowners) to have 'confidentially~ in any negotiations with Mr.
Previti.
As a side note, we did send a loller to Mr. Previfl on January 15, 2002
requesting to negotiate with him for the purchase o~ ou~ properties with
condition of confldenliallty; Mr. Previti turned down our offer In his loner
dated ,~anuary 16, 2002. Our loller to Mr. Previfl and his letter of response
us is attached.
Second, if the purpose of this meeting i~ for the developer (Forecast) and the
"donut hole' homeowners to privately hammer out or negotiate conditions of
approval among ourselves, then we think this Is highly unusual. Our
understandln8 is that I1' Is for the Planning Commission, after receipt of written
recommendations frern the planning staff, to decide on the merits of approving
thls Project and what condition of approvals should be placed on Ibis Project.
A "city slaff representative standing by ?o answer technical questicms' wttile
the developer and the "donut hole' residents 'resolve our differences' so~nds
like a "back room' deal; we would assume that I~ Planning Commissioners
would strongly disapprove of such back room agreements that usurp their
authority. In any event, we have already writlen e letter to the Pla.~nlng
Commission, dated January 9, 2002, outlining the conditions of approval thal
we believe should be imposed on this Proiec! before its approval. That letter
was intended to be read at the Planning, Commission's January 9, 2002
meeting; but this ProJect was pulled from the agenda so we delivered the letter
:he next day to the Planning Department. As of the wri:ing of this letter, we
have nol received any response from the City regardin8 our letter dared
January 9, 2002.
In conclusion, this .January 17, 2002 meetin8 appears to have no aBende. We
can oniy assume that the purpose for it Js either 1) to facilitate Forecast's
ability Io negotiate 'collectively' with the "donut hole' homeowners without
our respective rights to 'ccnfident~aiity" or 2) ro 'work out a back room
agreerrmnt belween the developer and the 'donut hole" homeowners in
regard to conditions of approval. Again, this we believe is tantamount to back
room negotiations that usurp the authority of the Planning Commission and the
right of the public to know. in either case, we feel that it would be
inappropriate for us to attend this~ill advised private meeting bain8 held at City
However, we would be quite happy to attend a publicly noticed meelin8 for
design review and technical review meetings where we can voice, our concerns
and present out c~se for our "proPosed conditions of approval~ ~as outlined in
the Don Glover & Joe Rusling letter of January cj, 2002) to representatives of
the Plannin8 Commission; the developer would presumably have the same
opportunity here to present his case. Secondly, we again urge the City to hold a
public meetin8 or forum on the environmental survey & Proposed Negative
declaration for the Froject by the ~i!y consultant; as stared in Tracy Gtover's
erter of January o~, 2002 on the p'r~posed negative declaration, we believe that
serious Issues remain unanswered and must be addressed In separate public
hearings before this project can be~voted on by the Planning Commission.
Finally, we are ready to meet with Staff or participate in a public forum to
clarJ~y our ~etters ~egardln8 *conditions of approval' and the proposed
Negative Dectara~lon. We will alsO'be v, ill~g ~o .debate the developer in. this
regard if the city so desires, in a public forum that is publicly noticed,
Please call Don G!over at 909-463-6081 if you have any questions.
Iz7
Jir~mV ~'r,~it!, .Y'.
~on G~wer
]2837 ~e~ll Str~ - Rl~ho
Ri' ~fln8 of Jinul~ 17.
~ar Jimmy:
Thank you for your invitation f~ a 8roup mee~ n8 on Thursday, Janu~ 17.
Hoover. Don is out of fo~. ~ & Don can
followin8 wee~ *he ~ek of Janua~ 20, in the e~nin{.
Hoover, ~ went any n~otiitl~s reBardinB ~e acquisition of our pr~edy
t~ be strictly confidential in res~rd m lhe substance of our m~1ln& ,ny Yerms
d~scussed ind fha p~le Involved in the n~oflitions. J~ & D~, tn~ our
r~resenfeflve, ~11 meet with you m consider the slle of our joint prope,~s
as a ~8e If th s is a~eptable ~o you, please let
~etin8 pike for ~ ~ek of Janua~ 20. We
~f ~u a{;e~ tg ou,' ~clim ~ confidentiality,
time y~ wl~h to ~gf.
{ ho~ you und~'~;*r4 i;,at we f~t qui~G
mee'tin~s. Although ~ ,re sure it wa/not your Intent, It ippeired to us end
~r ~el~b~l that ~u ~ IhrowlnB e bo~ ~ table with e o~ milli~
~1 nr price us and our ne:~hbors
tn~ .nd ~pe~
Rememb~ , at our ~tJn~ ~r~
~t you did ~
fi~e, E,~ { ~ ~1 this was not y~
u~de~ s{nnd our cor~cern for confldenfiiiJty
bu~ 6~ ~r nei{hbors..s well.
Si~ereiy,
~ ~lovRr )31
, TO: Jack Lam, C!t'.~a .L~r r;.~t,r ~..O, ry 15,
Brad Bullet, City Planner
Jim Marian, Cil?
c~'~y oF Rancho C~:arr~n~
FROM: ~on & ?racg
7S54 ~tlwand~ A~-en~, ga~cho
SUBJECT: Request fo~ P~blic Heari~:8 on gnv:ro~mental Issues R~ardin8 ~a :tiwanda
Apartments Proj~t ~he 'Don:r~
Dear Sirs:
Tra~ Glover submitled the altached letter commentJn8 on the Negative ~cl~at~n prepared
by the City Consultan~ in regard to the able ~ferenced proJ~. This was to ~ pmsen~
~ Planning Commission ~ln8 of Janua~ g on this project but this pro]~f was pulled from
~ agenda.
As can be seen from the attached letter, ~ belie~ ~ negative ~clarat~ was ~emamre
and that I~ consultant's review of the issues is w~fully I~pl~e. Fu~mm~e, because
the Im~ct that the e~ve de~l'opmenL referred to by cl~ staff as the '~ut Pro~', has on
our ~mes and our nelgh~rs lying In ~he 'whole of the d~ut~, a public hearing should
b~n held ~vltt~ the c~ co~u~ent to sollcil q~st~ons and ¢~menrs and m ~fllrm ~ ~
of ~he environmenfal analysis. This was ~t ~
In he~ ~e~er, Tracy has prepared ~mments a~ rals~ questions ab~t the
env)ronmentel consultants r~por~ Th~,~ e,u~?i~s s~c::.ld be address~ In wrl11~
... ~e,. u.t. ~b~ld be held
~n~hing else hap~ns on ~b~s project. A~dlr~onally, a public meenn8 or '-' ,
~nd s~,~it q~esll~s and comme~t~ from our r.~g~rs; the~ q~slions and
corn~enfs shou~ ~en al~ ~ answered in ~l~tn8.
It is our understandin8 lha~ state I~w required a public meeting and public Input on proj~s of
~h~s magnitude ~ore they are approved and that the public is entitled ~o have their questions
a~ :omme~ts answered In wrltin8.
Theref~,re, we ~lleve that any PJannl~ CommJ~s~an ~le at t~ newly r~ch~uled meelin8
Janua~ 23, 2~2 ts greatly pr~atu~. At best, ~i~ ~iin8 sl:~.be · pub~ly
~ting on the consultants enwronmental rep~l ~n ~h~h tk~e p~hc can a~k questions
~ ...... c,,.men~ '-,~. Th~s abound- "be mllowea' ..... oy ~o ow-up meetings in which the consultant
.~d~es~s the communir ~s co~erm and subsequewJy answers these con~rns in
On a related mat~.-:r, we u~r~a~ ;hs~ .'.ia city ~rr~,,-.g~.d :o ~a~ ~e.~.,ati~& ro,>m available ~o
Mr. Pre~,dfi ~orec~st) ~ we a~d our r,~:~s in the 'donut hale* presumeb~' so 1hat Mr.
~ev fi can make ~r, ot~r b d f~ ~r ~ ~e ~t~ sh~u!d k~w that ~n · Dre~: '8r~p
meeting" In Mr~ Previ~i's ~ffic~ e fe~' we~k~ ~go, 7~t, Previt~ a~pear~ ~l,~as :)f negoflafin8
with us and ~r tallow r~eig~b~nl of ~he '~:~nu~ boil* as ~ gr~. As v;~ re~e~beL he said h~
had only o~ m{lhen duffars to buy ~r ~e~es a~d ~t we ~d ~r ~lghbe~ s~ould d~de
onto lhe middle of his c~n}ere~c~ ~a~>ic ~ ~pz<t~ us a~J ~r ~eigh~oti :o Fight o~r it lik~
a pack of wild d:~g~. ~h~ was quite hum;:~:lin8 to u~.. ahhough we ho~ tc~ ~eli~ve that this
was ~o1 ~r. Pre~i's
in this r~ard, w~ ~h~k ~ ~e~ a ve~ b,~ ~e fhat 7~ c [y p 'or de ci~ ~:~lltiei to f,c~lhate
Forecasrs "group ne~tiation" on Wed~sday night; such action by the city can only be
mistakenly interpre~ by ~he communi~ that the oily is Involved
tossi~ cr:~,lb~ tc' the 'c~ut hob" Kom~n~r~. ~ well. Theref~e. and f~ your information.
we have in,orm~d Fore, st ~hat we will only ne8otinte wdh h~m In private and not w~th ~r
eeigh~s {or city staff present and that we belie~ ~at our oI~ nei~b~s should ~t the
same c~rtesy of "confidentially" thai ~ see~.
In c~clusion, we think lhe city was previously movin8 t~ qulck~ on this proj~t up until its
planned Janua~ ~. 2~2 PI,nnin8 Commission meeting. Fortunately. this ite~ was pull~ from
the ~da at the January g meeting ,nd ~ planned final vote of ,pproval did
request that more public h~rings and ~etings and or f~ums will ~ held to ins~e that nny
final vote by the Planning Commission Is fair and reasonable to all
Finally. you sh~ld k~w lhal ~n Giver's f, mily h~ owed his ~site for o~ 1~ ~ers
and Jo~ Rusllng hns li~d in his ~e for ma~y ~n8 yenrs.
Sincerely.
Don Glover
Tracy Glover
Joe Rb:llng
cc: Ci!'~/Pin n nir~g Con',i:~,i ~'sl on
Page 2 of 2
J~-17-02 08:26AM FI~IA-FOR~¢~,~B~E$ SOC~L 906493T3~I 'T-IOO P.01/OI F"-411
FORECAST HOMES
Kirt Com~
10500 Civic Ce,T~ Dr.
P.O, Box 807
Rancho Cucnma~tla, CA 91729
RE: WJ-raOP,.~w~o. OF P.~C£L No. 2~7-211-017 FaoM Omc~ SUaMITrAL
P~c~c~., TI' M.~ SUB 16257.
Mr. Coury,
As a ms~g~r of court, 1 ,,,ould like to modify lhe original ~ubmis.~on packet of Foreca-~
ttow.~s, m consm.~ 358 ap~lme~! u~i~s al th~ North Wes~ cor~'r of Eliwancla Bl,~d and
Foofl'fill. The case fl~a~ ~he C~ is ~urrendy processing, will ~ow ~xclu& parcel nmnb~r
227-211-017. 1 apprcciaI¢ yolir ~.m..~ arid cm~sidcradon in this mailer. If you havg any
questions please co~_ .m._el me a~ ~721 -g 166.
Sincerely,
John Mil~
Planning Specialist
Forecast Homes
353b Concour~ Sueer Suite 100 ° ~ CA 91764* · Phone 9U9.483.7320 - F~x 909.980.1169
THE CITY OF
]~ANCHO CUCANONGA
DATE January 9, 2002
TO:. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROk~ Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Kirt A. Coury, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16257 -
FORECAST CORPORATION - A request to subdivide 26.7 acres of land into one lot
for condominium purposes in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per
acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within
the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north .of
Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 17, 20, and 29. Related
file: Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00567. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST CORPORATION - A request to construct 368
apartments on 26.7 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling
units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay
District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda
Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 17, 20,
and 29. Related file: Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00567. Staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Project Density: 13.8 dwelling units per acre
B. Surroundinq L.and Use and Zonin.q:
North - 1-15 Freeway
South - Community Commercial
East - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)/Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre)
West - 1-15 Freeway
152-
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT16257 & DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST HOMES
January 9, 2002
Page 2
C. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
North - 1-15 Freeway
South - Community Commercial
East Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)/Low-Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre
West 1-15 Freeway
D. Site Characteristics: The property is generally fiat, sloping downward to the south and
east. The site is currently vacant with native trees and grasses present. Eight existing
single-family residences, located on an inverted L-shaped property at the central portion of
the site, are not a part of the proposed project.
E. Parking Calculations: Multi-Family/Condominium Residential
Type Number Parking Number of Number of
of Use of Units Ratio Spaces Spaces
Required .Provided
One Bedroom 158 1.50/unit 237
Two Bedroom 188 1.80/unit 339
Three Bedroom 22 2.00/unit 44
Guest Parking 0.25/unit 92
Total 712 719
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The project is located within the Etiwanda Avenue Oveday District, which
requires a Conditional Use Permit to develop except for single-family homes. The project
density of 13.8 dwelling units per acre is essentially at the top of the density range for this
zone; therefore, transition of density to adjoining single-family homes is critical. The Site
Plan has been designed to create transitions through building orientation and setbacks to
the identified single-family residences. The project includes a total of 41 apadment
buildings comprised of four building types. In addition, two recreation buildings with one
off]ce/leasing building are included in the proposed project. The proposed buildings
fronting Etiwanda Avenue have enhanced elevations and the building masses include both
two-story and one-story elements to articulate the massing. There are 19 two-story
apartment buildings proposed along the freeway corddor at the north and west project
perimeter. The buildings are plotted to assist with the mitigation of freeway noise. Single-
story garage structures perform as a good buffer and Iow building mass transition along
the south property line, adjacent to the commercial property.
A substantial recreation/open space corridor is provided within the development, which will
include both active and passive recreation facilities. Active recreation uses include a
community pool and spa, several tot lots, half court basketball, a grass volleyball court,
horseshoe pit, barbecue areas, and exercise facilities within the recreation building. The
buildings will include a stucco finish, painted wood knee braces, ledge-stone battered
walls, and a concrete fiat tile roof. The project perimeter will involve 6-foot high tubular
steel fencing and split face masonry wall. Fencing along Etiwanda Avenue will include
tubular steel fencing with decorative native stone pilasters.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT16257 & DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST HOMES
January 9, 2002
Page 3
B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (McNeil, Stewart, Fong) reviewed the project
on November 20, and December 4, 2001. At the December 4, 2001, meeting, the Design
Review Committee recommended approval of the project, subject to the applicant's
providing stone wainscot treatment on all sides of the buildings fronting Etiwanda Avenue.
It should be noted that the applicant has provided the wainscot treatment to the front and
side elevations, but not to the rear. The applicant met with the City Planner on January 2,
2002, to consider other options to resolve the matter. Action comments from the Design
Review Committee have been attached for your convenience (Exhibit I). The City Planner
will continue to work with the applicant and hopes to bring a recommended solution to the
Planning Commission on the use of native rock on the buildings facing Etiwanda Avenue.
C. Gradinq Review and Technical Review Committees: The Grading Committee reviewed
the project on November 20, 2001. The Technical Review Committee reviewed the
project on November 21, 2001. Both Committees recommended approval of the project
subject to conditions contained in the attached Resolutions of Approval.
D. Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00567: Several mature trees exist throughout the project
site. The only other plant materials are annual and perennial weeds and grasses. Several
of the mature trees that occur on-site must be removed to allow for the proposed
construction. The trees are subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 276.
The impact is not considered significant due to the project design which inc!udes planting
numerous box size trees
E. Nei.clhborhood Meetin.q A neighborhood meeting was held on November 20, 2001.
Twelve people attended the meeting, which included property owners of the single-family
residences, located on the inverted L-shaped property at the central portion of the project
site. The residents asked questions and raised concerns regarding traffic, access,
drainage, maintaining a single-family quality of life and neighborhood in the middle of an
apartment project, and the potential negative impacts to the property values of the single-
family homes. The developer presented the project regarding site design, building
orientation, parking, access and landscaping to address several of the identified concerns.
The nearest building to the L-shaped property is 32 feet from their common property line.
F. Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study has been prepared. Staff determined that
the project could have a significant adverse environmental impact through short-term air
quality impacts during site preparation such as grading and equipment exhaust. Staff also
determined that there may be noise impacts to future residents within the subject
development resulting from traffic along the 1-15 freeway and Etiwanda Avenue, as well as
biological impacts resulting from on-site tree removal. A noise study was prepared which
identified noise attenuation measures. The project design cleverly uses buildings along the
west boundary as the sound attenuation barrier;, hence, no sound wall is necessary along
the 115 Freeway. Special sound attenuation design will be necessary for those units facing
Etiwanda Avenue. Mitigation measures will be required to reduce the short-term air
quality and predicted future noise impacts to a less than significant impact and trees are
required to be replaced pursuant to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 276. If the
Planning Commission concurs, then the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
would be in order.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Dail~
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners ·
within a 300-foot radius of the project site.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT16257 & DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST HOMES
January 9, 2002
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative
~'ract Map SUBTT16257 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00557 through the adoption of
the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions and the issuance of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration,
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:KC~Is
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C"- Tentative Tract Map 16257
Exhibit "D"- Site Plan
Exhibit "E" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "F" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "G'- Elevations
Exhibit "H"- Floor Plans
Exhibit"l" -Design Review Committee MinuteS, Dated November 20, and
December 4, 2001
Exhibit "J" - Environmental Initial Study
Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SU B'I=1'16257
Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00557
LOCATION MAP
B'R"I62571DRC2001-00557
All Pan.la,
N
._0 800 '1600 2400 3200. 4000 4800 F¢~
]*~ CAMINO REAL II APARTMENTS TENTATIVE TRACT 16257, SITE UTILIZATION MAP
~ '-... / :~ % I / .
I ~ ~ .,~. .~~.' / .. ~i / ~~,.~,k 'e ~ /
................ ~..~:".~, . .. . ......... . .... ~ ,., ,. .....
" ....... ~-'~' "'~'- ..... t~ ,~- ) ,.~,'~" ~,,' ' "
/ ':~c~-: f. ~k.-/ , '~E?~ :, B~ ~d', ~ '~-~r~ J ~ -- .... ..~ ~'~F~'f-~_.? .,'/,~~ ~ / I
-'..'.', I: , ,7-;~ = ~;., ~ k I t ~1.-'--.-~' ] a ., ..~ / · , ~; , '~,.
· % k , ~ · ~ ~ ~.. ,%-,, - ~-...-, ~-. -...
~ I . .. I , : , ~ , ... ~ -,.....l~ ..... . .. :l, ,
CAMINO REAL II ~TMENT~ TENTATIVE T~CT M~ 16257
DETAIl,ED SITE PLAN ETIWANDA APARTMENTS
"~' APPLICATION FOR CITY OF R~NCHO CUCAMONOA, CA
DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW & FORECAST GROUP
TENTATIVE MAP
·
.. -- g.~,.'T:;~--
.,
/
CAMINO REAL II APARTMENTS TENTATIVE TRACT 16257, CONCEPTUAL GRADIN~ PL~N~
..~ ~ ~ SOUTItERLY PORTION
ETIWANDA APARTMENTS
ETIWAI~IDA APAR*I'h~_,NTS
ADULT COMMUNITY CI~3qTER
FRONT ELEVATION
LEASING BLIlL~D,..I.I.I~C, CLU~I-IQ!
FRONT ELEVATION'
~h ETIW~A APARTMENTS .----~
~ ' ETIW'ANDA APAI~ --
FRONT ELEVATION
FP. ONT ELEVATION REA~ ItI.RVATION
2."2~
~ & RIGHT I~BVATION
4~ ETiwAND^ APARTMENTS ~
L~SINO BUILDING C-"LUBHOURI~.
U~ 'ETIWANDA APARTMENTS ___--_~._---
ADULT
~ ETI~ANDA APARTMENTS
..~J~' 'ETIWANDA APAP, TI~r~--:NTS ~ ·
SF~OND FLOOR LOFT ].~VEL
FI~'T FLOOR
~ ETIWANDA APARTM:F-2~TS . --
FRONT I~EVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
10-CAR GARAGE S-CAR GARAGE
~ ~TIWAI~A APAE.TMt~NT$
/ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
11:00 a.m. Kirt Coup/ November 20, 2001
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUB'Ir 16257 - FORECAST
CORPORATION - A request to construct 368 apartments on 26.7 acres of land in. the Medium
ReSidential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Oveday District, and'Efiwanda
Avenue Oveday District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda
north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 17, 20, and 29. Related Files:
Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00557, Vadance DRC2001-00566, and Tree Removal Permit
DRC2001-00567.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00557 -
FORECAST CORPORATION - A request to construct 368 apartments on 26.7 acres of land in the
Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and
Etiwanda Avenue Oveday District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of
Etiwanda north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 17, 20, and 29.
Related Files: Tentative Tract SUB'Fi' 16257, Vadance DRC2001-00566, and Tree Removal Permit
DRC2001-00567.
Desiqn Parameters: The site is located between Efiwanda Avenue and the 1-15 Freeway, north of
Foothill Boulevard. The lot is generally fiat, sloping downward to the south and east. The site is
currently vacant with native trees and grasses presenL Eight existing single-family residences,
located on an inverted L-shaped property at the central portion of the site, are not a part of the
proposed project. The property to the south is vacant, but is planned for commercial development.
To the west and north is the 1-15 Freeway. To the east across Etiwanda Avenue, Is the approved,
but not yet built, Camino Real Apartments by this same developer.
The :project density of.13.8 dwelling units Per acre;~is essentially at the top o[ thedensity, range for
this zone;therefore, transition of density to adjoining single,family homes is criticaL.- Site Plan has
been designed to create transilJons through building orientation and setbacks to the,Identified single-
family residences. The project will Include a total of 41 apartment buildings comprised of four
bbildingtypes. In.addition, there will,also be two recreation buildings with one office/leasing building.
The proposed buildings fronting Etiwanda Avenue have, enhanced elevations~and;~.bUildlng
masses include both two-story and one-story elements to articulate the massing. There are 19 two-
story apartment buildings proposed along :the freeway corridor at the nodh and west project'
perimeter. The buildings are intended to assist with the mitigation of freeway noise.* Single-sto~
garage structures perform as a good buffer and Iow building mass tzansition.along the sou~
property line, adjacent to the commercial property. The project will require a Vadance to allow for
the increase Jn the wall height up to 25 feet for sound attenuation along the 1-15 Freeway.
A substantial recreation/open space corridor is provided within the deve!opment, which will include
both active and passive recreation facilities. Active recreatiori Uses incli)a~=~ c~m~u'rilty pool and
spa; several tot lots, half court basketball, grass volle~ll copt;t, hors~hoe pi~, ba~.areas, and
exercise facilities within the recreation buildings. Thej3ropo'~d bdildir~gs Wiliindudb ~ stu~ finish,
painted wood corbels, wood siding, and a concrete fiat tile roof. The project perimeter Will involve
6-foot high tubular steel fencing and a masonry wall. Fencing along Etiwanda Avenue'willindude
6~foot h!gh tub~ular steel [encing with ~ecorative masonry pila. stem.
DRC COMMENTS
TT SUBTI'16257 AND DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST CORPORATION
November 20, 2001
Page 2
Re.qulations: the Etiwanda Specific Plan only allows the proposed density under the Optional
Development Standards. The key requirement is a minimum of 30 percent common open space.
The project site's frontage, within 200 feet of the street centeriine, !s located within the Etiwanda
Avenue Overlay DistricL The Overlay District is intended "to protect and enhance the visual and
historical character and the quality of Etiwanda Avenue and its immediate surroundings.' The key
requirement is for multi-family structures to be designed "to present an:image of large single-family
structures." River rock is encouraged as a design elemenL A minimum of 15 recreational amenities
is required based upon the total number of units.
Staff Comments: The following comments ara intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus Of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. Roof style and materials of the apartment buildings and garage structures should match.
2. Incorporate design elements of the proposed buildings into the architecture of the garage
structures (i.e., gable roof element, stucco finish, painted wood corbels, wood siding, etc.).
3.. AJI walls and fences shall be of decorative mate~al.
4. Two of the proposed elevations should incorporate decorative materials other than wood
siding to provide variation in the buildings. For example, Buildings B and D could include
stacked stone or real river rock treatment.
5. '~. The'deCOrative perimeter fence along Etiwanda Avenue shall incorporate:large decorative
- masonry pilasters (i.e~- real riVer rock or stacked stone)in its design. The pilasters shall be
develoPed~at:a minimum of 30,Inches,squared;.
Policy ISsues: ,The~ following :items, ~re a matte~' of planning:Commission policy and should be
incoi'poratedinto the project design without dlscussiorl:
1. Vary the roll-Up garage door designs to avoid monotony. Suggest pairing together doors wi~
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the I~roject
subject to the modifications as recommended above.
Desl.qn Review Committee Action:
Member Prasen~ ':~ P~ s~wart, Nancy Fong
The Committee reviewed the pr0j~t :and r~¢~0mmer{~ied file applican{ ~ke all 'major and policy
issue revisions, with the exception of the fourth identified major Issue, The raviston should
incorporate decorative meterlal other than wood siding and could include stacked stone or real river
rock treatment on the four buildings along Etiwanda Avenue as wall as the leasing/clubhouse
building, The applicant agreed to make the necessary ravistons and bring back the revised
elevations and sample meterlats, The Committee asked to see the project on Consent Calendar at
the next Design Review Committee mse,ng.
7:00 p.m. Kirt Coury December 4, 2001
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00557 -
FORECAST CORPORATION - A request to construct 368 apartments on 26.7 acres of land in the
Medium Residential Distdct (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Oveday District, and
Etiwanda Avenue Oveday District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of
Etiwanda horth of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 17, 20, and 29.
Related Files: Tentative Tract SUB'Ir 16257, Variance DRC2001-00566, and Tree Removal Pem~tt
DRC2001-00567.
DeslRn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Para Stewart
Staff Planner:. Nancy Fong for Kirt Coury
The applicant was not present at the meeting with the revised colored elevations. The Committee
reviewed the faxed 8 1/2 by 11 elevations showing the addition of stacked stones enrichment to
Buildings B and C. The Committee recommended that the stacked stones be used as a wainscot
for all sides of the buildings and to bdng the stacked stones up to the level of the cornice treatment
and as marked on the faxed elevations. If the applicant disagreed with the Committee"s
recommendations, the project should be referred back to Committee as a regular item for discussio~.
pdor to Planning Commission review.
/65
'~ ENVIRONMENTAL
~ ~' %¥ INFORMATION FORM
~o,Ro=o~, (Part I -' Initial Study)
Planning Divtsfoe
{~os) 477-2750
INCOMPLb 1 E APPLICATION$ WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it ia the responsibility of the applicant to ensure Umt
the applica#on is complete at the time of submittal,' City ataff will not be available to per[orm work required to provide missing
in formalin.
Application Number for the project to which this form
proteins:
Name & Address of project
Name & Address of developer or pmject -~ ~
spon~oc
Telephone
Information indicated by aste#sk (*) is not required of non-cona~rucfon CUPs unless otherwfse requested by sfaff.
'I) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and Indicafe ~he site
boundeSes.
2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and wast;
views into and from the site from the pdmaty access points which selve the site; and repmsenteffve views of significant
features from the site. Include a map showing IocaSon of each photograph.
'~ . · ~.
4) Assessors Pamel Numbers (aEach addiEonal sheet
7)Dssc~fbe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (Mtach addYdonal sheet
ff necessaOc.
I:~PLANNING~FINAL~FORMS~COUNTER~JNITSTDI.WPD 3/00 Page 2
" 8) include a description of ail permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other govemmentel
agencies in order to fully implement the project:
9)Describe the physical seffing of the site as it 'exists'betom the pmjecf including i~fon'nation on topography, soil stability, plants
and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspecte. Desc. dbe any ex. i. ailng structures on site
(including age and condffion) and the use of the stroclums. Attach photographs of $igniilcant featums descdbed. In addison,
site ail soui'ces of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and aroheologicel surveys, baffic studte~):
t
10)Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspec~ of the site. Site all soumes of infotma§on (books, published reports end
oral history):
11) Descdbe any noise souroes and their levels that now affect the Site (aircrall, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will aftect
2)Describe the proposed project in deteil. This shouldpmv~de an adequate description o~ the site in terms of ultimate use which
will result from ~he prop. osed project. Indicate ff them am proposed phases for development, the extent of development to
occur with each phase, and the anticipated compietion of each incremenL' Attach additk~nal sheet(e) ff necessao~:
13)Desc#be the sum)unding properties, including information on plante and animals and any cultural, hlsto~=al, or ~canto
aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment house&
shops, depa~lment =toros, etc.) and scale of development (heigh~ frontage, setback, mar yawl, e~):
·
/ / '
14) Will the pmrnn-~el project change the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project'?
'. 15) Indicate the type of shoE-term and long-term noise to be genere~ed, including source and amount. How will these noise levels
affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. Wl~at methods of seund proofing am pmposed?
'16) Indicate proposed, removals, and/or replacements,k. of m.ature, or scenic bees: ~cw ~¥-~1 'I- ~.~ v~O ~'~
17) Indicate any bodies of watsr (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains:
18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage e~timatss). For fur~her, ctarifice§on, please contact
the Cucemonge County Watsr District at 987-259f.
e. Rosiden§al (gal/day) [ ~ ~'~ ~ o 0 Peak use (gal/Day)
b. Comme~ciaVlnd. (gal/day/ac) Peek use (gal/ml,rVac)
/
19) lndicats proposed mothod of sewage disposal. __ Sep#c Tank ~/Sewer. If sepUc tonks am proposed, attach
percolaUon tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage genera#on: (See
Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Disbfnt at 987-
2591.
a. Residential (gel~day) 7 -~ 0 a b
b. Commereiaklod. (gal~day/ac)
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: ' '
20) Number of residential units:
Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum for
size:
i.tf~l Akl&llklf~-UClldAI %I~M.~M~.OUhJ'F~_RIlMIT,~FI~4 WPJ~ ~ Page
21)Anticipated range of sale p#ces and/or mnts:
Sale P#ce(s) $. ~ to $
Rent (per month) $ ~ o ~ to $ ~/ ~ ~ " -'
22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit fype:
23) Indicate anticipated household size by ~
24)Indicate the expected number of school children who wfll be residing within the project: Contact the approptfate School
Districts as shown in Aitachment B:
a. Elementary:_
b. JuniorHIgh:__
c. Senior High
COMMERCIALt INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECT~
25) De$c#be type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, Indusbfal or instal
26) ~p~! floor ama of corn
· ' 27) Indicate hours of operaUon:
28) Number of Total:
employees:
Maximum Shift..
Time of Maximum Shift:
2g)Pmvide ~ ranges, as well as an indication of the Kite
of hire for each classification
30) Estimation of the J , reside in the
c~:
(Data should be
Coast Air (
ALL PROJECT~
32)Have the water, sewer, conbol agencies serving file project been contected to detenTline their abitib/ to provide
adequate sen,ice to the ff ~o, please indicate thelr respon~e.
.
i:~OLANNING~INAL~=ORMb-'~COUNTER~INITSTDI.WPD 3/00 Page 7
~ In the known history of this properS, has them been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic mate~fals?
· ~w Examples of hazardoua and/or toxic materials include, but am not limited to PCB-s; radioacEve substances; pesticides and
herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. 'Alse note unde~jmund atomge of any of the above.
Please list the materials and desctfbe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, ff
known.
34) t4411 the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic
maledals, including but not limited to those examples listed above? ff yes, provide an inventory of all such matedate to be
used and proposed method of disposal. The Ioca§on of such uses, along with the storage and shipment ames, shall be
shown and labeled on the application pter, s.
I hereby cerffy that the statements furnished above andin the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate
evaluation of this project to the best of my abllib/, that the facts, stafamenfa, and information presented am hue and correct tot be best
of my knowledge and belief. I further undemtend that additional information may be required to be submitted before, an adequate
evaluation can be made by the ~ of Rancho Cucamonge. /~ ~ ~ ~.~...
Oete.' '=/'/lO / ', _
/ '
T/tie:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: DRC 2001-00557
2. R~lated Files: Tentative Tract Map No. 16257, DRC 2001-00567 and DRC 2001-0566
3. Description of Project: Environmental Assessment and Development Review 2001-
00557-The project is the development and design review of plans for Tentative Tract
Map No. 16257, and the construction of 368 multi-family units in buildings ranging from
one to three stories in height. The site is approximately 26.7 acres in the Medium
Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The
project also requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Tree Removal Permit. The
project site is within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District. All proposed developments
within the overlay district are subject to the issuance of a CUP with the exception of
single-family residences. The Tree Removal Permit will allow the removal of onsite trees
that meet the Tree Ordinance's minimum size criteria for heritage trees. Currently there
are three single-family residences onsite. The proposed project includes the removal of
these residences. The site is located southeast of the elevated 1-15 Freeway,
approximately 550 feet north of Foothill Boulevard and immediately west of Etiwanda
Avenue (APN Nos.22.7-21-003, 004, 005, 009, 010, 017, 020 and 029).
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Forecast Corporation
10670 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
5. General Plan Designation: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan.
6. Zoning: Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda Specific
Plan.
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is bordered on the west and north by
the 1-15 Freeway. The freeway is elevated through this section and runs southwest to
northeast at an approximate 45° angle to the site. The area south of the site is vacant
followed by a realty office, a liquor store, single-family residences and a church (located
near the southwest comer of the site). The site surrounds an existing neighborhood that
includes eight single-family residences. These are not a part of the project and will
remain in place. The project includes a perimeter wall around the existing residents.
There are three single-family residences that occur onsite that will be removed to allow
for site development. The westernmost portion of the site is currently clear of residential
structures and will allow full access to the northern/southern portion of the site.
/7¢
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 2
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Kirt Coury
Senior Planner
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required: State Water Resources Control Board -
General Construction Activities Storm Water Runoff Permit.
/75
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 3
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.
I( ) Land Use and Planning ('/) Transp°rtati°n/Circulati°n I
( ) Population and Housing (v') Biological Resources (v') Public Services
(v') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (v') Utilities and Service Systems
(v') Water (v') Hazards (~') Aesthetics
(,/) Air Quality (v') Noise ( ) Cultural Resources
(v') Mandatory Findings of Significance (v') 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: ~ .~//~ ffZ.f'
Natalie P. Patty /// '
Contract Environmental AnalySt
December 18, 2001
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 4
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 Soumes: ~x~,,a~ u.~ ~.
s~acant ~ga~ I s~a~t
1. 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?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,)
vicinity?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,)
established community?
Comments:
a-b) The project site is located immediately west of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill
Boulevard and is bordered on the west/northwest by the 1-15 within the Etiwanda
Specific Plan area, The project site is within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District
and therefore is subject to a CUP and all special design requirements contained in
Part II, Chapter 5, Section .304 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The site is within the
Medium Residential District (8 to 14 dwelling units per area). The applicant has
proposed a tract map showing 13.8 dwelling units per acre on a net site area of
26.7 acres. No increase in density or plan amendment is proposed, and therefore no
impacts will result from the project..
c-d) The nearest residence is located 40 feet from a proposed building with a proposed
height of 32 feet. Standard two-story homes have heights ranging from 25 to
35 feet. The proposed development will be compatible with existing residences in
the vicinity as the building are sufficiently setback from the existing residences and
do not exceed the maximum height requirements of a two-story single-family home.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~
:,~'~o;.'~ I ~ I ~.,~t I
2. POPULATION ~ HOUS~IG. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,)
population projections?
/77
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: u,~ ~
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either ( ) ( ) ( ) (,~)
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped ama or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ( ) ( ) (~') ( )
housing?
Comments:
a-b) The project includes the construction of 368 apartments on approximately
26.7 acres of land designated as Medium Residential (8 to 14 dwelling units per
area) located immediately west of Etiwanda Avenue and approximately 100 feet
north of Foothill Boulevard. No increase in density or plan amendment is proposed.
Therefore, the project will not result in a change in population projections. The
proposed project will not require the expansion of any major infrastructure as the
area surrounding the site is development with scattered single-family residences,
with commercial development along Foothill Boulevard.
c) The project site includes three existing single-family residences. These residences
will be removed to allow site development. The site surrounds an existing
neighborhood that includes eight single-family residences, These eight residences
are not apart of the project and will remain in place. The three residential structures
that occur onsite will be removed and replaced with 368 dwelling units. The impact
is considered less than significant.
Issues and Supporting nformation Sources:
la~i ~ No
I Imp~ I In(x.~,~ IIn'~ I In~p~
3.. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. 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? ( ) ( ) (~,) ( )
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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: M.~. s~r~. .o
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
Comments:
a-b) No known faults pass through the site, and it is not in an Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is
it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Rod Hill Fault. The
Red Hill Fault, or Etiwanda Avenue Fault, passes within 3 miles northwest of the site,
and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 4.8 miles north. The magnitude of
the maximum probable event along these faults is estimatod at moment magnitude
(Mw) 6.0 - 7.0 earthquakes, respectively. Also, the San Jacinto fault, capable of
producing up to Mw 7.5 earthquakes is 9.0 miles northeast of the site and the San
Andreas, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is 11.5 miles northeast of the site.
Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Adhering to the City grading
standards and the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less
than significant.
c) In the absence of shallow groundwater, the project site is not considered susceptible to
soil liquefaction.
d) The 26.7-acre site is not located near a body of water. Therefore the proposed
development will not expose people to a seiche hazard.
e) The site is relatively flat, therefore there is no danger of landslides or mudflows.
Grading will be minimal and will even out the site and create the necessary slope
gradient to allow proper site drainage.
f) Based on a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the site by
Converse Consultants in August 2001, the project site is suitable for the proposed
development, provided the findings and conclusions presented in the report are
considered in the development of the site. As discussed in the report, the upper
three to four feet of alluvial soils are not considered suitable for supporting
structures or additional fills. However, typically, during grading, these soils can be
over excavated and compacted to meet or exceed foundation requirements.
The following mitigation measures, as contained in the report, will ensure impacts to
development of the site are less than significant.
1. Site grading shall include removal and recompaction of surtace soils.
Relative compaction shall be as determined by the project engineer in a
final geotechnical report.
2. Prior to issuance of grading permits for the project, a final grading plan
shall be prepared in compliance with recommendations contained in the
final geotechnical report.
g/h) Based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Converse
Consultants in August 2001, two representative samples from the top layer of
/7¢
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 7
alluvial deposit were tested to evaluate expansion index (El) in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997) Standard 18-2. The value of the measured El is
0. This value of El indicates that the site soils have very Iow expansion potential. As
discussed in the report, the average shrinkage factor for the upper five feet of
alluvial soils is estimated to be 2 to 16 percent. Subsidence will depend on the
construction methods including type of equipment utilized. For estimation purposes,
ground subsidence may be taken as 0.20 feet. Subsidence may occur in the City
relative to groundwater withdrawals, if groundwater drawn down is done at varying
rates in the Cucamonga groundwater basin. However, to date this phenomenon has
not occurred anywhere in the City and is unlikely to occur due to the consistent
groundwater management practices of the various water agencies. Therefore, this
impact is considered to be less than significant.
Soil type at the site and in the vicinity is Tujunga association (TvB). The Tujunga
series consists of somewhat excessively drained, nearly level to moderately sloping
soils formed on alluvial fans in granitic alluvium. Soils are present at slopes of zero
to nine percent in elevations ranging from 1,000 to 2,000 feet. Vegetation present
with these soils is thin strands of chamise, some large sagebrush, and annual
grasses. Runoff is slow to very slow. The hazard of water erosion is slight, but the
soil will blow if left unprotected. The hazard of soil blowing is moderate to high on
bare soil. The City's General Plan indicates that most soil types in the City are very
adaptable to land development and are not of an expansive nature.
i) The site contains no unique geologic or physical features.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) 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?
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?
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?
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: P~,,,~y u,~ ~
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,')
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,')
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ( ) ( ) ( ) (v)
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies?
Comments:
a-b) Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM, 1984) prepared by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is located within a "Flood
Hazard Zone C.' This zone is defined by FEMA as an area of minimal flooding. As
described in the Preliminary Drainage Study prepared by Dan Guerra & Associates
the project site drains southerly to Foothill Boulevard, through the Foothill Market
Place, and ultimately to the Day Creek Channel. The City's Master Plan of Drainage
proposed to redirect this area easterly to the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Channel.
Interim conditions do not allow additional flows to the facility until downstream
regional facilities are completed. In addition, the property is not physically capable
of draining to the basin. A Final Drainage Report prepared for Tract 15711 (located
north of the project site) in September 1997, provides for the redirection of the
undeveloped runoff from this area, with mitigation detention occurring in Basin No. 6
to account for this increased undeveloped flow. The report suggests onsite
detention of the incremental developed runoff from this area to occur as a potential
option. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented prior to issuance of
grading permits:
3. The applicant shall submit a final drainage plan showing how
stormwater will be conveyed across the site and directed into the City's
storm drain systero.
c-e) Since grading onsite will exceed five acres, the applicant must prepare a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for submittal to the State Water
Resources Control .Board (SWRCB). The project will also require a General
Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit from the SWRCB. Both the
SWRCB and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) will require the
use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction to control the
discharge of pollutants and sediments into streets and/or stormwater conveyance
channels. BMPs would include, but are not limited to street sweeping of paved
roads during construction, and the use of hay bales or sand bags to control erosion
during the rainy season. The following mitigation measure will be implemented to
ensure impacts from water runoff and erosion is less than significant:
4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall identity BMPs to
be implemented during the period the site is under construction. BMPs
shall be identified on the grading plans for review and approval by the
City Engineer.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 9
A final grading plan will be prepared in accordance with City standards and show
how storm water runoff will be handled both during construction and operation.
Approval of grading plans and conditions applied to the project by the Building
Official to ensure adequate site drainage and adherence to BMPs identified in the
SWPPP will make this impact less than significant.
f-i) The project will not interfere with groundwater management practices in the area as
the site is not used for groundwater recharge. Additionally, groundwater was not
encountered in any of the borings (maximum explored depth of 50 feet) taken for
the preparation of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by
Converse Consultants; Based on available information depth to groundwater is
greater than 400 feet below the project site.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: u.~. ~
M~
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to ( ) (v) ( ) ( )
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) (v) ( ) ( )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or ( ) ( ) ( ) (.,')
cause any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v)
Comments:
a) The proposed project was screened using the Urban Emission Model 7G
(URBEMIS7G) prepared by Jones & Stokes under the guidance of the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, the Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District, and the South Coast Air Quality Management Distdct (SCAQMD). The
program generates emissions estimates for land use development projects. The
criteria pollutants screened for included: reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrous oxides
(NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulates (PM~0). Though not required,
construction emissions ars screened and quantified to document the eff~ctiveness of
control measures (Table 1). The operational mobile source emissions were calculated
using the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 6th edition values
programmed into the URBEMIS7G model. In order to reflect the residential nature of
the proposed project, the default fleet mix was modified to increase the number of light
passenger vehicles and decrease the number of medium and heavy-duty diesel
trucks. The proposed project operational emissions will not exceed SCAQMD
thresholds of significance (Table 2). However, since the South Coast Air Basin is in
non-attainment status for ozone and suspended particulates (PMm) mitigation
measures will be used to minimize the project contribution to regional emission of
criteria pollutants.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 10
Generally, construction of a project this size will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds
during grading activities for PM~o and NOx, nor SCAQMD thresholds for developed
condition (operational impacts) for NOx. Tables 1 and 2 show project impacts before
and after mitigation measures have been implemented. During grading, fugitive dust
(PM~0) will be generated. Additionally, painting activities will increase ROG levels.
The model simulates all of the units being painted at the same time (worst case)
and shows that combined ROG during construction to exceed the 75 pounds per
day threshold by 1.68 pounds. However, it is likely that painting activities will be
spaced out and will not occur at the same time. If painting activities do occur
simultaneously Mitigation Measure No. 11 will ensure emissions are below
SCAQMD thresholds. And since, there are existing residential units within the
vicinity of the site, and since the region is in non-attainment for PM~0, fugitive dust
will be mitigated by the following measures:
5. Painting activities shall be spaced out over a period of 80 days.
6. 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 4{)3.
7. Efiwanda Avenue 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.
8. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds excccd
2S mph to minimize PM~o emissions from the site during such episodes.
9. 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~o emissions.
During operation exhaust emissions from trucks and employees traveling to the site
will increase CO levels in the area. As shown in Table 2, operation activities at the
site will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Based on a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
prepared by Kunzman Associates in October 2001, the project will generate
approximately 2,466 daily trips. Total AM peak hour trips would be approximately
139 and PM peak hour trips would be 169, with a continued LOS D capacity or
better at intersections in the vicinity. Traffic associated with the project was
projected to occur in the area as the area is designated Medium Residential and is
expected to generate related traffic trips. Emissions associated with these vehicle
trips are below SCAQMD thresholds (Table 2).
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 11
Table 1
URBEMIS7G Construction Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Source ROG N(~x " CO PM~0
Unmit. Mit. Unm t Mit. Unmit, Mit. Unmit. Mit.
Demolition 16.80 16.80
Grading 4.67 4.67 53.22 50.56 - 25.36 10.99
Worker Trips 1.09 1.09 1,54 1.54 2.91 2.91 0.29 0.29
Stationary Equip. 0.34 0,34 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.02
Mobile Equip. 3.12 2.96 28.80 27.36 2.23 2.12
Arch. Coatings 69.72 66.23
Asphalt 1.70 1.62
Totals 80.64 76.68 83.83 79.73 2.91 2.91 44.70 13.42
SCAQMDThres. 75 75 100 100 550 550 150 150
Significance Yes Yes No No No No No No
Table 2
URBEMIS7G EXISTING Operations Emissions
(Pounds per Da]r)
Source ROG N(~x " CO PM~0
Unmit. Mit. unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit.
Area Source 0.06 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile Source 10.16 10.16 20.29 20.29 90.46 90.46 5.16 5.16
Totals 10.22 10.16 21.10 20.29 90.78 90.46 5.16 5.16
SCAQMDThres. 55 55 55 55 550 550 150 150
Significance No No No No No No No No
b) During construction exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment,
and fugitive dust generated by equipment traveling over exposed surfaces will
increase NOx and PM~0 levels in the area. The following mitigation measures will
ensure impacts to existing residential units located a minimum of 40 feet from
proposed construction activities, are at less than significant levels.
10. The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used
on-site based on Iow 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.
11. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel
powered equipment where feasible.
12. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans
include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 12
c-d) The proposed project is the construction of 368 apartment units on a 26.7-acre lot
with demolition of three existing residential units in accordance with the City code.
The end use of the proposed project, Medium residential, will not generate
emissions that could cause climatic changes or objectionable odors.
Issues and Supporting Information Soumes: ~,~ u,,e~ ~
6. 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,~)
Comments:
a) A traffic study was prepared for the project by Kunzman Associates in October
2001. The study contains documentation of existing traffic conditions, traffic
generated by the project, distribution of the proiect traffic to roads outside the
project, and an analysis of future traffic conditions. The following is a summary of
the traffic study prepared for the project.
Roadways that will be utilized by the development include Foothill Boulevard and
Etiwanda Avenue. Currently the project site is vacant with the exception of three
single-family residences that generate minimal traffic. Existing intersections in the
vicinity of the site currently operate at Level of Service (LOS) D capacity or better.
Once constructed, the project would generate approximately 2,466 daily trips. Total
AM peak hour trips would be approximately 139 and PM peak hour trips would be
169, with a continued LOS D capacity or better at intersections in the vicinity. These
traffic generation levels are below the San Bernardino County Association of
Governments threshold of 250 peak hour trips to require a Congestion Management
Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (CMP/'I'IA).
The following mitigation measures contained in the traffic study will ensure impacts
to traffic and roads in the vicinity are at less than significant levels:
Initial Study for City of'Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 13
13. Maintain a high level of service along arterials by restricting parking and
controlling roadway access.
14. Construct all streets internal to the project to full ultimate cross-sections
as adjacent development occurs.
15. Construct all streets bordering the project to ultimate half-section widths
in conjunction with development.
16. Landscape planting and signs should be limited to 36 inches in height
within 25 feet of project driveways to assure good visibility.
17. Install a STOP sign on site egress roadway to adjacent arterials.
The applicant will be responsible for paying the City traffic impact fees and
improving the project's frontage along Etiwanda Boulevard. The applicant shall pay
traffic impact fees that amount to the project's fair share of roadway improvements
as identified by the City Engineer.
b-c) Project design will not result in the creation of hazardous traffic conditions or create
dangerous intersections. The proposed project includes two full access points from
Foothill Boulevard. The southernmost access point is the main gated entrance and
includes a 22-foot entrance and a 20-foot exit, with an eight-foot island separating
the two. The second gated entrance is located approximately 700 feet north of the
main entrance and includes both a 20-foot entrance and exit, with an eight-foot
island separating the two. Both entrances will provide adequate points of
ingress/egress and are accessible by emergency vehicles.
d) The proposed project must provide a total of 712 parking spaces. The site plan
includes 719 parking spaces.
e-f) The new facility will not cause a hazard or barrier to pedestrians or cyclists because
adequate points of ingress/egress have been provided and there is adequate
parking along streets. No bus turnout has been provided.
g) Located approximately seven miles northeast of Ontario Airport, the site is offset
north of the flight path and will not be dangerous to users or aircraft.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their ( ) ( ) ( )
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)?
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 14
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: u.~ ~
I impact I In,~ted mpac~ Impacl
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, ( ) ( ) (,~) ( )
eucalyptus.windrow, etc.)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ( ) ( ) ( ) (,~)
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., mamh, riparian, and ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
Comments:
a) The site and surrounding area is not within the Ontario Habitat Recovery Unit for the
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSFLF) as identified within Figure 6 of the US Fish
& Wildlife Service Final Recovery Plan for the DSFLF dated September 14, 1997.
The 26.7-acre site contains three residential units within the easternmost area and a
vineyard within the westernmost area. The site is mostly vegetated with non-native
grasses, a vineyard, and windrows of eucalyptus trees. Past agricultural and
residential development has eliminated native vegetation at this site,
b-c) According to the Arborist Report prepared by Jim Borer, Certified Arborist for the
project site on September 20, 2001, a total of 86 trees on site meet the Tree
Ordinance's minimum size criteria for heritage trees. There are 72 eucalyptus of
various specimens and types, ten Italian cypress, one fan palm, one fruitless
mulberry, and two California peppers. In general the eucalyptus trees are quite
mature and are in declining condition with 13 dead specimens. Many of the other
specimens are under going structural decline. One eucalyptus tree is under attack
from an insect that has caused it to defoliate and therefore decline. The eucalyptus
trees vary in condition between extremely mature specimens and smaller
specimens that have grown underneath the canopies of the larger trees. Trees in
both categories are in decline.
Based on the proposed site development plan that calls for mass grading
operations and widening of the west side of Etiwanda Avenue frontage, all of the
existing specimen trees on site are expected to be affected. Up to 75 of the 86 trees
on site must be removed to allow for the proposed grading to accommodate
construction. As stated in the report, several of the species are candidates for
relocation. Ornamental trees onsite, including one fan palm and 10 Italian cypress
trees are viable candidates for relocation and preservation onsite. However none of
these 11 trees are individually mature or distinct in either form or character and it
would not be considered a significant impact if the trees were removed. The
applicant has applied for the necessary Tree Removal Permit and has paid all
associated fees. The impact is not considered significant as a majority of the trees
are in declining condition and the project design indicates that they will be replaced
with 120, 36-inch box trees, 120, 24-inch box trees, and 962, 15-gallon trees for a
total of 1,202 new trees onsite.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 15
d) There is no riparian or wetland habitat on-site.
e) The 1-15 Freeway borders the site along the west and northwest. The site is
immediately west of Etiwanda Avenue and approximately 550 feet north of Foothill
Boulevard. Scattered single-family residences occur near and on the site. This
development has eliminated any wildlife corridors that may have occurred in the
past.
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?
Comments:
a-b) The project will be required to conform with applicable City standards for energy
conservation.
c) The project site is located on the Day Creek alluvial fan, an area classified as a
Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ-2). An MRZ-2 zone contains deposits of known value
and marketability. However, the State Geologist has determined that the area is not
a Designated Area of available resources due to urbanization.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: u~ ~
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,')
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,')
health hazard?
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 16
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~,,.t~,~ IUnlea~ ~1
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ( ) ( ) ( ) (.,')
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments:
a) There is no evidence of commercial or industrial uses. No evidence of discarded
drums, containers, or hazardous wastes were observed during a site visit. Several
piles of non-hazardous debris were observed onsite and will be removed prior to
grading. There was no indication of underground storage tanks or illegal dumping of
refuse on-site. Past and current uses at and near the site include vineyard and
residential development. Demolition of residential structures shall be done in
accordance with applicable City regulations. The proposed project will not expose
people or the environment to hazardous materials.
b) Two 50-foot driveways along Etiwanda Avenue will provide adequate access for
emergency vehicles for the 26.7-acre site. Fire hose locations will be approved per
the Fire Department. All terminating streets on-site provide appropriate turn radii for
emergency vehicles.
d) No evidence of discarded drums, containers, hazardous wastes or discolored soils
was observed onsite. There was no indication of underground storage tanks or
illegal dumping of refuse on-site.
e) Development of the sites will remove dry vegetation and continued development of
the area will decrease the potential of fire within the vicinity. The site is not located
in a brush/wildland fire hazard area.
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (~') ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) (v) ( ) ( )
Comments:
a) The proposed project consists of 368 units in four building ranging in height
between one and three stories. The single and two-story buildings will house
conventional apartments, while the building with three stories will include loft style
apartments on the third floor. The project would increase noise levels on-site and in
the vicinity because the site is currently vacant. The site surrounds an existing
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 17
neighborhood that includes eight single-family residences that are not a part of the
project, and that will remain in place. Construction activities are short-term and
related elevated noise levels will cease once construction is complete.
Implementation of the City's standard regulations on construction noise will ensure
impacts to these residential units are at less than significant levels. These include
limiting hours of construction to day-time hours Monday through Friday.
Project-related increases in noise associated with developing a vacant site with
368 multi-family units will be consistent with the City's General Plan Noise Element
for multi-family projects. The project is not anticipated to generate other than
residential noise (i.e., children playing, vehicles entering and exiting, landscape
maintenance, etc.)
Construction noise can be mitigated through adherence to the City's requirements
for restricting noise including delimiting the hours and days when construction can
occur. Also the placement of stockpile areas and equipment storage away from the
existing residences adjacent to the project site. These conditions of project approval
are adequate so that no additional mitigation measures are required.
b) The 368 apartment units will be sited immediately east of the elevated 1-15 freeway
and west of Etiwanda Avenue. Traffic along freeways and highways can be a
significant source of noise. The City's General Plan indicates noise levels exceeding
65 dBA along the 115 Freeway and Etiwanda Avenue. The project site is located
550 feet from Foothill Boulevard which is also subject to noise levels exceeding
65 dBA.
Environmental noise is normally measured using a special frequency-dependent
rating scale because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all
frequencies. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) compensates for this discrepancy
by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of
the human ear. A-weighting de-emphasizes the very Iow and very high frequencies
of sound in a manner similar to the human ear. The result is a decibel corrected for
the variation in frequency response of the typical human ear at commonly
encountered noise levels. In general, people can perceive a three-dBA difference in
noise levels; a difference of 10 dBA is perceived as being twice as loud; 20 dB
higher four times as loud; and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB
(very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud).
Environmental noise levels typically fluctuate over time, and different types of noise
descriptors are used to account for this variability. The most useful noise descriptors
measure time-averaged noise levels rePresenting various times of the day as
sensitivity to noise increases/decreases (sensitivity to noise increases during
evening and night-time hours). The following are definitions of the terminology
commonly used to describe noise and noise related impacts.
CNEI. (Community Noise Equivalent Level) - The average equivalent A-weighted
sound level during a' 24-hour period, obtained after addition of approximately five
decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten
decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 18
dB(A) (A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level) - The sound pressure level, in
decibels, as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network.
The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very Iow and very high frequency
components of the sound, placing greater emphasis on those frequencies within the
sensitivity range of the human ear.
Ldn (Day-Night Noise Level) - The average equivalent A-weighted sound level
during a 24-hour day obtained by adding ten decibels to the hourly noise levels
measured during the night (from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). In this way Ldn takes into
account the lower tolerance of people for noise during nighttime periods.
Leq (Equivalent Energy Level) - The sound level corresponding to a steady-
state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a
given sample period, typically 1, 8 or 24 hours.
La,= (Maximum Sound Level) - A statistical value that represents the highest
maximum sound level reading during a given period.
A traffic noise study report was'prepared for the proposed 368-unit project using
both City and State of California noise standards. The City's Noise Element requires
that where exceeded, the exterior noise adjacent to residential uses must be
mitigated to 65 CNEL for outside living areas and that interior noise from exterior
noise sources be mitigated to 45 CNEL for indoor living areas. In addition, the
state's criteria for implementing surface traffic noise controls from the Noise
Abatement Criteria (NAC) established by the Federal Highway Administration are
65 dBA leq for exterior residential areas and 52 dBA leq for interior areas.
Under state regulations, highway traffic noise must be mitigated when the predicted
noise levels "approach or exceed" the NAC or when predicted noise levels
substantially exceed existing ambient noise levels and it is reasonable and feasible
to mitigate.
For the noise study, two sound level monitoring systems were used at two sites
within the project boundary over a 24-hour period. In addition, short-term noise
measurements were taken at three locations to assist in defining the traffic noise
propagation on-site. Both the monitoring results and the noise prediction model
show that noise due to current traffic on the 1-15 freeway exceeds 65 CNEL at the
freeway right-of-way property line. Predictions show that traffic noise due to Foothill
Boulevard, and Etiwanda Avenue does not exceed 65 CNEL at the respective
property lines.
According to traffic information provided by the City, future traffic noise from both
Etiwanda Avenue and the 1-15 freeway will increase, while traffic noise from Foothill
Boulevard will remain essentially the same.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 1,q
For project apartments along the westerly property lines closest to the 1-15 freeway,
no aoutdoor living areas" are planned for either the sides or the rear of these
buildings. They have been designed to serve as 31-foot high by 61 feet long noise
barriers for the interior buildings on-site. Without these buildings to act as sound
barriers for the 1-15 traffic, noise would be approximately 65 CNEL 1,236 feet from
the centerline of the freeway. With the noise mitigation provided by these buildings,
freeway traffic noise would not exceed 65 CNEL in the outdoor living areas past the
noise barrier apartments, except for the central portion of the freeway right-of-way
where no barrier buildings are planned. For the patios and balconies with a full or
partial view of the 1-15 freeway through the unmitigated central right-of-way portion
of the project, mitigation must be built into the project to reduce noise levels to
65 CNEL or less.
Likewise, for units along Etiwanda Avenue, traffic noise at the front of the buildings
will be a combination of unmitigated traffic noise from Etiwanda and mitigated 1-15
traffic noise, which would be approximately 65 CNEL 116 feet from the centerline of
Etiwanda Avenue. Since Etiwanda Avenue traffic noise would exceed the City's
noise standards, the following mitigation is required to reduce exterior noise levels
to 65 CNEL or below.
18. A seven-foot high, 5/8-inch thick, solid Lexan (or an equivalent abrasion
resistant, non-yellowing transparent material) patio and balcony sound
barrier panels should be installed at front yard patios and balconies
within 350 feet of the freeway right-of-way that have a full or partial view
of the 1-15 freeway and within 140 feet of the centerline of Etiwanda
Avenue and that have a full or partial view of Etiwanda Avenue. Final
size and composition of material to be used in the noise barriers shall be
determined in a final acoustical analysis of the final site plans submitted
to the City.
As described in the noise analysis, the worst-case exterior noise exposure would
occur at the second floor of the buildings nearest to the freeway and Etiwanda
Avenue. The overall noise levels at the roadway facing sides of the front line
apartments would be approximately 75 CNEL along the freeway and 69 CNEL
along Etiwanda Avenue. An outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction of 30 dB and 26 dB,
respectively, will be required to comply with the 45 CNEL interior noise level target.
The following mitigation measure will ensure interior noise 'levels at within City
standards.
19. An appropriate ventilation or cooling system shall be included in the
design to provide ventilation for the units without requiring that windows
be opened. The type of ventilation system will be chosen in consultation
with City staff prior to issuance of building permits.
20. First floor apartment windows in buildings walls that would have a full or
partial view of either the 1-15 freeway or Etiwanda Avenue will require the
placement of acoustically rated 'windows. The exact rating shall be
determined in a final acoustical analysis that shall be conducted prior to
issuance of building permits for the affected buildings.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 20
21. Buildings nearest the roadways that have a full or partial view of either
the 1-15 freeway or Etiwanda, will require the placement of acoustically
rated exterior doors. The final design and rating of the doors and related
materials shall be determined in the final acoustical analysis that shall
be conducted prior to issuance of building permits for the affected
buildings.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,)
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( )
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (~,) ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including marls? ( ) ( ) (v) ( )
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,.)
Comments:
The Etiwanda Specific Plan identifies the project area as one of the highest intensities
within the Etiwanda planning ama. The area is planned to contain one of the higher land
use intensities. Appropriate conditions of approval will be placed on the project prior to
development.
a-e) Fire Protection - The project site is located immediately west of Etiwanda Avenue
and approximately 550 feet north of Foothill Boulevard, and is served by the Foothill
Fire Protection District. The nearest fire station is located on Baseline Road, west of
Day Creek Boulevard, and approximately two miles northwest of the site. The
Foothill Fire Distdct is responsible for evaluating the project through the City's
Development Review and Growth Management process. The proposed project will
include structural fire protection standards contained in the Uniform Fire Code.
Police protection - Police Protection for the area is provided under a contract with
the County Sheriff's Department. The proposed residential development will include
standard security devices such as street lighting, and locks on all windows and
doors. Since a portion of the site contains existing residential units, with commercial
development occurring less than 550 feet south of the project site, the area is
currently patrol and will not required additional police protection.
Schools -The Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint High School District
serve the project area. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to
pay the school impact fees. With this standard mitigation, impacts to the School
Districts are not considered significant.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 21
Parks - The proposed project will include recreational facilities onsite for the
368 dwelling units. Facilities will include a Main Recreational Building, an Adult
Recreation Center, and a Family Recreation Center. Additional amenities include: a
tot lot for ages 2-5, a children's wading pool, a tot lot for ages 5-12, a pool and spa,
half-court basketball, a grass volleyball court, horseshoe pit, and four
barbecue/picnic facilities. Since the project provided several recreational amenities
onsite, the impact to local parks or future recreational opportunities is less than
significant.
b) Public facilities - The proposed residential development will not significantly
increase traffic on adjacent streets and it is consistent will the City's Etiwanda
Specific Plan which designates the area Medium Residential with projected future
traffic after development. The project includes improvements along Etiwanda
Avenue right-of-way. Additionally, the proponent will be required to construct all
other necessary street improvements and pay traffic impact fees as established by
the City Council to off-set the incremental increase in traffic as a result of the
project.
Issues and Supporting Information Soumes:
I ~mp~ I ~"~
12. 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v)
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ( ) ( ) ( )
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,,)
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (,,) ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,,)
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,,)
Comments:
a-g) The proposed project will include the construction of 368 dwelling units. The
proposed development will extend as necessary existing systems and utilities
available in the immediate area. The area, as discussed within the Etiwanda
Specific Plan, is scheduled to include one of the higher relative land use intensities
within the planning area. Utility systems installed to service existing development
within the area, are adequate and will not require major modifications or alterations.
Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler.
e) The project will increase demand upon storm drain systems due to the increased
runoff from new hardscape and roof tops proposed on the currently vacant site. A
/9¥
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 22
Preliminary Drainage Report prepared for the project by Dan Guerra & Associates
indicated that existing Basin Number 6 be excavated to accommodate additional
capacity. This will allow development to occur, not increase runoff to the
Etiwanda/San Sevaine Channel and eliminate the adversity associated with onsite
detention. Drainage Plans will be included in application submittals in addition to the
Final Drainage Report for City Engineer review and approval. See Section 4, Water
for a discussion of Best Management Practices.
s~
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
Impa¢l j
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
Comments:
a-b) The project site is net within a scenic vista or scenic highway. The area is
designated Medium Residential development within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The
proposed project will blend with current and proposed surrounding development.
The project site is within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District. With the exception
of single-family residences, all other proposed development within the overlay
district is subject to the issuance of the CUP; In addition to applying for a CUP, it is
the intent of the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District to protect and enhance the visual
and historical character and the quality of Etiwanda Avenue by requiring special
setbacks, traditional architectural styles, and landscaping to be consistent with the
streetscape theme for Etiwanda Avenue. The proposed project includes
aesthetically pleasing elevations with large open space area and the replacement of
declining trees with 1,202 new trees.
c) The project will create new light and glare as the site is currently vacant. However,
the site has been identified as a residential site so new light will not significantly
affect sensitive receptors such as other residential development in the area.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproposah
a) Disturb Paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( )
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
Initial Study for · City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 23
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po~ u~,, ~
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?
Comments:
a-e) The site has not been identified in the City's Master Environmental Assessment as
containing historic or cultural resoumes. The site is located in a developing
residential area and to date, no resources have been uncovered in the vicinity of the
project site.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: I .~
15.RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ( ) ( ) (,,') ( )
regional park~ or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v)
Comments:
a) The proposed project will include recreational facilities onsite for the 368 dwelling
units. Recreational facilities will include a Main Recreational Building, an Adult
Recreation Center, and a Family Recreation Center. Additional amenities include: a
tot lot for ages 2-5, a children's wading pool, a tot lot for ages 5-12, a pool and spa,
half-court basketball, a grass volleyball court, horseshoe pit, and four
barbecue/picnic facilities. Since the project provides several recreational amenities
onsite, the impact to local parks or future recreational opportunities is less than
significant.
b) The proposed project will be constructed on land that contains three existing
residential units, and is designated Medium Residential. Surrounding and adjacent
land are also designated residential or commercial and are either currently
developed, being developed or proposed for development.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557. Page 24
Issues and Suppoding Information Sources:
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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 pedod 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?.
Comments:
a) The site and surrounding area is not within the Ontario Habitat Recovery Unit for the
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSFLF) as identified within Figure 6 of the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Final Recovery Plan for the DSFLF dated September
14, 1997. The 26.7-acre site contains three residential units within the eastemmost
area and a vineyard within the westernmost area. The site is mostly vegetated with
non-native grasses, a vineyard, and windrows of eucalyptus trees. Past agricultural
and residential development has eliminated native vegetation at this site.
According to the Arbodst Report prepared for the project site on September 20,
2001, a total of 86 trees on site meet the Tree Ordinance's minimum size criteda for
heritage trees. There are 72 eucalyptus of various specimens and types, ten Italian
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 25
cypress, one fan palm, one fruitless mulberry, and two California peppers. In
general the eucalyptus are quite mature and are in declining condition and
13 specimens are dead. Many of the other specimens are under going structural
decline. One eucalyptus tree is under attack from an insect that has caused it to
defoliate and therefore decline. The eucalyptus trees vary in condition between
extremely mature specimens and smaller specimens that have grown underneath
the canopies of the larger trees. Trees in both categories are in decline.
Based on the proposed site development that calls for mass grading operations and
widening of the west side of Etiwanda Avenue frontage, all of the existing specimen
trees on site are expected to be grossly impacted. Therefore 75 of the 86 trees on
site must be removed to allow for the proposed grading to accommodate
construction. As stated within the report, several of the species are candidates for
relocation. Ornamental trees onsite,' including one fan palm and 10 Italian cypress
are viable candidates for relocation and preservation onsite. However none of these
11 trees are individually mature or distinct in either from or 'character and it would
not be considered a significant impact if the trees were removed. The developer has
acquired the necessary Tree Removal Permit and has paid all associated fees. The
impact is not considered significant as a majority of the trees ars in declining
condition and the project design indicates they will.be replaced with 120, 36-inch
box trees, 120, 24-inch box trees, and 962, 15-gallon trees for a total of 1,202 new
trees onsite.
b) The Initial Study identified short-term impacts to air quality and noise with
development of the project site. The short-term impacts will occur due to proposed
construction activities. However, the impacts will cease once construction activities
are completed. Implementation of'mitigation measures presented in this Initial Study
will reduce short-term impacts to less than significant.
c) The proposed project is consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General
Plan that was recently adopted along with the certification of a Program EIR,
Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Consideration for significant
adverse environmental effects of buildout in the City and sphere of influence. The
City made findings that adoption of the General Plan would result in significant
adverse effects to air quality, the acoustical environment, library services, and
aesthetics and visual resources. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of
these resources; however they would not reduce impacts to less than significant
levels. As such, the City adopted statements of overriding consideration balancing
the benefits of development under the General Plan update against the significant
unavoidable adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h)).
These benefits include less overall traffic volumes by developing mixed-use projects
that will be pedestrian friendly and conservation of valuable natural open space.
With these findings and statements of overriding consideration, no further
discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is required.
c) Development of 368 apartments would not cause substantial adverse effects on
humans, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identified construction-related
emissions of criteria pollutants as having a potentially significant impact. However,
proposed mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less than significant.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 26
Additionally, impacts resulting from air quality are short*term and will cease once
construction activities are completed.
A noise study was prepared for the project to identify traffic noise levels at the
project site. The report indicated that the 1-15 Freeway would be the dominate noise
impact for the area. The noise model in conjunction with the onsite noise
measurements indicated that the building face for the first row of apartments along
the freeway would be exposed to noise levels as high as 79.2 CNEL. and that the
entire site experiences noise levels greater than 65 CNEL. The first row of
apartments along Etiwanda Avenue would be exposed to a maximum traffic noise
level of about 67.2 CNEL. The exterior living areas in the project must comply with
the City's 65 CNEL. Mitigation measure contained in the report are preliminary and
are contained in this Initial Study. A final repor~ shall be prepared to finalize findings
and measures prior to the issuance of building permits.
Additionally, the proiect must comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's indoor
noise standard of 45 CNEL. As previously stated, the first row of buildings along the
1-15 will experience noise levels as high as 79.3 CNEL. This will require outdoor to
indoor noise reductions of 34.2 dB to achieve the indoor noise standard. This is a
substantial level of noise reduction to achieve. Windows facing the freeway should
be small and will need to be upgraded with a high noise rating. The exact rating of
window will depend on the size and other elements. A final noise analysis must be
prepared to address the interior noise levels prior to the issuance of buildings
permits. The second row of buildings along 1-15 will experience noise levels as high
as 73 CNEL This will require outdoor to indoor noise reductions of 28 dB. High
noise rating windows will be required for these units. The rating of window depends
on size and other elements.'The first row of buildings will experience noise levels of
about 67 CNEL. A noise reduction of 22 dB will meet the City's standards. Window
and other buildings upgrades will not likely be required for these units.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC 2001-00557 Page 27
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study
and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500
Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
· Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR
(Certified 1983)
· Rancho Cucamonga General Plan
(October 2001)
· Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
(adopted December 7, 1983, revised June 1999)
· United States Fish & Wildlife, Final RecoverY Plan for the Delhi Sands Flower-loving
Fly, Figure 6, September 14, 1997.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid
the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects
Signature: (,.~-/ _ :
Print Name and Title: /
RESOLUTION NO. 02-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP SUBTT16257, A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT, AND
THE RELATED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2001-00567, FOR 340
APARTMENTS ON 24.2 ACRES OF LAND iN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), ETIWANDA SOUTH
OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND ETIWANDA AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT
WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE
OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09,
10, 15, 20, and 29.
A. Recitals.
1. Forecast Corporation filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16257 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On January 9 and continued to January 23, 2002, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing 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 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 during the above-
referenced public hearing on January 9, and January 23, 2002, including written and oral staff
reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to prOPerty located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue,
north of Foothill Boulevard, with a street frontage of approximately 1,700 feet on Etiwanda Avenue,
and an approximate lot depth of 1,500 feet, and is presently vacant; and
b. Eight existing single-family residences, not a part of the proposed project, are
located on an inverted L-shaped property at the central portion of the site. The 1-15 Freeway borders
the property on the north and west. The property to the south is vacant, but is planned for
commercial development. To the east, across Etiwanda Avenue, the property has been approved
for a 272 multi-family residential development; and
c. The application contemplates a condominium subdivision of one lot for 340
apartments on 24.2 acres of land within the Medium Residential District, Etiwanda South Overlay
District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-17
SUB'l-r16257 - FORECAST CORPORATION
January 23,2002
Page 2
d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any
applicable specific plans; and
b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General
Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the
public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
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 affached 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.
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
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 hab'~at upon
which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated
Negative Deciaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-17
SUBTI'16257 - FORECAST CORPORATION
January 23, 2002
Page 3
Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of
adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 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 incorporated herein by this reference.
Plannin.q Division:
1) Provide a greenway connection in accordance with Etiwanda Specific
Plan Section 5.33.400.
2) Construct a 6-foot decorative wrought iron fence along project boundary
adjoining the following parcels: APN: 227-211-22 and 23.
3)Walls shall comply with setback requirements of the Etiwanda Specific
Plan.
4) Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00567 is hereby approved subject to
replacement planting as shown in the conceptual landscape plan.
En(]ineerina Division:
1) Construct Etiwanda Avenue to "Secondary Arterial" and Etiwanda
Specific Plan Standards, including cobble curb and gutter, sidewalk,
drive approaches, street lights, street trees, a.c. pavement, traffic
signs, and striping:
a)Provide a sidewalk/walkway on the west side of Efiwanda Avenue
from the north project boundary to Miller Avenue.
b) Provide separate right -rum lanes at both project entrances. The
right turn lane south of Garcia Drive can be combined with a
school bus bay per City Standards.
2) Provide a focused Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the intersection of
Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. Mitigate traffic impacts to an
acceptable level of service.
3) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the
existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the
opposite side of Etiwanda Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to Final
Map approval. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount
times the length of the project frontage.
4) Install Etiwanda/San Sevaine Master Plan System 9 drainage facilities
in Foothill Boulevard from Etiwanda Avenue to the existing terminus
south of Tract 15711-1. Standard drainage fees for the site shall be
credited to the cost of the facility and the developer shall be eligible for
reimbursement of costs in excess of fees, for permanent master plan
facilities, in accordance with City policy. This area is subject to the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-17
SUBTT16257- FORECAST.CORPORATION
January 23, 2002
Page 4
modified fee adopted March 21, 2001. If the developer fails to submit
for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public
improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to
reimbursement shall terminate.
5) Install local storm drain facilities as needed from the project site to
Foothill Boulevard. Install manhole at public/private junction.
6) Sumps in the'private storm drain system shall be designed for Q100.
Pond depth shall not exceed 12 inches.
7) Provide an ingress/egress access easement in favor of Assessor
Parcel Nos. 227-211-17, 227-211-22, and 227-211-23.
8) Flow increases as a result of development shall be mitigated by
enlarging Basin No. 6.
9) Tract 15711-1 has provided land for an area-wide detention basin. The
owner of the land is eligible for reimbursement to recover proportionate
cost of the land and ultimate basin related facilities(outlet, etc.). The
fair share amount has been determined to be $5,000 per acre, which
shall be paid prior to building permit issuance.
10) Caltrans has not allowed storm drain facilities within Foothill Boulevard.
The required storm drain shall be constructed within the parkway or a
City easement north of the Caltrans right-of-way. Off-site easements
shall be obtained prior to Final Map approval.
Environmental Miti,qation:
Geologic
1) Site grading shall include removal and recompaction of surface soils.
Relative compaction shall be as determined by the project engineer in a
final geotechnical report.
2) Prior to issuance of grading permits for the project, a final grading plan
shall be prepared in compliance with recommendations contained in the
final geotechnical report.
Water
1) The applicant shall submit a final drainage plan showing how
stormwater will be conveyed across the site and directed into the City's
storm drain system.
2) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall identify BMPs
to be implemented during the period the site is under construction.
BMPs shall be identified on the grading plans for review and approval
by the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-17
SUB'UF16257 - FORECAST CORPORATION
January23,2002
Page 5
Air Quality
1) Painting activities shall be spaced out over a period of 80 days.
2) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent
(approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~o emissions,
in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403.
3) Etiwanda Avenue 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,
4) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed
25 mph to minimize PM~0 emissions from the site during such episodes.
5) 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~o emissions.
6) The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment
used on-site based on Iow-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.
7) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative
fuel-powered equipment where feasible.
8) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans
include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in
use.
Transporlation
1) Maintain a high level of service along arterials by restricting paddng and
controlling roadway access.
2) Construct all streets internal to'the project to full ultimate cross-sections
as adjacent development occurs.
3) Construct all streets bordering the project to ultimate half-section widths
in conjunction with development.
4) Landscape planting and signs shall be limited to 36 inches in height
within 25 feet of project driveways to assure good visibility.
5) Install a STOP sign on site egress roadway to adjacent arterials.
05
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-17
SUB-C1'16257 - FORECAST CORPORATION
January 23, 2002
Page 6
Noise
1) Seven-foot high 5/8-inch thick, solid Lexan (or equivalent abrasion
resistant, non-yellowing transparent material) patio and balcony sound
barrier panels should be installed at front yard patios and balconies
within 350 feet of the freeway right-of-way that have a full or partial view
of the 1-15 freeway and within 140 feet of the centerline of Etiwanda
Avenue and that have a full or partial view of Etiwanda Avenue. Final
size and composition of matedal to be used in the noise barriers shall
be determined in a final acoustical analysis of the final site plans
submitted to the City.
2) An appropriate ventilation or cooling system shall be included in the
design to provide ventilation of the units without requiring that windows
be opened. The type of ventilation system will be chosen in
consultation with City staff prior to issuance of building permits.
3) First floor apartment windows in building walls that would have a full or
partial view of either the 1-15 Freeway or Etiwanda Avenue will require
the placement of acoustically rated windows. The exact rating shall be
determined in a final acoustical analysis that shall be conducted prior to
issuance of building permits for the affected buildings.
4) Buildings nearest the roadways that have a full or partial view of either
the 1-15 Freeway or Etiwanda Avenue will require the placement of
acoustically rated exterior doors. The final design and rating of the
doors and related materials shall be determined in the final acoustical
analysis that shall be conducted prior to issuance of building permits for
the affected buildings.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2002.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
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 Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 23rd day of January 2002, by the following vote-to-wit:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-17
SUBTT16257 - FORECAST CORPORATION
January23,2002
Page 7
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Project File No.: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16257 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00557
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 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:
1. 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.
2. 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 Citydepartment shall ensure compliance of the
conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department.
Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
1. 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.
2. 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 ~eporting 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 Ddve
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Mitigation Monitoring Program
TT SUB'1~'16257 & CUP DRC2001-00557
Page 2
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. AIl MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off
as completed by the project planner or responsible Citydepartment at the bottom of the MMP
Reporting Form.
6. 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.
7. 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 Citydepartment 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.
8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the
responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division. The Devision 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.
9. 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 Cib/s MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director or
City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III)
Project File No.: DRC 2001-00557/SUBTT16257 Applicant: Forecast Corporation
Initial Study Prepared by: _ Natalie P. Patty Date: December 18, 2001
Site grading shall include removal and racompacton of surfaco soils. CE B Review of Plans C
Relative compaction shall be as determined by the project engineer in 2
a final geotechnical report.
Prior to issuance of grading permits for the project, a final grading plan CP/CE B Review of Plans D 2
shall be prepared in complianco with recommendations contained in
the final gectechnical report.
The applicant shall submit a final drainage plan showing how CP/CE B Review of Plans D 2
stormwatar will be conveyed across the site and directed into Ihe Ci['/s
storm drain s~tem.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall identify BMPs CE B Review of Plans C 2
to be implemented during the period the site is under consl~ucton.
BMPs shall be Identified on the grading plans for review and approval
by the City Engineer.
Painting activities shall be spacod out over a period of 80 days. CP C Review of Plans A 2
The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent CP C Review of Plans A 2
(approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduco PM10
emissions, in accordanco ~ith SCAQMD Rule 403.
Eflwanda Avenue shall be swept according to a schedule established CP C Review of Plans A 2
by the City to reduce PM 10 emissions associated with vehicle Imcking
of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of
construction.
Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds excoed CP C Review of Plans A 2
25mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such
episodes.
Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall CP C Review of Plans A 2
be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain Inactive for 96
hours or more to reduco PM10 emissions.
The conslructon contractor shall select the constructon equipment CP C Review of Plans A 2
used on-site based on Iow emission factom and high-energyeffidency.
The construction contractor shall ensure the constmcton grading
plans Include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned
and maintained in accordanco with the manufacturar's specltications.
The construction contractorshall uttiize elecbic or(loan altsmative fuel CP C Review of Plans A
powered equipment v. here feasible. 2
The consbuction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading CP B/C Review of Plans A/C 2
plans include a statement that work crews will shut offequipmentwhen
not in use.
Maintain a high level of service along arterials by restricting parking PO C Review of Plans A
and controlling roadv~y access. 2
Construct all streets internal to the project to full ultimate cross- CE C Review of Plans A
sections as adjacent development occurs. 2
Construct all streets bordering the project to ultimate half-section CE C Review of Plans A
widths in conjun~on 'Nth development. 2
Landscape planting and signs should be limited to 36 inches in height CP D Review of Plans A
within 25 feet of project driveways to assure good visibitity 3
Install a STOP sign on site egress roadoay to adjacent arterials. CP D Review of Plans A 3
Seven-feet high, 5/8-1nch thick, solid Lexan (or an equivalent abrasion CP D Review of Plans A 3
resistant, non-yellowing transparent material) patio and balconysound
harder panels should be instatied at front yard patios and balconies
within 350 feet of the freeway fight-of-way that have a full or partial
view of the 1-15 freeway and within 140 feet of the conteriine of
Etiwanda Avenue and that have a full or partial view of Efiwanda
Avenue. Final size and composifion of material to be used in the noise
barriers shall bo determined in a final acoustical analysis of the final
site plans submitted to the City
An appropriate ventilation or cooling system shall be thc~uded in the BO D Review of Plans A 3
design to provide ventilation for the units without requiring that
windows be opened. The type of ventilation system will be chosen in
consultation ~tth Citystalf prior to issuance of building permits.
First floor apartmentwindows in building walls that would have a futi or BO O Review of Plans A 3
pa[fial view of either the I-15 freeway or Etiwenda Avenue will require
the placement of acousticatiy rated windows. The exact reting shall be
determined in a final acoustical analysis that shall be conducted prior
to issuance of building pormita for the affected buildings.
Buildings nearest the roadways that have a full or partial view of either BO D Review of Plans A 3
the 1-15 freeway or Egwanda Avenue will require the placement of
acoustically rated exterior doors. The final design and rating of the
doors and related mateflals shall be determined in the final acoustical
analysis that shall be conducted prior to Issuanse ofbullding permits
fur the affected buildings.
~ to Checklist Abbreviations
CDD - Community Development Director or designee A - With Each New Development A - On-site inspection I - Withhold Recordation of Final Map
CP - Ci~ designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit ! Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit
CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy
BO - Building Offidal or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies / Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order
PO- Police Captain or designee E - Operating
FC - Fire Chief or designee 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds
6 - Revoke CUP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: SUB'I-r16257
SUBJECT: Etiwanda Apartments
APPLICANT: Forecast Corporation
LOCATION: West Side of Etiwanda, North of Foothill Boulevard
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements Completion Date
1. 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 attomey'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.
2. Approval of Tentative Tract No. 16257 is granted subject to the approval of Conditional Use
Permit DRC2001-00557.
3. ^ copy of the sJgned Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter 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. This tentative tract map or tentative pamel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning /
Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the
date of the approval.
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 and the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
sc.,,-o, ,
Project No. SUB'I-r16257,
ComDletion Date
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
6. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of .Incorporation of the /
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planningand Engineering Divisions
and the City Attomey. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the
City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the
name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever
said information changes.
7. Ail 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.
8. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all /
lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice
requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction
activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
D. Landscaping
1. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for / /
the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas
within the public right-of-way. Ail landscaped areas shall be kept flee from weeds and debris and
maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing,
and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within
30 days from the date of damage.
2. 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.
3. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial ~'ock, specimen size trees, meandering /
sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Etiwanda
Avenue
E. Environmental
1. Mitigation measures ara required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of /
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
2
Project No. SUBTr16257
Completion Date
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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
F. 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;
f. 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 Workers' Compensation coverage to __ / /
the City prior to permit issuance.
G. Site Development
1. 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 availability of the Code Adoption Ordinanca and applicable handouts.
2. 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.
4. 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.
Project No. SUBTT16257
Completion Date
5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public __/
counter).
6.Submit pool plans to the County of San Bemardino's Environmental Health Services Department
for approval.
H. New Structures
1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for the property line clearances considering __/____
use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
2. Provide compliance with the Califomia Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). __/____
3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. / /
4. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with UBC Table ! /
5-A.
5. Provide draft stops in attics in line with common walls. / /
6. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with UBC Table 5-A. ! /
7. If the area of habitable space above the first floor exceeds 3,000 square feet, then the / /
construction type shall be V-1 Hour.
8. Walls and floors separating dwelling units in the same building shall be not less than 1-hour / /
tiro-resistive construction.
I, Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City __
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to /
perform such work.
3.A geological repot1 shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the
time of application for grading plan check.
4. 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:
J. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline):
50 total feet on Eitwanda Avenue
SC-11-01 4 c~/~:?
Project No, SUBTT16257
Coml)lefion Date
2. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets,, except for
approved openings: Etiwanda Avenue
3. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint
maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or
deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final parcel map.
4. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or
noted on the final map.
5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the
final map.
6. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7
feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane,
a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
7. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests ___../
necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the
developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such
time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement
shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by
the City, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to
commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to: Foothill
Boulevard Storm Drain.
K. 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 censtmcted 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: /
S,r.,.ame Ce, . I J S,,.- I D,.e I I Street ICom,. I I e,ko I O,,e J
IGutterl Pvmt J walk IAppr'JLightsITreesl Trail I Island ITra'll rI
EtiwandaAvenue / (f) / X / X / X J X J X J /
i / / / / I I I I f
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigefion on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and ovedays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk
shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of canstmction fee shell be
provided for this item (e) Traffic Si0nals, (f) Cobble Curb
3. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street treee, street lights, and intersection safety lighte
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 agraement 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 fha issuanca of building permits, whichever occurs first.
Project No. SUBTT16257
Completion Date
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction /
permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's 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.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction /
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of
BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet
apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2)Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with
pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City reads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with __/
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cress sidewalks, Under sidewalk drains shall be /
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. /
4. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrens for any work within the following right-of-way: 1-15 /
Freeway
L. Public Maintenance Areas
1. 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.
2.All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the City.
M. Drainage and Flood Control
1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final'map
approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the
property from adjacent areas.
N, Utilities
1. 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.
Project No. SUB'I-F16257
Coml)letJon Date
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. 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.
4. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved.
Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from
them.
O, General Requirements and Approvals
1. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage /
Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is
involved.
2. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: Cai /
Trans. -- --
3. 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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, FIRE PROTECTION
PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED
SC-114)1 7
PROTECTION I STRICT
FIRE SAFETY DIVISION
STANDARD CONDITIONS
FD PLAN REVIEW#: FD-01-0532
PROJECT #: SUBTT16257/DRC2001-00557
PROJECT NAME: Forecast Group
DATE: December 18, 2001
PLAN TYPE: CUP for 386 Unit Apartments
APPLICANT NAME: Michele Schiro
OCCUPANCY TYPE: Group R, Division 3 w/Group A, Division 3 Uses
FLOOR AREA (S): 16 or more dwelling units
LOCATION: N/O of Foothill W/O Etiwanda
FD REVIEW BY Steve Locati, Fire Protection Planning Specialist
PLANNER: Kirt CouP/
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2770,
EXT. 3009, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
The following conditions of approval represent the minimum standard for approval of the project as submitted.
These conditions are based on the plans submitted and may not include all Fire District requirements for the
proposed project. Changes in the project may result in additional or changed Fire Distdct requirements. Please
make the necessary changes or corrections prior to resubmitting for review. Prior to approval by the Planning
Division compliance with all conditions and/or corrections must be completed. All Fire District conditions and
comments must be addressed for construction permits can be issued. Contact the Fire Safety Division to schedule
an appointment to verify compliance.
A. Community Facilities Districts
1. This project is subject to the requirements of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District.
B. Water Plans for Fire Protection
1. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new
public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire District and the Water District.
2. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit construction plans, specifications,
flow test data and calculations for the private water main system for review and approval by the Fire
District. Plans and installation shall comply with Fire District standards.
3. Fire flow requirements for this project shall be 2500 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of
20 pounds per square inch in accordance with Fire Code Appendix Ill-A, as amended. The required fire
flow shall be delivered by fire hydrants located in accordance with Fire Code Appendix Ill-B, as amended.
4. When any portion of~cility or building is located in excess of Ofeet from a fire hydrant located on a
public street on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying ~e required fire flow shall be provided.
The distance is measured as vehicular path of travel on access roadways, not line of sight.
5. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivering any combustible
building materials on-site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Water District personnel shall inspect the
installation and witness hydrant flushing. The builder/developer shall submit test report to the Fire Safety
Division.
6. All private on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivering any combustible
building materials on-site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Fire Construction Services representative
shall inspect the installation and witness hydrant flushing. The builder/developer shall submit final test
report to the Fire Safety Division.
7. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional test of the on-site fire hydrants shall be conducted by the
builder/developer in the presence of the Water District or Fire Construction Services, as appropriate. The
builder/developer shall submit the final test report to the Fire Safety Division.
8. Existing fire hydrants and mains within 600 feet of the project shall be shown on the water plan submitted
for review and approval. Include main size.
9. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit construction plans, specifications,
and calculations for the fire sprinkler system underground.
10. Required Note: If the system is private the applicant shall do the following prior to the issuance of the
building permit:
a. Submit proof that provisions have been made for the annual testing, repair, and maintenance of
the system. A copy of the maintenance agreement shall be submitted to the District.
b. For developments with multiple owners, they shall establish a reciprocal maintenance agreement,
which shall be submitted to the Fire District for acceptance.
11. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement
marker indicating the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District and City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134,
"Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers: On private property these markers are to be maintained in
good condition by the property owner.
C. Water Availability
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence of adequate fire flow. The
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Water Availability for Fire Protection Form shall be signed by
the Water District and submitted for approval by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. If
sufficient water to meet fire flow requirements is not available, an automatic fire extinguishing system may
be required in each structure affected by the insufficient flow.
O. Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
1. RCFPD Ordinance 15 or other adopted code or standard, requires an approved automatic fire sprinkler
system to be installed throughout the building(s).
2. All cemmemial structures greater than 7,500 square feet, all Group A or E Occupancies with an occupant
load of 50 or more persons, all multi-family residential structures, and all structures which do not meet Fire
District access requirements (Section E. Fire Access), shall be protected by an approved automatic fire
sprinkler system.
3. Required Note: Prior to the recordation of ANY map, a note shall be placed on the map stating that all
commercial structures great than 7,500 square feet, all Group A or E Occupancies with an occupant load of
50 or more persons, all multi-family residential structures, and all structures which do not meet Fire District '
access requirements (Section E. Fire Access), shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system
meeting the approval of the Fire District.
4. Prior to the issuanc~!~lla building permit, the applicant shall sut~plans for any automatic fire sprinkler
system Fire Construction Services for review arid approval. No work is allowed without a Fire Construction
Services permit.
5. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler system(s) shall be tested and
accepted by Fire Construction Services.
6. The fire sprinkler system monitoring system shall be installed, tested, and operational immediately
following the completion of the fire sprinkler system. Monitoring is required with 20 sprinklers in Group I
Occupancies, or 100 or moro sprinklers in all other Occupancies.
E. Fire Access
1. Fire District access roadways shall be provided for every facility, building, or portion of a building
constructed when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building
is located more than 150-feet from approved fire district vehicle access. The distance is measured by an
approved route around the exterior of the facility or building.
2. Fire District access roadways shall include public roads, streets, highways, as well as private roads, streets
and designated fire lanes.
3. Residential: Prior to recordation of a subdivision/tractJparcel map, the applicant shall obtain approval of the
Fire District for all Fire District access roadways and fire lanes. All roadways or fire lanes shall comply with
RCFPD Ordinance FD32 and other applicable standards.
4. Residential & Commercial: Pdor to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of plans for all reads, streets and courts, public or private, from the Fire Distdct in consultation with
the Grading Committee. The plans shall include the plan view, sectional view, and indicate the width of the
street or court measured flow line to flow line. All proposed fire apparatus turnarounds shall be dearly marked
when a dead-end skeet exceeds 150 feet or when otherwise required. Applicable CC&R's, or other approved
documents, shall contain provisions that prohibit obstructions such as traffic calming devices (speed bumps,
humps, etc.), control gates, bollards, or other modifications in fire lanes or access roadways without prior
written approval of the Fire District, Fire Safety Division.
5. The minimum unobstructed width for a Fire District access roadway or fire lane is 26 feet. The minimum
vertical clearance is 14 feet, 6 inches. At any entry median the minimum width of traffic lanes shall be 20 feet.
6. Ail portions of the facility or any portion of the exterior wall of the first story shall be located within 150 feet of
Fire District vehicle access, measured by an unobstructed approved route around the exterior of the building.
Approved access walkways shall be provided from the fire apparatus access road to exterior building
openings.
7. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted
prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordedng
information.
8. Pdor to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain the Fire Disthct's approval of
the censfl'uction of any gate across required Fire Dislrict access roadways/driveways.
9. Gated or restricted access requires the installation of a Knox rapid entry system. Vehicle access gates shall be
provided with an approved Fire District Knox Key Switch. The gate shall remain in the open position until reset
by Fire District key switch. Gates shall open by means of an approved Traffic Pre-emption Device. Contact
the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information.
10. The installation of gates and restricted access to residential developments may necessitate installation of
approved automatic fire sprinkler systems. This condition applies when the Fire District determines that gates,
other means of restricting access or delaying response exists.
11. Trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches fi.om the
ground up, so as not to impede fire vehicles.
12. A building or site directory shall be required, as noted below:
Lighted directory within 20 feet of main entrance(s) to the site.
13. A note shall be placed on all plans which cleady indicates the following: Emergency access, a minimum 26
feet in width and 14 feet, 6 inches in height shall be provided and maintained free and clear of any obstructions
at all times during construction, in accordance with Fire District Standards.
14. Dead-end Fire Distric~lcess roadways in excess of 150-feet shal~ provided with approved provisions for
the taming around of fire apparatus. This may include a cul-de-sac, "hammerhead," or other means approved
by the Fire District.
15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans and obtain approval from the Fire
District for fire lanes on required Fire District access roadway less than 40 feet in width. The plans shall
indicate the locations of red curbing and signage. A drawing of the proposed signage that meets the minimum
Fire District standards shall be submitted to and approved. Contact the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District at (909) 477-2770 for a copy of the "FD Access - Fire Lanes" standard.
16. Pdor to the issuance of any Cedificate of Occupancy, the fire lanes shall be installed in accordance with the
approved fire lane plan. The CC&R's or other approved documents shall contain a fire lane map and
provisions that prohibit parking in the fire lanes. The method of enforcement shall be documented. The
CC&R's shall also identify who is responsible for not less than annual inspection and maintenance of all
required fire lanes.
17. New buildings shall post the address with minimum 8-inch numbers on contrasting background, visible from
the street and electrically illuminated during periods of darkness. When the building setback exceeds 200 feet
from the public street an additional non-illuminated 6-inch minimum number address shall be provided at the
property entrance.
18. In multi-unit complexes approved address numbers, and/or building identification letters shall be provided on
the front and back of all units, suites, or buildings. The Fire District shall review and approve the numbering
plan in coordination with the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
F. Combustible ConstnJction Letter
1. Required Note: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for combustible construction, the builder shall submit
a letter to the Fire District on company letterhead stating that the minimum water supply for fire fighting
purposes and the all weather fire protection access roadway that meets Fire District Standards shall be in
place and operational before any combustible material is placed on-site. The roadway shall be maintained at
all times.
(~. Architectural Building Plans
1. Pdor to approval of a site development/use permit, or the issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first
the applicant shall submit plans for the review and approval of the Fire District. Call the Fire Construction
Services Unit at (909) 477-2713 for the Fire Safety Site/Architectural Notes to be placed on the plans pdor to
submittal.
H, Fire Alarm System
1. An automatic fire alarm (and detection) system is required by RCFPD Ordinance 15, based on use or fleer
area, or by another adopted code or standard.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, plans for the fire alarm system shall be submitted to Fire Construction
Services for review and approval. No work is allowed without a Fire District permit.
3. Pdor to any remodel, modification, additions, or exchange of devices, Fire District approval and a permit are
required. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services.
4. Pdor to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire alarm (and detection) system(s) shall be tested and
accepted by Fire Construction Sen/ices.
I. Fire District Fees Due
1. Fire Dis~ct fee(s), plus a $1.00 microfilm fee per "plan page" will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire
District as follows: *
$82 Start-up fee for commercial, industrial or multi-family dwelling units (Paid prior to TRC)
$132 Conditional Use Permit Fee (CUP)
$132 for Water Plan Review for Public Fire Protection
$132 for Priva~re Mains or Fire Sprinkler Underground )Supply
$677 (per new building) for Multi-family Residential Development
*Note: Separate plan check fees for tenant improvement work, fire protection systems (fire sprinklers, alarm
systems, fire extinguishing systems, etc.), and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon separate
submittals of plans.
J. Hazard Control Permits
1. As noted below Special Permits may be required, dependent upon intended use:
a. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below
which in the judgment of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions, which may be hazardous to life
or property.
b. Operate a place of public assembly.
c. To install any access control device, system, or any material under, upon or within the required fire
district access roadway. This includes any gate, barrier, traffic-calming device, speed bump, speed
hump or any device that delays or slows Fire District response.
d. Compressed gases (storege, handling, or use exceeding 100 cubic feet.
e. Operate dust-producing processes and operations.
f. Flammable and combustible liquid (storage, handling, and/or use).
g. Liquefied petroleum gas (storage, handling, use or trensport, exceeding 120 gallons).
h. Hot work operations (welding and cutting operations in any occupancy).
K. Hazardous Materials - Compliance with Disclosure and Reporting Regulations
1. The below listed businesses, operations, uses or conditions require that the San Bemardino County Fire
Department review your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan for compliance with minimum standards.
Contact the San Bernardino County Fire, Hazardous Materials Division at (909) 387-3041 for forms and
assistance. They are the CUPA for the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
2. Any business that uses, generates, processes, produces, treats, stores, emits, or discharges a hazardous
material in quantities at or exceeding 55 gallons, 500 pounds, or 200 cubic feet (compressed gas) at any
one time in the course of a year.
3. All hazardous waste generators, regardless of quantity generated.
4. Any business that handles, stores, or uses Category (I) or (11) pesticides, as defined by FIFRA, regardless
of amount.
5. Any business that handles DOT Hazard Class I (explosives, found in 49 CFR) regardless of amount.
6. Any business that handles extremely hazardous substances (EHS's) in quantities exceeding the threshold
planning quantity (T.P.Q.). Extremely Hazardous Substances are designated pursuant to the Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know Act Section 302, and are listed in 40 CFR Part 355.
7. Any business subject to the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), also known
as SARA Title II1. Generally, EPCRA includes facilities that handle hazardous substances above 10,000
pounds, or extremely hazardous substances above threshold planning quantities. There are some
exceptions, including retail gas stations with up to 75,000 gallons of gasoline or 100,000 gallons of diesel
fuel in Underground Storage Tanks (UST's) that meet the 1998 upgrade requirements. To get more
information on EPCRA requirements call 1-800-535-0202. Due to State disclosure consolidation laws, Tier
il forms need not be submitted to the various State and Federal agencies. Submission of your Business
Emergency/ Contingency Plan will meet this requirement; however, EPCRA does require full annual
inventory submission rather than a certification statement each March 1. Also, EPCRA facilities are bound
by the trade secret limitations of EPCRA, and must sign every page of inventory.
8. Any business that radioactive material that is listed in ~ix B of Chapter 1, of 10 CFR.
9. If the facility is a NEVV business, a Certificate of Occupancy issued by Building and Safety will not be
finalized until the San Bemardino County Fire Department reviews your Business Emergency/Contingency
Plan. California Government Code, Section 65850.2 prohibits the City from issuing a final Certificate of
Occupancy unless the applicant has met or is meeting specific hazardous material disclosure
requirements. A Risk Management Program (RMP) may also be required if regulated substances are to be
used or stored at the new facility. Contact County Fire, Hazardous Materials Division at (909) 387-3041 for
forms and assistance.
10. Any business that operates on rented or leased property, and is required to submit a Plan, is required to
submit a notice to the owner of the property in writing stating that the business is subject to the Business
Emergency/Contingency Plan mandates, and has complied with the prevision, and must provide a copy of
the Plan to the property owner within 5 working days after receiving a request from the owner.
11. The Fire Code adopted by the Fire District has a provision requiring collection of information regarding
hazardous materials at facilities for purposes of Fire Code implementation and emergency response. Prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy a copy of the Business Emergency/Contingency Plan - New
Business (Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory) shall be submitted to the Fire
District after it is approved by the San Bernardino County Fire Department. In some cases additional
information that is not in the Business Emergency/Contingency Plan may be required in order to support
local fire prevention and emergency response programs.
L. Plan Submittal Required Notice
1. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997/98 Building, Fire,
Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes; 1999 Electrical and RCFPD Ordinances FD15 and FD32, Guidelines and
Standards.
NOTE: Separate plan check fees for tenant improvements, fire protection systems and/or any
consultant reviews will be assessed at time of submittal of plans.
Fire Distdct Conditions of Approval- Template
SL 7/24/01 Revision
RESOLUTION NO. 02-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT DRC2001-00557, THE DEVELOPMENT OF 340 APARTMENTS ON
24.2 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), ETIWANDA SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT,
AND ETIWANDA AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT WITHIN THE ETIWANDA
SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE,
NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, AND 29.
A. Recitals.
1. Forecast Corporation filed an application for the approval of Conditional Use Permit
DRC2001-00557 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject conditional use permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On January 9, and continued to January 23, 2002, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said
headng 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,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on January 9, and January 23, 2002, including wriffen and oral staff
reports, together with .public testimony, this commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue,
north of Foothill Boulevard, with a street frontage of approximately 1,700 feet on Etiwanda Avenue,
and an approximate lot depth of 1,500 feet, and is presently vacant; and
b. Eight existing single-family residences, not a part of the proposed project, are
located on an inverted L-shaped property at the central portion of the site. The 1-15 Freeway borders
the property on the north and west. The properly to the south is vacant, but is planned for
commercial development. To the east, across Etiwanda Avenue, the property has been approved
for a 272 multi-family residential development; and
c. The application contemplates the development of 340 apartments on 24.2 acres of
land within the Medium Residential District, Etiwanda South Oveday District, and Etiwanda Avenue
Overlay District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and
d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-18
CUP DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST CORPORATION
January 23, 2002
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The conditional use permit is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code
and any applicable specific plans; and
b. The design or improvements of the project is consistent with the General Plan,
Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The development of the proposed project will not cause a significant traffic impact
on the surrounding area; and
e. The design of the project is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage
and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
f. The design of the project will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public
at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property.
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 applicetion, 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.
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
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. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning
Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the prasurnption of
adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-18
CUP DRC2001-00557- FORECAST CORPORATION
January 23, 2002
Page 3
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 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 incorporated herein by this reference.
PlanninR Division:
1) Provide a greenway connection in accordance with Etiwanda Specific
Plan Section 5.33.400.
2) Construct a decorative wrought iron fence or wall along the interior
project boundary, subject to City Planner review and approval.
3) Wails shall comply with setback requirements of the Etiwanda Specific
Plan.
4) Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00567 is hereby approved subject to
replacement planting as shown in the conceptual landscape plan.
5) The roll-up garage door designs shall be subject to City Planner review
and approval.
6) Architectural enhancements through the use of native river rock shall
be provided to the buildings fronting Etiwanda Avenue, subject to City
Planner review approval.
7) Additional landscaping and trees shall be provided at the interior project
perimeter adjacent to the existing single-family residences at the
portion of the site, to reduce the visual impact of the proposed buildings
on the surrounding neighbors, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
8) The decorative perimeter fence along Etiwanda Avenue shall
incorporate large native stone pilasters in its design. The stone
pilasters shall be developed at a minimum of 30 inches squared and
subject to City Planner approval.
9) All applicable' Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16257 shall apply.
10) Lighting shall be required to provide a minimum 1-foot candlepower.
Freestanding light standards shall not exceed 15 feet in height.
Security lighting f~dures shall not project above the fascia or roofline of
the building. All lighting shall be shielded to confine light spread within
the site boundaries.
11) The final sidewalk locations and trash enclosure location immediately
adjacent to the existing single-family homes along Chervil Street shall
be subject to City Planner review and approval.
12) The applicant shall provide underground utility connections to the lots
surrounded by the proposed project subject to City Planner review and
approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-18
CUP DRC2001-00557- FORECAST CORPORATION
January23,2002
Page 4
En.qineerin.q Division:
1) Construct Etiwanda Avenue to "Secondary Arterial" and Etiwanda
Specific Plan Standards, including cobble curb and gutter, sidewalk,
drive approaches, street lights, street trees, a.c. pavement, traffic
signs, and striping:
a) Provide a sidewalk/walkway on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue
from the north project boundary to Miller Avenue.
b) Provide separate fight turn lanes at both project entrances. The
fight turn lane south of Garcia Drive can be combined with a
school bus bay per City Standards.
2) Provide a focused Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the intersection of
Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. Mitigate traffic impacts to an
acceptable level of service.
3) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the
existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the
opposite side of Etiwanda Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to Final
Map approval. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount.
times the length of the project frontage.
4) Install EtiwandaJSan Sevaine Master Plan System 9 drainage facilities
in Foothill Boulevard from Etiwanda Avenue to the existing terminus
south of Tract 15711-1. Standard drainage fees for the site shall be
credited to the cost of the facility and the developer shall be eligible for
reimbursement of costs in excess of fees, for permanent master plan
facilities, in accordance with City policy. This area is subject to the
modified fee adopted March 21, 2001. If the developer fails to submit
for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public
improvements being accepted by the City, all fights of the developer to
reimbursement shall terminate.
5) Install local storm drain facilities as needed from the project site to
Foothill Boulevard. Install manhole at public/private junction.
6) Sumps in the private storm drain system shall be designed for QIO0.
Pond depth shall not exceed 12 inches.
7) Provide an ingress/egress access easement in favor of Assessor
Parcel Nos. 227-211-22 and 227-211-23.
8) Flow increases as a result of development shall be mitigated by
enlarging Basin No. 6.
9) Tract 15711-1 has provided land for an area-wide detention basin. The
owner of the land is eligible for reimbursement to recover proportionate
cost of the land and ultimate basin related facilities (outlet, etc.). The
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-18
CUP DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST CORPORATION
January 23~ 2002
Page 5
fair share amount has been determined to be $5,000 per acre, which
shall be paid prior to building permit issuance.
10) Caltrans has not allowed storm drain facilities within Foothill Boulevard.
The raquirad storm drain shall be constructed within the parkway or a
City easement north of the Caltrans right-of-way. Off-site easements .
shall be obtained prior to Final Map approval.
Environmental Miti,qation:
Geologic
1) Site grading shall include removal and recompaction of surface soils.
Relative compaction shall be as determined by the project engineer in a
final geotechnical report.
2) Prior to issuance of grading permits for the project, a final grading plan
shall be prepared in compliance with recommendations contained in the
final geotechnical report.
Water
1) The applicant shall submit a final drainage plan showing how storm
water will be conveyed across the site and directed into the Ciys storm
drain system.
2) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall identify BMPs
to be implemented during the period the site is under construction.
BMPs shall be identified on the grading plans for review and approval
by the City Engineer.
Air Qualify
1) Painting activities shall be spaced out over a period of 80 days.
2) The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent
(approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PMto emissions,
in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403.
3) Efiwanda Avenue 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.
4)Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed
25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions from the site during such episodes.
5) 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 PMso emissions.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-18
CUP DRC2001-00557- FORECAST CORPORATION
Janua~ 23,2002
Page 6
6) The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment
used on-site based on Iow-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.
7)The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative
fuel-powered equipment where feasible.
8) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans
include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in
use.
Transportation
1) Maintain a high level of service along aderials by restricting parking and
controlling roadway access.
2) Construct all streets internal to the project to full ultimate ~oss-sections
as adjacent development occurs.
3) Construct all streets bordering the project to ultimate half-section widths
in conjunction with development.
4)Landscape planting and signs shall be limited to 36 inches in height
within 25 feet of project driveways to assure good visibility.
5) Install a STOP sign on site egress roadway to adjacent arterials.
Noise
1) Seven-foot high 5/8-inch thick, solid Lexan (or equivalent abrasion
resistant, non-yellowing transparent material) patio and balcony sound
barrier panels should be installed at front yard patios and balconies
within 350 feet of the freeway right-of-way that have a full or partial view
of the 1-15 freeway and within 140 feet of the centedine of Etiwanda
Avenue and that have a full or partial view of Etiwanda Avenue. Final
size and composition of material to be used in the noise barriers shall
be determined in a final acoustical analysis of the final site plans
submitted to the City.
2) An appropriate ventilation Or cooling system shall be included in the
design to provide ventilation of the units without requiring that windows
be opened. The type of ventilation system will be chosen in
consultation with City staff prior to issuance of building permits.
3) First floor apartment windows in buildings walls that would have a full or
partial view of either the 1-15 Freeway or Etiwanda Avenue will require
the placement of acoustically rated windows. The exact rating shall be
determined in a final acoustical analysis that shall be conducted prior to
issuance of building permits for the affected buildings.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-18
CUP DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST CORPORATION
January 23, 2002 ..
Page 7
4) Buildings nearest the m~dways that ha~,e a full or partial view of either
the 1-15 Freeway dr Etiwanda Avenue, Will require the placement of
acoustically rated exterior doore. The final design and rating of the ·
doore and related materials shall be determined in the final acoustical
analysis that shall be conducted prior to issuance of building permits for
.the affected buildings.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2002.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
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 bythe ·
Planning commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
commission held on the 23rd day of January 2002, by the folloWing vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MAClAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEVVART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Project File No.: Tentative Tract Map SUB'I-1'16257 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00557
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 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:
1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recerded 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.
2. A procedure of compliance and verificetion 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 complianco 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 Citydepartment shall ensure cempliance of the
conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department.
Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucemonga.
1. A fee covedng all cests and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in
perfom3ing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant.
2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significent 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. Repor/s 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
TT SUBTr16257 & CUP DRC2001-00557
Page 2
3. 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.
4. 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 vedfied for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of
development.
5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be s~gned off
as completed by the project planner or responsible Citydepartment at the bottom of the MMP
Reporting Form.
6. 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 depadment
and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel.
7. 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 Citydepartment 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.
8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the
responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division. The Devision 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.
9. 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 reporfing 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 or
City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III)
Project File No.: DRC 2001-00557/SUBTT16257 Applicant: Forecast Corporation
Initial Study Prepared by: Natalie P. Patty Date: December 18, 2001
Site grading shall inctude removal and re~,~pacfion of surfaco soils. CE B Review of Plans C
Relative compaction shall be as determined by the project engineer in 2
a final geotechnical report.
Pr[or to issuance of grading permits for the project, a final grading plan CP/CE B Review of Plans D 2
shall be prepared in compliance with recommendations contained in
the final geotechnical report,
The applicant shall submit a final drainage plan showing how CP/CE B Review of Plans D
storrm~ter will be conveyed across the site and direc~:l into the Clfy's 2
storm drain s~tem.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the appticant shall identify BMPs CE B Review of Plans C 2
to be implemented during the period He site Is under consthJction.
BMPs shall be identified on the grading plans for review and approval
by the City Engineer.
Painting activities shall be spaced out over a period of S0 days. CP C Review of Plans A 2
The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent CP C Review of Plans A 2
(approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM10
emissions, in accordance 'Nth SCAC~MD Rule 403.
Etiwanda Avenue shall be swept according to a schedule established CP C Review of Plans A
bythe City to raduco PM10 emissions aseociated with vehicle becking
of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of
constn~ction.
Grading operations shati be suspended when wind speeds exceed CP C Review of Plans A 2
25mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such
episodes.
Chemical soil stabiliz~ra (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall CP C Review of Plans A 2
be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive far 96
hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions.
The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment CP
used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy effidency. C Review of Plans A 2
The constroction contractor shall ensure the constmcfion grading
plans include a statement that all construction equipmant will be toned
and maintained in accordanco with the manufacturar's speclficefions.
The c°nstruction contractor shall utilize etacthc or dean altamative toel CP C Review of Plans A
powered equipment where feasible. 2
The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading CP B/C Review of Plans A/C 2
plans include a statement that work crews will shut offequipment when
not in use.
Maintain a high level of service along arterials by iesi~k;[ing p&i~.i,~y PO C Review of Plans A
and controlling roadway access. 2
Construct all streets internal to the project to full ultimate cross- CE C Review of Plans A
sections as adjacent development occurs. 2
Construct all streets bordering the project to ultimats half-section CE C Review of Plans
widths in conjunction v, ith development. A 2
Landscape planting and signs should be limited to 36 inches in height CP D Review of Plans A
within 25 feet of project ddvev~ys to assure good visibility 3
Install a STOP sign on site egress road,~ay to adjacent arterials. CP D Review of Plans A 3
Seven-foot high, 5/8-inch thick, solid Lexan (or an equivalent abrasion CP D Review of Plans A
resistant, non-yellowing transparent matsdal) patio and balcony sound 3
barrier panels should be installed at front yard patios and balconies
within 350 feet of the freeway right-of-way that have a full or padial
view of the 1-15 freeway and within 140 feet of the centeriine of
Eflwanda Avenue and that have a fell or partial view of Etiwanda
Avenue. Final size and composition of matedal to be used in the noise
bardem shall be determined in a final acoustical analysis of the final
site plans submittsd to the City
An appmpdata ventilation or cooling system shall be thduded in the BO D Review of Plans A 3
design to provide ventilation for the units without requiring that
windows be opened. The type of ventilation system will be chosen in
consultation with City staff prior to issuance of building permits.
First floor apartmentwindows in building walls that would have a full = BO D Review of Plans A 3
partial view of etther the I-15 freeway or Etiwanda Avenue will require
the placement of acoustically mtsd windows. The exact rating shall be
detarmthed in a final acoustical analysis that shall be conducted prior
to issuance of building permits for the affected buildings.
Buildingsnearesttheroadwaysthathaveafu orpa~alviewofeither 80 D ReviewofPlans A 3
the 1-15 freeway or Efiwanda Avenue will require the placement of
acoustically rated exterior doom. The final design and rating of the
doors and related materials shall be determined in the final acoustical
analysis that shall be conducted prior to issuance ofbuilding permits
for the affected buildings.
%
Ke, Checklist Abbreviations
ODD - ~mmuni~ ~velopment Director or desigfl~ A - ~ Ea~ New ~velopment A - ~-site Inspe~ I - Wilhold Re~rdaUon of Final Map
CP - Ci~ Planner or designee B - PHor To ~.~en B - ~er ~en~ Pe~it / ~pmval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Pe~it
CE -Ci~ Engineer or designee C - ~ghout ~ns~on C - Plan Che~ 3 - Wilhold Ce~i~te of ~pancy
BO - Building ~dal or d~ignee D - ~ ~mplefion D - Sepam~ Submi~l (Repo~ / S~di~ / Plans) 4 - Stop Wo~ ~er
PO- Poli~ Ca~ee E - ~mfing
FC - Rre Chief ~ 5 - Re~in De.sit or Bonds
~ ~ ~ ~6-Rev°keCUP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00557
SUBJECT: Etiwanda Apartments
APPLICANT: Forecast Corporation
LOCATION: West Side of Etiwanda Avenue, North of Foothill Boulevard
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements Completion Date
1. 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 altemative, 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.
2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter 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. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or 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 sJte plans, architecturaJ elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein,
Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Project No. DRC2001-00557
Com~)letion Date
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved __/ /
by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits.
Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to
adversely affect adjacent properties.
8. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and / /
the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
9. 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.
10. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the /
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
11. Ail building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner /
including proper illumination.
12. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the /
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions
and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the
City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the
name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever
said information changes.
13. Ail 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.
14. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all /
lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice
requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction
activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
Project No. DRC2001-O0557
Completion Date
15. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. Ifa double wall /
condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining
property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property
owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's
perimeter.
16. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. /
17. For multiple family development, laundry facilities shall be provided as required by the
Development Code.
18. For multiple family development, a minimum of 125 cubic feet of exterior Iockable storage space /
shall be provided.
19. For residential development, recreation area/facility shall be provided as required by the /
Development Code.
20. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured /
products.
D. Building Design
1. AJl roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or __/
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
E, Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts
a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet
wide.
2. Ail parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided
throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/
recreational uses.
4.Ail parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
5. Ail units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth
from back of sidewalk.
6. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on
this site unless they ara the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking
on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas.
7. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For
residential development, private gated entrances shall 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.
Project No. DRC2001-00557
Completion Date
8. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commemial, office, industrial, and multifamily /
residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required
automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first
50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the
required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage
spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a
3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100.
Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher
whole number.
F. Landscaping
1. 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.
2. A minimum of 45 trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within __/ /
the project: 0% - 48-inch box or larger 10% - 36-inch box or larger, 10% - 24- inch box or larger,
80% - 15-gallon, and 0% - 5 gallon.
3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking __/ /
stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one / /
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for
the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas
within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and
maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing,
and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within
30 days from the date of damage.
8. 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.
9. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering
sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Etiwanda
Avenue
Project No, DRC2001-00557
Comr)lefion Date
10. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the __
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
11. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the /
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of /
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
13. On projects which abut the 1-15 Freeway, the developer shall provide landscaping within the /
freeway right-of-way along the boundary of this project or pay an in-lieu of construction cash
deposit. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared in conformance with Caltrans and
City Standards through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Planner and City Engineer. Landscape and irrigation shall be installed prior to the
release of occupancy of the project. If final approvals and/or installation are not complete at that
time, the City will accept a cash deposit for future landscaping of the Caltrans right-of-way.
14. New windrow planting of Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) is required at a ratio of 50 linear /
feet per acre. The size, spacing, staking, and irrigation of these trees shall comply with the City's
Tree Preservation Ordinance (RCMC 19.08.100).
G. Signs
1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. __ __/
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require
separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs.
2. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or town homes prior /
to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division pdor
to issuance of building permits.
H. Environmental
1. 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.
2. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cast of /
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.
I, Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location / /
of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
SC-11-01 5 (~./_.//~
Project No. DRC2001-00557
Completion Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, {909) 477-2710,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
J. 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;
f. 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., 3-1' #, 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 ara 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 Workers' Compensation coverage to
the City prior to permit issuance.
K, Site Development
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be /
marked with the project file number (P.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 availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2. 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 tractJparcel map recordation and /
prior to issuance of building permits.
4.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.
5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public __/
counter).
SC-11-01 6
Project No. DRC2001-00557
Completion Date
6,Submit pool plans to the County of San Bernardino's Environmental Health Services Department
for approval.
L. New Structures
1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for the property line clearances considering
use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separation(s).
3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions.
4. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with UBC Table
5-A.
5. Provide draft stops in attics in line with common walls.
6. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with UBC Table 5-A.
7. If the aroa of habitable space above the first floor exceeds 3,000 square feet, then the
construction type shall be V-1 Hour.
8.Walls and floors separating dwelling units in the same building shall be not less than 1-hour
tiro-resistive construction.
M, Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City !
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
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,
4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. __/
5. 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:
N. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from /
street centerline):
50 total feet on Etiwanda Avenue /
2. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for __ __/
approved openings: Etiwanda Avenue.
SC-11-01 7
Project No. DRC2001-00557
Completion Date
3. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint /
maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or
deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final parcel map.
4. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or /
noted on the final map.
5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the /
final map.
6. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 /
feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane,
a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
7. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests __/
necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the
developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such
time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement
shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site I
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these I
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by I
the City, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to I
commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to:_Foothill I
Boulevard Storm Drain.
O, Street Improvements
1. Ail 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 Icurb & I A.C. r side- I Drive I Street I Street I Comm I Median I B,ke I Other I
Etiwanda Avenue (t') X X X X X
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and ovedays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk
shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be
provided for this item (e) Traffic Signals, (f) Cobble Curb.
3. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights __ __/
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to
final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction /
permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits ~
required.
SC-11-01 8
Project NO.DRC2001-00557
Completion Date
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and /
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction /
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of
BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet
apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2)Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with
pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with /
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be / /
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. / /
4. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: 1-15 / /__
Freeway.
P. Public Maintenance Areas
1. 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.
2. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the __ __/
developer until accepted by the City.
Q. Drainage and Flood Control
1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map /
approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Ail drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the /
property from adjacent areas.
R. Utilities
1. 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.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. ____ /
SC-11-01 9
Project No. DRC2001-00557
Completion Date
3. 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 er prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential
projects.
4. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. / /
Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from
them.
S. General Requirements and Approvals
1. Etiwanda~San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage
Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is
involved.
2. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: Cai / /
Trans. -- --
3. 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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
T. Security Lighting
1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power.
These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell.
2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with
direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire
development.
3.Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures.
U. Security Hardware
1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass dooms.
2. One-inch Single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices.
4. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates,
or alarmed.
V. Security Fencing
1. Ail businesses or residential communities with security fencing and gates will provide the police
with a keypad access and a unique code. The initial code is to be submitted to the Police Crime
Prevention Unit along with plans. If this code is changed due to a change in personnel or for any
other reason, the new code must be supplied to the Police via the 24-hour dispatch center at
(909) 941-1488 or by contacting the Crime Prevention Unit at (909) 477-2800 extension 2474 or
extension 2475.
sc.1,.Ol lO
Project No. DRC2001~0557
Completion Date
W. Windows
1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted /
from frame or track in any manner.
2.Security/burglar bars are not recommended, particularly in residences, due to the delay or
prevention of a speedy evacuation in case of fire.
X. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime __/____
visibility.
2. At the entrances of commercial or residential complexes, an illuminated map or directory of
project shall be erected with vandal-resistant cover. North shall be at the top and so indicated.
Sign shall be in compliance with Sign Ordinance, including an application for a Sign Permit and
approval by the Planning Division.
3. All developments shall submit a 8 ~" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-tenant /
developments to the Police Department.
Y. Alarm Systems
1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and /
employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in
turn save dollars and lives.
2. Alarm companies shall be provided with the 24-hour Sheriff's dispatch number: (909) 941-1488. /
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, FIRE PROTECTION
PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS: SEE AFl'ACHED
SC-11-01 11
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
FIRE SAFETY DIVISION
STANDARD CONDITIONS
FD PLAN REVIEW#: FD-01-0532
PROJECT #: DRC2001-00557/SUBTT16257
PROJECT NAME: Forecast Group
DATE: December 18, 2001
PLAN TYPE: CUP for 386 Unit Apartments
APPLICANT NAME: Michele Schiro
OCCUPANCY TYPE: Group R, Division 3 w/Group A, Division 3 Uses
FLOOR AREA (S): 16 or more dwelling units
LOCATION: N/O of Foothill W/O Etiwanda
FD REVIEW BY Steve Locati, Fire Protection Planning Specialist
PLANNER: Kirt Coury
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2770,
EXT. 3009, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
The following conditions of approval represent the minimum standard for approval of the project as submitted.
These conditions are based on the plans submitted and may not include all Fire Distdct requirements for the
proposed project. Changes in the project may result in additional or changed Fire District requirements. Please
make the necessary changes or corrections prior to resubmitting for review. Pdor to approval by the Planning
Division compliance with all conditions and/or corrections must be completed. All Fire District conditions and
comments must be addressed for construction permits can be issued. Contact the Fire Safety Division to schedule
an appointment to verify compliance.
A. Community Facilities Districts
1. This project is subject to the requirements of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District.
B. Water Plans for Fire Protection
1. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new
public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire District and the Water District.
2. Pdor to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit construction plans, specifications,
flow test data and calculations for the private water main system for review and approval by the Fire
District. Plans and installation shall comply with Fire District standards.
3. Fire flow requirements for this project shall be 2500 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of
20 pounds per square inch in accordance with Fire Code Appendix Ill-A, as amended. The required fire
flow shall be delivered by fire hydrants located in accordance with Fire Code Appendix Ill-B, as amended.
4. When any portion of a facility or building is located in excess of 150-feet from a fire hydrant located on a
public street on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided.
The distance is measured as vehicular path of travel on access roadways, not line of sight.
5. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivering any combustible
building materials on-site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Water District persohnel shall inspect the
installation and witness hydrant flushing. The builder/developer shall submit test report to the Fire Safety
Division.
6. All private on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivering any combustible
building materials on-site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Fire Construction Services representative
shall inspect the installation and witness hydrant flushing. The builder/developer shall submit final test
report to the Fire Safety Division.
7. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional test of the on-site fire hydrants shall be conducted by the
builder/developer in the presence of the Water District or Fire Construction Services, as appropriate. The
builder/developer shall submit the final test report to the Fire Safety Division.
8. Existing fire hydrants and mains within 600 feet of the project shall be shown on the water plan submitted
for review and approval. Include main size.
9. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit construction plans, specifications
and calculations for the fire sprinkler system underground.
10. Required Note: If the system is private the applicant shall do the following prior to the issuance of the
building permit:
a. Submit proof that provisions have been made for the annual testing, repair, and maintenance of
the system. A copy of the maintenance agreement shall be submitted to the District.
b. For developments with multiple owners, they shall establish a reciprocal maintenance agreement,
which shall be submitted to the Fire District for acceptance.
11. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, all fire hydrants shal! have a blue reflective pavement
marker indicating the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District and City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134,
"Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers." On private property these markers are to be maintained in
good condition by the property owner.
C. Water Availability
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence of adequate fire flow. The
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Water Availability for Fire Protection Form shall be signed by
the Water Distdct and submitted for approval by the Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District. If
sufficient water to meet fire flow requirements is not available, an automatic fire extinguishing system may
be required in each structure affected by the insufficient flow.
D. Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
1. RCFPD Ordinance 15 or other adopted code or standard, requires an approved automatic fire sprinkler
system to be installed throughout the building(s).
2. All commercial structures greater than 7,500 square feet, all Group A or E Occupancies with an occupant
load of 50 or more persons, apl multi-family residential structures, and all structures which do not meet Fire
District access requirements (Section E. Fire Access), shall be protected by an approved automatic fire
sprinkler system.
3. Required Note: Prior to the recordation of ANY map, a note shall be placed on the map stating that all
commercial structures great than 7,500 square feet, all Group A or E Occupancies with an occupant load of
50 or moro persons, all multi-family residential structures, and all structures which do not meet Fire District
access requirements (Section E. Fire Access), shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system
meeting the approval of the Fire District.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans for any automatic fire sprinkler
system Fire Construction Services for review and approval. No work is allowed without a Fire Construction
Services permit.
5. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler system(~) shall be tested and
accepted by Fire Construction Services.
6. The fire sprinkler system monitoring system shall be installed, tested, and operational immediately
following the completion of the fire sprinkler system. Monitoring is required with 20 sprinklers in Group
Occupancies, or 100 or more sprinklers in all other Occupancies.
E. Fire Access
1. Fire District access roadways shall be provided for every facility, building, or portion of a building
constructed when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building
is located more than 150-feet from approved fire district vehicle access. The distance is measured by an
approved route around the exterior of the facility or building.
2. Fire District access roadways shall include public roads, streets, highways, as well as private roads, streets
and designated fire lanes.
3. Residential: Prior to recordation of a subdivision/tractJparcel map, the applicant shall obtain approval of the
Fire District for all Fire District access roadways and fire lanes. All roadways or fire lanes shall comply with
RCFPD Ordinance FD32 and other applicable standards.
4. Residential & Commercial: Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of plans for all roads, s~'eets and courts, public or private, from the Fire District in consultation with the
Grading Committee. The plans shall include the plan view, sectional view, and indicate the width of the street
or court measured flow line to flow line. All proposed fire apparatus tumarounds shall be cleady marked when
a dead-end street exceeds 150 feat or when otherwise required. Applicable CC&R's, or other approved
documents, shall contain provisions that prohibit obstructions such as traffic calming devices (speed bumps,
humps, etc.), control gates, bollards, or other modifications in fire lanes or access roadways without prior
written approval of the Fire District, Fire Safety Division.
5. The minimum unobstructed width for a Fire District access roadway or fire lane is 26 feat. The minimum
vertical clearance is 14 feet, 6 inches. At any entry median the minimum width of traffic lanes shall be 20 feet.
6. All portions of the facility or any portion of the exterior wall of the first story shall be located within 150 feet of
Fire District vehicle access, measured by an unobstructed approved route around lhe extedor of the building.
Approved access walkways shall be provided from the fire apparatus access road to extedor building
openings.
7. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed pdor to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted
prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordedng
information.
8. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain the Fire District's approval of
the construction of any gate across required Fire District access roadways/driveways.
9. Gated or restricted access requires the installation of a Knox rapid entry system. Vehicle access gates shall be
provided with an approved Fire District Knox Key Switch. The gate shall remain in the open position until reset
by Fire District key switch. Gates shall open by means of an approved Traffic Pre-emption Device. Contact
the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering infom~ation.
10. The installation of gates and restricted access to residential developments may necessitate installation of
approved automatic fire sprinkler systems. This condition applies when the Fire District determines that gates,
other means of restricting access or delaying response exists.
11. 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 vehicles.
12. A building or site directory shall be required, as noted below:
Lighted directory within 20 feet of main entrance(s) to the site.
13. A note shall be placed on all plans which clearly indicates the following: Emergency access, a minimum 26 feet
in width and 14 feet, 6 inches in height shall be provided and maintained free and dear of any obstructions at
all times during construction, in accordance with Fire District Standards.
14. Dead-end Fire District access roadways in excess of 150-feet shall be provided with approved previsions for
the turning around of fire apparatus. This may include a cul-de-sac, "hammerhead," or other means approved
by the Fire District.
15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans and obtain approval from the Fire
District for fire lanes on required Fire District access roadway less than 40 feet in width. The plans shall
indicate the locations of red curbing and signage. A drawing of the proposed signage that meets the minimum
Fire District standards shall be submitted to and approved. Contact the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District at (909) 477-2770 for a copy of the "FD Access - Fire Lanes" standard.
16. Pdor to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the fire lanes shall be installed in accordance with the
approved fire lane plan. The CC&R's or other approved documents shall contain a fire lane map and
provisions that prohibit parking in the fire lanes. The method of enforcement shall be documented. The
CC&R's shall also identify who is responsible for not less than annual inspection and maintenance of all
required fire lanes.
17. New buildings shall post the address with minimum 8-inch numbers on contrasting background, visible from
the street and electrically illuminated during pedods of darkness. When the building setback exceeds 200 feet
from the public street an additional non-illuminated 6~inch minimum number address shall be provided at the
property entrance.
18. In multi-unit complexes approved address numbers, and/or building identification letters shall be provided on
the front and back of all units, suites, or buildings. The Fire District shall review and approve the numbering
plan in coordination with the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
F. Combustible Construction Letter
1. Required Note: Pdor to the issuance of a building permit for combustible construction, the builder shall submit
a letter to the Fire District on company letterhead stating that the minimum water supply for fire fighting
purposes and the all weather fire protection access roadway that meets Fire District Standards shall be in
place and operational before any combustible matedal is placed on-site. The roadway shall be maintained at
all times.
1~. Architectural Building Plans
1~ Pdor to approval of a site development/use permit, or the issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first,
the applicant shall submit plans for the review and approval of the Fire District. Call the Fire Construction
Services Unit at (909) 477-2713 for the Fire Safety Site/Architectural Notes to be placed on the plans prior to
submittal.
H. Fire Alarm System
1. An automatic fire alarm (and detection) system is required by RCFPD Ordinance 15, based on use or fleer
area, ow by another adopted code or standard.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, plans for the fire alarm system shall be submitted to Fire Construction
Services for review and approval. No work is allowed without a Fire District permit.
3. Prior to any remodel, modification, additions, or exchange of devices, Fire District approval and a permit are
required. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services.
4. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire alarm (and detection) system(s) shall be tested and
accepted by Fire Construction Services.
I. Fire District Fees Due
1. Fire District fee(s), plus a $I.00 microfilm fee per "plan page" will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire
District as follows: *
$82 Start-up fee for commercial, industrial or multi-family dwelling units (Paid prior to TRC)
$132 Conditional Use Permit Fee (CUP)
$132 for Water Plan Review for Public Fire Protection
$132 for Private Fire Mains or Fire Sprinkler Underground Water Supply
$677 (per new building) for Multi-family Residential Development
· Note: Separate plan check fees for tenant improvement work, fire protection systems (fire sprinklers, alarm
systems, fire extinguishing systems, etc.), and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon separate
submittals of plans.
J. Hazard Control Permits
1. As noted below Special Permits may be required, dependent upon intended use:
a. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below
which in the judgment of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions, which may be hazardous to life
or property.
b. Operate a place of public assembly.
c. To install any access control device, system, or any material under, upon or within the required fire
district access roadway. This includes any gate, barrier, traffic-calming device, speed bump, speed
hump or any device that delays or slows Fire District response.
d. Compressed gases (storage, handling, or use exceeding 100 cubic feet.
e. Operate dust-producing processes and operations.
f. Flammable and combustible liquid (storage, handling, and/or use).
g. Liquefied petroleum gas (storage, handling, use or transport, exceeding 120 gallons).
h. Hot work operations (welding and cutting operations in any occupancy).
K. Hazardous Materials - Compliance with Disclosure and Reporting Regulations
1. The below listed businesses, operations, uses or conditions require that the San Bemardino County Fire
Department review your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan for compliance with minimum standards.
Contact the San Bemardino County Fire, Hazardous Materials Division at (909) 387-3041 for forms and
assistance. They are the CUPA for the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
2. Any business that uses, generates, processes, produces, treats, stores, emits, or discharges a hazardous
material in quantities at or exceeding 55 gallons, 500 pounds, or 200 cubic feet (compressed gas) at any
one time in the course of a year.
3. All hazardous waste generators, regardless of quantity generated.
4. Any business that handles, stores, or uses Category (I) or (11) pesticides, as defined by FIFRA, regardless
of amount.
5. Any business that handles DOT Hazard Class 1 (explosives, found in 49 CFR) regardless of amount.
6. Any business that handles extremely hazardous substances (EHS's) in quantities exceeding the threshold
planning quantity (T.P.Q.). Extremely Hazardous Substances are designated pursuant to the Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know Act Section 302, and are listed in 40 CFR Part 355.
7. Any business subject to the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), also known
as SARA Title II1. Generally, EPCRA includes facilities that handle hazardous substances above 10,000
pounds, or extremely hazardous substances above threshold planning quantities. There are some
exceptions, including retail gas stations with up to 75,000 gallons of gasoline or 100,000 gallons of diesel
fuel in Underground Storage Tanks (UST's) that meet the 1998 upgrade requirements. To get more
information on EPCRA requirements call 1-800-535-0202. Due to State disclosure consolidation laws, Tier
II forms need not be submitted to the various State and Federal agencies. Submission of your Business
Emergency/ Contingency Plan will meet this requirement; however, EPCRA does require full annual
inventory submission rather than a certification statement each March I. Also, EPCRA facilities are bound
by the trade secret limitations of EPCRA, and must sign every page of inventory.
8. Any business that handles radioactive material that is listed in Appendix B of Chapter 1, of 10 CFR.
9. If the facility is a NEVV business, a Certificate of Occupancy issued by Building and Safety will not be
finalized until the San Bernardino County Fire Department reviews your Business Emergency/Contingency
Plan. California Govemment Code, Section 65850.2 prohibits the City from issuing a final Certificate of
Occupancy unless the applicant has met or is meeting specific hazardous material disclosure
requirements. A Risk Management Program (RMP) may also be required if regulated substances are to be
used or stored at the new facility. Contact County Fire, Hazardous Materials Division at (909) 387-3041 for
forms and assistance.
10. Any business that operates on rented or leased property, and is required to submit a Plan, is required to
submit a notice to the owner of the property in writing stating that the business is subject to the Business
Emergency/Contingency Plan mandates, and has complied with the provision, and must provide a copy of
the Plan to the property owner within 5 working days after receiving a request from the owner.
11. The Fire Code adopted by the Fire District has a provision requiring collection of information regarding
hazardous materials at facilities for purposes of Fire Code implementation and emergency response. Prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy a copy of the Business Emergency/Contingency Plan - New
Business (Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory) shall be submitted to the Fire
District after it is approved by the San Bemardino County Fire Department. In some cases additional
information that is not in the Business Emergency/Contingency Plan may be required in order to support
local fire prevention and emergency response programs.
L. Plan Submittal Required Notice
1. Plans shall be submitted and approved pdor to construction in accordance with 1997/98 Building, Fire,
Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes; 1999 Electrical and RCFPD Ordinances FD15 and FD32, Guidelines and
Standards.
NOTE: Separate plan check fees for tenant improvements, fire protection systems and/or any
consultant reviews will be assessed at time of submittal of plans.
Fire District Conditions of Approval- Template
SL 7/24/01 Revision
C. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00516 - US HOMES - The design review of building
elevations and detailed site plan for three previously approved tentative tract maps consisting of
113 single-family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acres) of the.
Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development, located on the
southeast comer of Day Creek Boulevard and Banyan Street and approximately 300 feet north
of the northwest comer of Day Creek Boulevard and Banyan Street. APN: 225-101-44.
Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14523-1, Tentative Tract Map SUBTI'14494, and
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT15902.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that staff was requesting that item B be pulled from the Consent
Calendar.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to adopt items A and C of the Consent
Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MAClAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEVV DRC2001-00675
Debra Meier, Contract Planner, presented the staff report and indicated staffwas suggesting three
minor revisions to the resolution to increase the wall height to 8 feet along the project perimeter and
to clarify the conditions regarding the wall along the south boundary and the security lighting.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Joe Carroll, Copart, Inc., 2176 The Alameda, San Jose, concurred with the changes. He stated he
has the opportunity to fly around the country and he felt it had been a real pleasure to work with
Rancho Cucamonga, particularly Ms. Meier.
There were no additional public comments.
Chairman McNiel stated the developer had been very cooperative. He supported the project.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the
resolution approving Development Review DRC2001-00675 with modifications suggested by staff.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEVVART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUB3-r16257- FORECAST
CORPORATION - A request to subdivide 26.7 acres of land into one lot for condominium
purposes in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South
Overlay District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan,
~ located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 227-211-02,
04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 17, 20, and 29. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00557 and
{' Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00567.
Planning commission Minutes -2- January 23, 2002
*. · E; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00557 -
FORECAST CORPORATION - A request to construct 368 apartments on 26.7 acres of land in
the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay Dist~ct,
and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west
side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 17,
20, and 29. Related tiles: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16257 and Tree Removal Permit
DRC2001-00567.
KJrt Coury, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and indicated a newsite utilization map, site
map, conceptual grading plan, and landscape plan were placed in front of the Commissioners.
Chairman McNiel asked if staff had met with the surrounding residents with respect to the issues
brought forth.
Mr. Coury responded affirmatively. He said he met with several at the Planning counter, spoke with
them on the telephone, and met with them at the neighborhood meeting.
Chairman McNiel asked how many attended the neighborhood meeting.
Mr. Coury replied approximately 10 residents attended the first meeting on November 20, 2001, and
approximately 12 attended the meeting on January 17, 2002.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Jimmy Previti, Forecast Homes, 10670 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they read the
staff report and were willing to accept all conditions.
Chairman McNiel noted Mr. Previty met with the neighbors and asked if they were working to
resolution on the issues raised by the neighbors.
Mr. Previti felt they were.
Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that several issues were raised at the neighborhood meeting
including one issue regarding fire safety. He reported that fire staff met with homeowners on the
property earlier in the day and a representative of the Fire District was available to respond. He said
staff had tried to be available and had encouraged them to question such things as sewer locations
and capacities or direction on whether a new system might have to be built if the residents wish to
develop their properties in the future. He indicated staff suggested the residents work directly with
Cucamonga County Water District. He said that one of the questions asked by the residents
concamed the street improvements being done and what the drive access will be like when the
street improvements are done and when the proposed project is done.
Dan Guerra, Dan Guerra and Associates, 10271B Trademark Street, Rancho Cucamonga, observed
that at the neighborhood meeting, residents asked questions relative to the improvements currently
being constructed on Etiwanda Avenue by another development project. He said that project is.
across the street and his firm happens to be the consultants on that project as well. He said they
had not specifically answered those questions at the neighborhood meeting, but it was indicated that .
the plans are available at City Hall. He stated that Etiwanda Avenue is currently being widened and
the Etiwanda frontage across the current residents' properties is not being widened at the present
time. He said the existing rock and rubble curb is being replaced with an asphalt berm in the same
location and asphalt driveways are being installed onto the existing access driveways on the west
side of Etiwanda Avenue, including Chervil Street to improve the situation.
Mr. Bulier pointed out that the residents questioned the southerly drive access location on Etiwanda
Avenue. He said the residents wondered if the access could or should be moved. He reported that
Planning Commission Minutes -3- January' 23, 2002
" the Design Review Committee was aware that this driveway access was aligned with the apartment
project across the street. He said staff again looked at the access, and believes that it is better to
have the driveways aligned than to have them offset.
Mr. Coury noted that the wall along the northwest property line would be a minimum of 8 feet and a
maximum of 10 feet including a 2-foot retaining wall. He said there may be a maximum of 14-foot
high walls in some areas with an 8-foot exposed wall and a 6-foot retaining wall because of the
grade difference. He stated that at the first neighborhood meeting two property owners indicated
they did not want an 8-foot wall and the developer indicated a willingness to use wrought iron
fencing. He commented the neighbors accepted that solution at the first neighborhood meeting;
however, they indicated at the January 17 meeting they may prefer the block wall.
Don Glover, 7954 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the lot south of Chervil
Street with two houses and has lived there for 23 years and his family owned the property for over
100 years. He said he received a flyer for. a neighborhood meeting and was told they would be
building apartments adjacent to his lot. He agreed the apartments are beautiful but said he will be
driving through an apartment complex to get to his driveway. He did not feel that was right. He felt
he would be landlocked if the project were approved and his properb/would not be of value to
anyone except Forecast. He said he would have walls completely surrounding him. He commented
that he was told prior to the latest neighborhood meeting that the 2-~ acre parcel would not be
developed and he had assumed that meant the entry would be moved. He said he has records to
show there is an easement that was dedicated in 1921 and rededicated in 1964 for ingress and
egress to his property and his neighbor's property. He stated that. 10 cars currently use that
easement and he objected to now having to share that read with 346 apartment dwellers. He felt
that traffic is definitely impacted. He said that there will be a great visual impact as the area is
currently open fields. He commented that it is now quiet except for noise from the freeway, which
puts him to sleep. He asked that the developer stub out infrastructure utilities (gas, water, etc.) so
his land will be worth something. He said they were told at the neighborhood meeting that water and
sewer would be stubbed in. He stated he asked about electric, gas, cable, and telephone and the
developer responded they would not stub out for those. He acknowledged that the developer was
trying to work with the residents but felt that the situation was benefiting Forecast Homes and not his
lifestyle. He said that the developer has asked to move his (Mr. Glover's) 20-foot easement to
Chervil Street and said the developer had suggested giving him property along his easterly property
line, but he would then have to do a u-turn to get into his garage. He thought the project would then
have to go back through Design Review. He asked if Chervil Street would then become a public
street. He inquired if the developerwould be required to bring in all utilities. He commented that the
2Y-,-acre parcel will eventually be built when the zoning is changed from Low Medium to Medium.
Mr. Glover said his way of life is being affected. He requested the project be denied.
Juanita Sandoval, 12820 Chervil Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lives in the house at the
west end of Chervil Street and will be surrounded on two sides by the proposed apartment
development. She objected to the apartments because it will interfere with her mountain view,
afternoon breezes, privacy, and lack of traffic. She said migratory birds visit the mature trees
surrounding her property. She believed there had been no environmental specialist to determine if
the development will adversely impact the survival of the birds. She asked if the birds are protected
under the Migratory Bird Act and asked if the California Fish and Game and United States Fish and
Wildlife Service had reviewed and approved the environmental documents. She objected to the loss
of her rural atmosphere. She noted an 8-foot block wall is proposed to be located approximately 5
feet from her home. She said she lives in a single-story house and a two-story apartment building is
proposed to be located approximately 30 feet from her property line and the apartments will be at a
higher elevation. She objected to the apartments having windows that would have a view into her
backyard and bedroom windows. She acknowledged that the developer has indicated he will provide
landscaping to provide privacy and she asked that they be required to do so. She was also
concemed that there will be a sidewalk adjacent to the wall that borders his backyard. She felt that
would encourage graff'~ and vandalism to the wall and grant easy access to climbing over the wall:
Plknning Commission Minutes -4- Janua~ 23, 2002
-. She preferred that the sidewalk be removed and landscaping such as thorny vines be planted to
grow on the wall to deter wall climbing. She expressed concerns about the safety of her children.
She said that Chervil Street is a private dirt mad that varies from 15 feet to 25 feet wide and has litiie
traffic. She stated the proposed block wall will abruptly dead-end Chervil Street on the west end.
She reported that trash tracks currently use the dirt mad to rum around safely rather than backing
down the mad. She said she currently has an alternate escape mute but the proposed development
will block off that exit. She felt that large vehicles such as trash trucks will be forced to back up the
entire length of the dirt mad. She said she contacted Burtec and was told they did not have an
official comment but the mute supervisor feared they may not be able to staff their trucks with only
one pemon if they have to back up onto Etiwanda Avenue. She said that pedestrians and bicyclists
use the dirt mad as well and they would be endangered if the trash trucks back out. She was
concerned that the dirt mad they have been able to use for the last 6 yearn would no longer be
available as an alternate escape mute in case offira or earthquake. She said that at the January 17
neighborhood meeting, they asked the developer to grant an access easement to allow trucks to
safely turnaround and he responded it was not his responsibility to give up any of his land. She felt
they may have a prescriptive easement and asked that the City make the developer grant access to
the property for a cul-de-sac to remain in its pre-existing location. She felt that would solve many
safety and traffic concems. She was appalled the City would allow a zoning change to support
apartment units adjacent to land where only single-family homes exist. She felt her investment in her
home will be lost once the apartments are built. She thought single-family homes or single stoqf
condominiums should be built. She asked that the project not be approved until the developer
addresses the problems created with respect to privacy, safety, and the investments of the existing
homeowners.
Daniel Sandoval, 12820 Chervil Street, presented a list of requested conditions including: 1) require
developer to bring in water mains to support the City code for minimum fire hydrant spacing for
residential districts, 2) allow existing cul-de-sac to remain at the west end of Chervil Street through
prescriptive easement rights, 3) require developer to grant sewer access at each existing property or
at the west end of Chervil Street to the proposed maximum density of 14 units per acre to avoid
more costly installation in the future, 4) require developer to grant land along the southeastern
portion of Chervil Street and to pave and widen Chervil Street to 26 feet, 5) remove sidewalk
bordering the wall along his property line, 6) require trash disposal dumpstera be located away from
his property to avoid odor or debris from going onto his property, 7) require locations and coverings
of lights to prevent visible glare and lighting from affecting his property, and 8) require sufficient
landscaping to provide privacy screening and prevent graffiti and vandalism and discourage people
from climbing the wall. He thought the Etiwanda Specific Plan requires logical phasing of facilities
such as sewers and water in order to minimize the cost of service to an area. He said that
Cucamonga County Water District felt it would be logical to require the developer to provide access
points for sewer and water access for fire hydrants to the adjacent properties to avoid possibly
having to install a pumping station at a later time. He showed some pictures of the current dirt road
turn-around and the proposed location of the wall. He thought the mad does not currently conform to
the 14 foot 6 inch height access for emergency access and noted the read is only 15 feet wide in
some areas.
Joe Rusling, 12839 Chervil Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the staff report indicates he has
access to Chervil Street and that resolves some of the issues. He did not think Chervil Street is a
street, but is instead his neighbor's driveway and he did not feel he or Mr. Glover have any legal right ·
to use lt. He said he does not currently use Chervil Street because he uses the easement that has
been in place since 1921. He observed that the C'~ has never developed Chervil Street as a street.
He noted that many of the issues raised by residents were considered resolved by the deletion of the
2Y-z-acre parcel from this development. He felt that was irrelevant because the parcel' will be
developed as soon as the zoning is changed.
Wesley La Nier, 12830 Chervil Street, stated he would like to second everything that his neighbora
said. He noted that reports showed there should be no problems with flooding. He said Chervil
Planning Commission Minutes .5. Janua~7 23, 2002
'. Street has a 10-foot rise near Etiwanda Avenue and then drops back down. He feared that debris
would be carried down and back up at the wall at the west end of Chervil, clogging up the drainage
and cause flooding. He indicated that his house closed escrow the day before his first meeting with
Forecast and the escrow papers stated his house was in a Low Medium area. He felt changing the
zoning to Medium will result in an increase in crime. He stated he was concerned about the change
to his way of life. He said that pairs of Red Tail Hawks and Kestrel Hawks use the area for feeding.
He stated the United States Postal Service moved their mailboxes to a turnout that is about 75 feet
off Etiwanda Avenue because of the current widening of Etiwanda Avenue. He said the mail boxes
did not indicate where the mailboxes will ultimately be located, but said they would not be placed
back on Etiwanda Avenue because of traffic issues. He felt their property values would decrease or
stagnate. He submitted a letter signed by four homeowners requesting that the project be referred
back for further evaluation. It asked that the developer be required to dedicate land to allow the
widening of Chervil Street and allow the City to provide utility services. The letter also stated their
belief that the environmental review of the process was not adequate and asked that the project not
be approved until such time as public meetings are held to discuss whether apartments are
appropriate of if the project should be a condominium development. They also asked for further
environmental review and consideration of conditions of approval to protect the current residents'
way of life or protect their development potential. He said it is currently a nice, quiet place to live and
that children play in the street and that will no longer be possible.
Trecy Glover, 7954 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the utilities for her property
and the Rusling property are undergrounded where the proposed driveway will be located. She said
that if they have a water or gas leak, they did not know how they would get to the pipes. She noted
their water meters are currently on Etiwanda Avenue on Forecast's property and she questioned
where they would be moved. She did not like the prospect of having to drive through an apartment
complex to reach her home and felt it would interfere with her ability to sell her home. She said they -
would be virtually landlocked; particularly once the 2~-acre parcel is developed.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel dosed the public hearing.
Chairman McNiel asked staff to respond to some of the comments raised.
Mr. Buller reported that there was no zone change before the Commission tonight. He said the
property has had the current zoning of Medium and Low Medium for quite some time and the single-
family homes have always had the multi-family zoning surrounding them since the adoption of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan in the early 1980s. He stated there had been a neighborhood meeting in an
attempt to address some of the issues raised by the neighbors and the applicant has indicated a
willingness to address some of the issues. He observed that some of the issues raised this evening
were new requests, such as the removal of the sidewalk along the Sandoval properly. He said staff
could handle the site design issues such as the intense landscaping request, relocation of the
sidewalk and trash receptacles, etc. Regarding the issue of prescfiptiVe rights, he commented that
the Commission does not sit as a court on that decision. He said there has been no evidence
presented to the City that concludes that they have easement fights over Forecast property. He
stated the Commission may still consider the actions or requests of the homeowners. He noted the
developer has indicated a willingness to consider providing a pedestrian gate for emergency exit into
the apartment project. He said the developer had also indicated a willingness to consider a turn-
around at the end of Chervil Street, but staff pointed out there is sufficient room on the existing
properties without going onto the applicant's property. He said all parties involved could solve the
problem with cooperation or on their own. He remarked that a representative of the Fire District was
there and had indicated to staff that .the proposed project benefits the fire safety elements of the
existing homes. He said there is currently a surrounding field that may or may not be maintained and
the Fire District had indicated the project could create a firebreak around the existing homes. With
respect to the trash trucks and safety equipment coming up the private street, he said the
maintenance of the private street is the responsibility of the homeowners and they need to repair
potholes or widen the street/f necessary. He indicated staff does not believe it should be the
Planning commission Minutes -6- January 23, 2002
-. obligation of the developer to pave Chervil or run new utility lines. He believed the Glover and
Rustling properties have electrical service off Chervil Street, so he felt there must be some utility
access easements in place. He noted the applicant agreed to run the other services along the most
southerly property line. He said he could not respond to the postal delivery comment other than to
state the Post Office will provide postal service to the residents. He was not sure why the mailboxes
were moved because Etiwanda Avenue is not being widened in that location, but merely replacing
one curb with another curb. He said the Fire District staff personnel were available to answer
questions with respect to the existing homes. He noted the Fire District indicated the current dirt
read is probably not the best maintained for serviceability. Mr. Buller stated it is a private drive and is
the responsibility of the private property owners. With respect to the 2% acres, he noted the
residents were correct that the applicant is not proposing a change or development on that parcel
tonight and the Commission therefore had no action before them on that parcel. He said the current
resolution is conditioned to require sidewalk and street improvements along the front of that parcel
be consistent with respect to curb and gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Bullet said staff believes the
environmental documentation presented to the Commission is sufficient under the environmental
· requirements and shows there are no significant impacts that would require the City to deem the
project infeasible or unapprovable. He said staff believes the driveway is of sufficient capacity to
serve the vehicle trip generations onto Etiwanda Avenue. He noted the applicants do not went their
new driveway tom up for future utility access, therefore, they will provide the ability for the parcels
which are not a part of this project to get access without having to tear up the improvements.
Chairman McNiei asked if it would cover all utilities including telephone.
Mr. Buller believed the applicant has indicated he would include all utilities.
Chairman McNiel felt the potential alteration of the sidewalk, potential relocation of dumpsters, and
. light coverings for glare could be handled by staff.
Mr. Bullet suggested a condition be added that the landscaping and sidewalk and trash enclosure
locations adjacent to the existing homes along Chervil Street be subject to City Planner review and
approval. He said he would be sure the property owners are notified of that decision.
Chairman McNiel asked if that would include the property-adJacent landscaping.
Mr. Butler responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Stewart suggested that Fire District personnel respond to the residents' comments.
Ralph Crane, Fire Marshal, stated he visited the site eadier in the day after being contacted by the
residents along Chervil Street. He said the support of the Fire District is a standard conceptual
support. He observed there are a lot of places in the District that are existing non-conforming: and
any time those areas can enhance their existing water supply or access, it is a benefit to the
emergency services that can be provided. He said he directed the questions related to fire hydrants
to Cucamonga County Water District, as they are the proper agency to address hydrant issues and
water supply issues with the individual property owners. He also noted that several suggestions
were made to the property owners regarding things they could do immediately to improve the Fire
District's ability to respond rapidly and those suggestions are not dependent upon the project itself. ·
He said that includes puffing addresses on the existing homes that don't have addresses on them,
removing the limbs on some of the trees that may block access, and grading the road to allow for
faster response. He stated that the Fire District definitely feels spdnklered residences are a lower
fire dsk than a grassy vineyard left to grow. He said the Fire District has no issues that have not
been satisfied on the project being proposed; but they do have concems with the existing
residences, which were addressed to those owners.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 23, 2002
· . Commissioner Mannerino stated this is one of the areas of the City that is in transition. He said it is
difficult because Etiwanda continues to be the more rural part of the City and it is now changing as
the whole City has changed. He said he has reminded people on several occasions that he used to
shoot rabbits where City Hall now sits. He thought it may have been better if there had been another
meeting between the developer and the residents on Chervil Street; however, he felt the primary
thrust of the problem is that the cun'ent residents do not want apartments and medium density
structures around their homes. He observed that that the area is zoned for that use and has been so
zoned for at least 20 years. He said that anyone who buys the property will build the maximum
number of units that it is zoned for because that is how you make money in real estate. He felt that if
this developer does not build, it will be another developer and it will be high density housing around
the current residents because that is how the area is zoned. He saw nothing that would negate a
Negative Declaration with the conditions that were being imposed. He felt there was some more
detail that may be worked out such as site changes and landscaping and he u~ged the developer to
continue his dialogue to adjust the tract and make it more palatable to the residents and he thought
Mr. Previty will do so. Commissioner Mannerino felt it is a project which complies with the standards
and he noted that even some of the residents have commented that it is nice looking. He supported
the project with adjacent landscaping and the additional conditions proposed by Mr. Bullet.
Commissioner Stewart concurred with Commissioner Mannerino. She also felt the project could
have benefited from another neighborhood meeting to iron out some of the things. She was
comfortable with the fire and safety issues that the Fire District discussed. She said the bottom line
is that the property is zoned Medium and that is how it will be developed. She supported the project
with the additional suggested conditions to address the identified issues subject to City Planner
approval.
Commissioner Macias stated the land use designation has been that way for a long time and
withstood public scrutiny during the recently approved General Plan. It said it is unfortunate that
there are often homeowners stuck in this kind of a situation. He agreed with Commissioner
Mannerino that this is a time of change and this is an area that has been struck for change. Taken
as a whole, he felt the project benefits the City as a whole. He noted there are going to be some
losers, and that is because of the change and movement that the City is going in. He supported the
project.
Mr. Butler observed that Planning Condition 7 of the Conditional Use Permit resolution already
provides that additional landscaping and trees shall be provided at the interior project perimeter
adjacent to the existing single-family residences subject to City Planner approval. He felt the
minutes will reflect that the intent is to screen out the visibility from the upstairs windows of the
project's buildings into the neighbors' properties. He said staff will be looking for evergreen trees and
shrubs to do that. He stated staff would also be looking for the type of plant materials that would
deter people from wanting to get dose to the block wall from the apartment side to reduce the
potential for graffiti. He suggested adding a condition regarding lighting to limit free-standing lights to
a maximum of 15 feet, prohibit security lighting f'~dures from projecting above the fascia or roofline,
and shield al/lighting to confine light spread within the project boundaries. He also suggested
adding a condition that final sidewalk locations and the trash enclosure location immediately adjacent
to Chervil Street be subject to City Planner review'and approval. He asked if the Commissioners
wished to add a condition with respect to utility connections, noting that the applicant had gone on
record that they will do it because it will benefit the project.
commissioner Mannerino stated that if the applicant had indicated a wi!lingness to do it, a condition
should be added.
Mr. Butler suggested the applicant respond.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes .8- January 23, 2002
Mr. Previty said they did not necessarily agree to stub to each residence. He said the con(em of the
residents was that they felt their zoning would be changing in the near future to conform to the
General Plan and they thought the Forecast project would prevent them from developing as a multi-
family project in the future. He agreed to stub the utilities at a common point on the south property
line of Mr. Glover and Mr. Rusling's property. He noted that properties along Chervil Street can
access from Etiwanda Avenue and said he would even go so far as to stub for additional water and
sewer lines for them because of the high spot in the road for Chervil Street. He was agreeable to
any condition that would reflect that agreement.
Mr. Butler suggested inserting a condition that the applicant shall provide underground utility
connections to the lots surrounded by the proposed project pursuant to an agreement between the
owners of this project and the interior lots. He suggested that the agreement provide that the
applicant would be reimbursed for the portion of the cost of the utility connections that would
represent the benefit pro-rata share provided to the lots surrounded by the project. He said that way
the project proponent and the residents would have to determine where the best point is and the
Mr. Previty said he was not proposing that he be reimbursed.
Chairman McNiel felt the wise thing to do would be to put the stubs in where they need to be,
Mr. Bullet suggested the condition then read that the applicant shall provide connections to the lots.
Chairman McNiel thought it should be tO the property lines.
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, asked if the Commission was speaking only of water and
sewer.
Chairman McNiel stated he wes thinking all utilities.
Commissioner Stawert agreed.
Commissioner Mannerino stated they were talking about water, sewer, gas, and electric.
Commissioner Stewart agreed.
Chairman McNiel added telephone and cable.
Mr. Previty said they would be amenable to such a condition assuming that the regulating agencies
are agreeable.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. He noted that there had been a discussion
regarding the wall and noted the applicant agreed to provide either view fencing or a block wall, He.
asked that staff clarify which the homeowners would prefer,
Mr. Buller suggested modifying Planning Condition 2 to provide for either a wrought iron fence or wall
subject to City Planner review and approval,
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the
resolutions approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16257 and Conditional Use Permit
DRC2001-00557 with modifications to clarify the lighting requirements and provide for City Planner
approval of the wall, sidewalk and trash encJosure locations, and underground utility connections.
Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 23, 2002
AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried
F. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT
01-01, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-02, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTI'15716-
FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC. - A public hearing to consider certifying the
final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approving the Statement of Facts and Findings and
Overriding Considerations for the proposed project known as Victoria Gardens, a mixed use
development consisting of approximately 2.45 million square feet of retail, office, and civic uses,
as well as up to 600 multiple family residential units, on approximately 175 acres of land. The
project site is within the City boundary and the Victoria Community Plan and is generally
bounded by future Church Street to the north, Foothill Boulevard to the south, 1-15 Freeway to
the east, and future Day Creek Boulevard to the west - APN: 227-161-35, 36 and 38; 227-171-
22 and 23; 227-201-30, 33, 35, and 36; and 227-211-24 and 39 through 43.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-02 - FOREST
CITY DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.- A request to establish a Development Agreement
and the detailed review of a master plan for a project known as Victoria Gardens, a mixed-use
development consisting of approximately 2.45 million square feet of retail, office, and civic uses,
as well as 600 multiple family residential units, on approximately 175 acres of land. The project
site is within the City boundary and the Victoria Community Plan, generally bounded by future
Church Street to the north, Foothill Boulevard to the south, 1-15 Freeway to the east, and future
Day Creek Boulevard to the west -APN: 227-161-35, 36 and 38; 227-171-22 and 23; 227-201-
30, 33, 35, and 36; and 227-211-24 and 39 through 43. Related files: Victoria Community Plan
Amendment 01-01 and Tentative Parcel Map 15716.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND VICTORIA coMMuNITY PLAN AMENDMENT
01-01 - FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC. -A request to amend the Victoria
Community Plan by changing the land use designation from Regional Center to Mixed Use and
modifying various text sections and graphics in the Community Plan to accommodate the
proposed project known as Victoria Gardens on approximately 175 acres of land, generally
bounded by future Church Street to the north, Foothill Boulevard to the south, 1-15 to the east,
and future Day Creek Boulevard to the west - APN: 227-161-35, 36 and 38; 227-171-22 and 23;
227-201-30, 33, 35, and 36; and 227-211-24 and 39 through 43. Related files: Development
Agreement 01-02 and Tentative Parcel Map 15716.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTT15716 -
FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC. - A request to subdivide approximately
147acres of land into 97 parcels and 39 lettered lots (private and public streets) to
accommodate the proposed project known as Victoria Gardens on approximately 175 acres of
land, generally bounded by future Church Street to the north, Foothill Boulevard to the south,
1-15 Freeway to the east, and future Day Creek Boulevard to the west - APN: 227-161-35, 36
and 38; 227-171-22 and 23; and 227-201-30, 33, 35, and 36. Related files: Development
Agreement 01-02 and Victoda Community Plan Amendment 01-01.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report with respect to the Environmental Impact
Report and indicated the latest version of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan was in front of the
Commissioners as well as pages to indicate that the Etiwanda Avenue/Foothill Boulevard and
Etiwanda Avenue/San Bemardino Avenue (4th Street) intersections would be switched from the
unavoidable impacts section to be mitigated.
Planning Commission Minutes . -10- January 23, 2002
RESOLUTION NO. ~)~, "'~ ?~/
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT16257, A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT, AND THE
RELATED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2001-00567, FOR 340
APARTMENTS ON 24.2 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), ETIWANDA SOUTH
OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND ETIWANDA AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT
WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNs: 227-211-02, 04, 05,
09, 10, 15, 20, 29 AND A PORTION OF 17.
A. Recitals.
1. Forecast Corporation filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16257 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On November 20, 2001 and January 17, 2002, the applicant conducted neighborhood
meetings, which was attended by 8 and 9 residents, respectively.
3. On January 9, and continued to January 23, 2002, the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and approved the application.
4. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was appealed in a
timely manner to this Council.
5. On March 6, 2002, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on the application.
6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A,
of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 6, 2002, including written and oral staff reports, the minutes of
the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission
Resolution Nos. 02-17 and 02-18, and together with public testimony, this Council hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue,
north of Foothill Boulevard, with a street frontage of approximately 1,700 feet on Etiwanda Avenue
and an approximate depth of 1,500 feet, and is presently vacant; and
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16257 - FORECAST CORPORATION
March 6, 2002
Page 2
b. Eight existing single-family detached residences, not a part of the proposed project,
are located on an inverted L-shaped property at the central portion of the site which take access
from Etiwanda Avenue via dirt roads. The 1-15 Freeway borders the property on the north and west.
The property to the south is vacant, but is planned for commercial development. To the east, across
Etiwanda Avenue, the property has been approved for a 272 multi-family residential development,
and
c. The application contemplates a condominium s,~bdivision of one lot for the
development of 340 apartments on 24.2 acres of land within the Medium Residential District (8-14
dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District of
the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill
Boulevard; and
d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
e. On April 6, 1981, the City Council adopted a General Plan for the City of Rancho
Cucamonga which included a land use designation of Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per
acre) for the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood.
f. According to the Fire Marshal of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
the proposed project will benefit the community by eliminating a fire hazard (grass fields) and install
a water supply and fire hydrant system.
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 I and 2
above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General
Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the tentative tract is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or the habitat; and
e. The design of the tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health
problems; and
f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the
public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3, 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 the Planning Commission
Resolution Nos. 02-17 and 02-18, attached hereto.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUB'I-D16257 - FORECAST CORPORATION
March 6, 2002
Page $
5. This Council hereby provides notice to Forecast Corporation that the time within which
judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the
provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the
adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified
mail, return-receipt requested, to Forecast Corporation at the address identified in City records.
RESOLUTION NO. O 2."~ ?Z
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. DRC2001-00557 TO CONSTRUCT 340 APARTMENTS ON 24.2
ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), ETIWANDA SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT,
AND ETIWANDA AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT WITHIN THE ETIWANDA
SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA
AVENUE, NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND MAKING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNs: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, 29
AND A PORTION OF 17.
A. Recitals.
1. Forecast Corporation filed an application for the approval of Conditional Use Permit No.
DRC2001-00557, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On November 20, 2001 and January 17, 2002, the applicant conducted neighborhood
meetings, which was attended by 8, and 9 residents respectively.
3. On January 9, and continued to January 23, 2002, the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng and approved the application.
4. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was appealed in a
timely manner to this Council.
5. On March 6, 2002, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on the application.
6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A,
of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-
referenced public hearing on Mamh 6, 2002, including written and oral staff reports, the minutes of
the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission
Resolution Nos. 02-17 and 02-18, and together with public testimony, this Council hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue,
north of Foothill Boulevard, with a street frontage of approximately 1,700 feet on Etiwanda Avenue
and an approximate depth of 1,500 feet, and is presently vacant; and
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST CORPORATION
March 6, 2002 ..
Page 2
b. Eight existing single-family detached residences, not a part of the proposed project,
are located on an inverted L-shaped property at the central portion of the site which take access
from Etiwanda Avenue via dirt roads. The 1-15 Freeway borders the property on the north and west.
The property to the south is vacant, but is planned for commercial development. To the east, across
Etiwanda Avenue, the property has been approved for a 272 multi-family residential development,
and
c. The application applies to the development of 340 apartments on 24.2 acres of
land within the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Oveday
District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west
side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard; and
d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
e. On April 6, 1981, the City Council adopted a General Plan for the City of Rancho
Cucamonga which included a land use designation of Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per
acre) for the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood.
f. According to the Fire Marshal of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
the proposed project will benefit the community by eliminating a fire hazard (grass fields) and install
a water supply and fire hydrant system.
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 I and 2
above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
b. The proposed development, 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; and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The development of the proposed project will not cause a significant traffic impact
on the surrounding area; and
e. The design of the project is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage
and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or the habitat; and
f. The design of the project will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public
at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3, 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 the Planning Commission
Resolution Nos. 02-17 and 02-18, attached hereto.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST CORPORATION
March 6, 2002
Page 3
5. This Council hereby provides notice to Forecast Corporation that the time within which
judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the
provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the
adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified
mail, return-receipt requested, to Forecast Corporation at the address identified in City records.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
StaffRe rt
DATE: March 6, 2002
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY: Jon A. Gillespie, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA
FAClE SPEED LIMIT OF 40 MPH ON WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN
CARNELIAN STREET AND AMETHYST AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION
Approve staff's recommendation to amend Section 10.20.020 of the Municipal Code in
order to establish a prima facie speed limit of 40 mph on Wilson Avenue between
Carnelian Street and Amethyst Avenue.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Wilson Avenue between Carnelian Street and Hellman Avenue is a new street segment
that was opened to public traffic in September of 2001. Wilson Avenue between
Hellman Avenue and Amethyst Avenue was an existing street segment with a posted
speed limit of 40 mph. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish a prima facie speed
limit for the newly opened segment of Wilson Avenue and to amend the limits of an
existing street segment.
City staff conducted an Engineering and Traffic Survey, and determined that the 85~
pementile speed on Wilson Avenue is 42 mph. Therefore, City staff is recommending
that a prima facie speed limit of 40 mph be established for Wilson Avenue.
Since this is a new street segment, there have been no accidents in prior years. Also,
this newly constructed street segment conforms to City design standards, and City staff
did not identify any "not readily apparent" conditions that would justify any further
reduction in the posted speed limit.
dTO
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA
FAClE SPEED LIMIT OF 40 MPH ON WILSON AVENUE BETVVEEN
CARNELIAN STREET AND AMETHYST AVENUE
March 6, 2002
Page 2
Respectfully Submitted,
Willia~rfi"J. O'Neil
City Engineer
W JO:JAG:jag
Attachment "A"- Vicinity Map
Attachment "B"- Engineering and Traffic Survey
ZT/
Wilson Avenue - Carnelian Street to Amethyst Avenue
Vicinity Map
TRAFFIC AND ENGINEERING SURVEY
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Engineering Department
Street: WILSON AVENUE Bv: Judv Acosta Date: 11/20/01
From: Carnelian To: Beryl
Area Descrinfion
Txme of Street Secondarv
Distance 2_566 feet tAB mil
Vertical Alignment 1% trade
Parklnv Restrictions Parkim, 'arohibited
Street Width 64 feet
No of Lanes & Median 2 Janes each direction with 2-way left: turn Jane
Fronting, Development Residential with side street access
Average Daily Traffic 2 327 vehicles
Sueed Cheek Date 11/20/01
Averaae Sneed Ell: 40 ranh ' WB: 39 nmb
85% Percentile Sneed 42 nmh 42 rnnh
10 Mile Pace 35 - 44 mnh 35 - 44 mnh
Accident Records
Time Period 1999 & 2000 (2 veara~
Intersection Accidents 0.0
Midblock Accidents 0 0
Accident Rate Expected 1.90
Accident Rate Calculated 0 0
Conditions Not Readily Annarent None
Existina Sr~eed Zone Not hosted
Proposed Speed Zone 40 rrmh
I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that
the above Traffic and Engineering Study was approved and adopted by the City Council.
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk Date
The Traffic and Engineepng~rvey prepared under the supervision of:
, ~:Gil~espie, P.E. ~p~42156 O~ 73
ROAD: WILSON AVENUE
FROM: Carnelian TO: Bell RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: 11/20/01
LOCATION: halfway RADAR SURVEY SHEET BEGS: 2:00 END: 3:15
WEATHE~ROAD COND.: cloudy / d~ POSTED S-~-~-~D: NP
DIRECTION: Eastbound DIRECTION: Westbound
MPH NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM. MPH NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.
5 10 15 20 25 30 3~ # % 5 10 15 20 25 30 3~ # %
50 I I I I I J I I I I I I I I [ I I I I I I I I I I I 501 i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [ I I
45,~,~,~,~,~1 illl,,,,,,I,,,,,,,,I,,,,,, ~ 45,~,~,~,x,,,,,
xlxlxlxlxlx I I I I I I J r I I I I I i i I I I I I 6 Ixlxlxlx I I I I I i i i I I r i i i i i
ixlxlxJxlxl¥1xl I I I I i i i r i i I I I I i i i i I { I i i i 7 ~ Ixl~x I I I I I I I i i i i i i i i i II I I I I I I I
I [ I I I 1~ h
IXIxIx'xlxIxIxIxlXIxlxlxI~x Illll Illlllrll Ill lZ fi~ IXJxlxlxlxlxlxlxl~ 'rlllllllllllllllllrlllll
40]xlxlxlxlxl~xixlxl~xl I r ] i [ I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I _~_~ 401xl~xlx,~xlxlxlxlx, I I , , i i i, i i i I , ] I I r I I I I I I 1{
Ixlxlxlxlxlxlxx I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a~ Ixlxl~xlxlxlxlxlxlx I I ] I I I I I I I I
[xlx, xlxlx, x, , I I I I I I I I I I [ [ I I I I I I , I I I I ~ ixlxl~¥1x,~xlxl¥1¥]xlxlxx I I I I I I I , I , I I I` I [ I I I(
Ixlxlx[xlxlxl I I I I ] II I I II I I ri I I I] III I r 2 I~xlxlxl¥1xl~ ~1 r I I I I i i J II I ] t i i I I I r
3~ I xl xl xl xl xl ~ xl xl xl xl i
ixlxl¥l¥, [ I i i i i , t r I I I I I I r I I , , I I I I I I I I I I 1. I 35,xlxxxxlxl~xxxxx, i i i i i i , , r i , i i i i i i i i i 12
illllllllllll,ll,li'''" ,,,,,,,,, ,~,,,,,,,,, Il,,,,,,,I 4 ~
~olI,,,,,,~,,~,,,,,II '''"II,,1111 I,,,,,,~,,,,,,, ,,,11,,
,,,,,l'"~"l ,,,,,,,I,I IIII,,,, I,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,, IIIII'"' '"'" I,,,,,,,, ,I,,,I ,,
"~'"'"' '"'"~"1 ~'"" ~'~'"" ,,~,,,,~,
'"'"~1 [111111,, ,11,~,,, I,,,,,,I,,,,,,,,,l,
~o ,ll,,,,I,, ,,,,,I,,,I,,,,,,,,111 III'"'"1'""'"',,,,~, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,'"'~"1,,,, Ill
Illltlllllll,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,I,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,, ,,,,,
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~011 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~
IIIllllllllllllllllll~lll IIIlllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllll[lllll
,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
IIIllllllllllllI Illlll [11 Illll II Illlll
,,~llllllllllllll'"'" ,,,,,,,,,lllll ,,,,,,I, ,,,~,,, II,,
~ TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES 100 N\\%~ TOTAL
15 PERCENTILE SPEED 35 10 MPH PACE: 35 - 44 15 PERCENTILE SPEED 35 10 MPH PACE: 35 - 44
50 PERCENTILE SPEED 40 # OF VEHICLES IN PACE: 90 50 PERCENTILE SPEED 39 # OF VEHICLES IN PACE: 90
85 PERCENTILE SPEED 42 % OF VEHICLES IN PACE: 90 85 PERCENTILE SPEED 42 % OF VEHICLES IN PACE: 90
TRAFFIC AND ENGINEERING SURVEY
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Engineering Department
Street: WILSON AVENUE Bv: JudvAcosta Date: 11/21/01
From: Beryl St To: Amethvst Ave
~LSONAV ~ ~
Area Descrindon
Tyne of Street Secondary
Distance 2.700 feet (.50 mi/
Vertical Alimament 1% re'adc
Parklno ReslTicfion~ Parkln~, nrohibited
Street Width 64 feet
No. of Lanes & Median 2 lanes each direction with double vellow centerline
Fronting, Develonmellt Residential with side ~treet accegs
Average Daily Traffic 2.994 vehicles
Soeed Cheek Date I 1/21/01
Average Shoed EB: 38 mnh Wlt: 38 nmh
85% Percentile Shoed 41 mnh 41 mnh
10 Mile Pace 35 - 44 mnh 35 - 44 mnh
Accident Records
Time Period 1999/2000 r2 vears'l
Intersection Accidents 0.0
Midblock Accident~ 0.0
Accident Rate Exnected 1.90
Accident Rate Calculated 0.0
Conditions Not Readily Annarent None
Existing Shoed Zone Not Posted
Pronosed Soeed Zo~le 40 nmb
I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, City clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that
the above Traffic and Engineering Study was approved and adopted by the City Council.
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk Date
,/t c andf~mgine~,~, urvey prepared under the supervision of:
e~ A. (~illespie, P.-Eff~E 42156 tS~ 75
ROAD: WILSON AVENUE
FROM: Beryl TO: Amethyst i RANCHOCUCAMON(~A I DATE: 11/21/01
LOCATION: W/o Hellman (Cousins) RADAR SURVEY SHEET SEGIN: 2:30 END: 3:30
WEATHER/RO~AD COND.: cloudy / dry
POSTED SPEED: NP
DIRECTION: Eastbound DIRECTION: Westbound
J NUMBER OF VEHICLES I C M
MPHI 5 10 15 20 25 30 34 # ~a NUMBER OF VEHICLES
- 65 5 10 15 20 25 30 3,'
ss i i __
so - - _~'
15 PERCENTILE SPEED 35 10 MPH PACE: 35 - 44 15 PERCENTILE SPEED 35 10 MPH PACE: 35 - 44
50 PERCENTILE SPEED 38 # OF VEHICLES IN PACE: 92 50 PERCENTILE SPEED 38 # OF VEHICLES IN PACE: 90
85 PERCENTILE SPEED 41 % OF VEHICLES IN PACE: 92 85 PERCENTILE SPEED 41 % OF VEHICLES IN PACE: 90
O ANCE NO. 6g 0
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION
10.20.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY CODE
REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT OF 40 MPH ON
WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN CARNELIAN STREET AND
AMETHYST AVENUE
A. Recitals
(i) California Vehicle Code Section 22357 Provides that this City Council may, by
ordinance, set prima facie speed limits upon any portion of any street not a state highway.
(ii) The City Traffic Engineer has conducted an engineering and traffic survey, of
certain streets within the City of Rancho Cucamonga which streets as specified in Part B of this
Ordinance.
(iii) The determinations conceming prima facie speed limits set forth in Part B,
below, are based upon the engineering and traffic survey identified in Section A (ii), above.
B. Ordinance
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1
Section 10.20.020 hereby is amended to the Rancho Cucamonga City Code to read, in
words and figures, as follows:
10.20.020 Decrease of state law maximum speed It is determined by City Council
resolution and upon the basis o fan engineering and traffic investigation that the speed permitted by
state law is greater than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist upon such streets,
and it is declared the prima facie speed limit shall be as set forth in this section on those streets or
parts of streets designated in this section when signs are erected giving notice hereof:
(Ord. 169 Section I (part), 1982; Ord. 39 Section 5.1, (1978). Rancho Cucamonga 5/82 124
Existing Posted Proposed Prima Facie
Name of Street and Limits Speed Limit (mph'} Speed Limit (mph)
1. Wilson Avenue - Carnelian Street NP 40
to Hellman Avenue
2. Wilson Avenue - Hellman Avenue NP 40
to Amethyst Avenue
(i) Both sixty-five (65) miles per hour and fifty-five (55) miles per hour are speeds
which are more than are reasonable or safe; and '
SPEED LIMIT ORDINANCE
Page 2
(ii) The miles per hour as stated are the prima facie speeds which are most appropriate to
facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and are speed limits which are reasonable and safe on said
streets or portions thereof; and
(iii) The miles per hour stated are hereby declared to be the prima facie speed limits on
said streets; and
(iv) The Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to install appropriate signs
upon said streets giving notice of the prima facie speed limit declared herein.
Section 2
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be
published as required by law.
Section 3
The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published
within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Inland Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of
general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: William J. Alexander
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the and was passed at a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the
Executed this , at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk