Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003/07/16 - Agenda Packet
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive ~, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3801 909 477-2700 AGENDAS · Redevelopment Agency · Fire Protection District · City Council REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays ~- 7:00 p.m. TO BE HELD AT THE CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT BOARDROOM 10440 ASHFORD ST., RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 9O9 987-2591 JULY 16, 2003 AGENCY~ BOARD & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS William J. Alexander .................... Mayor Diane Williams ............... Mayor Pro Tern Rex Gutierrez ............................ Member Robert J. Howdyshell ............... Member Donald J. Kurth, M.D ................ Member Jack Lam ......................... City Manager James L. Markman ............. City Attorney Debra J. Adams ..................... City Clerk ORDER OF BUSINESS 5:30 p.m. Closed Session ................................. CGWD 7:00 p.m. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting... CCWD Boardroom Regular Fire Protection District Meeting .... CCWD Boardroom Regular City Council Meeting ............. CCWD Boardroom INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC ....RANCHO L;u-c oNc TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the Agenda, please keel) your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may sim ply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promete courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from Ihe audience. The public may address the City Council on any agenda item. Please sign in on the clipboard located at the desk behind the staff table. Please list your name, address and phone number. Comments are limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Communications". There is opportunity to speak: under this section at the beginning and the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the City Council should be given to the City Clerk for distribution. To address the City Council, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. All items to be placed on a 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. AGENDA BACK-UP MATERIALS Staff reports and back-up materials for agenda items are available for review at the City Clerk's counter and the Public Library. A complete copy of the agenda is also available at the sign-in desk located behind the staff table during the Council meeting. LIVE BROADCAST Beginning with the Wednesday, July 16, 2003, City Council meeting, the meetings will not be broadcast Live, but are scheduled to air on RCTV-3 on a tape-delayed basis the night after (Thursday) at 7:00 p.m. Normal, regularly-scheduled replays of City Council meetings will air on RCTV-3 the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 11:00 a.m., and 7:00 p.m. The temporery relocation to the Cucamonga County Water District will last for approximately four months. The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. (temporarily in the CCWD Boardroom located at 10440 Ashford St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA). Members of the City Council also sit as the Redevelopment Agency And the Fire District Board. Copies of City Council agendas and minutes can be found at: http:l/ww~v.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us lf you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please I contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. L sten ng dev ces are available for the hearing impaired. Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1 JULY 16, 2003 CUCAMONGA 1. Roll Call: Alexander __, Gutierrez __, Howdyshell__, Kurth__, and Williams__. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS ! 1. Presentation of Certificates to Vineyard Little League "Major - Angels" (11 and 12 year olds) in recognition of winning the City Championship. C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ] 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. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS l This is the time and place for reports to be made by members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda. ,~. 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: June 4, 2003 June 9, 2003 (Special Meeting) June 16, 2003 (Special Meeting) 2. Approval of Warrants, Register June 25 through July 7, 2003, and 1 Payroll ending July 7, 2003, for the total amount of $2,788,876.39. 3. Approve to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of June 30 30, 2003. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 2 JULY 16, 2003 cR~C~O UCAMONeA 4. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for 37 the Fisher Drive Street Improvements from East Avenue to Mulberry Street, to be funded from previously deposited developer payment placed in Trust Acct. No. 18820002314. RESOLUTION NO. 03-191 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "FISHER DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST AVENUE TO MULBERRY STREET" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 5. Approval of a proposal for Co-Sponsorship and Waiver of Various Fees and Charges for the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of 45 Commerce's Grape Harvest Festival scheduled for October 3-5, 2003, at the Epicenter Special Event area. 6. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B 48 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for CUP 95-25, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, submitted by Sahga Group, L.P. RESOLUTION NO. 03-192 51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR CUP 95-25 RESOLUTION NO. 03-193 52 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 CUP 95-25 7. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and 62 Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 for Tract 16313, located on the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street, submitted by Standard Pacific Corporation - APN: 227-161- 28, 31,33, 35, 36, 38 and 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, 25 '-~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1 JULY 16, 2003 cP~CHO UCAMONGA IIA.c.~oo~.I 1. Roll Call: Alexander__, Gutierrez__, Howdyshell__, Kurth__, and Williams__. I B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of Certificates to Vineyard Little League "Major - Angels" (11 and 12 year otds) in recognition of winning the City Championship. II c. .LiC CO NICATIONS 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. COUNCIL COM]VIUNICATIONS Il This is the time and place for reports to be made by members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda. II~. CONSENT CALENDARI 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: June 4, 2003 June 9, 2003 (Special Meeting) June 16, 2003 (Special Meeting) 2. Approval of Warrants, Register June 25 through July 7, 2003, and 1 Payroll ending July 7, 2003, for the total amount of $2,788,876.39. 3. Approve to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of June 30 30, 2003. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 16, 2003 2 cR~c~o 4. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for 37 the Fisher Drive Street Improvements from East Avenue to Mulberry Street, to be funded from previously deposited developer payment placed in Trust Acct. No. 18820002314. RESOLUTION NO. 03-191 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "FISHER DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST AVENUE TO MULBERRY STREET" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 5. Approval of a proposal for Co-Sponsorship and Waiver of Various Fees and Charges for the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of 45 Commerce's Grape Harvest Festival scheduled for October 3-5, 2003, at the Epicenter Special Event area. 6. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B 48 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for CUP 95-25, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard. Avenue, submitted by Sahga Group, L.P. RESOLUTION NO. 03-192 51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING iMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR CUP 95-25 RESOLUTION NO. 03-193 52 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 CUP 95-25 7. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and 62 Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 for Tract 16313, located on the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street, submitted by Standard Pacific Corporation - APN: 227-161- 28, 31,33, 35, 36, 38 and 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, 25 ~ ~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA . R oHo JULY 16, 2003 3 ~UCA.~IONOA RESOLUTION NO. 03-194 64 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 16313, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 03-195 65 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT 16313 8. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and 72 Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 for Tract 16314, located on the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street, submitted by Standard Pacific Corporation - APN: 227-161- 28, 31,33, 35, 36, 38 and 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, 25. RESOLUTION NO. 03-196 74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 16314, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 03-197 75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT 16314 9. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, 82 Monumentation Cash Deposit and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Tract No. 16398, located at the northwest corner of Hellman Avenue and 7th Street, submitted by W.F. Construction, Inc. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4 JULY 16, 2003 cR~C.O UGAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. 03-198 85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT NO. 16398, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT RESOLUTION NO. 03-199 86 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 TRACT NO. 16398 10. Approval of a recommendation from the Park and Recreation 94 Commission for the approval of the revised Street Banner Policy. 11. Approval of Landmark Designation DRC2003-00469 - Thomas and Christina Pittenger - A request to designate the Hogancamp Family 102 Residence as a Historic Landmark, located at 9475 La Vine Street - APN: 0202-072-21. Related File: Mills Act Agreement DRC2003- 00485. RESOLUTION NO. 03-200 114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DRC2003-00469 TO DESIGNATE THE HOGANCAMP RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 9475 LA VINE, AS A LANDMARK - APN: 0202-072-21 12. Approval of a Mills Act Agreement (DRC2003-00485) (CO 03-069) 102 with Thomas and Christina Pittenger to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce property tax on the Hogancamp House, a Designated Local Landmark located at 9475 La Vine - APN: 0202-072-21. Related files: Landmark Designation DRC2003-00469. 13. Approval to authorize the execution of an Electric Power and Sales 116 Service Agreement with Forest City Development (CO 03-072) to detail the rates and terms of service for all Forest City-owned property within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan area. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 5 JULY 16, 2003 cR CuO UCAMONGA 14. Approval to accept the bids received and award and authorize the 118 execution of the Contract in the amount of $8,644,119.85 to the apparent Iow bidder, Sully-Miller Contracting Company (CO 03-073), and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $864,411.99 for the Phase lB of Community Facilities District 2001- 01 and Phase 3A of Community Facilities District 2003-01, to be funded from park Development Funds, Acct. No. 11203055650/1207120-0 and appropriate $9,508,531.84 (Contract Award of $8,644,119.85 plus 10% contingency equal to $864,411.99) to Acct. No. 16123035650/1442612-0 from Community Facilities District Fund balance. 15. Approval of a Resolution authorizing the City Engineer to execute the 121 Agreement and other pertinent documents for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Grant pro ect for Signal Timing and Synchronization along Base Line Road/16th Street from Benson Avenue in the City of Upland to Etiwanda Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga that includes the Construction of Traffic Signal Interconnect System along Base Line Road from Alta Cuesta to Etiwanda Avenue (Federal Aid Project CML-5420(009). RESOLUTION NO. 03-201 123 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND OTHER PERTINENT DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) GRANT PROJECT FOR SIGNAL TIMING AND SYNCHRONIZATION ALONG BASE LINE ROAD/16TM STREET FROM BENSON AVENUE IN THE CITY OF UPLAND TO ETIWANDA AVENUE IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THAT INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT SYSTEM ALONG BASE LINE ROAD FROM ALTA CUESTA TO ETIWANDA AVENUE (FEDERAL AID PROJECT CML-5420(009) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 16, 2003 6 16. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance 126 Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for CUP 96- 26, submitted by N & L Nilar Corporation, located on the northeast corner of Aspen and Laurel Streets. RESOLUTION NO. 03-202 127 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 96-26 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 17. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Pedormance 128 Bonds and file Notices of Completion for CUP 97-15, submitted by Deer Creek Car Wash; CUP 96-27, submitted by Texaco Refining and Marketing, Incorporated; CUP 96-32, submitted by AutoNation USA; DR 00-05, submitted by Catellus Development Corporation; CUP 99- 08, submitted by Rancho Cucamonga Retirement, located at various locations in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. RESOLUTION NO. 03-203 129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 97-15, CUP 96-27, CUP 96-32, DR 00-05, AND CUP 99-08 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF NOTICES OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 18. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Pedormance 130 Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for CUP 99- 25, submitted by Western Land Properties, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Milliken Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 03-204 131 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 99-25 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 19. Approval to release all bonds for Tract 13316, from Friedman Homes, 132 Incorporated; Barratt American, Incorporated, has replaced the bonds under DR 98-10, located on Archibald Avenue and Carrari Street. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 7 ..R o.o JULY 16, 2003 ~,~UCA-MONGA 20. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance 133 Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for DR 00-28, submitted by Catellus Development Corporation, located on the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route. RESOLUTION NO. 03-205 135 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 00-28 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 21. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance 136 Bond and Labor and Materials Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for DR 00-46, submitted by Western Land Properties, located on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Aspen Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 03-206 138 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 00-46 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 22. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bonds for Tract 139 9441, submitted by Crismar Development; Tract 10569, submitted by William Lyon Company; Tract 10762, submitted by Acacia Construction, Inc.; Tract 11696 submitted by Vanguard Ventures, Inc; and Tract 11934, submitted by William Lyon Company; CUP 99-15 and CUP 99-04, submitted by Catellus Development Corporation, located at various locations in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 23. Approval to release the Faithful Performance Bonds retained as Maintenance Guarantee Bonds for Tract 12462, located on the south 140 side of Summit east of Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by Lauren Development. ' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 16, 2003 8 ~UGAMONGA 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 PROGRAM CHANGES TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING SYSTEM ORDINANCE NO. 712 (second reading) 141 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 8.19.051 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE G. ADVERTISED ~LIC HEA~NGS l Th~ following items have been adw~iaad an~or poated aa public hearings as required b~ law. The Ghair will open the meatin9 to r~e~iv~ public teatimon~. ~. GONSIDE~ATION OF ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ~EPO~T AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT D~C2003- ~43 00254 - dPl WESTGOAST DEVELOPMENT, L.P. - A propos~ amendment to Section 2.5.5.6 o~ th~ flanc~o Cucamonga IASP Subarea ~8 Specific Plan, and Tabl~ Il1-9 of th~ G~t~ G~amonga ~n~ral Plan to incmas~ the allowabl~ number of molti- ~amily residential units 1rom ~,388 to ~,887. An Environmental Impact ~epofl was previousl~ ceflifiea in June ~994. Aa~n~am is bein9 pmpare~ in accordance wit~ th~ ~ali~omia Environmental Oualit~ Act. APN: 02~0-082-47. ~late~ ~ile: Subarea ~ 8 Specific Plan Amenament O~DINANGE NO. 7~ 3 (first reading) AN O~DINANGE O~ THE GITY GOONGIL OF THE CITY OF ~ANGHO COCAMON~A, CALIfOrNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT D~G2003-00254, A TO ING~EASE THE ALLOWABLE OF MULTI-FAMiLY ~ESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE ~ANGHO GOGAMONGA IASP SUBAREA ~8 SPEGIFIG PLAN MiXED-USE LAND USE DESIGNATION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST GO~NE~ O~ 4TM STREET AND MILLIKEN AVENDE, AND MAKIN~ FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - AP~: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 9 JULY 16, 2003 cR CuO UC.,AMON6A 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL 143 IMPACT REPORT AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00255 - JPI WESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT, L.P. - A request to modify the permitted land uses allowed within Subarea 18 Planning Area VII to allow High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of Millken Avenue and Fourth Street. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified in June 1994. The Addendum is being prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act - APN: 0210-082-47. Related File: General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00254. ORDINANCE NO. 714 (first reading) 169 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00255, A REQUEST TO ADD MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE MIXED-USE PLANNING AREA VII, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 4TM STREET AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0210-082-47. 3. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 171 PURCHASE-AND-SALE AGREEMENT - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY COUGAR1 LLC - A proposed Purchase-and-Sale-Agreement for 4.75 acres of land in the Open Space/Park Land Use District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the east side of Milliken Avenue south of the Milliken Avenue Park site. APN: 227-811-03 The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. 1. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RANCHO 238 CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE IN THE INDEPENDENCE AT TERRA VISTA GATED COMMUNITY AS AUTHORIZED BY CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21101.7" '~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 16, 2003 10 ~.~UC.~VONGA RESOLUTION NO. 03-207 240 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE IN THE INDEPENDENCE AT TERRA VISTA GATED COMMUNITY (GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF CHURCH STREET, WEST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE, SOUTH OF BASE LiNE ROAD AND EAST OF MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK) AS AUTHORIZED BY CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21107.7 2. CONSIDERATION OF PROGRAM CHANGES TO THE CITY OF 241 RANCHO CUCAMONGA SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING SYSTEM ORDINANCE NO. 711 (first reading) 243 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A NEW SECTION 18.290 TO CHAPTER 18.I9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO RECYCLING AND DIVERSION OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE II 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. No Items Submitted. IIj. COUNCIL BUSINESSI 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. PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 249 UPDATE 2. CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL LIBRARY 259 SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO REAPPOINT RAVENEL WIMBERLY TO THE LIBRARY BOARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 11 JULY 16, 2003 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL LIBRARY 260 SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO REAPPOINT REBECCA DAVIES, GINO FILIPPI AND ANNE VIRICEL TO THE LIBRARY FOUNDATION 4. CONSIDERATION OF ANNEXATION PROPOSAL FROM WEST 261 VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR THE 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. IIL. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS I 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. 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 July 11, 2003, seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. June 4, 2003 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES II A. CALL TO ORDER Il The Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a closed session on Wednesday, June 4, 2003, 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 Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robert J. Howdyshell, Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; George Rivera, Administrative Services Manager; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer and Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager. Absent was Councilmember: Donald J. Kurth, M.D. g. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) I Mayor Alexander announced the closed session items. B1. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 TO GIVE GEORGE RIVERA, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER, PAMELA EASTER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, AND LARRY TEMPLE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS - CITY B2. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF 1-15, GARY SAFADY, O&S HOLDINGS, AND JOE O'NEIL, CITY ENGINEER, NEGOTIATING PARTY, REGARDING TERMS OF AGREEMENT - CITY II c. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) II No one was present to comment on the closed session items. D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION Closed session began at 5:35 p.m. City Council Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 2 The closed session recessed at 6:35 p.m. with no action taken. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Reqular Meetinq A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, June 4, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor William J. Alexander called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robed J. Howdyshell, Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, RDA Director; James C. Frost, City Treasurer; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Ingrid Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Supervisor; Dawn Haddon, Purchasing Manager; Joe Kamrani, Sr. Information Systems Analyst; Sam Davis, Information Systems Specialist; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Jim Harris, Associate Engineer; Cindy Hackett, Associate Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent; Captain Pete Ortiz, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; Fire Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Michelle Dawson, Management Analyst III; Kimberly Thomas, Management Analyst II; Shirr'l Griffin, Office Specialist II - City Clerk's Office; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. Absent was Councilmember: Donald J. Kurth, M.D. [ B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS BI. Presentation of a Proclamation declaring June 7, 2003, as "National Trails Day." Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Planning Commissioner, Pam Stewart and Parks and Recreation Commissioner, Patricia Carlson. B2. Acceptance of lES APA Award for the City's Trails Map. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the award to the City Council. B3. Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to Assistant Principal of Valle Vista Elementary, Susan Kahn, and Albertsons Manager, David Hoffman, for their participation in honor of "Earth Day 2003." Carolyn Anderson and Ged Molner, Waste Management Company, assisted Mayor Alexander with the presentation of the certificates to the participants. City Council Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 3 Accepting the certificates were Susan Kahn of Valle Vista Elementary, Daniel Mancada of Albertsons, Kathy Thompson of Central School District Board and Joan Weisse of Central School District Board. B4. Presentation of Certificates to "Earth Day 2003" poster contest winners. Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator, assisted Mayor Alexander with the presentation of the certificates to the poster contest winners. He also introduced the teachers who assisted with the contest. II ¢. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS I Cl. Gwyn Frost talked about being part of the City's incorporation process and the poster contest that took place. C2. Hilda Phillips stated she lives in Terra Vista and is very excited that she does because she felt it was the gateway to so many good things going on in the City. She stated she went to New York to visit "Ground Zero" last year and was glad to talk to someone that had heard of Rancho Cucamonga. She stated she wants to present something to the Council at the next meeting. C3. Ron Ives, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department, talked about the June 14 Bicycle Rodeo that was scheduled. He stated there would be a pancake breakfast and other things going on at this event. He invited the Council and the public to attend. C4. Leslie Grimes talked about the Colonies project still being part of a court proceeding. She stated it could affect the residents of Rancho Cucamonga including the cost of water that Rancho Cucamonga residents pay. She had an "Alluvial Amnesia" Report that she wanted distributed to the Council for their information. She asked that they read it and continued to read excerpts from it. She stated it can also be found at www.cgs.org. She stated she hoped the parents would take a proactive stance on the continuation of the DARE program so that it will stay in the schools because it is so important. C5. John Lyons talked about the importance of the DARE program. He stated the recall group is in the community circulating petitions. He stated you can find the petitions at www.renchorecall.org. He stated the hotline number is 980-0935 and can also be reached at P.O. Box 2641, Rancho Cucamonga 91729. He stated they need volunteers to help them. C6. Aubrey Campbell wanted to commend City Manager, Jack Lam, because he is the best City Manager. He stated he wanted to warn everybody that he will protest at the locations where the Recall Committee is trying to get the recall signatures. He stated if the recall fails he wanted to make sure the community pays for any cost associated with the recall. C7. Melanie Ingram continued to talk about the Colonies project and stated she agreed with what Leslie Grimes was talking about regarding the water. She felt this is a regional matter, and affected more than just one City. She mentioned the Brown Act and how Councilmembers Williams and Gutierrez violated it and that is the reason for the recall. She stated if all of the signatures are collected, there will be an election so each Councilperson can be voted out and a vote for a replacement. She talked about the Brown Act and how it applies to the Council. C8. Steve Jennings stated he was invited to a Fire District event because his son had been rescued by them. He stated he had every right to be there and should not have been questioned by any Councilperson why he was there. He felt the recall must go through. City Council Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 4 Councilmember Williams stated she did not know Mr. Jennings was there until someone told her this after he had left. She stated she was there because her husband had been treated by the Fire District. She stated she was embarrassed that she did not recognize Mr. Jennings and that she had been falsely accused. She stated if he was offended, she apologized. C9. Pauline Dean thanked the Council for allowing her to get involved with the senior center issues. She stated she spoke in Sacramento to the legislature about the continuance of the meals on wheels program serving hot meals to the seniors. She stated the seniors need help and this program must continue. C10. Wil Wright stated he is willing to take on a second full time job and help with this recall. He felt it was a good thing. He showed their recall signs and the banners they would be displaying. He wanted the residents to be aware what the recall is about. He stated he believes in the voting system and felt there should be an election to decide who is on the Council. Cll. Jim Frost stated he has been involved in the meals on wheels program in the past. He hoped the Council could discuss this program at a future meeting. [] D. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS D1. Councilmember Gutierrez commented on the DARE program. He wanted to see if there wasn't something that could be done so this could continue in some form even if it was scaled down. He expressed his appreciation to Captain Ortiz for taking care of some crime problems in one of the mobile home parks. He stated he is still meeting people on the freeway sound wall issue, and added this is also a safety issue as well as a sound issue. He asked the public to reduce their speed on the City streets. He commented on Aubrey Campbell and felt he has contributed to the City and thanked he and his family for their participation in the community. D2. Councilmember Howdyshell thanked the Fire District for the breakfast they had put on at the Banyan station for the community. He commented on the great car show event to raise funds for burn victims that the Fire District had also organized. He added he had also attended a VFW loyalty awards program on Sunday and assisted with the presentation of the awards. D3. Councilmember Williams stated that Councilmember Kurth is at a meeting to get grant money for drug addiction services and that is why he wasn't present tonight. She commented on the DARE program and felt parents need to go to the school board meetings and request that this program not be cancelled. She felt even an abbreviated program could be developed instead of canceling the whole program. She stated the City cannot back up the school district's portion of the cost because of the City's own budget problems. She again encouraged everyone to go to the school board meetings and ask for help. She stated she went to a preschool graduation of approximately 600 kids. She stated the City does not have an ordinance to have an election for Council seat vacancies. D4. Mayor Alexander thanked Councilmember Howdyshell who filled in for him because he was in Washington, D.C. on business. He commented on the great car show event that the Fire District held to raise money for burn victims. He stated the DARE program is jointly funded between the City and the schools. He stated the City is not backing off of its commitment, but needs the school district's help to continue with the program. He stated he wants to know for the next meeting what the cost is for the meals on wheels program. He stated the City would help where they can. Jack Lam, City Manager, suggested that the County of San Bernardino also be present since they run the program. City Council Minutes ,June 4, 2003 Page 5 Mayor Alexander agreed. Councilmember Williams felt if we were able to find a kitchen to cook the meals that it would help to make things easier with this program. I] E. CONSENT CALENDAR ] Jack Lam, City Manager, stated item E13 needs to be removed from the agenda and will return to the Council at a future meeting. El. Approval of Warrants, Register May 14 thru May 28, 2003, and Payroll ending May 28, 2003, for the total amount of $4,535,747.33. E2. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Maintenance of Traffic Signals and Safety Lighting, to be funded from Acct. Nos. 11703035300 and 11563035300. RESOLUTION NO. 03-137 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS E3. Approval to appropriate $24,480 from Fund No. 1110-316-5650/1026110-0 pursuant to Reimbursement Agreement SRA-28, for the construction of 6th Street median landscaping from Utica Avenue to Cleveland Avenue, west of Haven Avenue (work has been completed). E4. Approval of authorization for the purchase of one (1) Ford f150 4x4 Supercab from Fairview Ford of San Bernardino, California, through a piggyback opportunity from the City of Chino Hills in the amount of $23,680.22 funded from Acct. No. 1714001560. E5. Approval of annexation of work program areas to Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 5, along Los Osos High School frontages located at the nodheast corner of Milliken Avenue and Banyan Street. RESOLUTION NO. 03-138 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE WORK PROGRAM FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 AND STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 5 FOR LOS OSOS HIGH SCHOOL E6. Approval of ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for DRC2002-00185, located on the southeast corner of the knuckle intersection of Dorset Street and Cartilla Avenue, submitted by Rancho Pacific Development Corporation. City Council Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 03-139 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY (~F 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 DRC2002-00185 E7. Approval of a recommendation by the Park and Recreation Commission for a light variance requested for Major (11-12) Division Ali-Star Tournament hosted by Alta Loma Little league June 30 - July 17, 2003, at Heritage Park. ES. 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 DRC2001-00718, located at 9471 Buffalo Avenue, submitted by Oltmans Constructions Company. RESOLUTION NO. 03-140 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DRC2001-00718 RESOLUTION NO. 03-141 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 DRC2001-00718 E9. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 for Parcel Map No. 15716-1, located south of Base Line Road, west of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard and east of Day Creek Channel, submitted by Victoria Gardens, LLC. RESOLUTION NO. 03-142 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15716-1 AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 03-143 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 3 FOR PARCEL MAP 15716-1 El0. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Parcel Map 15970, located at the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street, submitted by HMC Professional Services, LLC. City Council Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 03-144 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 15970, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES RESOLUTION NO. 03-145 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR PARCEL MAP 15970 Ell. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, Monumentation Cash Deposit and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Parcel Map 16042, located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and Center Avenue, submitted by Park Place Rancho Cucamonga, LLC. RESOLUTION NO. 03-146 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 16042, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT RESOLUTION NO. 03-147 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 PARCEL MAP 16042 E12.. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 for Tract No. 16253 located on the north side of Victoria Street between Grape Place and Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by Crestwood Corporation - APN: 227-041-18 and 19. RESOLUTION NO. 03-148 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 16253, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES RESOLUTION NO. 03-149 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT 16253 City Council Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 8 E13. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract No. 16262, located between Archibald Avenue and Klusman Avenue, approximately 427 feet north of the centerline of Hillside Road, submitted by Jerry L. Stapp - APN: 10612-561-02. REMOVED FROM AGENDA. RESOLUTION NO. 03-150 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 16262, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 03-151 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACT 16262 E14. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 for Tract No. 16312, located on the nodhwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street, submitted by Victoria Arbors, LLC - APN: 227-041-18 and 19. RESOLUTION NO. 03-152 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 16312, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES RESOLUTION NO. 03-153 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT 16312 E15. Approval to accept bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $181,695.92 ($165,178.11 plus 10% contingency) to the apparent Iow bidder, New Generation Landscape Co., Inc., (CO 03-043), for the construction of the 19th Street Landscape Improvement along the south side parkway east of Archibald Avenue to Hermosa Avenue, to be funded from Beautification Funds, Acct. No. 11103165650/1441110-0. E16. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Ninyo & Moore & Associates, (CO 03-044), to provide construction soils and materials testing services for the proposed Carnelian Street Storm Drain and Pavement Rehabilitation Improvements from Vivero Street to 19th Street, in the amount of $13,515.70 ($12,287 plus 10% contingency), to be funded from Measure "1" Funds, Acct. No. 11763035650/1296176-0. City Council Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 9 E17. Approval to accept bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $54,236.82 ($49,306.20 plus 10% contingency) to the apparent Iow bidder, Roc-Loc, (CO 03- 045), for the construction of the Heritage Park Storage Shed, to be funded from Park Development Funds, Acct. No. 11203055650/1207120-0. E18. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with SBO & Associates (CO 03-046), to provide Construction Survey Services for the proposed Carnelian Street Storm Drain and Pavement Rehabilitation Improvements from Vivero Street to 19th Street, in the amount of $36,905 ($33,550 plus 10% contingency), to be funded from Measure "1" Funds, Acct. No. 11763035650/1296176-0. E19. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for DR 00-31, located on the northwest corner of Sixth Street and Milliken Avenue, submitted by Jefferson at Empire Lakes, L.P. E20. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for DR 00-46, located on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Aspen Avenue, submitted by Western Land Properties. E21. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Parcel Map 15579, located on the north side of Fourth Street, east of Buffalo Avenue, submitted by The Price Company. E22. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 15915, located west of Etiwanda Avenue and south of Victoria, submitted by Woodside Belmont Sales, Inc., a California Corporation. E23. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for improvements for Tract 14120-2, submitted by Carriage Estates, LLC, located on the south side of Summit Avenue, west of Etiwanda Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 03-154 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 14120-2 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK E24. Approval to accept the Foothill Boulevard Storm Drain Improvements from Etiwanda Avenue to 1600' easterly, Contract No. 02-133 as complete, release the bonds, accept a Maintenance Bond, and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $536,380.59. RESOLUTION NO. 03-155 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS FROM ETIWANDA AVENUE TO 1600' EASTERLY, CONTRACT NO. 02-133 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained within the Consent Calendar with the exception of item E13. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). F. CONSENT ORDINANCES City Council Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 10 Fl. CONSIDERATION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE PRE-QUALIFICATION OF PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, AND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SPECIALIZED CONTRACTING PROCEDURES AND AMENDING CHAPTER 3.08 OF TITLE 3 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 708. ORDINANCE NO. 708 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING SPECIALIZED CONTRACTING PROCEDURES, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 3.08 OF TITLE 3 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Howdyshell to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 708. Motion carried unanimously4-0-1 (Kurth absent). II G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS I Gl. CONSIDERATION OF SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-02 (CO 02-012) - VICTORIA GARDENS-C, LLC - A request to amend the Development Agreement for the Victoria Gardens Regional Center to provide assurance that major department store parcels, up to a total of 10.57 combined acres, will not experience increased Mello Roos taxes associated with Community Facilities District 2003-01, without the unanimous support of the affected property owners. APN: 0227-161-48 and 49; 0227-171-36; 0227-201-35 and 45 thru 48; and 0227-211-30 and 39 thru 43. Staff report presented by Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Director. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were: John Lyons felt this was a bad way to do this and did not agree with the Ordinance. Leslie Grimes asked if the mello roos would apply to homes in that area. Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Director, stated no that it only applies to the commercial property. Ms. Grimes stated she did not know why this is being done. James Markman, City Attorney, stated the City us trying to accommodate the wishes of the mall owners. He stated it does not compromise the Agency's position. Ms. Grimes stated she agrees with Mr. Lyons that this might set a precedent and did not agree with it. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the developer will be paying the taxes. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 709. City Council Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 11 ORDINANCE NO. 709 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-02 (CO 02-012), A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETVVEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND VICTORIA GARDENS-C, LLC, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ASSURANCE THAT MAJOR DEPARTMENT STORE PARCELS WITHIN THE VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER WILL NOT EXPERIENCE INCREASED MELLO ROOS TAXES ASSOCIATED WITH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01 MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 709 for the June 18, 2003 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). G2. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2003-00348 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 17.08 (Residential Districts) of the Development Code regarding second dwelling units within the Very Low, Low and Low-Medium (1-2, 2- 4, and 4-8 dwelling units per acre, respectively) Residential Districts to comply with State Assembly Bill 1866. Staff report presented by Brad Bullet, City Planner. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 710. ORDINANCE NO. '710 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2003-00348, A REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 17.08.030, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING SECOND DWELLING UNITS WITHIN THE VERY LOW, LOW, AND LOW-MEDIUM (.1-2, 2-4, AND 4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, RESPECTIVELY) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO COMPLY WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 1866, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Howdyshell to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 710 for the June 18, 2003 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). No Items Submitted. I] ~. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS City Council Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 12 ITEMS I1 THROUGH 19 WERE DISCUSSED AT ONE TIME. I1. APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS FOR DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 (DAY CANYON DRAINAGE BASIN) WITHOUT AN INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE Staff report presented by Ingrid Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Supervisor. RESOLUTION NO. 03-156 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE COST OF SERVICE TO BE FINANCED BY BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED IN DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 AND DETERMINING AND IMPOSING SUCH BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS MOTION: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Williams to approve Resolution Nos. 03-156, 03-157, 03- 158, 03-159, 03-160, 03-161.03-162, 03-163 and 03-164. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). 12. APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM) WITHOUT AN INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE SEE ITEM I1 FOR DISCUSSION. RESOLUTION NO. 03-157 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1R (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM) 13. APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 (FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE) WITHOUT AN INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE SEE ITEM I1 FOR DISCUSSION. RESOLUTION NO. 03-158 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 (FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE) 14. APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) AT CURRENT LEVELS WITH NO INCREASE SEE ITEM I1 FOR DISCUSSION. RESOLUTION NO. 03-159 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) City Council Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 13 15. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL LEVY WITHIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 93-1 (MASI PLAZA) AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND REASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1999-1 WITHOUT AN INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE SEE ITEM I1 FOR DISCUSSION. RESOLUTION NO. 03-160 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF AN ASSESSMENT SURCHARGE FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS IN VARIOUS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS 16. APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2002- 02 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORPORATE PARK) SEE ITEM I1 FOR DISCUSSION, RESOLUTION NO. 03-161 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-02 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORPORATE PARK) 17. APPROVAL TO SET AN ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-01 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 3, ZONE 7), SERIES 2001-B WITHOUT AN INCREASE TO THE APPROVED RATE SEE ITEM I1 FOR DISCUSSION. RESOLUTION NO. 03-162 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-01 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 3, ZONE 7), SERIES 2001-B 18. APPROVAL TO SET AN ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001~01 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NOS. 1 & 2), SERIES 2001-A SEE ITEM I1 FOR DISCUSSION. RESOLUTION NO. 03-163 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-01 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NOS. 1 & 2), SERIES 2001-A 19. APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000- 01 (SOUTH ETIWANDA) WITHOUT AN INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE SEE ITEM I1 FOR DISCUSSION. City Council Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 14 RESOLUTION NO. 03-164 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-01 (SOUTH ETIWANDA) I10. APPROVAL OF A 2ND YEAR GRANT WITH FIRST 5 SAN BERNARDINO (CHILDREN AND FAMILIES COMMISSION FOR SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY) IN THE AMOUNT OF $3981647 $310,747 FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE YOUTH ENRICHMENT SERVICES (YES) PROGRAM (ACCOUNT NUMBER 1-252-000-4740). Staff report presented by Paul Pachon, Management Analyst III. MOTION: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Williams to approve staff's recommendation as corrected. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). I11. APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT SYSTEM FOR BASE LINE ROAD FROM ALTA CUESTA TO ETIWANDA AVENUE (FEDERAL AID PROJECT CML-5420(009), TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCT. NOS. 11243035650-1443124-0, 11843035650-1290184-0, 12323035650-1443232-0, 11243035650-1290124-0 AND 1712-001-5603. Staff report and power point presentation given by Jim Harris, Associate Engineer. Councilmember Gutierrez felt this was a great idea. Councilmember Williams concurred. RESOLUTION NO. 03-165 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT SYSTEM FOR BASE LINE ROAD FROM ALTA CUESTA TO ETIWANDA AVENUE (FEDERAL AID PROJECT CML- 5420(009) IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Howdyshell to approve Resolution No. 03-165. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). 112. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT BIDS RECEIVED AND AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $140,940.80 ($128,128.00 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY) TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, OLIVAS VALDEZ, INC., {CO 03-047), FOR THE ETIWANDA AVENUE - BIKE LANE AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT, TO BE FUNDED FROM SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM FUNDS, ACCT. NO. 1234303565011418234-0 AND MEASURE "1" FUNDS, ACCT. NO. 11763035650/1418176-0. Staff report and power point presentation given by Cindy Hackett, Associate Engineer. Councilmember Gutierrez inquired if the people involved in this project objected to the changes in the landscaping. Cindy Hackett, Associate Engineer, stated there were some concerns, but now everyone is in favor of the changes. City Council Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 15 Councilmember Gutierrez mentioned the safety of the kids around the schools and that he was concerned about this. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated it has always been in the plan to improve Etiwanda, but not change it. MOTION: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Williams to approve the contract. Mayor Alexander stated he is very curious about the trees and the removal of them. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). 01. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (Oral) Councilmember Williams stated at the budget meeting earlier in the week, the City Manager presented a balanced budget. She added the state has still not resolved their budget problems and will be reaching out to the cities to help them out by taking their money. She mentioned AB 1221 and that the City opposes it because it will allow the state to take sales tax money from the City. She stated Rancho Cucamonga could lose $25,000,000 over the next 10 years if this bill is approved. She stated information on this bill is on the City's website. K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING K1. Mayor Alexander stated he would like the report on the meals on wheels program. K2. Councilmember Williams stated she would like a report on the existing lawsuit involving the Route 30/210 Freeway sound wall issue. She stated she would like something in writing. James Markman, City Attorney, stated he would like to provide this information during closed session since it involved litigation and that he would provide a confidential memo. Councilmember Williams stated she doesn't want the City to forget its "punch list of items" relating to the freeway completion. K3. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he would like an update on the DARE program. L. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ll. REQUEST BY NICOLE MYERCHIN FOR MICHAEL ARMS, PRESIDENT OF THE HELEN WOODWARD ANIMAL CENTER, TO DISCUSS A "NO KILL" ANIMAL SHELTER WITHOUT INCREASING COST (Oral) Nicole Myerchin introduced Michael Arms, President of the Helen Woodward Animal Center. City Council Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 16 Mr. Arms felt the City does care about animals and this issue. He stated he has offered to come into the Rancho Cucamonga facility, at no cost, and help them so they do not have to kill animals. He stated he is willing to put on a workshop to educate the workers. He continued to talk about the contributions that animals make to mankind. He hoped the Council would allow him to go to our animal shelter and help them. Mayor Alexander asked if he was aware of the Council ad hec committee recently formed and felt he should get involved with them. Mr. Arms stated he would be happy to get with them. He related a personal story why he has such compassion for animals and wants to devote his time and money to help keep animals alive. Councilmember Gutierrez thanked him for being here and added he is on the ad hoc committee. He stated they have not been able to meet as the ad hoc committee, but asked for his help in the future. Nicole Myemhin commented on the Tompkins County budget for animals and the adoption of them. She hoped Rancho Cucamonga can help with the "no kill" issue. L2. Melanie Ingram felt the Base Line signal synchronization was a great idea and hoped they would find Indian artifacts in Upland that would stop the Colonies project. She commented on the November 2002 Council meetings regarding trying to pass the Ordinance for a special election. She felt this was a very difficult process to go through and gave more details about this. L3. Leslie Grimes wanted everyone to keep in mind the traffic around the high school and to keep that area safe. She brought up the flashing lights near Jasper and how it has helped keep the kids safe in that area. M. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * June 9, 2003 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Meeting II A. CALL TO ORDER I A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, Fire Protection District and City Council was held on Monday, June 9, 2003, in the Tri Communities Room of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman/President/Mayor William J. Alexander called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Present were Agency/Board/Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robed J. Howdyshell, Donald J. Kudh, M.D., Diane Williams and Chairman/President/Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, Executive DirectodCity Manager; Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager; Linda D. Daniels, RDA Director; Mike Nelson, Sr. RDA Analyst; James C. Frost, City Treasurer; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Tamara Layne, Finance Officer; George Rivera, Administrative Services Manager; Rose Colum, Budget Analyst; Helen Leeds, Sr. Accountant; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Trang Huynh, Building Official; John Thomas, Plan Check ManagedFire; Kevin MoArdle, Community Services Director; Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III; Karen Silhanek, Community Services Technician; Deborah Clark, Library Director; Captain Pete Odiz, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; Fire Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Deputy Chief Bob Corcoran, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Battalion Chief Peter Bryan, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Fire Marshal Mike Bell, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Michelle Dawson, Management Analyst III; Kimbedy Thomas, Management Analyst II; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. No communication was made from the public. II C. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM I C'[. Approval of a Resolution to adopt a Memorandum of Understanding (CO 03-05'[) for all City employee groups. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated this is a routine item for the Council's consideration. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public comment. Addressing the City Council was: Chris Prato, General Manager - San Bemardino County Public Employees Association, stated they have been working with the Maintenance employees assisting them in seeking labor representation according to state law. He added the election for them to decide whether they will be represented by a labor organization is set within 48 hours from now. He stated that being the Redevelopment Agency/Fire Protection District/City Council Minutes June 9, 2003 Page 2 case, he did not think this MOU should be acted upon by the Council until the Maintenance Group has had the opportunity to have its election. He stated this is improper. He stated according to the information they have received, there was no written explanation of what this agreement actually contained, nothing given to employees in advance of the vote, there were no provisions for absent employees or employees on leave, all employees in the City were given the exact same ballot (no differentiation between one unit or the other), there was no coding, marking, number, or sign-in, allowing people to vote more than once. He felt it was not secured. He stated they have not been given the count to know how the Maintenance Group voted. They felt this was an unfair labor practice and did not like how this was being done so close to the election. They requested that the Maintenance employees be excluded from this Resolution until the election results are known on June 11th. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated they have met with th'e various representatives of the employee groups and all has been done in good faith. Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director, stated the negotiations have taken place since March. He stated the employees took a vote last week and was approved. He stated it is not a circumvention of the meet and confer process. He stated staff does not feel they have done anything but follow the rules. Mr. Prato stated the employees that have come to them do not feel they are being represented properly and that is why they came to them. He stated the vote by the employees was not done properly either. RESOLUTION NO. 03-166 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL EMPLOYEE, MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEE, AND THE SUPERVISORY/PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE MEET AND CONFER GROUPS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004 MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Williams to approve Resolution No. 03-166. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. [] D. ITEM(S) OF BUSINESS D1. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004 Jack Lam, City Manager, stated last week the Council was given a budget presentation which was to take an incremental approach, based on known factors, at this time. He stated once the City knows what the State is going to do they can take a look at the budget again. He did not feel they should take a speculative approach to this budget. He stated so far the Steinberg bill has not been able to get the votes, and now it is a two-year bill. He stated the City thanked its legislative advocates for their work to oppose this bill. He stated the next meeting will be the budget adoption, which is scheduled for Monday, June 16, and that the appropriate Resolutions and actions will be available. Agency/Board/Councilmember Gutierrez inquired how much of the General Fund supports the Fire District. Chief Michael stated $938,000. Redevelopment Agency/Fire Protection District/City Council Minutes June 9, 2003 Page 3 Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the General Fund also supports the Library. Agency/Board/Councilmember Gutierrez asked if the City Manager knows when the State will approve its budget. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the City does not know at this time. Agency/Board/Councilmember Howdyshell asked if the City Manager is also trying to suppod cost containment since funds are tight. He stated he is aware there is a personnel freeze. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated this was done in January to advise employees to watch their spending. He stated the ITPAR group is approving all programs to be implemented. He stated the City has tightened its belt, and services might be provided a little slower. Agency/Board/Councilmember Howdyshell asked if there was any incentive program to save money. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated it has always been the policy that if departments have any left over money, it is put into reserves, and that is why there is so much in reserves right now. He stated the reserves are important to the employees and the community. E. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION The Fire Board recessed at 6:37 p.m. to a closed session to be held in the Tapia Room of the Civic Center to discuss labor negotiations per Government Code Section 54957.6 to give George Rivera, Administrative Services Manager; Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager; and Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director, direction in regards to the meet and confer process. The closed session adjourned at 7:35 p.m. with no action taken. MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Howdyshell to adjourn the Redevelopment Agency and City Council. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * June 16, 2003 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Meetin~l I[ A. C^ TO O ER I A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Monday, June 16, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor William J. Alexander called the meeting to order at 6:28 p.m. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robert J. Howdyshell, Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager; Linda D. Daniels, RDA Director; Mike Nelson, Sr. RDA Analyst; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Tamara Layne, Finance Officer; George Rivera, Administrative Services Manager; Rose Colum, Budget Analyst; Helen Leeds, Sr. Accountant; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Trang Huynh, Building Official; Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III; Karen Silhanek, Community Services Technician; Deborah Clark, Library Director; Captain Pete Ortiz, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; Deputy Chief Bob Corcoran, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Fire Marshal Mike Bell, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Kimberly Smith, Fire Administrative Resources Manager, Rancho Cuoamonga Fire Protection District; Michelle Dawson, Management Analyst III; Kimberly Thomas, Management Analyst II; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. No communication was made from the public. II C. CONSENT CALENDAR [ C1. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 02-197 AND IMPLEMENTING SALARY AND BENEFITS ADJUSTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004 RESOLUTION NO. 03-167 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 02-197 AND IMPLEMENTING SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004 C2. APPROVAL OF REVISED CONTRACT (CO 86-055) WITH RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON C3. APPROVAL OF ANNUAL LOAN TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY City Council Minutes June 16, 2003 Page 2 MOTION: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Kurth to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained within the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS D1. ADOPTION OF FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004 BUDGET AND ARTICLE XIII-B APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT Staff report presented by Jack Lam, City Manager Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. RESOLUTION NO. 03-168 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITY'S FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 03-169 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XlII-B OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003~2004 MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Howdyshell to approve Resolution Nos. 03-168 and 03-169. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Howdyshell to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: I H~E C I T Y 0 F III IIII IIIIIIIIII I'q I~AN ell 0 CUCAMONC, A Mernomnd DATE: July 15, 2003 TO: Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember FROM: Para East~ty City Manager SUBJECT: Warrants Review for Council Meeting~uly 16, 2003 The City Attorney has had an opportunity to review the Summary of Warrants for the July 16, 2003, Council meeting and has found no conflict of interest. If you have any questions, please give me a call at extension 2003. c: Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Jim Markman, City Attorney Debbie Adams, City Clerk Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director Tamara Layne, Finance Officer Ann Haworth, Accounting Services Supervisor T H E C I T Y 0 F I~AN C Il 0 CU CAFI ONGA Memorandum DATE: July 09, 2003 TO: Debbie Adams, City Clerk CC: Jack Lam, City Manager Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager Jim Markman, City Attorney Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director Ann Haworth, Accounting Services Supervisor FROM: Tamara L. Layne, Finance Officer SUBJECT: Summary of Warrants Issued to Vendors Representing Possible Conflict of Interest for Councilmember Gutierrez - Council Meeting Date: July 16, 2003 Attached for your reference is a summary of warrants by entity that were issued to vendors representing a possible conflict of interest for Councilmember Gutierrez due to his personal business dealings with them. These warrants are included in the Consent Calendar section of each entity's agenda. If you have any questions regarding the attached, please give me a call at extension 2430. Thank you. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF WARRANTS COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JULY 16, 2003 VENDOR CHECK# DATE AMOUNT Arrowhead Credit Union 198493 6/25/2003 $4,423.25 Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce 198694 6/25/2003 $180.00 Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce 198932 7/112003 $95.00 Southern Cai Edison 198722 6/25/2003 $2,826.63 Southern Cai Edison 198726 6125/2003 $13,747.62 Southern Cai Edison 198967 7/1/2003 $15,254.26 hfinancetaccounts payable~council wanant list. xls CITY-1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SUMMARY OF WARRANTS COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 16, 2003 VENDOR CHECK # DATE AMOUNT Arrowhead Credit Union 198493 6/25/2003 $1,021.09 Southern Cai Edison 197878 6/4/2003 $524.16 Southern Cai Edison 198190 6/11/2003 $156.82 Southern Cai Edison 198442 6/18/2003 $7,009.79 Southern Cai Edison 198726 6/25/2003 $13,747.62 klfinancelaccounts payableicouncil warrant list. xls FI RE- 1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SUMMARY OF WARRANTS COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JULY 16, 2003 VENDOR CHECK # DATE AMOUNT Arrowhead Credit Union 198493 6/25/2003 $4,233.75 i:Vinance~accounts payablelcouncil warrant list. xls RDA-1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 8.51 AP - 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 81.84 AP - 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 167.27 AP.- 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 364.11 AP - 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 353.65 AP - 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 818.49 AP 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 79.98 AP 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 128.11 AP 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 591.19 AP 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 213.27 AP 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 152.67 AP 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 501.97 AP 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 46.97 AP 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 80.91 AP 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 205.79 AP - 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 22.68 AP - 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 45.85 AP - 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 40.00 AP - 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 86.78 AP - 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 30.74 AP - 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 326.62 AP - 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 47.80 AP - 00198493 6/25/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 28.05 AP - 00198494 6/25/2003 A AND K 30 MIN PHOTO LAB INC 16.66 AP - 00198494 6/25/2003 A AND K 30 MIN PHOTO LAB INC 25.13 AP - 00198494 6/25/2003 A AND K 30 MIN PHOTO LAB INC 11.04 AP - 00198495 6/25/2003 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 1,056.66 AP - 00198495 6/25/2003 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 19.56 AP - 00198495 6/25/2003 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 21.83 AP-00198496 6/25/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 74.35 AP- 00198497 6/25/2003 ABLAC 16.39 AP - 00198499 6/25/2003 ADAMSON, RONALD 1,152.00 AP - 00198500 6/25/2003 ADAPT CONSULTING [NC 2,212.44 AP - 00198501 6/25/2003 ADKINS, LAURIE 24.00 AP - 00198502 6/25/2003 AG ENGINEERING INC 726.38 AP - 00198503 6/25/2003 AIRGAS WEST 124.99 AP - 00198504 6/25/2003 ALL HANDS ON DECK PRODUCTIONS 1,000.00 AP - 00198505 6/25/2003 ALPHAGRAPHICS 666.97 AP - 00198505 6/25/2003 ALPHAGRAPHICS 226.28 AP - 00198506 6/25/2003 AMAZON.COM CREDIT 263.46 AP - 00198507 6/25/2003 AMERICAN FENCE COMPANY 772.00 AP - 00198508 6/25/2003 AMERICAN PIPE AND SUPPLY 194.17 AP - 00198509 6/25/2003 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 146.31 AP - 00198509 6/25/2003 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 187.00 AP - 0019851 t 6/25/2003 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 375.00 AP - 00198512 6/25/2003 ARMA INTERNATIONAL [NC 150.00 AP - 00198512 6/25/2003 ARMA INTERNATIONAL [NC 190.00 AP-00198513 6/25/2003 ASSISECURITY 135.00 AP - 00198514 6/25/2003 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS 10,920.00 AP - 00198515 6/25/2003 AUFBAU CORPORATION 827.50 AP- 00198515 6/25/2003 AUFBAUCORPORATION 1,567.50 AP - 00198515 6/25/2003 AUFBAU CORPORATION 6,430.00 AP - 00198515 6/25/2003 AUFBAU CORPORATION 547.50 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 1 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: ~ 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198516 6/25/2003 AUSTIN FOUST ASSOCIATES INC 1,700.00 AP - 00198517 6/25/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 187.12 AP - 00198517 6/25/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 37.04 AP - 00198517 6/25/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 140.92 AP - 00198517 6/25/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 242.44 AP- 00198518 6/25/2003 BALNEG, RAFAEL 250.00 AP - 00198519 6/25/2003 BALTA, ALBERT 40.00 AP - 00198520 6/25/2003 BARNES AND NOBLE 321.64 AP- 00198520 6/25/2003 BARNES AND NOBLE 547.14 AP - 00198520 6/25/2003 BARNES AND NOBLE 1,095.99 AP - 00198520 6/25/2003 BARNES AND NOBLE 1,871.33 AP - 00198520 6/25/2003 BARNES AND NOBLE 1,838.20 AP - 00198520 6/25/2003 BARNES AND NOBLE 796.79 AP - 00198521 6/25/2003 BOCTOR, ALFRED 40.00 AP - 00198522 6/25/2003 BOGDANOFF, MICHAEL 81.00 AP - 00198523 6/25/2003 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 6.47 AP - 00198523 6/25/2003 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 217.22 AP - 00198524 6/25/2003 BOPKO, CHRISTOPHER 200.00 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 28.12 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 39.27 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 70.31 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP ~ 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 14.07 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 23.44 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 14.07 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 18.38 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP ~ 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 13.68 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 12.42 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 328.10 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 215.61 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 33.90 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.01 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.51 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 244.27 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 23.06 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 19.40 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 15.32 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 29.08 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 24.23 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 43.58 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 38.79 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 81.21 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 2 Current Date: 07/08/20(2 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Cheek Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:20:4 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount. AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 29.08 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 24.23 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 17.17 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 29.08 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 324.51 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 273.88 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 271.25 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 266.31 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 259.18 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 135.09 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 122.08 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 106.98 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 151.50 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 101.57 AP~ 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 31.92 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 23.52 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 72.18 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 56.25 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 28.83 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 23.66 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 20.31 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 118.89 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 51.16 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 36.73 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 14.52 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 23.66 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 81.31 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 94.02 AP ~00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 15.47 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 89.57 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 17.20 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 15.47 AP~ 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 42.87 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 14.55 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 13.79 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 14.50 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 .BRODART BOOKS 34.40 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 96.98 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 13.58 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 14.10 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 15.32 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 124.49 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 94.46 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 24.19 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 30.03 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 17.41 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 60.57 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 73.42 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 33.95 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 14.55 AP~ 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 32.48 AP ~ 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 760.18 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.83 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 3 Current Dafe: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 15.32 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 71.68 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 10.29 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 20.16 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 1,026.48 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 1,829.39 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 1,253.50 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 431.00 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 794.35 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 24.32 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 710.78 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 173.11 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 68.08 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 733.21 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 577.48 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 480.79 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 361.30 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 52.96 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 330.03 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 76.02 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 13.68 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 27.75 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 888.78 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 207.63 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 15.32 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 201.99 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 13.48 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 29.42 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 345.82 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 50.36 AP 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 14.75 AP 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 17.41 AP 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 44.77 AP 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 53.25 AP 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 8.73 AP 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 13.68 AP 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 64.86 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 4 Current Date: 07/08/20t2 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: ti 15:20:,1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A~enda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7~7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 234.36 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 208.39 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 192.17 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 89.06 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 70.31 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 32.80 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 32.80 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 23.44 AP ~ 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 28.12 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 75.00 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 32.80 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 28.12 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 56.24 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 56.24 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 76.77 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 14.07 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 42.19 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 65.62 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 14.07 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 32.06 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 20.90 AP- 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP-00198532 6/25/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP - 00198532 6/25/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP - 00198533 6/25/2003 BRUCE, 1NGRID 300.00 AP - 00198534 6/25/2003 BRYAN, PETER 96.38 AP - 00198535 6/25/2003 BUSINESS SPECIALTIES 1,371.87 AP - 00198537 6/25/2003 CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE 303.24 AP - 00198539 6/25/2003 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' 70,867.62 AP - 00198540 6/25/2003 CALSENSE 142.94 AP - 00198540 6/25/2003 CALSENSE 996.69 AP - 00198540 6/25/2003 CALSENSE 79.05 AP - 00198540 6/25/2003 CALSENSE 253.34 AP - 00198540 6/25/2003 CALSENSE 494.77 AP - 00198540 6/25/2003 CALSENSE 20.34 AP- 00198540 6/25/2003 CALSENSE 83.29 AP- 00198540 6/25/2003 CALSENSE 357.00 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 5 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:~ 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198540 6/25/2003 CALSENSE 44.84 AP- 00198541 6/25/2003 CANNON, JOHN 38.88 AP - 00198542 6/25/2003 CASTILLO, ROSALIND 30.00 AP - 00198543 6/2512003 CATELLUS CONSTRUCTION CORP 1,000.00 AP- 00198544 6/25/2003 CCPOA 30.00 AP - 00198545 6/25/2003 CI-IAV~EY JOINT UNION HS DISTRICT 4,286.80 AP - 00198545 6/25/2003 CHAI~I~EY JOINT UNION HS DISTRICT 944.87 AP - 00198546 6/25/2003 CHAMPION AMERICA 167.86 AP - 00198546 6/25/2003 CHAIvIPION AMERICA 150.00 AP- 00198547 6/25/2003 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 1,116.00 AP - 00198547 6/25/2003 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 144.00 AP- 00198547 6/25/2003 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 90.00 AP - 00198547 6/25/2003 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 252.00 AP - 00198547 6/25/2003 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 2,124.00 AP- 00198547 6/25/2003 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 144.00 AP - 00198548 6/25/2003 CLABBY, SANDRA 1,000.00 AP - 00198549 6/25/2003 CLASSE PARTY RENTALS 5,302.57 AP - 00198550 6/25/2003 CLAYTON, GARTH 2,340.00 AP - 00198551 6/25/2003 COLBRUNN, AMY 250.00 AP - 00198554 6/25/2003 CONRAD BUSINESS SERVICES INC 2,000.00 AP - 00198555 6/25/2003 COPP CRUSHING COP, P, DAN 10.00 AP- 00198556 6/25/2003 COSOI, MARIUS 73.00 AP - 00198557 6/25/2003 CRIDLAND, CADE 9.72 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 247.44 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 109.72 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 284.20 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 196.61 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 338.21 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 213.77 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 588.75 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 555.45 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 428.71 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 393.27 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 367.50 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 361.05 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 266.33 AP ~ 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 653.59 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 89.94 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 144.20 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 180.61 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 33.18 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 167.90 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 48.26 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CIJCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 78.52 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 309.18 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 77.77 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 111.89 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 670.37 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 695.07 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 495.30 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 154.91 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 148.87 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,034.43 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 6 Current Date: 07/08/201~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC -CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:j 15:20:4 6, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 151.05 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 194.10 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 146.35 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 41.79 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 19.93 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 151.44 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 117.31 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 236.16 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 76.45 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 83.98 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 80.75 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 42.62 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 120.25 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 140.69 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CU. CAMONGA CO WATER DIST 129.93 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 64.87 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 59.83 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 56.61 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 108.43 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 40.48 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 68.93 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 114.88 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 55.52 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 119.18 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 110.58 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 65.21 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 45.52 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 236.03 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 167.77 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DtST 130.25 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 246.88 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 380.04 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 99.69 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 253.09 AP- 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 166.20 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 322.50 AP - 00198559 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 580.26 AP ~ 00198560 6/25/2003 CUCAMONGA CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS 875.00 AP - 00198561 6/25/2003 DALE LEPPER 500.00 AP - 00198562 6/25/2003 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 14,940.00 AP - 00198564 6~25~2003 DAPPER TIRE CO 76.95 AP - 00198565 6/25/2003 DE LEISE, JENAE 519.24 AP - 00198566 6/25/2003 DEER CREEK CAR CARE CENTER 59.50 AP - 00198567 6/25/2003 DEPARTMENT ISSUE 360.96 AP - 00198567 6/25/2003 DEPARTMENT ISSUE 360.96 AP 00198567 6/25/2003 DEPARTMENT ISSUE 2,930.80 AP 00198568 6/25/2003 DJAN, THOMAS 350.00 AP 00198570 6/25/2003 DOSS TENNIS COURTS 3,500.00 AP 00198571 6/25/2003 DURA ART STONE 504.27 AP 00198572 6/25/2003 EAKLE BILL 250.00 AP 00198573 6/25/2003 EGGERS, BOB 414.50 AP - 00198574 6/25/2003 EIGHTH AVENUE GRAPHICS 251.06 AP - 00198575 6/25/2003 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL - SAN DIEGO BAY 1,110.36 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 7 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: ~ 15:20:4 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198575 6/25/2003 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL - SAN DIEGO BAY 1,030.76 AP - 00198576 6/25/2003 ENGELKE, LINDA 7.98 AP - 00198577 6/25/2003 ESRI INC 200.00 AP-00198577 6/25/2003 ESRIINC 381.47 AP - 00198577 6/25/2003 ESRI INC 390.00 AP - 00198578 6/25/2003 EW1NG IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 720.32 AP - 00198578 6/25/2003 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 993.40 AP - 00198579 6/25/2003 EXPERIAN 50.00 AP - 00198580 6/25/2003 EXPLORER UNIT 539 882.41 AP - 00198581 6/25/2003 EZ RENTALS 1,485.85 AP - 00198582 6/25/2003 FELIX, ADRIAN 40.00 AP - 00198583 6/25/2003 FILMWERX LOCATIONS 2,500.00 AP- 00198584 6/25/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATEs 486.00 AP - 00198584 6/25/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 859.13 AP - 00198584 6/25/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 510.60 AP - 00198584 6/25/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 1,440.00 AP - 00198585 6/25/2003 FLORES, CHRISTINE 8.97 AP - 00198587 6/25/2003 FLUORESCO LIGHTING 1,324.75 AP- 00198587 6/25/2003 FLUORESCOLIGHTING 10,928.15 AP- 00198588 6/25/2003 FONG, NANCY 31.98 AP - 00198589 6/25/2003 FORD OF UPLAND INC 375.44 AP - 00198589 6/25/2003 FORD OF UPLAND INC -2.16 AP - 00198589 6/25/2003 FORD OF UPLAND INC 81.41 AP- 00198589 6/25/2003 FORD OF UPLAND INC 126.00 AP- 00198590 6/25/2003 FORD PRINTING AND MAILING INC 1,122.73 AP- 00198591 6/25/2003 FULLMERCONSTRUCTION 12,600.00 AP - 00198592 6/25/2003 GALE GROUP,THE 53.20 AP - 00198592 6/25/2003 GALE GROUP,THE 148.43 AP - 00198592 6/25/2003 GALE GROUP,THE 53.20 AP - 00198593 6/25/2003 GARCIA, VIVIAN 33.48 AP - 00198593 6/25/2003 GARCIA, VIVIAN 26.28 AP - 00198594 6/25/2003 GEIGER BROTHERS WEST 43.68 AP - 00198596 6/25/2003 GLADSTE1N AND ASSOCIATES 1,303.04 AP - 00198597 6/25/2003 GOLDEN WEST DISTRIBUTING 39.66 AP - 00198598 6/25/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 344.79 AP - 00198598 6/25/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 413.75 AP - 00198598 6/25/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 84.72 AP - 00198598 6/25/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 991.30 AP- 00198599 6/25/2003 GREGORY, TRACY 64.00 AP - 00198600 6/25/2003 GRESSCO LTD 998.88 AP-00198601 6/25/2003 GUARDIAN 2,601.12 AP - 00198602 6/25/2003 GUZMAN, JOSE 73.00 AP - 00198603 6/25/2003 HADLEY, CASSANDRA 200.00 AP - 00198604 6/25/2003 HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE COMPANY 380.24 AP - 00198605 6/25/2003 HARMONY ARTISTS INC 1,800.00 AP - 00198606 6/25/2003 HARMONY ARTISTS INC 2,400.00 AP - 00198607 6/25/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 204.46 AP - 00198607 6/25/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 45.00 AP - 00198608 6/25/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 39.06 AP - 00198608 6/25/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 17.11 AP - 00198611 6/25/2003 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS 13lC 472.61 AP - 00198611 6/25/2003 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 10.75 AP - 00198612 6/25/2003 IBM CORPORATION 347.87 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 8 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:,,,-~ 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198612 6/25/2003 IBM CORPORATION 264.60 AP- 00198612 6/25/2003 IBM CORPORATION 417.38 AP- 00198613 6/25/2003 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS 314.94 AP - 00198616 6/25/2003 I]XlLAND LIBRARY SYSTEM 768.20 AP - 00198616 6/25/2003 INLAND LIBRARY SYSTEM 449.77 AP - 00198617 6/25/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 204.88 AP - 00198618 6/25/2003 INTRAVAIA ROCK AND SAND 35.00 AP- 00198619 6/25/2003 J D C INC 80,836.40 AP- 00198619 6/25/2003 J D C INC 10,519.90 AP - 00198620 6/25/2003 JANECEK, LINT)A 25.43 AP - 00198621 6/25/2003 JOFINSON, CHEARICE 120.00 AP - 00198622 6/25/2003 JOI-INSTONE SUPPLY 15.07 AP - 00198622 6/25/2003 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 70.76 AP - 00198623 6/25/2003 KAISER FOLrNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC 57,739.98 AP - 00198624 6/25/2003 KC PRINTING & GRAPHICS INC 1,758.57 AP - 00198625 6/25/2003 KELLY BLUE BOOK 89.00 AP - 00198626 6/25/2003 KELLY, SEAN 350.00 AP - 00198627 6/25/2003 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER INC 2,500.00 AP - 00198629 6/25/2003 KOCH MATERIALS COMPANY 78.68 AP - 00198629 6/25/2003 KOCH MATERIALS COMPANY 332.95 AP - 00198629 6/25/2003 KOCH MATERIALS COMPANY 117.67 AP - 00198630 6/25/2003 KONG, SOPHEAK 200.00 AP - 00198631 6/25/2003 LABORE, HULE HARRY 82.00 AP - 00198633 6/25/2003 LASER TECHNOLOGY INC 0.91 AP - 00198633 6/25/2003 LASER TECHNOLOGY INC 73.03 AP-00198635 6/25/2003 LEEDS, HELEN 164.26 AP - 00198636 6/25/2003 LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 144.00 AP- 00198637 6/25/2003 LEMON, ROBERT 259.44 AP-00198639 6/25/2003 LIST, ERICH 150.00 AP-00198641 6/25/2003 LOBOS, JULIE 43.92 AP - 00198644 6/25/2003 MANELA, ROSARIO 64.08 AP-00198645 6/25/2003 MANELA, ROSIE 14.15 AP - 00198646 6/25/2003 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 4,845.19 AP - 00198647 6/25/2003 MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 105.81 AP - 00198647 6/25/2003 MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 88.67 AP - 00198649 6/25/2003 MIDDLESEX OFFICE SUPPLY INC 307.16 AP - 00198650 6/25/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 59.98 AP- 00198650 6/25/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 73.96 AP - 00198650 6/25/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 45.98 AP- 00198650 6/25/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 171.93 AP - 00198650 6/25/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 106.95 AP - 00198650 6/25/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 29.99 AP - 00198650 6/25/2003 MIDWEST TAPE -16.99 AP 00198650 6/25/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 41.98 AP 00198650 6/25/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 29.99 AP 00198650 6/25/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 109.96 AP 00198651 6/25/2003 MORALES, CHRIS 247.00 AP 00198652 6/25/2003 MOUNTAIN VIEW GLASS AND MIRROR 144.50 AP 00198653 6/25/2003 MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 608.70 AP 00198654 6/25/2003 MT BALDY IfNITED WAY 56.00 AP - 00198655 6/25/2003 NATIONAL DEFERRED 9,593.74 AP - 00198656 6/25/2003 NATIONS RENT 8.08 AP - 00198657 6/25/2003 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEMS 52.78 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 9 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: ~n 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7f7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198658 6/25/2003 HOU, NICHOLAS 250.00 AP - 00198659 6/25/2003 NIELSEN, NETTLE 5,000.00 AP - 00198660 6/25/2003 NIKPOUR, MOHAMMED 140.00 AP - 00198661 6/25/2003 NIKPOUR, SHIRIN 140.00 AP - 00198662 6/25/2003 NOLO PRESS 62.68 AP - 00198663 6/25/2003 NORONA, JORDAN 73.00 AP - 00198664 6/25/2003 NORRIS REPKE INC 771.23 AP - 00198665 6/25/2003 O C B REPROGRAPHICS INC 5,615.83 AP ~ 00198665 6/25/2003 O C B REPROGRAPI~CS INC 80.38 AP - 00198665 6/25/2003 O C B REPROGRAPHICS INC 157.56 AP - 00198665 6/25/2003 O C B REPROGRAPHICS INC 59.91 AP - 00198665 6/25/2003 O C B REPROGRAPHICS INC 70.92 AP - 00198665 6/25/2003 O C B REPROGRAPHICS INC 103.63 AP - 00198665 6/25/2003 O C B REPROGRAPHICS INC 30.00 AP - 00198665 6/25/2003 O C B REPROGRAPHICS iNC 723.36 AP - 00198665 6/25/2003 O C B REPROGRAPHICS 1NC 30.00 AP - 00198665 6/25/2003 O C B REPROGRAPHICS INC 2,953.69 AP - 00198665 6/25/2003 O C B REPROGRAPHICS INC 67.48 AP - 00198665 6/25/2003 O C B REPROGRAPHICS INC 251.53 AP- 00198666 6/25/2003 OBS INC 13,218.24 AP-00198667 6/25/2003 OCLCINC 84.55 AP- 00198668 6/25/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 96.90 AP-00198668 6/25/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 210.21 AP - 00198668 6/25/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 117.45 AP - 00198668 6/25/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 9.86 AP - 00198669 6/25/2003 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 7.41 AP - 00198669 6/25/2003 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 13.15 AP - 00198670 6/25/2003 OWEN ELECTRIC 1,025.37 AP- 00198670 6/25/2003 OWEN ELECTRIC 1,232.87 AP - 00198671 6/25/2003 P A P A 55.00 AP - 00198672 6/25/2003 PACIFIC EQUIP AND IRRIGATION INC -34.25 AP - 00198672 6/25/2003 PACIFIC EQUIP AND IRRIGATION INC 324.40 AP - 00198673 6/25/2003 PACIFIC PLUMBING SPECIALTIES 94.82 AP - 00198674 6/25/2003 PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA 56,890.85 AP - 00198676 6/25/2003 PEP, ERA, MICHELLE 50.07 AP - 00198677 6/25/2003 PEREZ, HECTOR 40.00 AP - 00198678 6/25/2003 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 81.00 AP - 00198679 6/25/2003 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS 561.44 AP - 00198679 6/25/2003 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS 395.14 AP - 00198679 6/25/2003 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS . 446.38 AP - 00198679 6/25/2003 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS 457.38 AP - 00198679 6/25/2003 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS 658.29 AP - 00198680 6/25/2003 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 44.02 AP - 00198680 6/25/2003 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 486.54 AP - 00198680 6/25/2003 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 663.30 AP - 00198681 6/25/2003 POURHASSANIAN, ABBY 54.00 AP - 00198682 6/25/2003 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 6.81 AP - 00198683 6/25/2003 PRINCIPAL LIFE 1,739.95 AP - 00198683 6/25/2003 PRINCIPAL LIFE 14,721.15 AP - 00198684 6/25/2003 PROTECTION SERVICE INDUSTRIES L.P. 511.85 AP - 00198685 6/25/2003 PROUD DADS 400.00 AP - 00198687 6/25/2003 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP - 00198687 6/25/2003 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 10 Current Date: 07/08/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: ,a 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. .Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198687 6/25/2003 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP - 00198689 6/25/2003 PYRO SPECTACULARS INC 9,250.00 AP - 00198690 6/25/2003 QUALITY ONE ENGRAVING 17.24 AP - 00198691 6/25/2003 QUALITY TOYOTA 23,933.04 AP - 00198692 6/25/2003 RADFORD, DANIEL 73.00 AP - 00198693 6/25/2003 RANCHO BLUEPRINT 556.86 AP - 00198694 6/25/2003 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 180.00 AP - 00198695 6/25/2003 RANCHO CUCAMONGA HIGH SCHOOL 38.43 AP - 00198696 6/25/2003 RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIBRARY FOUNDATIOr 62.00 AP - 00198698 6/25/2003 RAYNOR GARAGE DOORS 924.80 AP - 00198699 6/25/2003 RCPFA 4,340.69 AP ~ 00198700 6/25/2003 REDINGER, TOM 40.00 AP - 00198701 6/25/2003 REXEL CALCON ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 199.88 AP - 00198702 6/25/2003 RH TECHNOLOGY 1,056.00 AP - 00198704 6/25/2003 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 174.56 AP - 00198704 6/25/2003 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 67.88 AP- 00198704 6/25/2003 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 71.89 AP - 00198705 6/25/2003 RMA GROUP 1,920.00 AP- 00198705 6/25/2003 R/vIA GROUP 14,181.50 AP- 00198705 6/25/2003 RMA GROUP 12,085.50 AP - 00198706 6/25/2003 RODRIGUES, LOU 200.00 AP - 00198707 6/25/2003 ROTH STAPlqNG COMPANIES INC 716.10 AP - 00198707 6/25/2003 ROTH STAFFING COMPANIES INC 272.00 AP - 00198707 6/25/2003 ROTH STAFFING COMPANIES INC 272.00 AP- 00198708 6/25/2003 SAFETY FIRST 173.74 AP - 00198709 6/25/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY SHERIFFS 18.00 AP - 00198710 6/25/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY SHERIFFS 834.45 AP - 00198711 6/25/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY 248.00 AP - 00198712 6/25/2003 SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMEN' 8,000.00 AP - 00198713 6/25/2003 SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOM CO INC 760.72 AP- 00198713 6/25/2003 SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOM CO INC 66.81 AP- 00198713 6/25/2003 SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOM CO INC 187.49 AP- 00198714 6/25/2003 SBC/PACIFIC BELL 1,331.22 AP - 00198714 6/25/2003 SBC/PACIFIC BELL 5,405.63 AP-00198714 6/25/2003 SBC/PACIFIC BELL 1,339.43 AP- 00198714 6/25/2003 SBC/PACIFIC BELL 5,632.75 AP-00198714 6/25/2003 SBC/PACIFIC BELL 5,308.84 AP- 00198714 6/25/2003 SBC/PACIFIC BELL 5,154.22 AP - 00198714 6~25~2003 SBC/PACIFIC BELL 1,341.38 AP - 00198714 6~25/2003 SBC/PACIFIC BELL 1,344.71 AP - 00198715 6~25/2003 SCERANKA, BRIANNE 26.98 AP - 00198716 6/25/2003 SCHAIqqaR, CARL 500.00 AP - 00198717 6/25/2003 SCHNEIDERWENT, KAREN 20.44 AP - 00198720 6/25/2003 SLJ PRO AUDIO SERVICES 1,750.00 AP - 00198721 6/25/2003 SMART AND FINAL 132.29 AP - 00198722 6/25/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 2,826.63 AP - 00198723 6/25/2003 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 905.33 AP - 00198723 6/25/2003 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 102.01 AP - 00198723 6/25/2003 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 63.38 AP - 00198723 6/25/2003 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 62.24 AP - 00198724 6/25/2003 SONSATIONAL ACTIVITIES 5,775.00 AP - 00198724 6/25/2003 SONSATIONAL ACTIVITIES 3,000.00 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 477.09 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 11 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA PEG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 0t 15:20:4 // CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.56 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.06 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.90 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 75.75 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2,480.52 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4,138.99 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 83.32 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 178.86 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 143.19 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 117.26 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 128.64 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 134.51 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 10.50 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 88.04 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 136.98 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 121.02 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 84.30 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.01 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.43 AP ~ 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 19.89 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 119.60 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 128.87 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 123.71 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 102.71 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 115.97 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 7.36 AP - 00198726 6/25/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.67 AP- 00198727 6/25/2003 SPORT SUPPLY GROUP INC 2,618.28 AP - 00198727 6/25/2003 SPORT SUPPLY GROUP INC 155.94 AP - 00198728 6/25/2003 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 215.10 AP - 00198729 6/25/2003 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7,444.03 AP - 00198731 6/25/2003 STATION WAGON FILMS 277.64 AP - 00198732 6/25/2003 STEELWORKERS OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION 399.91 AP - 00198732 6/25/2003 STEELWORKERS OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION 708.33 AP - 00198733 6/25/2003 STERLING CO~E SERVICE 552.16 AP - 00198733 6/25/2003 STERLING COI~I~EE SERVICE 45.75 AP - 00198734 6/25/2003 STOVER SEED COMPANY 560.30 AP - 00198734 6/25/2003 STOVER SEED COMPANY 1,427.69 AP- 00198735 6/25/2003 SUNBADGE CO 89.31 AP - 00198736 6/25/2003 SUNRISE FORD 21,326.96 AP - 00198737 6/25/2003 SUNRISE TRADING CO 606.09 AP - 00198738 6/25/2003 SURG ASSIST INC 22.80 AP - 00198739 6/25/2003 TANGRAM INTERIORS 2,451.31 AP - 00198742 6/25/2003 TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL 335.00 AP - 00198742 6/25/2003 TERM1NIX INTERNATIONAL 267.00 AP - 00198742 6/25/2003 TERMINLX INTERNATIONAL 875.00 AP - 00198744 6/25/2003 TOBIN, RENEE 7.98 AP - 00198744 6/25/2003 TOBIN, RENEE 36.39 AP - 00198744 6/25/2003 TOBIN, RENEE 22.85 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 12 Current Date: 07108/20(3 Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198745 6/25/2003 TOLL BROS INC 110.62 AP- 00198746 6/25/2003 TOMARKSPORTS INC 343.17 AP - 00198748 6/25/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 940.00 AP - 00198748 6/25/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 5,562.00 AP - 00198748 6/25/2003 TRUGREEN LANE)CAPE REGIONAL 4,268.00 AP - 00198748 6/25/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 8,900.00 AP - 00198748 6/25/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 8,990.00 AP - 00198748 6/25/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCAKE REGIONAL 4,036.00 AP - 00198748 6/25/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 2,683.00 AP - 00198748 6/25/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCAPE REGIONAL 0.60 AP - 00198749 6/25/2003 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 3,312.00 AP - 00198749. 6/25/2003 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 280.00 AP - 00198749 6/25/2003 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 400.00 AP - 00198751 6/25/2003 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P, 22,884.39 AP - 00198751 6/25/2003 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P~ 20,192.31 AP - 00198751 6/25/2003 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P~ 2,692.28 AP - 00198752 6/25/2003 UNIQUE CREATIONS 101.67 AP - 00198753 6/25/2003 UNIQUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC 483.43 AP - 00198753 6/25/2003 UNIQUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC 181.15 AP- 00198754 6/25/2003 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 17.17 AP- 00198754 6/25/2003 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 17.34 AP- 00198754 6/25/2003 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 23.50 AP - 00198756 6/25/2003 UNITEK TECHNOLOGY INC 1,977.21 AP - 00198756 6/25/2003 UNITEK TECHNOLOGY INC 36.35 AP - 00198756 6/25/2003 UNITEK TECHNOLOGY INC 469.00 AP - 00198757 6/25/2003 VALLEY CONCESSIONS INC 412.00 AP - 00198758 6/25/2003 VERA, CAROLINE 28.80 AP-00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 20.97 AP- 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 21.88 AP- 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 21.68 AP-00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 56.29 AP - 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 58.01 AP - 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 20.67 AP-00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 29.13 AP- 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 29.13 AP- 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 29.13 AP - 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 20.67 AP - 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 423.37 AP- 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 29.13 AP - 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 28.37 AP- 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 28.15 AP - 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 20.67 AP- 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 28.15 AP - 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 21.02 AP - 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 20.88 AP - 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 20.71 AP - 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 34.87 AP - 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 20.67 AP - 00198759 6/25/2003 VERIZON 22.86 AP - 00198760 6/25/2003 VIGILANCE, TERRENCE 600.00 AP - 00198761 6/25/2003 VILLAGE NURSERIES 891.75 AP - 00198763 6/25/2003 VORTEX INDUSTRIES 188.00 AP - 00198763 6/25/2003 VORTEX INDUSTRIES 353.50 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 13 Current Date: 07/08/20G Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:t,~ 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198765 6/25/2003 WATSON PAINTING CORPORATION 15,735.98 AP - 00198766 6/25/2003 WAXll~ 734.06 AP - 00198766 6/25/2003 WAXIE 951.23 AP-00198766 6/25/2003 WAXIE 478.53 AP - 00198766 6/25/2003 WAX1E 522.63 AP-00198766 6/25/2003 WAXIE 591.82 AP - 00198766 6/25/2003 WAXIE 187.56 AP- 00198766 6/25/2003 WAXIE 371.20 AP-00198766 6/25/2003 WAXIE 308.14 AP-00198766 6/25/2003 WAXIE 976.31 AP - 00198767 6/25/2003 WEST END MATERIAL SUPPLY 299.73 AP - 00198768 6/25/2003 WESTERN LAWN EQUIPMENT 455.78 AP - 00198770 6/25/2003 WYNDHAM EMERALD PLAZA 397.80 AP - 00198771 6/25/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 10,594.45 AP - 00198771 6/25/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 150.53 AP- 00198771 6/25/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 150.53 AP - 00198771 6/25/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 1,794.04 AP - 00198772 6/25/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 929.35 AP - 00198773 6/25/2003 YEE, LARRY 64.00 AP - 00198774 6/25/2003 ZOUR, BRETT 76.46 AP - 00198775 6/26/2003 PRINCIPAL LIFE 1,739.95 AP- 00198776 6/26/2003 PRINCIPAL LI~E 14,721.15 AP - 00198777 6/26/2003 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 5,000.00 AP - 00198778 6/30/2003 KUZMINSKI, CHERISE 56.33 AP - 00198779 7/1/2003 A 1 SMOG AND REPAIR 30.00 AP - 00198779 7/1/2003 A 1 SMOG AND REPAIR 30.00 AP - 00198780 7/1/2003 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 54.57 AP - 00198780 7/1/2003 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 6.48 AP - 00198781 7/1/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 108.96 AP - 00198781 7/1/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 15.09 AP - 00198781 7/1/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 974.38 AP ~ 00198781 7/1/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 1,352.86 AP - 00198782 7/1/2003 ABLETRONICS 24.67 AP - 00198782 7/1/2003 ABLETRONICS 63.65 AP - 00198782 7/1/2003 ABLETRONICS 139.00 AP - 00198783 7/1/2003 ACCENT COMPUTER SOLUTIONS INC 5,374.80 AP - 00198784 7/1/2003 ADAMSON, RONALD 1,248.00 AP - 00198785 7/1/2003 AG ENGINEERING INC 559.96 AP - 00198789 7/1/2003 ALLEN, ROGUE 120.20 AP - 00198790 7/1/2003 ALLEN, SYLVESTER R 227.40 AP - 00198791 7/1/2003 ALTA LOMA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES 5,550.00 AP - 00198792 7/1/2003 ALVA'S DANCE & THEATRICAL 1,288.70 AP - 00198793 7/1/2003 ALVAREZ, MARIA 200.00 AP - 00198794 7/1/2003 AMEND, NORINE 26.00 AP - 00198795 7/1/2003 AMERICAN PLUMBING PARTSMASTER INC 27.28 AP - 00198796 7/1/2003 ANAS, LORRAINE 40.00 AP - 00198797 7/1/2003 ARCH WIRELESS 1,306.20 AP - 00198798 7/1/2003 ASBURY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 194.48 AP - 00198798 7/1/2003 ASBURY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 887.33 AP - 00198799 7/1/2003 ASSI SECURITY 893.58 AP - 00198800 7/1/2003 AUTO RESTORATORS INC 779.16 AP - 00198801 7/1/2003 AUTO SPECIALISTS 125.00 AP - 00198802 7/1/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 40.15 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 14 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:, , ~ 15:20:4 /q CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198802 7/1/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 269.38 AP - 00198802 7/1/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 135.70 AP - 00198802 7/1/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 147.49 AP - 00198802 7/1/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 24.78 AP - 00198802 7/1/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC 'WHOLESALE 34.46 AP - 00198802 7/1/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 234.10 AP - 00198802 7/1/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 13.96 AP - 00198802 7/1/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 135.70 AP - 00198802 7/1/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE -60.34 AP - 00198802 7/1/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE -17.86 AP - 00198802 7/1/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 68.79 AP - 00198804 7/1/2003 BABILONIA, ROSA 32.00 AP - 00198807 7/1/2003 BASSLER, DYAN 80.00 AP - 00198808 7/1/2003 BEARINGS & DRIVES INC. 39.62 AP - 00198808 7/1/2003 BEARINGS & DRIVES INC. 47.30 AP - 00198809 7/1/2003 BECKER, CHERYL 38.00 AP - 00198810 7/1/2003 BEDROSIAN, ALEX 49.50 AP - 00198811 7/1/2003 BEI BETTER ENERGY IDEAS 99.20 AP - 00198812 7/1/2003 BERRY, RAYMOND 32.00 AP - 00198813 7/1/2003 BLAKE PAPER CO [NC 56.46 AP - 00198814 7/1/2003 BRODART BOOKS 32.80 AP - 00198814 7/1/2003 BRODART BOOKS 91.00 AP - 00198815 7/1/2003 BROOKS, DONNA 50.00 AP - 00198816 7/1/2003 BYRD AND ASSOCIATES INC R M 510.00 AP - 00198817 7/1/2003 CALABRO, CHRISTINA 700.00 AP - 00198818 7/1/2003 CARREON, ELIZABETH 96.00 AP - 00198819 7/1/2003 CARRILLO, CATHY 64.00 AP - 00198820 7/1/2003 CENTONZE, EILEEN 32.00 AP - 00198821 7/1/2003 CHAMPION AWARDS AND SPECIALIES 167.86 AP - 00198821 7/1/2003 CHAMPION AWARDS AND SPECIALIES 150.00 AP - 00198822 7/1/2003 CHAU, KATHERIN 190.00 AP - 00198823 7/1/2003 CIANCIOLO, KAREN 54.00 AP - 00198825 7/1/2003 CITY RENTALS 250.00 AP - 00198825 7/1/2003 CITY RENTALS 652.70 AP - 00198826 7/1/2003 CLAREMONT CAMERA AND VIDEO [NC 166.60 AP - 00198827 7/1/2003 CLARK, DEBORAH 67.62 AP - 00198829 7/1/2003 COASTAL BUILDING SERVICES 1NC 15,773.00 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 6,392.00 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 86.92 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 86.92 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 78.92 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 78.92 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPLYrER SERVICE CO 393.04 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 393.04 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 193.58 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 393.04 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 166.28 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 92.23 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 142.12 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 78.92 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 236.76 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 78.92 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 78.92 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 15 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time-', ~. 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 268.05 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 78.92 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 344.37 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 1,464.47 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 1,714.59 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 167.82 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 86.92 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 143.92 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 78.92 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 621.14 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 142.12 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 118.38 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 503.17 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 78.92 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 78.92 AP - 00198831 7/i/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 393.04 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 162.57 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 200.35 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 393.04 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMI~UTER SERVICE CO 135.78 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 113.00 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 108.04 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 196.64 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 173.84 AP - 00198831 7/1/2003 COMPUTER SERVICE CO 78.92 AP - 00198832 7/1/2003 CONCOURS DEVELOPMENT CO. 170.62 AP - 00198833 7/1/2003 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS I 171.04 AP - 00198833 7/1/2003 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS l 332.84 AP - 00198834 7/1/2003 COUNTRY ESTATE FENCE CO INC 2,825.74 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 334.53 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 114.60 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 212.54 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 200.63 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 700.45 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 731.47 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 901.61 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 87.55 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 110.55 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 127.19 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONOA CO WATER DIST 65.93 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 67.99 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 329.50 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 47.12 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 275.11 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 41.69 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 23.20 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 27.55 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 23.20 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 86.47 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 27.50 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 45.06 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 104.80 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 41.82 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 16 Current Date: 07/08/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:, t 15:20:4 /& CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 110.52 AP ~ 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,478.77 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 119.92 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 101.59 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 220.47 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,713.05 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 128.43 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,013.14 AP 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 846.79 AP 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 198.57 AP 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 288.47 AP 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 271.90 AP 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,608.69 AP 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 119.49 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 469.34 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 362.37 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 23.17 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 24.25 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 237.81 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 404.35 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 88.31 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 275.65 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CIJCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 214.80 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 438.12 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,019.97 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 237.81 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,413.46 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 306.31 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 860.31 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 827.67 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 148.00 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,507.19 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 820.81 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 760.24 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 744.66 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 412.42 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 368.55 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 586.19 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,030.37 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,735.89 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 224.06 AP - 00198837 7/I/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 426.02 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 306.66 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 79.98 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 82.16 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 961.77 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,516.23 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 631.23 AP - 00198837 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,157.03 AP - 00198838 7/1/2003 CUCAMONGA CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS 1,050.00 AP - 00198839 7/1/2003 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 359.35 AP - 00198839 7/1/2003 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 499.96 AP - 00198840 7/1/2003 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 3,277.50 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 17 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout .Time.', ..~ 15:20:4 / 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198840 7/112003 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 68,704.00 AP - 00198841 7/1/2003 DAPPER TIRE CO 205.39 AP - 00198841 7/1/2003 DAPPER TIRE CO 227.04 AP - 00198842 7/1/2003 DIETERICH POST COMPANY 239.87 AP - 00198843 7/1/2003 D1RECTV 29.99 AP - 00198844 7/1/2003 ELEFANTE, LINA 55.00 AP - 00198845 7/1/2003 ESPINO'S COP SHOP INC 312.00 AP - 00198846 7/1/2003 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 839.59 AP - 00198847 7/1/2003 EXCLUSIVE EMAGES 14.00 AP - 00198848 7/1/2003 FAKHOURY, L1NDA 14~00 AP - 00198849 7/1/2003 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 242.79 AP - 00198850 7/1/2003 FILTER RECYCLING SERVICE INC 260.00 AP - 00198851 7/1/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 680.00 AP - 00198851 7/1/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 552.00 AP - 00198851 7/1/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 736.00 AP - 00198851 7/1/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 810.00 AP - 00198851 7/1/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 637.50 AP - 00198851 7/1/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 589.05 AP - 00198851 7/1/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 578.00 AP - 00198851 7/1/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 663.00 AP - 00198852 7/1/2003 FIRST PLACE TROPHIES 638.42 AP - 00198852 7/1/2003 FIRST PLACE TROPHIES 372.82 AP - 00198853 7/1/2003 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 404.99 AP - 00198853 711/2003 FISHER SCIENTIFIC -115.31 AP - 00198853 7/1/2003 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 216.92 AP - 00198854 7/1/2003 FLUORESCO LIGHTING 2,305.83 AP - 00198854 7/1/2003 FLUORESCO LIGHTING 2,780.38 AP - 00198855 7/1/2003 FORD OF UPLAND INC 1,768.42 AP - 00198855 7/1/2003 FORD OF UPLAND INC 34.48 AP - 00198855 7/1/2003 FORD OF UPLAND INC 137.83 AP - 00198857 7/1/2003 FUKUSHIMA, JUDITH 1,530.00 AP - 00198860 7/1/2003 GERBASI, JANET 19.00 AP - 00198861 7/1/2003 GIBBYS FENCING MATERIALS 3,581.73 AP - 00198862 7/1/2003 GOLDEN WEST DISTRIBUTING 113.32 AP - 00198863 7/1/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 127.94 AP - 00198865 7/1/2003 GUERRERO, LUIS 64.00 AP - 00198866 7/1/2003 GUTIERREZ, ELAINE 40.00 AP - 00198867 7/1/2003 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 183.53 AP - 00198867 7/1/2003 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 404.86 AP - 00198867 7/1/2003 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 409.91 AP - 00198867 7/1/2003 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 718.29 AP - 00198867 7/1/2003 HAA R EQUIPMENT CO 224.15 AP - 00198867 7/1/2003 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 535.84 AP - 00198867 7/1/2003 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 399.69 AP - 00198867 7/1/2003 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 264.81 AP - 00198867 7/1/2003 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 718.29 AP - 00198867 7/1/2003 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 145.29 AP - 00198868 7/1/2003 HAKIMI, SUSAN 11.56 AP - 00198868 7/1/2003 HAKIMI, SUSAN 215.84 AP - 00198869 7/1/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 32.02 AP - 00198869 7/1/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 5,379.72 AP - 00198869 7/1/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 1,876.73 AP - 00198869 7/1/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 5,450.70 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 18 Current Date: 07/08/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: ,~ 15:20:~l CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198869 7/1/2003 HOLL1DAY ROCK CO INC 988.75 AP - 00198869 7/1/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 4,638.24 AP - 00198869 7/1/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO 1NC 207.96 AP - 00198870 7/1/2003 HOLT'S AUTO ELECTRIC INC 522.59 AP - 00198871 7/1/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 100.23 AP - 00198872 7/1/2003 HOSE MAN INC 23.48 AP - 00198873 7/1/2003 HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 52.27 AP - 00198873 7/1/2003 HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 129.95 AP - 00198873 7/1/2003 HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 30.82 AP - 00198874 7/1/2003 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALITIES INC 900.57 AP - 00198875 7/1/2003 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 10.76 AP - 00198876 7/1/2003 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 61.09 AP - 00198876 7/1/2003 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS 1NC 300.00 AP - 00198876 7/1/2003 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 407.97 AP - 00198876 7/1/2003 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 146.09 AP - 00198877 7/1/2003 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS 674.27 AP - 00198877 7/1/2003 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS 133.46 AP - 00198877 7/1/2003 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS 3.01 AP - 00198878 7/1/2003 INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION GROUP 38.48 AP - 00198880 7/1/2003 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 38.81 AP - 00198880 7/1/2003 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 22.24 AP - 00198881 7/1/2003 IZHAR, GILLIAN 10.00 AP - 00198882 7/1/2003 JEI~t~IES, ALICE 16.00 AP - 00198883 7/1/2003 JOHNSON, VIVIAN 200.00 AP - 00198883 7/1/2003 JOHNSON, VIVIAN 100.00 AP - 00198884 7/1/2003 KELLEY, KRISTY 28.08 AP - 00198885 7/1/2003 KING, LD 3,071.25 AP - 00198887 7/1/2003 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 390.33 AP - 00198888 7/1/2003 LEDBETTER, NICOLE 64.00 AP - 00198890 7/1/2003 LIMBAGA, NICOLE 40.00 AP - 00198891 7/1/2003 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 280.45 AP - 00198891 7/1/2003 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 965.00 AP - 00198892 7/1/2003 LOPEZ, CLARA 1,800.00 AP - 00198893 7/1/2003 LOS ANGELES FREIGHTLINER 708.26 AP - 00198893 7/1/2003 LOS ANGELES FREIGHTLINER 25.98 AP - 00198895 7/1/2003 MACDONALD, KAREN 34.00 AP - 00198896 7/1/2003 MADAHAR, DEEPTI 38.00 AP - 00198897 7/1/2003 MARKETING SERVICES INTL 1,138.27 AP - 00198898 7/1/2003 MARSHALL PLUMBING 476.60 AP - 00198898 7/1/2003 MARSHALL PLUMBING 138.47 AP - 00198898 7/1/2003 MARSHALL PLUMBING 85.00 AP - 00198898 7/1/2003 MARSHALL PLUMBING 221.00 AP - 00198898 7/1/2003 MARSHALL PLUMBING 597.90 AP - 00198899 7/1/2003 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00198899 7/1/2003 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 50.00 AP - 00198899 7/1/2003 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 50.00 AP - 00198899 7/1/2003 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00198899 7/1/2003 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00198900 7/1/2003 MARTINEZ, DARLA 200.00 AP - 00198902 7/1/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 59.98 AP - 00198902 7/I/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 86.96 AP - 00198903 7/1/2003 MLIAC ALARM COMPANY 864.18 AP - 00198903 7/1/2003 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY 270.00 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 19 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:, ~n 15:20:4 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198903 7/1/2003 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY 1,190.00 AP - 00198903 7/1/2003 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY 1,040.00 AP - 00198904 7/1/2003 MILLIKEN, KEELY 1,200.00 AP - 00198906 7/1/2003 MITCHELL, SHEILA 30.00 AP - 00198907 7/1/2003 MOBILE MINI 1NC 2,000.00 AP - 00198907 7/1/2003 MOBILE MINI INC 2,000.00 AP - 00198907 7/1/2003 MOBILE MINI INC 94.50 AP - 00198908 7/1/2003 MOBILE STORAGE GROUP INC 145.34 AP - 00198909 7/1/2003 MORRIS, CATHY 207.36 AP - 00198910 7/1/2003 MOUNTAIN VIEW GLASS AND MIRROR 777.22 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 162.94 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 10.76 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 25.66 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 15.53 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 63.84 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS -5.99 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS -177.79 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS -7.00 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS -96.96 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 171.87 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 129.16 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 69.48 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 10.99 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 102.27 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 171.41 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 8.67 AP - 00198911 7/1/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 41.04 AP - 00198912 7/1/2003 NAVARETTE, CAROL 50.00 AP - 00198913 7/1/2003 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 400.00 AP - 00198913 7/1/2003 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 60,484.18 AP - 00198916 7/1/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 42.91 AP - 00198916 7/1/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 14.20 AP - 00198916 7/1/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 118.44 AP - 00198916 7/1/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 991.30 AP - 00198916 7/1/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 3.56 AP - 00198916 7/1/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 701.82 AP - 00198916 7/1/2003 OI~YICE DEPOT -6.08 AP - 00198916 7/1/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 20.30 AP - 00198917 7/1/2003 ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING SERVICE INC 11,421.64 AP - 00198918 7/1/2003 OTT, LAURA 81.25 AP - 00198918 7/1/2003 OTT, LAURA 90.00 AP - 00198918 7/1/2003 OTT, LAURA 225.00 AP - 00198919 7/1/2003 OWEN ELECTRIC 1,902.41 AP - 00198919 7/1/2003 OWEN ELECTRIC 1,511.50 AP - 00198919 7/1/2003 OWEN ELECTRIC 878.36 AP - 00198921 7/1/2003 PEKARC1K, LARRY 50.00 AP - 00198922 7/1/2003 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 954.34 AP - 00198922 7/1/2003 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 51.52 AP - 00198922 7/1/2003 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 99.60 AP - 00198922 7/1/2003 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 1,039.16 AP - 00198922 7/1/2003 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 377.77 AP - 00198923 7/1/2003 PINUELAS, NEIDY 34.00 AP - 00198924 7/1/2003 PIONEER MANUFACTURING 620.30 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 20 Current Date: 07/08/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:20:,~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198925 7/1/2003 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO 8,020.48 AP - 00198926 7/1/2003 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 165.05 AP - 00198927 7/1/2003 PRESTON, MICHELE 50.00 AP - 00198928 7/1/2003 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP - 00198929 7/1/2003 PYRO SPECTACULARS INC 84.00 AP - 00198930 7/1/2003 QUAINTANCE, TY 105.00 AP - 00198930 7/1/2003 QUAINTANCE, TY 125.00 AP - 00198931 7/1/2003 QUALITY ONE ENGRAVING 17.24 AP - 00198932 7/1/2003 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 15.00 AP - 00198932 7/1/2003 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 80.00 AP - 00198933 7/1/2003 RANCHO SCREEN PRINT AND EMBROIDERY 168.74 AP - 00198934 7/1/2003 RAULS AUTO TRIM INC 45.00 AP - 00198935 7/1/2003 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE '~8.32 AP - 00198936 7/1/2003 RCI CABOT DISTRIBUTION CENTER II 179,467.23 AP - 00198937 7/1/2003 RIt TECHNOLOGY 1,056.00 AP - 00198938 7/1/2003 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 43.64 AP - 00198939 7/1/2003 RMA GROUP 1,411.00 AP - 00198941 7/1/2003 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 85.00 AP - 00198941 7/1/2003 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 95.00 AP - 00198941 7/1/2003 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 142.50 AP - 00198941 7/1/2003 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 63.00 AP - 00198942 7/1/2003 ROTH PHD, FREDRICK 627.50 AP - 00198943 7/1/2003 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 187.08 AP - 00198944 7/1/2003 RUBIO, JOANNE 24.00 AP - 00198945 7/1/2003 RUIZ, MARIA 55.00 AP - 00198946 7/1/2003 S AND S WORLDWIDE 546.49 AP - 00198947 7/1/2003 S AND W PLASTICS 362.48 AP - 00198948 7/1/2003 SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF 1,800.00 AP ~ 00198949 7/1/2003 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERINTENDENq 1.00 AP - 00198950 7/1/2003 SBC/PACIFIC BELL 54.89 AP - 00198950 7/1/2003 SBC/PACI]Z[C BELL 54.70 AP - 00198950 7/1/2003 SBC/PACIFIC BELL 54.70 AP - 00198951 7/1/2003 SCMAF INLAND VALLEYS 476.00 AP - 00198952 7/1/2003 SEATON, ERIN 80.00 AP - 00198953 7/1/2003 SEBBAS CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE 76.00 AP - 00198954 7/1/2003 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL INC 1,396.44 AP - 00198955 7/1/2003 SIGN SHOP, THE 75.43 AP - 00198955 7/1/2003 SIGN SHOP, THE 392.63 AP - 00198955 7/1/2003 SIGN SHOP, THE 200.00 AP - 00198956 7/1/2003 SIMPLEX OR1NNELL 166.94 AP - 00198957 7/1/2003 SIRCHIE FINGER PRINT 105.90 AP - 00198958 7/1/2003 SLJ PRO AUDIO SERVICES 245.00 AP - 00198959 7/1/2003 SLUKA, SUSAN 27.14 AP - 00198960 7/1/2003 SMART AND FINAL 80.58 AP - 00198960 7/1/2003 SMART AND FINAL 83.56 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.99 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29.91 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.56 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 21 Current Date: 07/08/20G Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 140.77 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 98.15 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.16 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 160.15 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.26 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 115.84 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.08 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.68 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.59 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.26 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.19 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.26 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.26 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.26 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 86.32 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 87.52 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.75 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.75 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 199.36 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.63 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.31 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 83.41 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.73 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.65 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 52.49 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.49 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.26 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 50.20 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.92 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 82.18 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 94.36 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 74.91 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 116.48 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 300.87 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 107.80 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.62 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AI~ - 00198967 7/1/2003 SO~RN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.19 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 45.93 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 22 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:.~ ,~ 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON I4.76 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29.92 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.10 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.10 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.47 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.94 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.05 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.58 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.98 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.23 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.30 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.10 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.25 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTI~RN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.39 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.63 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 93.20 AP ~ 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 51.54 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.62 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.90 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 42.17 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 35.72 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 51.06 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 44.84 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.44 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 166.35 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 80.30 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 121.02 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 145.77 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 110.07 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 5,126.60 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALII~ORNIA EDISON 13.31 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 127.12 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 138.11 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.52 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.11 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 229.75 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 239.02 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 108.00 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 144.24 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 163.95 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 192.22 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 79.24 AP - 00~98967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 65.63 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 128.52 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 135.56 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 23 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time _ ~15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 53.08 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 93.68 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 100.60 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 95.20 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 114.68 AP - 00198967 7/I/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.84 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 67.40 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.75 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.70 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.05 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 556.51 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.63 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 80.07 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.10 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.73 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 363.54 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 73.26 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 520.88 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.99 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.02 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.25 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.39 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.39 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 34.28 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON I3.77 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.63 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.64 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.49 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29.89 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 30.17 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 24 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHER~ CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.16 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.30 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.42 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 57.33 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 60.09 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.10 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/i/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.62 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.49 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.30 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.10 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.16 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 45.73 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 57.53 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 86.70 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.63 AP - 00)98967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.39 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.49 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 58.63 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00198967 7/I/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 105.79 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.67 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.87 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 112.18 AP - 00198967 7/1/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 76.77 AP - 00198968 7/1/2003 SUNRISE FORD 153.24 AP - 00198968 7/1/2003 SUNRISE FORD 62.93 AP - 00198968 7/I/2003 SUNRISE FORD -60.99 AP - 00198968 7/1/2003 SUNRISE FORD 352.45 AP - 00198969 7/1/2003 SWAZE, DANIELLE 105.00 AP - 00198972 7/1/2003 TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL 438.40 AP - 00198972 7/1/2003 TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL 533.00 AP - 00198972 7/1/2003 TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL 418.60 AP - 00198972 7/1/2003 TERM1NEK INTERNATIONAL 230.00 AP - 00198973 7/1/2003 THEATRICAL LIGHTING & SCENIC SERVICE 300.09 AP - 00198974 7/1/2003 THOMPSON, KATHERINE 55.00 AP - 00198975 7/1/2003 TIME WARNER TELECOM 1,250.00 AP - 00198976 7/1/2003 TOBIN, RENEE 73.00 AP - 00198977 7/1/2003 TOMARK SPORTS INC 72.08 AP - 00198977 7/1/2003 TOMARK SPORTS INC 500.00 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 25 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/712003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00198978 7/1/2003 TOOLS R US 290.72 AP - 00198978 7/1/2003 TOOLS R US 148.08 AP - 00198980 7/1/2003 TREVINO, JAMIE PAVLINE 200.00 AP - 00198981 7/1/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 7,628.00 AP - 00198981 7/1/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 9,268.00 AP - 00198981 7/112003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 2,291.00 AP - 00198982 7/1/2003 TYPECARE 49.50 AP - 00198983 7/1/2003 U T I 112.77 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNII~IRST UNIFORM SERVICE 22.85 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 50.32 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 IJNIIqRST UNIFORM SERVICE 128.65 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 128.65 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 38.03 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNII~LRST UNIFORM SERVICE 22.88 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 38.03 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 20.68 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNIF1RST UNIFORM SERVICE 128.36 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 17.60 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNIIqRST UNIFORM SERVICE 50.32 AP - 00198984 7/i/2003 LrNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 580.20 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNII~IRST UNIFORM SERVICE 50.32 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 22.85 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 20.68 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNIFLRST UNIFORM SERVICE 562.13 AP - 00198984 7/1/2003 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 526.91 AP - 00198986 7/1/2003 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 50,330.50 AP - 00198988 7/1/2003 UNIQUE CREATIONS 289.63 AP - 00198989 7/1/2003 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 57.99 AP - 00198989 7/1/2003 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 41.68 AP - 00198990 7/1/2003 US GUARDS CO INC 1,978.00 AP - 00198990 7/1/2003 US GUARDS CO INC 2,898.00 AP - 00198990 7/1/2003 US GUARDS CO INC 1,523.75 AP - 00198990 7/1/2003 US GUARDS CO INC 5,612.02 AP - 00198991 7/1/2003 VALENTIN, NATHALIA 76.00 AP - 00198992 7/1/2003 VALLEY CREST TREE COMPANY 1,128.15 AP - 00198994 7/1/2003 VAN VONDEREN, ANNETE 64.00 AP - 00198995 7/1/2003 VAZQUEZ, CLARA 90.00 AP - 00198996 7/1/2003 VEND Ll VENDING 69.70 AP - 00198997 7/1[2003 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTIONS 32.45 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 204.06 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 28.59 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 28.59 AP - 00199000 7/1[2003 VERIZON 406.79 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 29.60 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 92.22 AP - 00199000 7[1/2003 VERIZON 28.59 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 82.19 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 85.32 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 99.65 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 56.22 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 41.02 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 48.23 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 46.75 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 26 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name .Amount AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 461.15 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 566.83 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 76.95 AP - 00199000 7/112003 VERLZON 89.31 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.74 AP - 00199000 7/112003 VERIZON 29.59 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.71 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 88.79 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 43.56 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 54.05 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 58.88 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.73 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.74 AP - 00199000 7/112003 VERIZON 92.22 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.73 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.74 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.74 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 181.44 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 28.57 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 29.00 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 402.93 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 28.57 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.71 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.74 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.71 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.71 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 92.19 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 145.62 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 29.13 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 52.22 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 117.34 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 29.60 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 150.90 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 479.05 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.71 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 39.15 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 39.15 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.73 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 26.55 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.74 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.74 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 45.27 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 92.22 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 28.52 AP - 00199000 7/112003 VERIZON 90.71 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.73 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 227.00 AP - 00199000 71112003 VERIZON 29.61 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 36.79 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 130.45 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 28.59 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 90.71 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 42.87 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 27 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 28.59 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 29.54 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 57.11 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 114.36 AP - 00199000 7/1/2003 VERIZON 38.82 AP - 00199001 7/1/2003 VIGILANCE, TERRENCE 600.00 AP - 00199002 7/1/2003 VOSS, CAROLYNN 53.34 AP - 00199003 7/1/2003 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 204.27 AP - 00199003 7/1/2003 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 275.76 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXIE 152.79 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXIE 97.84 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXIE 464.21 AP - 00199004 7/1/2~03 WAXIE 1,505.07 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXiE 2,463.23 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXIE 188.56 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXIE 564.93 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXIE 40.88 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXIE 116.07 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXIE 469.66 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXIE 261.89 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXIE 617.58 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXIE 400.29 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAX1E 1,282.81 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXIE 1,247.48 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXIE 14.30 AP - 00199004 7/1/2003 WAXIE 14.30 AP - 00199005 7/1/2003 WEST END MATERIAL SUPPLY 439.62 AP - 00199006 7/1/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 10,594.45 AP - 00199006 7/1/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 223.58 AP - 00199007 7/1/2003 YEAGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC, E L 452,974.50 AP - 00199008 7/1/2003 AACT 55.00 AP - 00199009 7/1/2003 ABLAC 294.06 AP - 00199010 7/1/2003 ADT SECURITY SERVICES INC 737.49 AP - 00199010 7/1/2003 ADT SECURITY SERVICES INC 313.87 AP ~ 00199011 7/1/2003 AMERICAN FENCE COMPANY 772.00 AP - 00199011 7/1/2003 AMERICAN FENCE COMPANY 772.00 AP - 00199012 7/1/2003 ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF UPLAND 1,200.00 AP - 00199013 7/1/2003 CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY OF LOCAL ARTS 75.00 AP - 00199014 7/1/2003 CALIFORNIA PARK & RECREATION SOCIETY 130.00 AP - 00199015 7/1/2003 CENTRAL DIVISION 359.03 AP - 00199016 7/1/2003 CONCANNON, SHARI 149.50 AP - 00199017 7/1/2003 COURT TRUSTEE 200.00 AP - 00199017 7/1/2003 COURT TRUSTEE 118.50 AP - 00199018 7/1/2003 DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 215.10 AP - 00199020 7/1/2003 HARDY, BRADLEY 260.50 AP - 00199021 7/1/2003 HERCHENRODER, SHERI 50.00 AP - 00199022 7/1/2003 HURST, CHERYL 288.50 AP - 00199023 7/1/2003 LOWER, DARLENE 251.00 AP - 00199024 7/1/2003 MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 121.93 AP - 00199025 7/1/2003 N M A DUES C/O NAOMI ROBERTS 13.85 AP - 00199026 7/1/2003 NATIONAL DEFERRED 25,218.56 AP - 00199027 7/1/2003 OHIO CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTRAL 77.35 AP - 00199028 7/1/2003 PATRONITE, AMBER 75.00 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 28 Current Date: 07/08/20~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: _ ~..~5:20:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 6/25/2003 through 7/7/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00199029 7/1/2003 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 170.25 AP - 00199030 7/1/2003 QUINTANA, ZITA 193.00 AP - 00199031 7/1/2003 REINHARDTSEN, DEBRA 282.50 AP - 00199032 7/1/2003 RIVERSIDE CO DEPT CHILD SUPPORT 226.00 AP - 00199033 7/1/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT PAYMEN' 289.68 AP - 00199034 711/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT PAYMEN' 220.00 AP - 00199035 7/1/2003 SIMS, DIANA LAURIE 250.00 AP - 00199036 7/1/2003 SLJ PRO AUDIO SERVICES 1,530.00 AP - 00199036 7/112003 SLJ PRO AUDIO SERVICES 70.00 AP - 00199037 7/1/2003 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 45.93 AP - 00199038 7/1/2003 STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHiSE TAX BOAR 40.27 AP - 00199039 7/1/2003 STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOAR 71.37 AP - 00199040 7/1/2003 STOFA, JOSEPH 20.00 AP - 00199041 7/1/2003 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 25,000.00 AP - 00199042 7/1/2003 UNITED WAY 618.32 AP - 00199043 7/1/2003 VISION SERVICE PLAN CA 7,173.81 AP ~ 00199044 7/1/2003 VOLM, LIZA 112.50 AP - 00199045 7/2/2003 LEOS, SOFIA 114.00 AP - 00199046 7/2/2003 HOOPER, ALLISON 750.00 Total for Check ID AP: 2,039,158.39 Total for Entity: 2,039,158.39 User: ahunsbcr - Ann Hunsbcrgcr Page: 29 Current Date: 07/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:20:4 City of Rancho Cucamonga c;~/of Rancho Cucamenga Portfolio Management Portfolio.Summary · - June 30, 2003 Pas' Market aeak % of Oa~s to YTM YTM Investments 162,465,069.39 163,418,996.80 162,414,20~.67 100.00% 964 829 2.631 2.668 Cash end Accrued Interest Passbcok/Checking 436,787.25 436,787.25 436,787.25 1 1 0.493 0.500 (t~l included in yield calculations) AccrUed Interest at Purchase 922.22 922.22 Subtotal 437,709.47 437,709.47 Total Cash and InVeatmento 162,901,856.84 163,856,706.27 162,851,916.14 964 829 2,631 2.668 Tots! Earnings June 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Fiscal Year Ending Current Year 361,903.69 5,468,728.36 5,468,728.36 Average Dally Balance 156,299,899.gl 151,546,705.77 Effective Rate of Return 2.82% 3.61% I certify that this report accurately reflects all City i~o~led Inveslments and ts In comtofmlty with the investment policy adopted March 5, 2003~ A copy of the Investment pOlicy Is avaliable in the Administrative SerVices Department. The Investment Pl~gmm herein shown I:trov~es sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet Ihs ~ext slx months estimated expanditurea. The month-end ma~e! values were obiained from (IDC).thtaracflve Data Co~x~relfen ~ sam',ce. The attached Summary of Cash end Investments with FIScal Agents aa of the pflor month's end is provided under the City official Investment Policy. The provisions of the Individual bond documents FrOSt, Treasurer Portfolio CITY City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments June 30, 2003 Average Purchase Stated YTM Daysto Maturity. CUSIP Investment · Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 360 Maturity Date Local Agency Investment Funds SYsiXX305 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 39,950,069.59 39,950,069.59 39,950,069.59 1.769 1.745 1 Subtotal and Average 35,506,736.26 39,950,669.59 39,650,069.59 39,950,069.59 1.745 1 Certificates of Deposit/Neg. - Bank 06050EM85 1145 BANK OF AMERICA 0~/27/2002 1,515,000.00 1,516,996.47 1,515,000.00 1.720 1.720 57 08/27/2003 $ubtotel and Average 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 1,516,996.47 1,515,000.00 1.720 57 Commercial Paper - Discount 36959JUB7 1216 GENERAL ELEC~TRiC CAPITAL 06/27/2003 7,000,000.00 6,3971196.11 6,997,196.11 1.030 1.030 10 07/11/2003 74838VUJ 1 1214 QUINCY CAPITAL 06/26/'2003 10,000,000.00 9,993,522.22 9,993,522.22 1.060 1.061 17 07/18/2003 7561V5UH9 1216 RECEIVABLES CAPITAL CORP 06/30/2003 2,500,000.00 2,498,725.00 2,498,725.00 1.080 1.081 16 07/17/2003 Subtotal and Average 12,742,093.83 19,500,000.00 19,489,443.33 19,489,443.33 1.~52 14 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 31331LM88 1127 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 05/07/2002 2,000,txx).00 2,061,875.00 2,000,000.00 5.200 5.129 1,406 05/07/2007 31331OHR1 1161 FEDERAL FARM CREDrT BANK 11/07/2002 2,500,000.00 2,517,968.75 2,500,000.00 3.450 3.403 1,225 11/07/2006 31331QQH3 1177 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 01/24/2003 5,000,000.00 5,006,250.00 5,000,000.00 3.200 3.156 '1,119 07/24/2006 31331QTY3 1190 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 03/12/2003 7,000,000.00 7,0211875.00 7,000,000.00 3.180 3.136 1,350 03/12/2007 31331OK55 1199 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 05/19/2003 2,500,000.00 2,530,4~8.75 2,496,875.00 3.120 3.104 1,784 05/19/2008 31331GM79 1205 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 06/03/2003 2,000,000.00 2,0161250.00 2,000,000.00 3.210 3.166 1,799 06/03/2008 31331QN78 1207 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 06/09/2003 5,500,000.00 5,515,468.75 5,500,000.00 2.440 2.407 1,347 03/09/2007 3133M6NE4 01035 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/08/1998 2,000,000.00 2,039,375.00 2,000,000.00 5.530 5.454 160 12/0~/2003 3133M75D4 01038 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/21/1999 1,000,000.00 1,024,687.50 1,000,000.00 5.510 5.435 204 01/21/2004 3133M94J8 01050 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/17/1999 3,0001000.00 3,146,250.00 2,984,531.25 6.230 6.265 352 06/17/2004 3133MV3K7 1179 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/30/2003 2,500,000.00 2,514,843.73 2,500,000.00 3.200 3.157 1,217 10/30/2006 3133MVTA5 1180 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/30/2003 3,{:XXI,000.00 3,017,812.50 2,997,187.50 3.180 3.164 1,217 10/30/'2006 3133MVES8 1183 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 02/07/2003 3,000,0(]0.00 3,018,750.~0 3,000,000.00 3.200 3.157 11225 11/07/2006 3133MVFC2 1184 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 02/07/2003 2,000,0(]0.00 2,003,750.00 2,000,000.00 3.200 3.156 1,133 08/07/2006 3133MXFY0 1194 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/09/2003 3,000,000.00 3,000,937.50 3,000,000.00 3.120 3.077 1,378 04/09/2007 31339XJJ4 1210 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 0~/12/2003 5,000,000.(]0 5,017,187.50 5,000,000.00 2.650 2.614 1,441 06/11/2007 31339XB78 1211 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 0E/1SI2003 3,000,000.00 3,013,125.00 3,000,0(]0.00 2.430 2.367 1,354 03/16/2007 31339XLB8 1212 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/lg/2Q03 2,000,000.00 2,006,250.00 2,000,060.00 2.625 2.589 1,449 06/19/2007 31339XPL2 1213 FEDERAL HOME LOAN RANK 06/26/20~3 2,000,000.00 1,999,375.00 2,000,000.00 2.450 2.417 1,548 09/26/2007 3128X0VN6 1178 FEDERAl. HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 01/28/2(X~ 2,500,000.00 2,503,644.94 2,499,375.00 3.150 3.114 1,123 07/2~2006 3t 28X0X20 1195 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 04/10/2003 5,000,000.00 5,022,034.46 5,000,000.00 3.250 3.205 1,379 04/10/2007 3128X0X20 1196 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 0~10/2003 41000,000.00 4,017,627.56 3,998,600.00 3.250 3.215 1,379 0~10/2007 Portfolio CITY CP un {~ate: 07,~9/2(X)3 o 09:44 PM (PRF_PM2) SymRe~t V6.21 ~ Re~ort Ver. 5.C~ City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 3 Portfolio Details - Investments June 30, 2003 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Inveatmem # issuer Balance Date Par Value Man, at Value Book Value Rate Moody's 360 Maturity Data Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 312~XIBD~ 1198 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 05/19/2003 5,000,000.00 5,094,279.48 4,993,7~O.00 3.500 3.479 1,784 05/19/2008 3128Xl FG7 1203 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 05/28/2003 3,~00,000.00 3,012,449.80 3,000,000.00 2.500 2.466 1,246 11/28/2006 3128X1DK0 1204 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 05/28/2003 4,O00,{XX:).00 4,026,007.69 4,000,000.00 3.100 3.058 1,611 11/28/2007 3128X1JD0 1208 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 06/12/2003 5,000,000.00 5,053,524.78 4,998,500.00 3.030 2.995 1,807 06/11/2008 3128X1JN8 1209 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 06/12/2003 2,~00,0GO.00 2,003,543.70 2,000,000.00 2.400 2.367 1,441 06/11/2007 3136FOAL6 10~5 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 04/04/2001 4,000,000.00 4,125,000.00 3,994,375.00 5.300 5.259 1,002 03/29/20(~ 3136FOLU4 1101 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 05/24/2001 2,000,000.00 2,083,750.00 2,000,000.00 5.710 5.632 1,058 05/24/2006 3136F3VQ6 1202 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 05/27/2003 7,000,000.00 7,048,125.00 6,g96,500.00 2.500 2.479 1,424 05/25/2007 Subtutal and Average 106,{]92,107.75 101,500,000.00 102,463,487.41 101,459,693.75 3.297 1,324 Total an~l Average 156~99,899.91 162,465,069.59 163,418,996.80 162,414~06.67 2.631 829 Portfolio CITY CP City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page4 Portfolio Details - Cash June 30, 2003 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to CUSIP Investment # issuer Balance Date Par Value Man, at Value 80~ Value Rate Moody*l ~60 Maturity Savings/Miscellaneous Accounts SYSO0180 00180 SANK OF AMERICA 436.787.25 436,787.25 436,787.25 0.500 0.493 1 Average Balance 0.~0 Accrued Interest at Purchase 922.22 922.22 1 Subtotal 437.709.47 437.709.47 Portfolio CITY CP R Date: 07/0~'2003 - 09:44 PM (PRF_PM2) Syzr~e~t V6.21 City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management p,ge s Activity By Type June 1, 2003 through June 30, 2003 Local Agency Investment Funds (Monthly Summary) Savings/Miscellaneous Accounts (Monthly Summary) Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 31331QVX2 1191 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 3.110 06/26Y2003 0.00 4,000,0~0.~0 Porffdio CITY PM (PRF PM3) S~mRept V6.21 Run Date: 07~0g/2003 - 09:44 - City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 6 Activity By Type June 1, 2003 through June 30, 2003 Beginning Stated Tmn~ectlon Pumhases Redemptions Ending Portf~io CITY CP Run Date: 07~9~2003 - 09;44 PM (PRF_PM3) S~Reflt V6.21 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Summary of Cash and Investments with Fiscal Agents For the Month Ended May 31, 2003 Trustee and/or Purchase Maturity Cost Bond Issue Pavlno Auent Account Name Investment Date Dat~e Yield Value Assessment District No 93-1 US Bank Imprvmnt Fund First Amedcan Treasury Obligation 8/411997 N/A* 0.67% $ 257,311.78 Ma$i Plaza Imprvmnt Fund Cash N/A N/A N/A Reserve Fund First Ametican Treasu~/Obligation 8/4/1997 N/A* 0.67% 242,949.47 Reserve Fund Cash N/A N/A N/A Redemp. Fund First Amedcan Treasury Obligation 8/4/1997 N/A 0.63% 477.85 Redemp. Fund Cash N/A N/A N/A $ 500,739.10 PFA BFDG Rev Bonds sedes US Bank Expense Fund First American Treasury Obligation 7/1/1999 N/A* 0.00% $ 0.04 Cash N/A N/A N/A 1999 A (Sr) & 1999 B (Subord) Sub Resrv. Fund First American Treasury Obligation 71111999 N/A* 0.67% 584,596.61 Cash N/A N/A N/A Sr. Resrv. Fund First Amedcan Treasury Obligation 7/1/1999 N/A* 0.67% 1,098,235.57 Cash N/A N/A N/A · Redemption Fund First American Treasury ObligaUon 7/1 I1999 N/A* 0.00% Cash N/A N/A N/A Revenue Fund First Amedcan Treasury Obligation 3/212000 NIA* 0.00% 2.46 Cash N/A N/A N/A Residual Fund First American Treasury Obligation 1/16/2001 N/A* 0.67% 188,194.48 Cash N/A N/A N/A $ 1,871,029.16 TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS WITH FISCAL AGENTS * Note: These investments am money market accounts which have no stated matutity date as they may be liquidated upon demand. i:~finencelCash ~4th Fiscal Agents. xls 7/1/2003 3:57 PM R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ~ N Gl N E E I~ IN G DI~ PAINT ~ E N T S tff Report July 16, 2003 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 TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE FISHER DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST AVENUE TO MULBERRY STREET, TO BE FUNDED FROM PREVIOUSLY DEPOSITED DEVELOPER PAYMENT PLACED IN TRUST ACCOUNT NO. 18820002314 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Fisher Drive Street Improvements from East Avenue to Mulberry Street. BACKGROUNDIANALYSlS: This project will complete the missing street improvements on Fisher Dr (formerly Highland Ave) from East Ave to Mulberry Street. Those improvements include curb, gutter and sidewalk and a portion of retaining wall near East Ave, curb and gutter along a substantial portion of the north side, and full width improvements over the channel near the middle of the project area. The project was originally designed in conjunction with a residential development to the east. It could not be constructed at that time, because it interfered with the construction of the Rte 210/30 freeway. Upon completion of the freeway, the City put the project out to bid. The bids came in substantially higher than the funds available. Therefore, staff decided to see if the projec{ could be redesigned at a lower cost. It was determined that the cost could be reduced by an estimated $120,000, if the width of the road was reduced from the original 36 feet to 28 feet near East Avenue. The reduced width is sufficient, because the street only serves as a secondary access to the homes in the area. The reduced width saves several mature trees, eliminates the construction of a substantial portion of retaining wall, and eliminates the need to alter some rather substantial irrigation equipment on the adjacent historical property to the south. Also, the redesign makes use of some pavement constructed by Caltrans after the original plans were completed. The new design concept was approved by the Public Works Subcommittee, subject to full street widening CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Fisher Drive Street Improvements-Notice inviting Bids July 16, 2003 Page 2 being considered at any time in the future, if the adjacent property is developed to a more intense use. The City Engineer has approved the plans and specifications. The Engineer's estimate is $240,154, including a 10% contingency, plus $5,000 for streetlights, $5,000 for construction survey, $2,000 for soils and material testing, and $300 for printing services. Legal advertising is scheduled for July 22 and July 29, 2003, with a bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 12, 2003, unless extended by Addenda. Respectfully submitted, W,ll,a City Engineer WJO:JAD Attachments: Vicinity Map and Resolution PROJECT LOCATION , ~ ~ , ~ I ~,, Hill~id= Rd Rt 10 F ree__wa~y 4th St RANCHO CUCAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. ~,~' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "FISHER DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST AVENUE TO MULBERRY STREET" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for the "FISHER DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST AVENUE TO MULBERRY STREET". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 12, 2003, sealed bids or proposals for the "FISHER DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST AVENUE TO MULBERRY STREET" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of the FISHER DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST AVENUE TO MULBERRY STREET". PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than RESOLUTION NO. July 16, 2003 Page 2 the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or RESOLUTION NO. July 16, 2003 Page 3 journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workm~_n, 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. 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 RESOLUTION NO. July 16, 2003 Page 4 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 submittal of the Bidder's Proposal 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) or a Specialty Class License sufficient to cover all the work to be performed by the Prime 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 Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, Engineering Counter, 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. RESOLUTION NO. July 16, 2003 Page 5 Questions regarding this Notice Inviting Bids for the "FISHER DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM EAST AVENUE TO MULBERRY STREET" may be directed to: Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer at (909) 477-2740, ext. 4037. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 16th day of July, 2003 Publish Dates: July 22 and July 29, 2003 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this 16th day of July, 2003. 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 16th day of July, 2003. Executed this 16th day of July, 2003, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk ADVERTISE ON: July 22 and July 29, 2003 r~ a n C H O C U C A M O N G A CO~IMUNIT¥ Memorandum DATE: July 15, 2003 ~" TO: Mayor and Member of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director./' BY: Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III SUBJECT: ITEM TO BE PULLED FROM THE JULY 16, 2003, CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR The volunteer leadership with the Chamber of Commeme has requested that Item E- 5, "Consideration of a Proposal for Co-Sponsorship and Waiver of Various Fees and Charges for the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce's Grape Harvest Festival Scheduled for October 3-5, 2003, at the Epicenter Special Event Area" be pulled from the City Council's July 16th Consent Calendar. This action is being requested to allow time for the volunteer leadership of the Chamber to meet with staff and review staff's recommendations and the proposed fees and charges. Thank you for consideration of this request. cc: Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager ~tC~MMSERV1C~unc~&B~ards~cityc~unci~c~rresp~ndence~2~3~GrapeHarvestPu~editem7~ 16.03, doc R A N C H O C U C a M O N G A (~0I~1 ~l[Jiq ITY DATE: July 16, 2003 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 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL FOR CO-SPONSORSHIP OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'S CARNIVAL AND GRAPE HARVEST FESTIVAL SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 2-5, 2003, AT THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA EPICENTER. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider the attached request from the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce for co-sponsorship of their Carnival and Grape Harvest Festival that is scheduled for October 2-5, 2003, (move-in/out dates extend the Chamber's request to include September 29th and 30t~ and October 1st and 6th) at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Special Event Area and waive the base rent, the move in/out rental fee, basic maintenance expenses and any City related permits required for the event. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce has hosted a wine and grape festival for the community for a number of years. Over the past several years the event has changed venues and time frames. Three years ago the Chamber scaled back the event to make the festival more manageable to staff with their volunteer core, moved the dates of the festival back to the traditional dates of early October and moved the event to bring it back to Rancho Cucamonga. This year the Chamber is proposing bringing back the Carnival to the Festival that would include 8- 10 adult/spectacular rides and 7-10 children's rides. This additional feature will necessitate a 5-day move-in/move-out timeframe for the Festival. Although the exact hours of the Carnival are not set at this time, it is anticipated that the Carnival will be open to the public starting Thursday, October 2"d rd from 4:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m., Friday, October 3 until 12-midnight, Saturday, October 4th until midnight and Sunday, October 5th until 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. The Grape Harvest Festival is planning to extend their hours slightly with a schedule of Friday, October 34 from 4:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. for their Chamber mixer and from 6:00 p.m. until 12-midnight for the public; on Saturday, October 4th CI'D~ COUNCIL Co-SPONSORSHIP OF GRAPE HARVEST FESTIVAL JULY 16, 2003 the Festival hours will be from either 11:00 a.m. or 12-noon until 12-midnight and Sunday from 11:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Other activities planned for the Festival include business vendor booths, arts and crafts, community stage featuring local entertainment, food and beverage vendors and a wine/beer pavilion at the Epicenter Special Event Area. Parking Lots A, B, C, D and E at the Epicenter will be used for parking for the Festival (A number of parking spots in Lot E will be reserved for Animal Shelter parking for the weekend). All adult softball, soccer and Little League activities will be cancelled for the weekend to ensure adequate parking for the Carnival and Grape Harvest Festival. Based upon requirements of the event, conditions of use for the site and cost estimates associated with the use of the Epicenter have been developed by staff. Traditional rental fees for such an event would include a base rent for the Epicenter Special Event Area and parking lots A, B, C and D, and E, move in/out rent for the Epicenter Special Event Area, maintenance services and police security. Estimates of these fees are detailed below: · Base Rent - Event Dates (Special Event Area, Parking lots A, B, C D & E) $12,000 · Move in/out Rental (Special Event Area) $ 5,000 · Maintenance (includes additional support for refuse pick-up sen/ice as requested bythe Chamber) $ 5,253 · Police Security (event days/timeframes only) $ 9.180 Total $31,433 In accordance with Epicenter policy, in addition to the fees noted above the following charges would also be required from the Chamber: 10% admissions fee based upon gross revenue from the Festival ticket sales and parking lot admissions, 10% from Carnival ticket sales and 10% of gross revenue on Chamber sold food, beverage and merchandise sales. These fees and an accounting of their sales are due to the City within 5-working days of the event. In the past, the Council has waived the percentage payment from outside food/beverage vendors due to the difficulty for the Chamber to collect these fees. Staff has recently received a request from the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce for co-' sponsorship and waiver of ail fees, except for the admissions tax, for the upcoming Festival. However, to be consistent with previous years support by the Council and with other co- sponsorship requests that the City Council has approved in the past, it is staff's recommendation that the City Council waive the base rent fee ($12,000), the move in/out rental fee ($5,000) and the basic maintenance costs ($277) associated with the Chamber's use of the Epicenter for their 2003 Carnival and Grape Harvest Festival. Basic maintenance services include: minimal site supervision, a once daily refuse pick-up service and street sweeping at the conclusion of the event. Staff would also request that the City Council approve the waiver of fees for any building/tire inspections and permits. At this time the fiscal impact of this portion of the request is not known. Due to the addition of the Carnival and consistent with other co-sponsored events of this nature, the Chamber of Commerce would be required to provide $2 million dollar comprehensive public liability coverage, $1 million dollar automobile coverage and $1 million coverage for Worker's Compensation. Insurance documents should also include an endorsement naming the City of -2- CITY COUNCIL go-SPONSORSHIP OF GRAPE HARVEST FESTIVAL JULY 16, 2003 Rancho Cucamonga as additionally insured for the full time frame of the event including move-in and move-out dates for both the Carnival and the Festival, as well as a refundable damage/security/performance deposit in the amount of $2,500. Payment of the refundable security deposit and approval of insurance documents are traditionally required prior to the start of the event. Staff does not recommend waiver of the direct service fees for police security and the enhanced maintenance services, the percentage Festival admissions and parking, the percentage on Carnival ticket sales and the percentage on Chamber sold food, beverage and merchandise nor the damage/security deposit as doing so would not be consistent with other City Council co-sponsored activities that have taken place at the Epicenter. In addition, the Chamber has agreed to the payment of the Admissions Tax for both gate admission and parking. Lastly, staff also recommends that City Council approve the sale and consumption of beer and wine for the Festival within restricted locations at the Epicenter Special Event Area (Expanded Parking Lot), as outlined in Ordinance Number 634. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of co-sponsorship and waiver of fees as recommended b~/staff would result in a waiver of $17,277 in fees, plus Building and Safety/Fire fees/inspections, that would be offset, in part, by ticket, parking, concessions and merchandise revenues received from the event. Respa(: ~ully/~:)//~i~d, Kevin I IcArdle CommL ~ity Services Director Attachment ~:~C~MMSERV~C~unci~&B~ards~CityC~unciASta~Rep~rt$~2~2~GrapeHa~estf=estiva~C~Sp~n$~rship 7. I §. 03.doc -3- R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ~ NGINI~EI~ING DE PAI~TH ENT Staff Report DATE: July 16, 2003 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 SUBJEC'r: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CUP 95-25, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY SAHGA GROUP, L.P. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions, accepting the subject agreement and securities, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS CUP 95-25, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, was approved by the Planning Commission on May 14, 1997. This project is for a Master Plan for a shopping center and the construction of several commercial buildings on 8.9 acres of land. The Developer, Sahga Group, L.P., is submitting an agreement and securities to guarantee the construction of public improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $364,300.00 Labor and Material Bond: $182,150.00 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 95-25 July 16, 2003 Page 2 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 W JO:WV:sc Attachments BASE UNE ROAD CHURCH ST. FOOTHILL BLVD. N CITY OF 1T~:~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION sot t. rrto tg.3'lq,2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR CUP 95-25 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on July 16, 2003, by Sahga Group, L.P., as specifically described therein, and generally located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue; and WHEREAS, said Improvement agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Securities, which are 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 Mayuor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2. That said Improvement Securities are accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attomey. RESOLUTION NO. ~" / ¢.~ A RESOLUTION OF THE C1TY 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 CUP 95-25 WHEREAS, the City Council Of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (referred to collectively as the "Maintenance Districts"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article.2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation resolutions, an assessment engineer's report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the 1972 Act related to the annexation of territory to the Maintenance District, Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the Maintenance Districts on the territory proposed to be annexed to such districts; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference have requested that such property (collectively, the "Temtory") 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 Temtory to the Maintenance Districts and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts; and RESOLUTION NO. ~ CUP 95-25 July 16, 2003 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 XmD 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 C1TY 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 amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B. SECTION 4: All future 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: SAHGA GROUP, L.P. The legal description of the Property is: ALL THAT CERTAIN LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, C1TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL A: ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 17 OF A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 10, CUCAMONGA VINEYARD TRACT, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 20, PAGE 44 OF MAPS, IN THE OFVICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF VINEYARD AVENUE AND THE SOUTH LINE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 17, 568 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 17 TO TIlE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF SAID LOT 17, A DISTANCE OF 4 FEET TO A PORqT; THENCE SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 17 TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 17; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 17 TO A POINT 110 FEET WEST OF THE WEST LIiNE OF VINEYARD AVENUE; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL TO WEST LINE OF VINEYARD AVENUE 90 FEET; THENCE EAST PARALLEL TO SOUTH LINE OF LOT 17, 110 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF VINEYARD AVENUE; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF VINEYARD AVENUE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 16, 1968 IN BOOK 6959, PAGE 37 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF LOT 17, CUCAMONGA VINEYARD TRACT, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 20 OF MAPS, PAGE 44, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. PARCEL 1: THE NORTH 30.00 FEET TO THE EAST 35.00 FEET OF SAID LOT 17. EXCEPT THEREFROM ANY PORTION PREVIOUSLY CONVEYED, RESERVED OR DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, OR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR ROAD PURPOSES. Exhibit "A" continued PARCEL 2: THE EAST 14.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 138.00 FEET OF SAlD LOT 17. EXCEPT THEREFROM ANY PORTION PREVIOUSLY CONVEYED, RESERVED OR DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, OR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR ROAD pLrRPOSES. PARCEL 3: A TRIANGULAR SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND, (BEING A 20.00 FOOT RADIUS CORNER RETURN) BOUNDED AS FOLLOWS: ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL NO. 1; ON THE EAST BY THE WEST LINE OF PARCEL NO. 2; ON THE SOUTHWEST BY THE ARC OF A CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; SAID CURVE BEING TANGENT TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL NO. 2. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF LOT 17 OF SUBDIVISION OF LOT 10 OF CUCAMONGA VINEYARD TRACT, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 20 OF MAPS, PAGE 44, RECORDS OF SAID COUlffYY, LYING EAST OF LIINrE "A" AND WEST OF LINE "B", SAID LINE, S BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LINE "A": BEGINnING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTH BOLTNDARY LINE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AS WIDENED A 100 FEET, DISTANT 600 FEET WESTERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE AND THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE OF VINEYARD AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 1° 52' WEST, 403.43 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26° 15' WEST, 244.97 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID 4400 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID 4400 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, 635.09 FEET FROM THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, SAID LINE "A" BEING THE EAST LhNE OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, A BODY POLITIC OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY DEED RECORDED MAY 27, 1944, IN BOOK 1682, PAGE 269 OFFICIAL RECORDS. LINE "B": COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF VINEYARD AVENUE; TI-I~NCE 'WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, 600 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED MAY 27, 1944 IN BOOK 1682, PAGE 269, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, 32 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 17 TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH V2 OF SAID LOT 17; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH ½ OF LOT 17, A DISTANCE OF 4 FEET, TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 17 TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 17. Exhibit "A" continued PARC~ C' PORTIONS OF THOSE PARTS OF LOT 17 OF SUBDIVISION OF LOT 10, CUCAMONGA VINEYARD TRACT, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 20 OF MAPS, PAGE 44, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENTS RECORDED IN BOOK 1682, PAGE 269, AND IN BOOK 2874, PAGE 447, BOTH OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID PORTIONS BEING ALL OF SAID PARTS LYING EASTERLY FROM THE EASTERLY LINE OF A . 60.00 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND, THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID STRIP DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTER LINE OF ARROW ROUTE HIGHWAY (60.00 FEET WIDE) DISTANT, ALONG SAID CENTER LINE, NORTH 89° 54' 36" WEST, 652.19 FEET FROM A ONE-INCH IRON PIPE MARKING THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE CENTER LINE OF VINEYARD AVENUE (60.00 FEET WIDE) AS SAID INTERSECTION IS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 35, PAGE 90, RECORDS OF SURVEY OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 12° 58' 07" WEST, 607.24; THENCE NORTHERLY 1210.23 FEET ALONG A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 4019.16 FEET AND CENTRAL ANGEL OF 17° 15' 10"; THENCE NORTH 4° 17' 08" EAST, 162.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINATION IN THE CENTER LINE OF FOOTHILL (100.00 FEET WIDE) SAID POINT BEING DISTANT, ALONG SAID CENTER LINE NORTH 89° 56' 35" WEST 249.33 FEET FROM A ONE-INCH IRON PIPE MARKING THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE CENTER LINE OF SAN DIEGO STREET (FORMERLY CARNELIAN STREET, 74.00 FEET WIDE) AS SAID INTERSECTION IS SHOW ON SAID MAP OF RECORD OF SURVEY, RECORDED IN BOOK 35, PAGE 90 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND. BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID 60.00 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND, SAID POINT BEING SOUTH 85° 42' 57" EAST, 60.00 FEET FROM A FOREDESCRIBED "POINT C"; THENCE NORTH 61° 22' 44" EAST, 40.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 20° 17' 03" EAST, 156.18 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF SAID FOOTI-BLL BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE, NORTH 89° 56' 35" WEST, 77.26 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID 60.00 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 4° 17' 03" WEST, 166.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described parcels are shown on sheet A-2 attached herewith and by this reference made a part hereof. ASsEsSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. i AND 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~oR'r~7 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~ Exhibit "B" continued Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2002/2003) For Project: CUP 95-25 Number of Lamps Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,$00L SLD # 1 ...... 7 SLD# 6 ............... Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA LMD # 3B ......... 45 *Existing items installed with original project Assessment Units by District Parcel Acres S 1 S 6 L 3B 1 8.90 17.8 8.90 8.90 Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2002/2003 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b (LMD #3b) represents landscape sites throughout the Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites that are maintained by this district consist of median islands, parkways, street trees, entry monuments, the landscaping within the Metrolink Station and 22.87 acres associated with the Adult Sports Park (not including the stadium, parking lots or the maintenance building). STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (SLD #1)) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. The facilities within this district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is assigned to the City-wide district. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (SLD #6) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on commercial and industrial streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally, this area encompasses the industrial area of the City south of Foothill Boulevard. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. This sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on industrial or commercial streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on industrial or commercial streets generally south of Foothill Boulevard. Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 200212003 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $352.80 for the fiscal year 2002/03. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (Commercial/Industrial): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Unit Tvoe Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Comm/Ind Acre 2115.92 1.0 2115.92 $352.80 $746,496.58 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (CUP 95-25) is: Parcel 1:8.90 Acres x I A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $3,139.92 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2002/03. 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 Twe l Inits Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 19,803 1.00 19,803 $17.77 $351,899.31 Family Multi- Unit 7,402 1.00 7,402 $17.77 $131,533.54 Family Commercial Acre 2,288.82 2.00 4,577.64 $17.77 $81,344.66 TOTAL $564,777.51 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (CUP 95-25) is: Parcel 1:8.90 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $316.31 Annual Assessment Exhibit "C" continued STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $51.40 for the Fiscal Year 2002/03. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial/Industrial): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Unit Tvoe Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Comm/Ind Acre 1,994.74 1.00 1,994.74 $51.40 $102,529.64 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (CUP 95-25) is: Parcel 1:8.90 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $457.46 Annual Assessment R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT $ Repor DATE: July 16, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT 16313, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD AND CHURCH STREET, SUBMITTED BY STANDARD PACIFIC CORPORATION - APN: 227-161-28, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38 AND 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, 25 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract No. 16313, accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tract 16313 (phased tract of Tentative Tract No. 15974), located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street, was approved by the Planning Commission on March 7, 2001, for the development of 555 single family lots. Tract No. 16313 allows for the construction of 48 single family residences. The Developer, Standard Pacific Corporation, is submitting an agreement and security · to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $418,800.00 Labor and Material Bond: $209,400.00 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRACT 16313 July 16, 2003 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, Wi)l~am J. O'Neil City I=ngineor WJO:JS:sc Attachments SO UTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 16313, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map 16313 (phased tract of Tentative Tract No. 15974), submitted by Standard Pacific Corporation and consisting of 48 single family homes located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on March 7, 2001, and is in Lompliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pursuant to that Act; and WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 16313 is the final map of a portion of the division of Land approved as shown on said Tentative Tract Map No. 15974; 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 Security by Standard Pacific Corporation, as developer; and WHEREAS, said Developer submits for approval said Tract Map offering for dedication, for street, highway and related purposes, the streets delineated thereon and the easements dedicated thereon for storm drain, sidewalk, street tree and landscape purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that the offers for dedication, easements and the final map delineating the same for said Tract Map No. 16313 is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT 16313 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. 2, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3 (referred to collectively as the "Maintenance Districts"); and WI-IEREAS, 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 heating 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 XII1D of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the Maintenance Districts on the territory proposed to be annexed to such districts; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the Maintenance Districts in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 1972 Act to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts; and RESOLUTION NO. TRACT 16313 July 16, 2003 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 proscribed 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 I: 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 in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B. SECTION 4: All future 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: STANDARD PACIFIC CORPORATION The legal description of the Property is: PARCELS 2 AND 6, OF PARCEL MAP 15641, AS PER MAP ON FIlJE 1N BOOK 192 PAGES 93 TO 100 OF PARCEL MAPS, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RECORDS. The above-described parcels are shown on sheet A-2 attached herewith and by this reference made a part hereof. Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2003/2004 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY): Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (LIVID #2) represents landscape sites throughout the Victoria Planned Community. These sites are associated with areas within Victoria and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that community. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that planned community. The sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, paseos, community trails and parks. The 32.37 acres of parks in Victoria consist of Kenyon Park, Victoria Groves Park, Vintage Park, Windrows Park and Ellena Park. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (SLD #1)) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. The facilities within this district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is assigned to the City-wide district. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. STREET LIGHT MAINrENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 (VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY): Street Light Maintenance District No. 3 (SLD #3) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located within the Victoria Planned Community. Generally, this area encompasses the area of the City east of Deer Creek Channel, south of Highland Avenue, north of Base Line Road, and west of Etiwanda Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. This sites maintained by the district consist of streetlights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the Victoria Planned Community. B-1 Exhibit "B" continued Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2003/2004) For Project: Tract 16313 Number of Lamps Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L SLD# 1 ............... SLD#3 18 ............ Community Trail Turf Non-Tuff Trees Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA LMD #2 --- 10,750 --- 96 *Existing items installed with original project B-2 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2003/2004 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $422.00 for the fiscal year 2003/04. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (Victoria Planned Community): # of Physical # of Rate Per Units Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Type Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 5060 1.00 5060 $422.00 $2,177,520.00 Family Multi- Parcel 124 1 i00 124 $422.00 $52,328.00 Family Comm/Ind. Acre 44.18 2.00 88.36 $422.00 $37,287.92 Vacant Acre 337.97 0.25 84.4925 $422.00 $35,655.84 TOTAL $2,302,791.76 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 16313) is: 48 Parcels x 1.0 A.U. Factor x $422.00 Rate Per A.U. = $20,256.00 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2003/04. 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 Tvoe Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 21,151 1.00 21,151 $17.77 $375,853.27 Family Multi- Unit 8,540 1.00 8,540 $17.77 $151,755.80 Family Commercial Acre 2,380.36 2.00 4,760.72 $17.77 $84,597.99 TOTAL $612,207.06 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 16313) is: 48 Acres x 1.0 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $852.96 Annual Assessment Exhibit "C" continued STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 (VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $47.15 for the fiscal year 2003/04. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 3 (Victoria Planned Community): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Unit Twe Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 5160 1.00 5160 $47.15 $243,294.00 Family Multi- Unit 124 1.00 124 $47.15 $5,846.60 Family Commercial Acre 44.18 2.00 88.36 $47.15 $4,166.17 Vacant 10.95 2.0 21.90 $47.15 $1,032.59 TOTAL $254,339.36 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (16313) is: 48 Parcels x 1.0 A.U. Factor x $47.15 Rate Per A.U. = $2,263.20 Annual Assessment c-2 7/ R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTHENT Staff Report DATE: July 16, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY.' Joe Stofa, Jr., Associate Engineer SUBJECT': APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT 16314, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD AND CHURCH STREET, SUBMITTED BY STANDARD PACIFIC CORPORATION - APN: 227-161-28, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38 AND 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, 25 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract No. 16314, accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tract 16314 (phased tract of Tentative Tract No. 15974), located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street, was approved by the Planning Commission on March 7, 2001, for the development of 555 single family lots. Tract No. 16314 allows for the construction of 42 single family residences. The Developer, Standard Pacific Corporation, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $476,300.00 Labor and Material Bond: $238,150.00 72. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRACT 16314 July 16, 2003 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:JS:sc Attachments RESOLVnON NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 16314, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map 16314 (phased tract of Tentative Tract No. 15974), submitted by Standard Pacific Corporation and consisting of 42 single family homes located at the northeast comer of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on March 7, 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. 16314 is the final map of a portion of the division of Land approved as shown on said Tentative Tract Map No. 15974; 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 Security by Standard Pacific Corporation, as developer; and WHEREAS, said Developer submits for approval said Tract Map offering for dedication, for street, highway and related purposes, the streets delineated thereon and the easements dedicated thereon for storm drain, sidewalk, street tree and landscape purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that the offers for dedication, easements and the final map delineating the same for said Tract Map No. 16314 is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. SOI VrxoN No. OE-/q 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT 16314 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. 2, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3 (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 heating 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 XII1D") 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 16314 July 16, 2003 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 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 in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B. SECTION 4: All future 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: STANDARD PACIFIC CORPORATION The legal description of the Property is: TRACT NO. 16314, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARCELS 2 AND 3, OF PARCEL MAP 15641, AS PER MAP ON FILE IN PARCEL MAP BOOK 192 PAGES 93 TO 100, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. The above-described parcels are shown on sheet A-2 attached herewith and by this reference made a part hereof. Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2003/2004 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY): Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (LMD g2) represents landscape sites throughout the Victoria Planned Community. These sites are associated with areas within Victoria and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that community. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that planned community. The sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, paseos, community trails and parks. The 32.37 acres of parks in Victoria consist of Kenyon Park, Victoria Groves Park, Vintage Park, Windrows Park and Ellena Park. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): Street Light Maintenance District No. I (SLD #1)) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. The facilities within this district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is assigned to the City-wide district. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 (VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY): Street Light Maintenance District No. 3 (SLD #3) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located within the Victoria Planned Community. Generally, this area encompasses the area of the City east of Deer Creek Channel, south of Highland Avenue, north of Base Line Road, and west of Etiwanda Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. This sites maintained by the district consist of streetlights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the Victoria Planned Community. Exhibit "B" continued Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2003/2004) For Project: Tract 16314 Number of Lamps Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L SLD#1 ............... SLD#3 17 ............ Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA LMD #2 --- 3930 --- 73 *Existing items installed with original project Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2003/2004 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY): Thc rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $422.00 for the fiscal year 2003/04. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (Victoria Planned Community): # of Physical # of Rate Per Units Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Type Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 5060 1.00 5060 $422.00 $2,177,520.00 Family Multi- Parcel 124 1.00 124 $422.00 $52,328.00 Family Comm/Ind. Acre 44.18 2.00 88.36 $422.00 $37,287.92 Vacant Acre 337.97 0.25 84.4925 $422.00 $35,655.84 TOTAL $2,302,791.76 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 16314) is: 42 Parcels x 1 A.U. Factor x $422.00 Rate Per A.U. = $17,724.00 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO, 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2003/04. 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 Tyne Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Family Parcel 21,151 1.00 21,151 $17.77 $375,853.27 Multi- Unit 8,540 1.00 8,540 $17.77 $151,755.80 Family Commercial Acre 2,380.36 2.00 4,760.72 $17.77 $84,597.99 TOTAL $612,207.06 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 16314) is: 42 Parcels x 1 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $746.34 Annual Assessment Exhibit "C" continued STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 (VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $47.15 for the fiscal year 2003/04. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 3 (Victoria Planned Community): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Unit Tvoe []nits Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Family Parcel 5160 1.00 5160 $47.15 $243,294.00 Multi- Unit 124 1.00 124 $47.15 $5,846.60 Family Commercial Acre 44.18 2.00 88.36 $47.15 $4,166.17 Vacant 10.95 2.0 21.90 $47.15 $1,032.59 TOTAL $254,339.36 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (16314) is: 42 Parcels x 1 A.U. Factor x $47.15 Rate Per A.U. = $1,980.30 Annual Assessment R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPART~IENT DATE: July 16, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Rene Guerrero, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES, MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 FOR TRACT NO. 16398, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND 7TM STREET, SUBMITTED BY W.F. CONSTRUCTION, INC. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract No. 16398, accepting the subject agreement and securities, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tentative Tract No. 16398, located at the northwest corner of Hellman Avenue and 7th Street, in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3), was approved by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2003, for the division of 8.96 acres into 12 parcels. The Developer, W.F. Construction, Inc., is submitting an agreement, securities a~ monumentation to guarantee the construction of the public improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $319,000.00 Labor and Material Bond: $159,500.00 Monumentation Cash Deposit: $ 3,000.00 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRACT 16398 July 16, 2003 Page 2 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. A letter of approval has been received from Cucamonga County Water District. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation forms signed by the Developer are on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, Willia[~'J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:RG:sc Attachments CITY OF rrEM: RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGiNE. E~ING DIVISION ~lT: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C1TY OF RANCHO CUCA1VIONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT NO. 16398, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map 16398, submitted by W.F. Construction, Inc., and consisting of a subdivision of 12 parcels on 8.96 acres, located at the northwest comer of Hellman Avenue and 7t~ Street, in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3), was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on M.~__arch 1-2;-2003, 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. 16398 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 and Monumentation Cash Deposit by W.F. Construction, Inc. as developer; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and Monumentation Cash Deposit submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and that said Tract Map No. 16398 is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAI.IFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR TRACT NO. 16398 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (referred to collectively as the "Maintenance Districts"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of 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 XIlID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the Maintenance Districts on the territory proposed to be annexed to such districts; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference have requested that such property (collectively, the 'qYerdtory") 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 Tenitory to the Maintenance Districts; and RESOLUTION NO. TRACT 16398 July 16, 2003 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 XIlID 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 amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B. SECTION 4: All future 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: WF CONSTRUCTION, INC., A CAI JFORNLA CORPORATION The legal description of the Property is: Real property in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, State of California, described as follows: Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Parcel Map 5325, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per plat recorded in Book 51 of Parcel Maps, page(s) 28 and 29, records of said county. The above-described parcels are shown on sheet A-2 attached herewith and by this reference made a part hereof. EXHIBIT ASsEsSMENT DIAGRA1VI LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. ! AND 6. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NORTH Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2002/2003 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b (LMD #3b) represents landscape sites throughout the Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites that are maintained by this district consist of median islands, parkways, street trees, entry monuments, the landscaping within the Metrolink Station and 22.87 acres associated with the Adult Sports Park (not including the stadium, parking lots or the maintenance building). STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (SLD #1)) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. The facilities within this district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is assigned to the City-wide district. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (SLD #6) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on commercial and industrial streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally, this area encompasses the industrial area of the City south of Foothill Boulevard. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. This sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on industrial or commercial streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on industrial or commercial streets generally south of Foothill Boulevard. Exhibit "B" continued Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2002/2003) For Project: Tract 16398 Number of Lamps Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L SLD# 1 --- 4 ......... SLD #'6 4 ............ Community Trail Turf Non-Tuff Trees Landscaping DGSF . SF SF EA LMD 3B ......... 55 *Existing items installed with original project Assessment Units by District Parcel Acres S 1 S 6 L 3B 1 0.943 1.886 0.943 0.943 2 0.704 1.408 0.704 0.704 3 0.747 ! .494 0.747 0.747 4 1.040 2.080 1.040 1.040 5 0.895 1.790 0.895 0.895 6 0.504 1.008 0.504 0.504 7 0.736 1.472 0.736 0.736 8 0.655 1.310 0.655 0.655 9 0.447 0.894 0.447 0.447 10 0.446 0.892 0.446 0.446 11 0.445 0.890 0.445 0.445 12 0.616 1.232 0.616 0.616 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2002/2003 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $352.80 for the fiscal year 2002/03. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (Commercial/industrial): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land I~e Unit Tyne l]'nit~ Ilnit~ Facrnr llnit~ Unit Revenue Comm/Ind Acre 2115.92 1.0 2115.92 $352.80 $746,496.58 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 16398) is: Lot 1: 0.943 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $332.69 Annual Assessment Lot 2: 0.704 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $248.37 Annual Assessment Lot 3: 0.747 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $263.54 Annual Assessment Lot 4: 1.04 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $366.91 Annual Assessment LOt 5: 0.895 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $315.76 Annual Assessment Lot 6: 0.504 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $177.81 Annual Assessment Lot 7: 0.736 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $259.66 Annual Assessment Lot 8: 0.655 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $231.08 Annual Assessment Lot 9: 0.447 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $157.70 Annual Assessment Lot 10: 0.446 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $157.35 Annual Assessment Lot 11: 0.445 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $157.00 Annual Assessment Lot 12:0.616 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $217.32 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2002/03. 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 1 ,and IT~e ITnit Tyne lTnit~ llnits Factor TTnil~ [~'nit Revenue Single Parcel 19,803 1.00 19,803 $17.77 $351,899.31 Family Multi- Unit 7,402 1.00 7,402 $17.77 $131,533.54 Family Commercial Acre 2,288.82 2.00 4,577.64 $17.77 $81,344.66 TOTAL $564,777.51 Exhibit "C" continued The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 16398) is: Lot 1: 0.943 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $33.51 Annual Assessment Lot 2: 0.704 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $25.02 Annual Assessment Lot 3: 0.747 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $26.55 Annual Assessment Lot4: 1.04 Acres x 2A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $36.96 Annual Assessment Lot 5: 0.895 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $31.81 Annual Assessment Lot 6: 0.504 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $17.91 Annual Assessment Lot 7: 0.736 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $26.16 Annual Assessment Lot 8: 0.655 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $23.28 Annual Assessment Lot 9: 0.447 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $15.89 Annual Assessment Lot 10:0.446 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $15.85 Annual Assessment Lot 11: 0.445 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $15.82 Annual Assessment Lot 12:0.616 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $21.89 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $51.40 for the Fiscal Year 2002/03. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial/Industrial): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment l.and llse lInit Tyne 1 lnit~ [lnil~ Factor t lnits llnit Revenne CommAnd Acm 1,994.74 1.00 1,994.74 $51.40 $102,529.64 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 16398) is: Lot 1: 0.943 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $48.47 Annual Assessment Lot 2: 0.704 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $36.19 Annual Assessment Lot3: 0.747Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $38.40 Annual Assessment Lot& 1.04 Acres x 1A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $53.46 Annual Assessment Lot 5: 0.895 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $46.00 Annual Assessment Lot 6: 0.504 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $25.91 Annual Assessment Lot 7: 0.736 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $37.83 Annual Assessment Lot 8: 0.655 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $33.67 Annual Assessment Lot 9: 0.447 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $22.98 Annual Assessment Lot 10: 0.446 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $22.92 Annual Assessment Lot 11: 0.445 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $22.87 Annual Assessment Lot 12:0.616 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $31.66 Annual Assessment R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A (~O M M U N 1 ~Y ~I~I~V1 CI~& $ R vor DATE: July 16, 2003 TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director BY: Nettle Nielsen, Recreation Supervisor(~ ~]~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REVISED STREET BANNER POLICY RECOMMENDATION The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that the City Council approve the revised Street Banner Policy. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City has two street banner locations, one on Base Line Road, just west of Haven Avenue, and one on Archibald Avenue, just north of Foothill Blvd. Each August, the Community Services Department screens applicants who wish to hang a street banner and brings an annual banner calendar to the Park and Recreation Commission for fudher consideration. The Commission's role is to review the applications and calendar in September and forward a final recommendation for banner approvals to the City Council in October. Banners approved in past years have been programs and events sponsored by the City, or officially supported by a City Department. Requests from outside organizations to hang a street banner have risen in recent years. Although these requests have not been approved, the language in the existing street banner policy needed refinement to better define what organizations and events are eligible. The result is the attached revised banner policy, which more clearly states the purpose of the street banner program to promote City sponsored events. There are a few events that are also officially supported by the City, including the Grape Harvest Festival, that City Council Request for approval of Revised Street Banner Policy July 16, 2003 have been granted banner approval in the past. Staff recommends continuing to honor those long-standing requests. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the policy at their June meeting, and is recommending approval by the City Council. Included with the policy are the banner application form and a list of banners recommended to be included in the application process. The Street Banner Policy addresses the eligibility criteria, application process and terms and conditions for hanging street banners. The Community Services Department has discussed with the Public Works Department the possibility of additional banner locations in the future. Resources do not now exist to support additional locations. The Public Works staff houses the banners at the City Corporation Yard, and hangs the banners each week. Kevin /IcArdle Comm .'~nity Services Director I:[COMMSERVtCouncil&BoardslCityCouncil~StaffReportst2.003[streetbanners7.16.03. doc CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET BANNERS POLICY POLICY NO.: 500-13 PAGE 1 OF 4 EFFECTIVE: September 18, 1991 REVISED: June 2003 APPROVED: PURPOSE To establish guidelines and criteria for the selection of City events for marketing through street banners and procedures for the display of street banners. STREET BANNER LOCATIONS Only two locations are approved for installation of a street banner: 1. Base Line Road, just west of the Haven Avenue intersection. 2. Amhibald Avenue, just north of the Foothill Blvd. Intersection. CRITERIA FOR STREET BANNER SELECTION Only street banners that are for events, programs or activities that are solely sponsored by the City of Rancho Cucamonga are eligible. This would include events and programs planned and implemented by any City department (example Fire Department, Police Department or Community Services Department). A limited number of event banners that have been approved as of the 2003 Calendar year and that have been officially supported by a City of Rancho Cucamonga department and that benefit the City will continue to be eligible to apply for banner space. Only those banners that have been approved in 2003 that are not City events are eligible under this provision. No new requests can be accepted for banners that are not solely City sponsored events. A list of the eligible banners is attached. MAXIMUM DURATION FOR STREET BANNER HANGING A street banner is limited to a maximum exposure time of two weeks per location per calendar year. Street Banner Approval Policy Page 2of 4 APPLICANT PROCEDURE: 1. Applicant must obtain City banner application from the Community Services Department. A copy of the banner application is attached to this policy. 2. Applicant must return the application to the Community Service Department before August 1st (~f each year. Banner applications must be accompanied by a sample of the banner that includes artwork and text proposed. 3. Only fully complete applications will advance to the approval process. APPROVAL PROCESS 1. Application must fulfill one of the criteria previously stated in this policy to be considered by the Park and Recreation Commission and City Council. Applications from groups, organizations or individuals for events or programs not sponsored by the City will not be considered. 2. If the criteria are met, the staff will add the banner request to the Street Banner Calendar. 3. If there are conflicting dates or locations requested, the staff will make recommendations to the applicants for possible open banner dates or switching of locations. 4. When the applications are reviewed and a banner calendar is created, they will be submitted, along with all other applications, to the Park and Recreation Commission. 5. The Commission will review all applications at their September Commission meeting and forward their recommendations to the City Council for final approval. 6. Final approval will occur at an October City Council meeting. 7. Applications for events which occur after the filing deadline (August 1) or after City Council approval (October) will be considered on a case-by- case basis for approval by City Administrative Staff. These requestors will be included in the notification process and required to meet the policy deadline for the next annual application cycle. 8. Once final approval has been obtained, Community Services Department staff will notify applicant on the status of their application. Street Banner Approval Policy Page 3 of 4 TERMS & CONDITIONS 1. No banner can be made or displayed in advance of final approval by the City Council or Administrative Staff. The City assumes no liability or costs for banners which applicant has made prior to final approval by the City Council or Administrative Staff. 2. Banners must meet the following requirements: Size: Banners are approximately 3 feet high by 30 feet long. Exact specifications will be sent to each approved applicant. Text: Is limited to event name, date, time and location of the event, logo, admission fee, slogan or message. Wording should be kept to a minimum so passersby can view quickly. Material: Be able to withstand elements for a two-week period of time. 3. Display of a banner will not exceed two weeks. No banner will be allowed to fly after the event has passed unless the event is on a weekend and City crews are not scheduled until Monday. 4. The City will be responsible for the installation and removal of the banner. The City is not responsible for sign damage occurring during the installation, display and removal of the banner. 5. The City reserves the right to take down any banner that has become a hazard to the public. 6. The applicant is responsible to purchase the banner and to produce the banner according to the specifications provided. City assumes no liability and will not hang a banner not manufactured according to the provided specifications. 7. Applicants must deliver their banner to the City's Corporate Yard, 9153 Ninth Street, at least two (2) weeks prior to the scheduled installation date. Banners must be delivered and picked up during the business hours of Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 8. No changes in the approved banner message can be made once approved by the City Council or Administrative Staff. Street Banner Approval Policy Page 4 of 4 9. The City reserves the right to refuse installation of banners that do not meet the approved application. The applicant forfeits ail money and expenses incurred in such signage. 10. Banners can be reused annually if the signage is in good repair as determined by Community Services and Engineering Departments Staff. The applicant will still need to apply annually via the Banner Policy Procedure for banner display. I:\COMMSERV~ADMINISTRATION~Policies~olicies-ApprovedPolicies~bannerO3.doc City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department Street Banner Policy - June 2003 Attachment # 1 - Approved Banners from 2003 Calendar Year This list of banners represents programs or events officially supported by the City that have been approved in past years. These banners will continue to be eligible to apply for a banner location each year. No new organizations can be accepted at this time. Grape Harvest Festival Sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce Officially supported by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Redevelopment Agency Red Ribbon Week Sponsored by local school districts Officially supported by the Community Services Department Search and Rescue Annual Walk/Run Sponsored by San Bernardino County Search and Rescue Officially supported by City Police and Fire Departments Quakes Opening Day Sponsored by RC Quakes Officially supported by Community Services and Redevelopment Agency Quakes Spring/Summer Promotion Sponsored by RC Quakes Officially supported by Community Services and Redevelopment Agency Inland Empire Open Professional Golf Tournament Sponsored by Inland Empire Open Officially supported by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Redevelopment Agency Examples of City Sponsored Events eligible for a banner location: Library Telethon National Night Out Public Works Open House Fire Department Open House Concerts and Movies in the Park Spark of Love Toy Drive City Class Registration Fire Prevention Week Founders Day City of Rancho Cucamonga Communi~ Services Department STREET BANNER APPLICATION Organization: Department~ Contact Phone: E-mail: Address: City: State: Zip: BANNER INFORMATION Event/Program: Date of Event/Program: Brief description of event~ Requested Dates of Banner Display From: To: Location: [] Base Line [] Archibald [] Both Use space below or aU:ach copy of banner layout, artwork and text and colors used Applications will not be processed without proposed text and artwork I have received a copy, have read and understand, and agree to abide by the rules of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Street Banner Policy. I have been fully authorized by the above organization to submit this form and serve as the primary contact. I hereby hold harmless the City of Rancho Cucamonga, its officers, employees and agents from any and all liability for damages or loss or injury either to persons or property which may be sustained while this banner is posted. Signature: Date: Date Received Date heard by Commission Date Reviewed by Staff Recommended by Commission: ~1 Yes I~ No Staff Reviewer If no, why not recommended New applicant [] Yes [] No Date heard by Council New Banner [] Yes [] No Council Action: [] Approved I~1 Denied Dates Approved Location: Archibald Dates Approved Location: Base Line /6/ THE CITY OF I2ANCHO CUCAHONGA DATE: July 16, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Lori Shriver, Planning Aide SUBJECT: LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2003-00469 - THOMAS AND CHRISTINA PI'i-I'ENGER - A request to designate the Hogancamp family residence as a Historic Landmark, located at 9475 La Vine Street - APN: 0202-072-21. Related file: Mills Act Agreement DRC2003-00485. MILLS ACT APPLICATION DRC2003-00485 - THOMAS AND CHRISTINA PI'I-I'ENGER - A request to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce property tax on the Hogancamp House, currently applying for Historic Landmark Status, located at 9475 La Vine Street - APN: 0202-072-21. Related file: Landmark Designation DRC2003-00469. RECOMMENDATION: The Historic Preservation Commission unanimously recommends designation of the Hogancamp family residence as a Designated Local Landmark and approval of a Mills Act Agreement by adoption of the attached Resolution. BACKGROUND: The proposed designated landmark at 9475 La Vine Street was built approximately in 1925 by the construction company Jewitt and Blair. Only two families have resided on this property until 2003, when the Pittenger family purchased the residence. Prior to this point the Claytons and the Hogancamps owned the home. Both families were active in the Alta Loma community throughout the period they retained ownership of the home. The Hogancamp residence has remained in pristine condition, with no alterations in its history. The offset gabled pomh is a unique feature of the vernacular bungalow home, adding to its character and charm. ANALYSIS: The attached Historic Preservation Commission staff report provides a detailed analysis of the historical and cultural significance of the Hogancamp residence. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2003-00469 - PI']-rENGER MILLS ACT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00485 - PITTENGER July 16, 2003 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The project is categorically exempt under Section 15331 as a Class 31 exemption of the guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:LS:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 11, 2003 Draft Resolution of Approval for Landmark Designation DRC2003-00469 THE CITY OF l~k N Cll 0 CIJCAMONGA DATE: June 11,2003 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Lori Shriver, Planning Aide SUBJECT: LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2003-00469 - THOMAS AND CHRISTINA PITTENGER - A request to designate the Hogancamp family residence as a Historic Landmark, located at 9475 La Vine Street - APN: 0202-072-21. Related file: Mills Act Agreement DRC2003-00485. MILLS ACT APPLICATION DRC2003-00485 - THOMAS AND CHRISTINA PI']-I'ENGER ~ A request to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce property tax on the Hogancamp House, currently applying for Historic Landmark Status, located at 9475 La Vine Street - APN: 0202-072-21. Related file: Landmark Designation DRC2003-00469. BACKGROUND A. Historical Si.qnificance: The residence at 9475 La Vine Street was built in approximately 1925 by Jewitt and Blair Builders. The Clayton family purchased the home after Mr. Clayton and his son participated in its building through their employment with Jewitt and Blair. Bill Clayton also moved onto La Vine Street a few years after his parents. The Clayton family owned the home until 1931, when it was repossessed by Cucamonga Mortgage Company. The Mortgage Company rented the house to the Claytons from 1932 until 1935. The Claytons moved into another home in 1935, after which Charles "Ed" and Elsie Hogancamp purchased the home from the Mortgage Company. The Hogancamp's owned the home and property from 1935 until 2003. The Hogancamp family purchased the residence from Cucamonga Mortgage Company in 1935. The Hogancamps were active within the Alta Loma community, with Mr. Hogancamp being Postmaster of Alta Loma from 1933 to 1968 and Fire Chief from 1934 until 1965. He also helped build the original fire hall and was a charter member of the Alta Loma - Cucamonga Lions Club. Both Ed and Elsie were involved in a local card club from the early 1930's until the 1940's, which included Bill Clayton, the son of the original owners of the home, and other Alta Loma families such as the Aliens and the Billings. HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00469 AND DRC2003-00485-PI'I-I'ENGER June 11,2003 Page 2 B. Site Characteristics: The house sits on a 0.15-acre parcel, containing a small two-car garage and the house itself. The land use zoning of the site and the surrounding area is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwellings per acre). ANALYSIS A. General: This dwelling from the late 1920's is rectangular in shape with a front-gabled roofline. The one-story, wood-frame structure is covered with 3-inch lapped vinyl horizontal siding. Resting on a raised concrete foundation, it is roofed with composition shingles. The fa(;ade is arranged symmetrically; with the front door flanked by palladian- grouped windows each consisting of a 3/1 fixed window and two narrower 3/1 casement windows. The front porch suggests Craftsman detailing in its offset front-gable roof supported by wood square tapering columns resting on lapped-wood sided piers. Decorative attic vents of vertical slats grace the gables. The house is representative of vernacular bungalow architecture, with a touch of Craftsman design influence, evident in the architecture of the front pomh. The garage is built in a similar style, although it is constructed of brick and built on a solid concrete foundation. The date the garage was constructed is unknown. B. Landmark Designation: The subject site and structure certainly qualify for landmark designation based upon much of the criteria from the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, including such significant areas as; historical, cultural, architectural, neighborhood, and geographic setting. Details concerning these areas of significance are contained in the Facts for Findings section. The requested designation area includes the subject lot, residence, and garage (Exhibit "B"). C. Mills Act Aqreement: In accordance with City policy, the owner has requested a Mills Act Agreement. The Agreement Schedule List of Improvements has been drafted and reviewed and is attached for reference (Exhibit "C"). The concept of the Mills Act program is to provide an incentive for the property owner to protect and preserve the property by retaining its characteristics of historical significance. This intent is encouraged through the reduction of property taxes, thus enabling the property owner to reinvest the money saved from the reduced property tax on improvements. The properties that enter into the agreement are to be inspected by City staff on an annual basis to determine whether notable progress has been made in rehabilitating the property. Staff estimates the property tax savings to the owner could be as much as $1,860.00 annually. The exact amounts are dependent upon the County Assessor's property valuation, which is based on income potential and capitalization rate at the time of assessment. D. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt under Section 15331 as a Class 31 exemption of the guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00469 AND DRC2003-00485-PITTENGER June 11,2003 Page 3 FACTS FOR FINDING: A. Historical and Cultural Significance: Findin.q 1: The proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historical period, type, style, region or way of life. Fact/s: The property is an excellent example of the residences surrounding the original Alta Loma business district. Findin.q 2: The proposed landmark is an example of a type of building that was once common but is now rare. Fact/s: Vernacular bungalow was once a common architectural style, but few homes have remained in such pristine condition. Finding 3: The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. Fact/s: The structure is approximately 78 years old with no major alterations. Finding 4: The proposed landmark was connected with someone renowned or important or a local personality. Fact/s: Both the Clayton and Hogancamp families were instrumental in the evolution of the town of Alta Loma. Ed Hogancamp is an especially important local personality due to his extensive role as both Postmaster of Alta Loma and Alta Loma Fire Chief. B. Historic Architectural and Engineering Significance: Finding 1: The construction materials or engineering methods used in the proposed landmark are unusual, significant or uniquely effective. Fact/s: The offset gable front porch with wooden pillars is unique architecture. Findinq 2: The overall effect of the design of the proposed landmark is particularly beautiful, and its details and materials are beautiful or unusual. Fact/s: The house has retained its beauty, and the architecture of the front porch remains somewhat unusual. C. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: Findin.q 1: The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. Fact/s: The proposed landmark is one of the first residences built near the original business district of the town of Alta Loma. The residence contributes to the small-town feel of the homes along La Vine Street, part of historic Alta Loma. HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00469 AND DRC2003-00485-PI'I-I'ENGER June 11,2003 Page 4 CORRESPONDENCE: The Historic Landmark designation was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend approval of Landmark Designation DRC2003-00469 and Mills Act Agreement DRC2003-00485 to be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:LS:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Photographs of Residence Exhibit "C" - Agreement Schedule Draft Resolution of Approval for DRC2003-00469 Exhibit "A" La Vine Elementary School La Grande Lomita S 9475 La Vine- Exhibit "B" East Entrance South Elevation West Elevation Porch R A N C H O C U C A M O N G a I~ISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MIll S ACTAGRFFMENrSUPPI ~~ Potential Structure/Property Improvement Time-Line Please list the improvements that are intended to take place over the next 10 years. List them in order of owner's priority. YEAR IMPROVEMENT 2003 Restore ceilings to odginal finish 2004 Remove 1960's light fixtures 2005 Restore (sand/refinish) hardwood floors 2006-2007 Remove vinyl siding, restore wood siding 2008-2009 Paint with historically appropriate colors 2010 Add trees to landscape (front, rear, and side yards) 2011 Add historically appropriate fence on east and west sides 2012 Add river rock detail to mail box Owner Certification I certify that I am presently the legal owner of the subject property. Further, I acknowledg3e the supplemental information on this form will be used as an exhibit attached to the Mills Act Agreement. Date: ~ O~,)'~--~ Signature ,/~'~_ ~/~/~~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DRC2003-00469 TO DESIGNATE THE HOGANCAMP RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 9475 LA VINE, AS A LANDMARK - APN: 0202-072-21. A. Recitals. 1. Christina Pittenger has filed an application for Landmark Designation DRC2003-00469 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark is referred to as "the application." 2. On June 11, 2003, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public healing on the application and recommended approval 3. On July 16, 2003, the City Council held their meeting and approved Landmark Designation DRC2003-00469. 4. All legal prerequisites 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. The application applies to approximately 0.15 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, located at 9475 La Vine Street. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council, including minutes of the public hearing by the Historic Preservation Commission on June 11,003, written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, this Council hereby makes the following findings and facts: a. Historical and Cultural Siqnificance: Findinq 1: The proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. Fact/s: The property is an excellent example of the residences surrounding the original Alta Loma business district. Findinq 2: The proposed landmark is an example of a type of building that was once common but is now rare. Fact/s: Vernacular bungalow was once a common architect.ural style, but few homes have remained in such pristine condition. Findinq 3: The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. Fact/s: The structure is approximately 78 years old with no major alterations. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2003-00469 - PITTENGER (HOGANCAMP HOUSE) July 16, 2003 Page 2 Finding 4: The proposed landmark was connected with someone renowned or important or a local personality. Fact/s: Both the Clayton and Hogancamp families were instrumental in the evolution of the town of Alta Loma. Ed Hogancamp is an especially important local personality due to his extensive role as both Postmaster of Alta Loma and Alta Loma Fire Chief. b. Historic Architectural and Enqineerinq Significance. Findin.q 1: The overall effect of the design of the proposed landmark is beautiful or its details and materials are beautiful or unusual. Fact/s: The house has retained its beauty, and the architecture of the front porch remains somewhat unusual. c. Neighborhood and Geographic Settinq. Findinq 1: The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. Fact/s: The proposed landmark is one of the first residences built near the original business district of the town of Alta Loma. The residence contributes to the small-town feel of the homes along La Vine Street, part of historic Alta Loma. 4. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, as Landmark Designations are exempt under CEQA, section 15331 as a Class 31 exemption (historical resource/restoration/rehabilitation). 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby resolves that pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves Landmark Designation DRC2003-00469. 6. The Mayor shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DE PART,lENT Staff Report DATE: July16, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Robert Lemon, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: Authorize the execution of an Electric Power and Sales Service Agreement with Forest City Development to detail the rates and terms of service for all Forest City owned property within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan area RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council authorize the execution of an Electric Power and Sales Service Agreement with Forest City Development to detail the rates and terms of service for all Forest City owned property within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan area. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On April 16, 2003 the City Council authorized the execution of a Line Extension Agreement with Forest City Development to provide for the installation of electric distribution facilities and to deliver electricity to the Victoria Gardens Mall site bounded by Foothill Boulevard, the future extension of Chumh Street, the future Day Creek Boulevard, and the 1-15 Freeway. At this time the Council also authorized the execution of a Binding Memorandum of Understanding with Forest City Development to detail the rates and terms of service for all Forest City owned property within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan area. The Binding Memorandum of Understanding served as a complement to the Line Extension Agreement and identified the electric service rates and terms of service for all property to be developed by Forest City within the Victoria Arbors area. The rates identified are tied to those established by the Public Utilities Commission for Southern California Edison and the . City commits to establish equitable rates that will not exceed Edison's rates for the life of Electric Service Agreement. This is consistent with the guiding principle that has served as a foundation for the Municipal Utility Project and is factored in the financial model developed for the project. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT POWER SALES AND SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT JULY 16, 2003 PAGE 2 This Binding Memorandum of Understanding was to function as an interim agreement that established a basic framework while the City and Forest City completed negotiating all the details of the terms of power service and memorialized such in the drafting of a Power Sates and Service Agreement. This process has now been completed and the Power Sales and Service Agreement that will supercede the previously approved Memorandum of Understanding is now present for council's consideration. It is recommended the City Council authorize the execution of an Electric Power and Sales Service Agreement with Forest City Development to detail the rates and terms of service for all Forest City owned property within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan area. Respectfully submitted, J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:RL //? R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A E NGIN EI~I~ING DEDAI~TI~ENT Staff Report DATE: July 16, 2003 TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Technician -/~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE BIDS RECEIVED AND AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,644,119.85 TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, SULLY-MILLER CONTRACTING COMPANY, AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF A 10% CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $864,411.99, FOR THE PHASE lB OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2001- 01 AND PHASE 3A OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01, TO BE FUNDED FROM PARK DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 11203055650/1207120-0 AND APPROPRIATE $9,508,531.84 (CONTRACT AWARD OF $8,644,119.85 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY EQUAL TO $864,411.99) TO ACCOUNT NO. 16123035650/1442612-0 FROM COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FUND BALANCE 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 $8,644,119.85 to the apparent Iow bidder, Sully-Miller Contracting Company, and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $864,411.99, for the Phase lB of Community Facilities District 2001-01 and Phase 3A of Community Facilities District 2003-01, to be funded from Community Facilities District funds, Account No. 16123035650/1442612-0 and appropriate $9,508,531.84 (contract award of $8,644,119.85 plus 10% contingency equal to $864,411.99) to Account No. 16123035650/1442612- 0 from Community Facilities District fund balance. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on July 1, 2003, for the subject project. The Engineer's estimate was $10,389,021.90. This contract represents construction of the second phase of a multi-phased project to install various public improvements within the Victoria Gardens sphere. The project area extends from Base Line Road on the north to south of Foothill Boulevard on the south. The whole of these improvements will provide for the traffic circulation to Victoria Gardens as well as providing drainage facilities, which protect as well as drain the total area. The project will also install sewer, water and landscaping to the area. The CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PHASE lB AND 3A OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT July 16, 2003 Page 2 construction of all the public facilities within the overall project began last summer and will continue well into next spring. 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. Respectfully submitted, Willia,_~ J. O'Neir City Engineer WJO:WS/RO:Is Attachment VICINITY MAP COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO..2001-01 EXHIBIT A R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEDART~IENT Staff Report DATE: July 16, 2003 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, Project Manager~. 3~-~ SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND OTHER PERTINENT DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) GRANT PROJECT FOR SIGNAL TIMING AND SYNCHRONIZATION ALONG BASE LINE ROAD/16TM STREET FROM BENSON AVENUE IN THE CITY OF UPLAND TO ETIWANDA AVENUE IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THAT INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT SYSTEM ALONG BASE LINE ROAD FROM ALTA CUESTA TO ETIWANDA AVENUE (FEDERAL AID PROJECT CML- 5420(009) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve a Resolution authorizing the City Engineer to execute the Agreement and other pertinent documents for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Grant Project for Signal Timing and Synchronization along Base Line Road/16th Street from Benson Avenue in the City of Upland to Etiwanda Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga that includes the Construction of Traffic Signal Interconnect System along Base Line Road from Alta Cuesta to Etiwanda Avenue (Federal Aid Project CML- 5420(009) BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The coordination system for the traffic signals along Base Line Road needs to be improved to optimize traffic flow and to reduce stops and delay. The existing coordination system utilizes time-based internal clocks that can sometimes drift and throw off intersection-to- intersection synchronization. This project will construct a fiber optic synchronization system CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT FOR BASE LINE ROAD FROM ALTA CUESTA TO ETIWANDA AVENUE (FEDERAL AID PROJECT CML-5420(009) July 16, 2003 Page 2 to intemonnect the traffic signals along Base Line Road. This will allow for system monitoring, adjustment and optimization of signal timing from City Hall. In addition to the signal interconnect system; a conduit for the future City owned fiber optic system and a conduit for Charter Cable will be installed in the same trench. This will minimize future trenching and roadway interruptions on Base Line Road. Funding for this work is provided from a CMAQ grant, Indian Congestion Relief funds, City fiber optic system funds and Charter Cable. Caltrans issued a categorical exclusion environmental clearance for the project on February 28, 2002. In order to use CM^Q grant funds, the City Engineer must be authorized to execute the grant agreement and other pertinent documents. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:JTH Attachments: Vicinity Map and Resolution RESOLUTION NO. ~,~' 2, ~)/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND OTHER PERTINENT DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) GRANT PROJECT FOR SIGNAL TIMING AND SYNCHRONIZATION ALONG BASE LINE ROAD/16TM STREET FROM BENSON AVENUE IN THE CITY OF UPLAND TO ETIWANDA AVENUE IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THAT iNCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT SYSTEM ALONG BASE LINE ROAD FROM ALTA CUESTA TO ETIWANDA AVENUE (FEDERAL AID PROJECT CML-5420(009) WHEREAS, the United States Congress enacted the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1997, which re-authorized funding for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) improvement projects; and WHEREAS, the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), being the Regional Transportation Planning Agency having discretion over the allocation of funds initiated a call for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) improvements projects; and WHEREAS, SANBAG has established the procedures and criteria for reviewing grant application proposals for use in determining eligibility and priority; and WHEREAS, said 3rocedures and criteria established by SANBAG, in conjunction with Caltrans, require a resolution certifying the approval authorizing the City Engineer to execute the grant agreement and other pertinent documents by the applicant's governing body; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into an agreement with SANBAG to complete the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) improvement project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA: 1. Approves the authorization of the City Engineer to execute the agreement and other pertinent documents for grant assistance from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) improvement program for the development of new signal timing to coordinate 26 traffic signals on Base Line Road from Benson Avenue in the City of Upland to Etiwanda Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2. Supports the Base Line Road Signal Timing and Coordination Project. 3. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this resolution. /2.$ RESOLUTION NO. July 16, 2003 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16"' day of July, 2003. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: 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 Ci,t), of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 16"' day of July, 2003. Executed this 17~ day of July, 2003, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk BAI~tAN BASE UNE l'roJect Location ~ Signalized Intersection 0 Futura Central Park Traffic Signal Interconnect System for Base Line Road R ^ N C H O C U C A M O N GA L NG1 N E EI~I N G L) E PAI~ Ti~I E NT Staff Report DATE: July 16, 2003 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 SUBJECI': ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 96-26, SUBMITTED BY N & L NILAR CORPORATION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ASPEN AND LAUREL STREETS RECOMMENDATION: The required improvements for CUP 96-26 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As a condition of approval of completion of CUP 96-26, located on the northeast corner of Aspen and Laurel Streets, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. The improvements have been completed and it is recommended that the City Council release the existing Faithful Performance Bond. Developer: N & L Nilar Corporation 7726 Meadow Crest Court Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Release: Faithful Performance Bond SD00078216 Res~ully submitted, Wi~N ei~/'~,~--~r City Engineer WJO/LRB:Is RESOLUTION NO. ~),,.~",~" A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 96-26 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for CUP 96-26, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ]~ NG IN E I~1~1 ~ G D E PA 1~ Tl~l E N T Staff Report DATE: July 16, 2003 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': ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BONDS AND FILE NOTICES OF COMPLETION FOR CUP 97-15, SUBMR-rED BY DEER CREEK CAR WASH; CUP 96-27, SUBMITTED BY TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING, INCORPORATED; CUP 96-32, SUBMITTED BY AUTONATION USA; DR 00-05, SUBMITTED BY CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; CUP 99- 08, SUBMITTED BY RANCHO CUCAMONGA RETIREMENT, LOCATED AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to accept and release the Faithful Performance Bonds and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion on the subject projects located at various locations in the City and submitted by various Developers. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Inspection has found the projects are free from defects in materials and workmanship. It has been more then 2 years since the projects were completed. It is appropriate to release the Faithful Performance Bonds and file a Notice of Completion. Respectfully submitted, City Engineer WJO:LRB:Is Attachments RESOLUTION NO. ~..~' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 97-15, CUP 96-27, CUP 96- 32, DR 00-05, AND CUP 99-08 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for CUP 97-15, CUP 96-27, CUP 96-32, DR 00-05, AND CUP 99-08, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. R A N C H O C U CA M O N G A ~ NGIN E I~1~ I N G D E PAI~TI~ E N T StaffR l ort DATE: July 16, 2003 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 SUBJEC'F: ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 99-25, SUBMITTED BY WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: The required improvements for CUP 99-25 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Pedormance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As a condition of approval of completion of CUP 99-25, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Milliken Avenue, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. The improvements have been completed and it is recommended that the City Council release the existing Faithful Performance Bond. Developer: Western Land Properties 1156 W. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 Release: Faithful Performance Bond 816462S $53,200 Respectfully submitted, Williaffr'O. O'Neil City Engineer RESOLUTION NO. ~5"~'~¢ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 99-25 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for CUP 99-25, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. THE CITY OF i~AN C ll O CUCA~ONGA Memorandum DATE: July 16, 2003 TO: Jack Lam, AICP, City Manag?/rr ~ FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Enginee~ ~1~' SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - E. ~19~- Consent Calendar E. 19 RELEASE ALL BONDS, FOR TRACT 13316, FROM FRIEDMAN HOMES, INCORPORATED, BARRATTAMERICAN, INCORPORATED, HAS REPLACED THE BONDS UNDER DR 98-10. DR 98-101S LOCATED ON ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND CARRARISTREET- Please remove E. 19 from the City Council Agenda. This will come back,at a later date. WJO:dlw R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A 1~ NC- IN E EI~IN C L~E PA 1~ TM~ N T Staff Report DATE: July 16, 2003 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 ALL BONDS, FOR TRACT 13316, FROM FRIEDMAN HOMES, INCORPORATED, BARRATT AMERICAN, INCORPORATED, HAS REPLACED THE BONDS UNDER DR 98-10. DR 98-10 IS LOCATED ON ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND CARRARI STREET RECOMMENDATION: Barratt American replaced bonds required for improvements for Tract 13316 on July 19, 2000. The Friedman bonds can be released at this time, and it is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release all Bonds from Friedman Homes. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As a condition of approval of completion of Tract 13316, located on the Archibald Avenue and Carrad Street, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. Barratt American Incorporated has replaced the bonds from Fdedman Homes. :- Developer: Friedman Homes, Incorporated 10807 Laurel Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Release: Faithful Performance Street Improvements 995232S $2,100,000 Faithful Performance Drainage Improvements 995230S $1,300,000 Faithful Performance Utility Undergrounding 995231S $ 435,000 Faithful Performance Landscaping 995229S $ 380,000 Res~q~ully submitted, Will~a~ J. O Nell City Engineer WJO/LRB:Is R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A II~ N C1 N l~]~I~l N G DI~ PAINT 5f ~ N T Staff Report DA~E: July 16, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Betty Miller, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 00-28, SUBMI'I-DED CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND ARROW ROUTE RECOMMENDATION: The required improvements for DR 00-28 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Pedormance Bond and accept a Maintenance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As a condition of approval of completion of DR 00-28, located on the Northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. The improvements have been completed and it is recommended that the City Council release the existing Faithful Performance Bond and accept the Maintenance Bond. Developer: Catellus Development Corporation 4000 Westerly Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 Release: Faithful Performance Bond 400SU7178 $ 213,100.00 Accept: Maintenance Bond 400SU7178 $ 21,310.00 Re~ec, tfully submitted, Wil~ O'~l'eil City Engineer WJO:BAM:dlw ~._ - ,[ I _F-i_"~I'~_ 1"~"% ..... L ~J,___L~I__I _L~ ~ ~ . P~5 CITY OF ~NCHO CUCAMONGA ~eM: DR 00-28 ENG~EE~G DIVISION TITLE: Vicinity M~ RESOLUTION NO. ~$"~ ~ ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 00-28 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for DR 00-28, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bemardino County. R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A S ffRe rt DATE: July 16, 2003 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: ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND AND LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 00-46, SUBMITTED BY WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ASPEN AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: The required improvements for DR 00-46 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond and the Labor and Material Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As a condition of approval of completion of DR 00-46, located on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Aspen Avenue, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. The improvements have been completed and it is recommended that the City Council release the existing Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Material Bond. Developer: Developer: Western Land Properties 1156 North Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 Respectfully submitted, Willia J~. O'Nei~ City Engineer ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ]~NG~G DIVI~ON TITL~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. ~)~'" ,~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 00-46 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for DR 00-46, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ~ N G I N ~ ~l~lN G DE PAI~ TM ~ N T StaffRe rt DATE: July 16, 2003 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 OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BONDS, FOR TRACT 9441 SUBMITTED BY CRISMAR DEVELOPMENT, TRACT 10569 SUBMITTED BY WILLIAM LYON COMPANY, TRACT 10762 SUBMITTED BY ACACIA CONSTRUCTION, INC., TRACT 11696 SUBMITTED BY VANGUARD VENTURES, INC. AND TRACT 11934 SUBMITTED BY WILLIAM LYON COMPANY, CUP 99-15 AND CUP 99-04 SUBMITTED BY CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LOCATED AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bonds of the subject projects, located at various locations in the City and submitted by various Developers. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The subject projects are free from defects in materials and workmanship. It has been more then 1 year since the tracts were accepted and the Faithful Performance Bonds released. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB:Is Attachments R A N C H O C U C A M O N GA l~ N Gl N I~E DIN C. D ~ I) AD T HI~ N T StaffRepor DALE: July 16, 2003 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 OF FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BONDS RETAINED AS MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BONDS, FOR TRACT 12462, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SUMMIT, EAST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY LAUREN DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bonds retained as Maintenance Guarantee Bonds, for Tract 12462, located on the south side of Summit, east of Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by Lauren Development. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Release: Faithful Performance 121205S $11,600.00 Faithful Performance 121204S $67,000.00 Faithful Performance 121206S $14,000.00 Developer: Lauren Development 5889 Kanan Road, Suite 356 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 R?p~c_ffully submitted, City Engineer WJO:LRB:Is Attachment ORDINANCE NO. 712 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 8.19.051 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Chapter 8.19 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new Section 8.19.051 to read, in words and figures, as follows: "8.19.051 Unlawful collection containers. Subject to the authorizations and exceptions under Section 8.19.050, it shall be unlawful for any person to place or leave standing a container on any public or private property within the City for the purpose of collection and disposal of garbage, refuse, solid waste, or rubbish. Collection containers unlawfully placed within the City are considered a public nuisance and shall be subject to removal pursuant to the process identified below and enforcement as stipulated in Section 1.12.030. The City Manager may cause the posting of a Notice to Remove, as described be[ow, in a conspicuous place on any collection container placed on any public or private property within the City in violation'of this section. A Notice to Remove posted pursuant to the provisions of this section shall specify the nature of the violation and shall state that the collection container must be removed within twenty-four (24) hours or it may be removed and stored by the City, and the contents disposed of, at the expense of the solid waste container's owner thereof. The posting of a Notice to Remove shall constitute constructive notice to the owner and user of the requirement to remove the collection container. If the collection container is not removed within twenty-four (24) hours after the Notice to Remove is posted, the City Manager may direct the removal and storage of the collection container and the disposal of its contents. The owner of the collection container shall be liable to reimburse the City for the actual costs of removal and storage of the collection container, for disposal of its contents, for the cost of posting the notice, and for any administrative fees that would be owed to the City. All amounts due the City must be paid before the collection container may be returned to the owner. Such amounts shall constitute a civil debt owed by the owner of the collection container to the City, and the owner shall be liable for any legal costs and fees resulting from any action brought by the City for the recovery of such amounts. Failure to respond to the Notice to Remove is a misdemeanor and punishable by fine and/or imprisonment as identified in section 1.12.030 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Ordinance No. 712 Page 2 of 3 After the City has removed a collection container, the City Manager shall promptly cause notice to be mailed by certified mail to the owner to claim the stored property. If the collection container is not claimed and all due fees and costs paid within fifteen (15) days after certified notification to the owner, the collection container and its contents shall be deemed abandoned property and may be disposed of accordingly. If the contents of the collection container include the presence of biodegradable wastes, hazardous constituents, or other environmental or sanitary threats, the City Manager may order the immediate appropriate disposition of the contents so as to protect the public's health and safety, and the container's owner shall be liable for the costs and fees of disposal, if the owner of the unlawfully placed container is unknown and no party responds to the Notice to Remove, the City Manager shall deem the container and its contents as abandoned property and dispose of it accordingly. After a collection container has once been removed by the City pursuant to a Notice to Remove, the owner thereof shall be deemed to have actual notice of the provisions of this section, including the prohibition of placement of collection containers by any person other than those authorized or exempted under this section. In the event of a subsequent placement of a collection container owned by the same owner, the City Manager may immediately, without the posting of the Notice of Removal, direct the removal and storage of the unlawfully placed collection container and shall, in such case, give notice to the owner to claim the collection container." SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 4: The City Council declares that should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or words of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in the The Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. '[HE CiTY OF I~AN CliO CIJCAMONGA S'mf:f Report DATE: July 16, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Debra Meier, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00254 - JPI WESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT, L.P. - A proposed amendment to Section 2.5.5.6 of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan, and Table 111-9, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan to increase the allowable number of multi-family residential units from 1,388 to 1,887 - APN: 0210-082-47. Related File: Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00255. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified in June 1994. The addendum is being prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00255 JPI WESTOOAST DEVELOPMENT, L.P. - A request to modify the permitted land uses allowed within Subarea 18 Planning Area VII to allow High Density residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and 4th Street -APN: 0210-082-47. Related File: General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00254. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified in June 1994. The addendum is being prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report and the approval of both the amendment to the City General Plan DRC2003-000254 and to the Subarea 18 Specific Plan DRC2003-00255 by adoption of the attached Ordinances. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission staff report dated June 11, 2003, provides a detailed analysis of the proposed Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments. JPI Westcoast Development has requested an amendment to the Subarea 18 Specific Plan in order to add multi-family residential as a permitted use within the Mixed Use Land Use designation for Planning Area VII of the Specific Plan; and a General Plan Amendment that includes a modification to Table 111-9 of the General Plan to indicate the modified allocation of residential uses. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT JPI WESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT, L.P. - DRC2003-00254 AND DRC2003-00255 July 16, 2002 Page 2 The Subarea 18 Specific Plan has previously been amended to allow multi-family residential development as a permitted use in Subareas VI, VIII, and IX, for a total of 1,352 dwelling units. The proposed amendment, which would permit multi-family residential development as a permitted use in Subarea VII, would increase the total number of dwelling units within the Specific Plan area to 1,887. The General Plan Amendment specifically pertains to Section 2.5.5.6 "Special Planning Direction for Mixed-Use Areas/Industrial Area 18 Specific Plan" Table 111-9, where the pementage of commercial/industrial and residential land uses anticipated in the Specific Plan will be an amendment to reflect the proposed modifications. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A. The Subarea 18 Specific Plan was approved in conjunction with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and the Mixed Use Land Use concept was also addressed in the General Plan Update and EIR adopted in 2001. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that once a Master EIR has been certified, no further EIR or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects within the scope of the Master EIR. However, Planning Area VII of the Specific Plan will be amended to include multi-family residential as an allowed use, and an addendum to the previously certified EIR was prepared to address the issue of incorporating residential development into the Planning Area. The Addendum to the previously certified Rancho Cucamonga Subarea 18 Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 93102055), to the previously certified City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, and to the previously certified Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Final EIR, is the appropriate documentation because some changes and additions are necessary to allow for multi-family residential uses as a permitted use within the Mixed-Use land use designation of Planning Area VII within the Subarea 18 Specific Plan. The addendum identified that there are no substantial changes in the project that require major revisions to the previous EIR. The appropriate findings of the addendum are included in the attached Ordinances. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:DM~ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 11, 2003 Draft Ordinance Approving General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00254 Draft Ordinance Approving Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00255 THE CITY OF I~AN CliO CtICAHONGA S'ot f Report DATE: June 11,2003 T~. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Debra Meier, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00254 - JPI WESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT, L.P. - A proposed amendment to Section 2.5.5.6 of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan, and Table 111-9, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan to increase the allowable number of multi-family residential units from 1,388 to 1,887 - APN: 0210-082-47. Related File: Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00255. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified in June 1994. The addendum is being prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00255 - JPI WESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT, L.P. - A request to modify the permitted land uses allowed within Subarea 18 Planning Area VII to allow High Density residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Fourth Street - APN: 0210-082-47. Related File: General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00254. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified in June 1994. The addendum is being prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Zoninq: Project Site - Planning Area VII of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan - Mixed-Use CommemiaVIndustrial North Planning VIII of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan - Mixed-Use Residential/Senior Housing and Office South City of Ontario - Ontario Center/Commercial East Industrial District Subarea 12 - Industrial Park West Planning Area VI of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan - Mixed-Use Multiple Family Residential PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00254 & DRC2003-00255 -JPIWESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT, L.P. June 11,2003 Page 2 B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Mixed Use North Mixed Use South City of Ontario - Commercial East Industrial Park West Mixed Use C. Surroundinq Land Use and Site Characteristics: The project site is located at the southeast corner of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and 4th Street. The site contains an abandoned vineyard, and a City of Ontario well site is located along Milliken Avenue north of 4th Street. North Existing office building South City of Ontario - Kohl's Department Store East Existing office buildings and vacant land within the master planned Bixby Business Park West Existing Medium-High density residential apartment development referred to as Ironwood and Fairway Palms Apartments ANALYSIS: A. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan to add multi-family residential as a permitted use within the Mixed Use Land Use designation for Specific Plan Planning Area VII and a General Plan Amendment that includes a modification to Table 111-9 of the General Plan to indicate the modified allocation of residential uses. Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment: The Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan was approved for the General Dynamics properties in June 1994. The Specific Plan addressed the re-use of over 1,000,000 square feet of existing office space and the future development of 300 acres of adjacent undeveloped land. The intent of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan was to create a unique master planned project that integrated a broader mix of uses in this area, including office, light industrial, hotel/conference, retail, 'restaurant, entertainment, multiple-family residential, and research and development uses around a championship golf course. The Specific Plan has been amended three times since the original approval in 1994: in November 2000, the City Council approved an amendment to add multi-family residential development as a permitted use in the Mixed-Use Planning Area IX; in May 2001, the City Council approved an amendment to add multi-family residential development as a permitted use in Mixed-Use Planning Area VI; and in September 2002, the City Council approved an amendment to add market rate senior housing as a permitted use in Mixed-Use Planning Area VIII. These amendments equated to a total of 1,352 dwelling units. Planning Area VII consists of 24 acres, and currently the Specific Plan allows for approximately 730,000 square feet of building space for mixed commercial uses such as retail, restaurant, bankJng, and office uses. The proposed Specific Plan amendment would add multi-family residential as a permitted use in the planning area, utilizing up to PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00254 & DRC2003-00255 -JPIWESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT, L.P. June 11,2003 Page 3 20 of the 24 acres within the planning area, and allow up to 499 dwelling units at a density of 24-30 dwelling units per acre. Planning Area VII also includes a minimum of 4 acres of mixed-use commercial development. General Plan Amendment: The General Plan Amendment involves Section 2.5.5.6 which pertains to 'Special Planning Direction for Mixed-Use Areas?Industrial Area Subarea 18 Specific Plan, Table 111-9. The percentages of multi-family residential and commemial/industrial land uses represented in Table 111-9 will be amended to be consistent with the modifications of the Specific Plan. B. Environmental Assessment: The Subarea 18 Specific Plan was approved in conjunction with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and the Mixed Use Land Use concept was also addressed in the General Plan Update and EIR adopted in 2001. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that once a Master EIR has been certified, no further EIR or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects within the scope of the Master EIR. However, Planning Area VII of the Specific Plan will be amended to include multi-family residential as an allowed use, and an addendum to the previously certified EIR was prepared to address the issue of incorporating residential development into the Planning Area. In summary, the addendum analyzes the differences between the land uses that were previously approved by the City for the Subarea 18 Specific Plan and the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, and the currently proposed land uses for Planning Area VII. The proposed residential development will have less environmental impact than other mixed uses, such as industrial, office or commercial; and the residential land use would result in a reduction in the generation of vehicular traffic when compared to the existing approved land uses for the Planning Area. The amendment to the Subarea 18 Specific Plan has been prepared in conjunction with an addendum to the previously certified Rancho Cucamonga Subarea 18 Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 93102055). An a to the previously certified City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and the previously certified Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Final EIR is the appropriate documentation because some changes and additions are necessary to allow for multiple family residential uses as a permitted use within the Mixed-Use land use designation of Planning Area VII within the Subarea 18 Specific Plan. The addendum identified that there are no substantial changes in the project that require major revisions to the previous EIR. The appropriate findings of the addendum are included in the attached Resolution of Approval. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00254 & DRC2003-00255 -JPIWESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT, L.P. June 11, 2003 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00254 and the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00255, through adoption of the attached Resolutions recommending approval by the City Council, and to consider that the addendum is within the scope of the certified Master EIR for the project. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:DM'.mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's letter of justification dated May 6, 2003 Exhibit "B"- Proposed amendment to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Exhibit "C" - Letter of support from Meadows Realty Company dated May 5, 2003 Exhibit "D" - Letter of support from Richard Dick & Associates dated May 5, 2003 Exhibit "E"- Addendum to City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final EIR and Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Final EIR (provided under separate cover) Exhibit"F"-Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan (provided under separate cover) Draft Resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00254 Draft Resolution recommending approval of Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00255 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA o8 2003 May 6, 2003 RECEIVED - PLANNING Ms. Heidi Mather ' Regional Development Manager JPI Westcoast Development, L.P. 8910 University Center Lane, Suite 150 San Diego, California 92122 Subject: General Dynamics Planning Area VII GPA/SPA Dear Ms. Mather: IPI Westcoast Development is proposing a General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment to modify the land uses permitted in Planning Area VII of the General Dynamics property, planning · the northwest comer of the intersect'°" °f F°urth St[,eet ~and ~Millike~n'-A~Ve~oUue'nit~ Area VH ~s located on · o^ ^ ,-,-iates Inc (LSA) preparea a ~an tiemarumu . ~ the City of Rancho Cucaraonga. ~o~ ~ss,~. , · Congestion Management Program (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the General Dynarmcs property in January, 1994. The TIA was subsequently approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the San Bemardino Associated Governments (SANrBAG)' General Dynamics and the City of Rancho Cucamonga signed a development agreement identifying the intersection improvements that would be required in conjunction with the development of the General Dynamics property. LSA has analyzed the trip generation of the land uses permitted in Planning Area VII under the proposed General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment and compared it to the trip generation assumed for the same Planning Area in the approved TIA. This letter summarizes the results of our analysis. The General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment would permit 499 apartment units, 15,000 square feet of restaurant uses, and 30,748 square feet of general retail uses. The p.m. peak hour and daily trip generation for the proposed land uses was calculated using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1TE) Trip Generation (6~' Editi°n)' Table A summarizes the p.m. peak hour and daily trip generation for the proposed land uses. As shown in Table A, the proposed land uses are expected to generate 6,583 daily trips, with 588 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. Table A also summarizes the trip generation for the land uses assumed for the Planning Area in the As shown in Table A, the approved land uses are expected to generate approved General Dynamics TIA. Thus, the trip generation of the 16,178 daily trips, with 1,755 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. proposed land uses is substantially lower than the trip generation approved for the Planning Area in the TIA, upon which the improvements identified in the General Dynamics development agreement were predicated. The proposed changes to the land uses approved for Planning Area VII are the latest in a series of la.nd use changes that have substantially reduced the total potanual trip generaUon of the General Dynanncs property. PreviOus changes include the following: · Planning Area II- Approved for retail, theater, recreational, and restaurant uses; now proposed for 285,000 square feet of office uses. · planning Area Iii- Approved for off.ace and retail uses; now part of the golf course. · Planning Area IV - Approved for office uses and a restaurant pad; built with only the office uses (Empire Lakes Corporate Center). · Planning Area V - Approved for hotel/conference center, retail, and restaurant uses; now proposed for business park. · Planning Area VI - Approved for office uses; under construction with 496 apartments. · Planning Area IX - Approved for restaurant and office uses; built with 521 apartments. · Planning Area XI - Approved for office, restaurant, and business park uses; now proposed for distribution facility. Table B presents a comparison of the total daily trip generation for the General Dynamics property as approved and with the cumulative impact of the land uses changes detailed above. As shown in Table B, the project as originally approved was expected to generate 64,011 daily trips. With the land use changes that have been implemented or are currently proposed, the entire General Dynamics property would be expected to generate 27,043 daily nips, which represents a reduction of over 57 percent. If you have any questions regarding the analysis presented in this letter, please feel free to call me at (909) 781-9310. Sincerely, LSA AssOCIATES, INC. Project Manager 2 516103(R:'dPW330UP1 Trip Gert Letter.wpd) Table A - General Dynamics Planning Area VII Trip Generation Proposed Land Uses P.M. Daily In Out 499 D.U. 6.63 ApartmentS 0.42 0.20 3,308 Trips/Unit~ 210 100 Trip Generation 30.748 TSF 42.92 Shopping Center 1.80 1.94 Trips/Unit2 55 60 1,320 Trip Generation 15.000 TSF 130.34 Restaurant 'ts 6.52 4.34 Trips/Urn 98 65 162 1,955 Trip Generation 363 225 588 6,583 Total parcel Trip Generation L Land Uses Daily Land U~ 130 TSF Retail 2.98 2.98 5.9( 64.05 Trips/Unit4 388 388 776 8,327 Trip Generation 20 TSF Restaurant 8.78 7.48 16.2¢ 205.36 Trips/Unit4 175 150 325 4,107 Trip Generation 30 TSF Bank 7.63 9.72 17.3' 140.61 Trips/lJnit~ 229 292 52 i 4,218 Trip Generation 450 TSF 9.72 Office 0.21 1.04 1.25 Trips/lJnit4 96 467 563 4,375 Trip Generation 888 1,297 2,185 21,027 Total parcel Trip Generation 220 210 43£ 4,849 Retail/Restaurant Pass-by reduction (39%) 668 1,087 1,75~' 16,178 Net New parcel Trip Generation ~ Rates based on Land Use 220 ' Apartments fr°m Institute °f Transp°rtati°n Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 6th Edition. . - . . . 2 Rates based on Land Use 820 - Shopping Center ~om ITE Trip Generatzon, 6th Ed. 3 Rates based on Land Use 832 - High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant f~om IrE Trip Generatzon, 6th Ed 4 Rates for approved land uses are taken f~om the General Dynamics Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA, lanuary 1994), w~ich relied on ITE Trip Generation, 5th Edition. 5/6/2003 (R:XjpW330Xlnodel~Gp Trip Oen C°mp) /5/ Table B - General Dynamics Project Daily Trip Generation Comparison Units Rate 1 Use : Units Rate Use 8.33 ~ 155 Acres Golf Course (Proposed for Office Use) ,lanning Area II 130 TSF 64.05 8,327 Office 285 TSF 10.87 Retail 12 Screens 153.33 1,840 Theatre 120 TSF 15.94 1,913 Health Club 40 TSF 205.36 8,214 Restaurant 60 TSF 33.33 2,000 Bowling Alley 10,255 ~djustment for retail/restaurant pass-by (38%) 16,00._.~8 ~ (part of golf course) 8.33 Planning Area Ill 150 TSF 12.71 1,907 Golf Course 19 Acres Office 90 TSF 73.52 6,617 Retail 10 TSF 205.36 2,054 Restaurant 4,769 retail/restanram pass-by (45%) 6,67.~5 (Office consUUcted without restaurant) 11.33 Area 1V 240 TSF 11.33 2,720 Office 240 TSF Office (w/support retail) 20 TSF 205.36 4,107 Restaurant 1,027 ustmant for restaurant pass-by (75%) 3,747 (Proposed for business park, as specified below) Area V 150 Room 15.97 2,396 Light Indusuqal 133 TSF 6.58 87' Hotel/Conf. Cu'. 150 TSF 12.71 1,907 Office 119 TSF 13.45 Office 120 TSF 66.00 7,920 Retail 20 TSF 205.36 4,107 Restaurant 7,216 Or retail/restaurant pass-by (40%) 11,519 (Approved for 496 apartments) Area VI 425 TSF 9.86 4,190 (Proposed for uses below) Area VII 130 TSF 64.05 8,327 Retail 20 TSF 205.36 4,107 Restaurant 30 TSF 140.61 4,218 Apar~ents 450 TSF 9.72 4,375 2)ffice 7,585 for retail/restaurant pass-by (39%) 16,178___ (No change) Area VIII 150 TSF 12.71 1,907 Office 10 TSF 205.36 2,054 Restaurant 160 TSF 14.37 2,299 Business Park 513 restaurant pass-by (75%) 5/6/2003 (R:XYPW330\GD trip gedxADT) /~2 Table B - General Dynamics Project Daily Trip Generation Comparison ~er General D~,namics TIA...~ Actual l Use Size Units Rate Land Use Size Units Rate (Approved for 521 apartments) 140 TSF 12.93 1,810 Office 10 TSF 205.36 2,054 Restaurant Business Park 140 TSF 14.37 2,012 513 Ur mstauram pass-by (75%) 4,335 'lanning Paea X (No change) 4,126 Retail 50 TSF 91.65 4,583 Business Park 150 TSF 14.37 2,156 Adjustment for retail pass-by (57%) 4,126 ~' S._ubtotal (Proposed for disffibution facility) ~lanning Area XI 115 TSF 13.56 1,560 Warehouse 412 TSF 4.59 1,89." Office 10 TSF 205.36 2,054 Restaurant Business Park 150 TSF 14.37 2,156 513 ~djustment for restaurant pass-by (75%) 4,228 Subtotal 3,000 Metrolink Station Adjustment for internal TDM trip capture (20%) 600 2,400 Subtotal 6,628 tannin8 Area Subtotal 33,805 ,TAL GROSS IqEw TRIPS 80,015 3,381 7,702 3,381 INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE (10%) 7,702 TDM/TRANSIT REDUCTION 27,042 Note: Trip generation rotes for originally approved development are from the ITE Trip Generation manual, Fifth Eaition. Trip generation rates for subsequently approved development are from the ITE Trip Generation manual, Sixth Edition. Trip generation rates for Light Industrial and Ware house are average of ITE rates and rates from "Track Trip Generation Characteristics of Nonresidential Land Uses", ITE Journal, July 1994, converted to passegner car equivalents.. 5/6/2003 (R:~JPW330\GD trip gen~ADT) /~ CITI' OF R...INUIIO (-'UUAMONCL.'I G£N£RAL PL,IN 2.5.5.6 Industrial Specific Plan-Sub-Area 18 M~ed use The Su~A~a 18 ~-gse area ~fl~ the land use m~ approv~ though the ~ncho Cucamonga ~SP Su~A~a 18 Specific Plan. This ~x~-Use ar~ is bound on the south by 4' St~t, on the e~t by MHliken Aveuue, on the no~h by the AT&SF ~Hmad, and on the w~t by Utica St~ The site su~ounds an 18-hole golf coupe and includ~ the Ci~'s MetmKnk Station off~Hi~n Avenue. The intent of the ~x~ Use D~ignafion ~ to: · Promote planning fle~biK~ to achieve mo~ c~a~e and imaginative employment~enemfion designs; · Jnl~mte a wider range of retail comme~ial, se~ice comme~i~, ~c~afion and o~ce us~ ~thin the indust~al a~a of the CiW; and · Allow for the sensitive inclusion of high~ensiW ~idenfial development that offe~ ~gh q~iW multi-family condominiums and apa~en~ for ~mploy~ d~ifing hou~ close to work and t~it. Table IH-9 PECWIC P~N - SU~A 18 ~E~USE · Average ~nsi~ (d~acre) · ~elling Un~ Esflmat~ "Most C~e' ~nd Use Percent ~nEe Acre~welling Uni~ (du) Commercia~R~l, Sc~icc 15%-25% ~57 acr~ ~ acr~ Co~ci~, ~ ~ci~, o~ (~ci~ ~d p~f~sion$) 893 aer~ O~c~f~onal ~%_~% ~115 acr~ Medic~ Coyote ~ PubliOQuasi Public 7.5% 163acr~ 16~ aer~ R~r~fion R~idenfial 11~1% 2~71 acr~ ~ 71 acr~ ~ 27 d~acre 27 d~aere 69~1~7 du 1~7'* ~~ 4.S~~~~ 2.5.5.7 Historic Alta Loma - Amethyst Site Thb site is a relatively small (3.24 ac~), but significant, site ~thin the historic Alta ~ma commercial a~a. Once the location ora la~e cites pac~nghouse, the site, now vacant, is MEADOWS REALTY COMPANY 190 Newport Center Drive, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (O) 949.644.1860 (F) 949.644.1142 Cl'h' OF RANCHO CUCANIONGA May 5, 2003 ~IAY 0 8 2003 RECEIVED - PLANNING City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: JPI at Empire Lakes Center Gentlemen: The Fait Family Trust has had a long and successful relationship investing in real estate with Richard Dick and Associates. We are extremely pleased with our success at Empire Lakes Center as are our tenants in FaLtway Business Centre. Fairway Business Centre is located mediately north of the existing JPI multi-family project and we look forward to the second JPI project and again being our being our neighbor in Empire Lakes Center. jPrs national reputation and financial strength with their partner GE Capital, reaffirms our selection of being a part of Empire Lakes Center. We believe the mixed-use concept of housing, office and our northern neighbor, the Metrolink, is good not only for our project but the entire community. We would appreciate your support of the JPI project. S?~erely, / Guy0Lemmon Chief Operating Officer RICHARD DICK &ASSOCIATES May 5, 2003 CITy OF FIAJ'~CHO CIJCAMOI~GA 08 20 3 Planning Commission of ~E~EIVED. PLA~HIHG The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cu~monga, CA 91729 Re: Empire Lakes Center - Parcel 7 Dear Commissioners: As the owner of Fai~ay Business Centre in Rancho Cu~monga we have made a substantial investment in the purchase and development of three parcels at Empire Lakes Center. We have constructed ~o office buildings totaling 90,000 sq. fl. and are currently under construction for a third offi~ building of 54,000 sq. fl. and under contract to purchase an additional 5 acres of land to the south of Si~h Street and Milliken Avenue for an office building of approximately 62,000 sq. fl. We have been suppo~ive of the high-density residential development within Empire Lakes Center as have our lenders and tenants. Having quality residential projects within close proximity of our office buildings continues to help us market our facilities to the Southern California business community. Empire Lakes Center has developed into a unique mixed-use business environment that capitalizes on the location of the Metrolink Station, encourages jobs to housing balance and is easily a~essible, to regional amenities including ente~ainment (Ontario Mills), transpo~ation (Ontario airpoA) and recreation (Empire Lakes Gof Course.) We are pleased to be a pa~ of Empire Lakes Center and the City Of Rancho Cucamonga, and strongly encourage the City Officials to suppo~ the quality high- density residential mixed-use project proposed by such a superior ~mpany as JPI on Planning Area VII.. Sincerely, RICHARD DICK AND ASSOCIATES 1711 Wesrcliff Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 642-6515, FAX: (949) 631-8813 ADDENDUM TO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 2001 GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER EXHIBIT "E" 157 RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER EXHIBIT "F" RESOLUTION NO. 03-81 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00254, A REQUEST TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN MIXED-USE LAND USE DESIGNATION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 4TH STREET AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0210-082-47. A. Recitals. 1. JPI Westcoast Development, L.P., filed an app~icafion for a General Plan Amendment of the Mixed-Use Land Use designation of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 11th day of June 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution_. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined,_a_nd _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 dudng the above- referenced public headng on June 11, 2003, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment is consistent with the flexible land use concept of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan or the General Plan and will provide for the logical development of the Specific Plan and the General Plan and with related development; and b. The amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Industrial Districts Chapter of the Development Code; and pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-81 GPA DRC2003-00254 -JPI WESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT,' LP. June 11, 2003 Page 2 c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan, and the purposes of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified as a Master EIR for the Industrial Area Subarea 18 Specific Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21157.1 provides that the preparation and certification of a Master EIR allows for the limited review of subsequent projects that were described in the Master EIR as being within the scope of the reporting accordance with certain requirements. However, because of the changes that are submitted by this project, an addendum was prepared for said project. An addendum to the Subarea 18 Specific Plan final EIR is appropriate documentation because some changes or additions are necessary to describe the proposed residential project but none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the attached addendum based on the following findings: a. There have not been substantial changes in the project that require major revision, s to the previous EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase ~n sevedty of previously identified significant effects. b. There have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR because of the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, that shows any of the following: 1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, 2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, 3) mitigation measures or altematives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or mo~e significant effects of the project but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or altemative, or 4) mitigation measures or altematives, which are considerably different from those analyzed in the final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or altemative. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00254, as shown in the staff report. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2003. pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-81 GPA DRC2003-00254 -JPI WESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT, LP. June 11, 2003 Page 3 A'CI'EST: Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucam0nga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of June 2003, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MAClAS, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: McNIEL ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS ---McPHAIL RESOLUTION NO. 03-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00255, A REQUEST TO ADD MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE MIXED-USE pLANNING AREA VII, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 4TH STREET AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0210-082-47. A. Recitals. 1. JPI Westcoast Development, L.P., filed an application for Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00255, as described in the title of this Resolution, Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 11th day of June 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3.. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined~ and resolved bythe Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng on June 11, 2003, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment is consistent with the flexible land use concept of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan. 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 amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan or the General Plan and will provide for the logical development of the Planning Area VII and the General Plan and with related development; and b. The amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Industrial Districts Chapter of the Development Code; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-82 SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2003-00255 -JPI WESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT, LP. June 11, 2003 Page 2 c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan, and the purposes of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan; and e. ~'he proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prapared and ce~fied as a Master EIR for the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21157.1 provides that the prepa ration and certification of a Master EIR allows for the limited review of subsequent projects that were described in the Master EIR as being within the scope of the reporting accordance with certain recluirements. However, because of the changes that are submitted by this project, an Addendum was prepared for said project. An addendum to the Rancho Cucemonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Final EIR is appropriate documentation because some changes or additions ara necessary to describe the proposed residential project but none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the attached addendum based on the following findings: a. There have not been substantial changes in the project that require major revisions to the previous EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. b. There have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR because of the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, that shows any of the following: 1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, 2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, 3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or 4) mitigation measures or alternatives, which are considerably different from those analyzed in the final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00255, as shown in the staff report. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2003. pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-82 SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2003-00255 - JPI WESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT, LP. June 11, 2003 Page 3 BY: ATTEST: Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of June 2003, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MAClAS, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: McNIEL ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS - McPHAIL ADDENDUM TO CITY-OF RANCHO .CUCAMONGA 2001 GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER EXHIBIT "E" RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER EXHIBIT "F" ORDINANCE NO. 7/~' A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00254, A REQUEST TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN MIXED-USE LAND USE DESIGNATION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 4TH STREET AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0210-082-47. A. Recitals. 1. JPI Westcoast Development, L.P., filed an application for a General Plan Amendment of the Mixed-Use Land Use designation of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 11th day of June 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. On the 16th day of July 2003, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4.- All legal prerequisites pri0~ to-the adoption-df-till§ Ordin~fl~ have occurred. B. Ordinance. : The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on July 18, 2003, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment is consistent with the flexible land use concept of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan or the General Plan and will provide for the logical development of the Specific Plan and the General Plan and with related development; and CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DRC2003-00254 -JPI WESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT, LP. July 16, 2003 Page 2 b. The amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Industrial Districts Chapter of the Development Code; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan, and the purposes of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified as a Master EIR for the Industrial Area Subarea 18 Specific Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21157.1 provides that the preparation and certification of a Master EIR allows for the limited review of subsequent projects that were described in the Master EIR as being within the scope of the reporting accordance with certain requirements. However, because of the changes that are submitted by this project, an addendum was prepared for said project. An addendum to the Subarea 18 Specific Plan final EIR is appropriate documentation because some changes or additions are necessary to describe the proposed residential project but none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EI R have occurred. The City Council has reviewed and considered the attached addendum based on the following findings: a. There have not been substantial changes in the project that require major revisions to the previous EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. b. There have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR because of the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, that shows any of the following: 1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, 2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, 3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or 4) mitigation measures or alternatives, which are considerably different from those analyzed in the final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00254, as shown in the staff report. 6. The Secretary to this Council shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00255, A REQUEST TO ADD MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS A PERMITFED USE IN THE MIXED-USE PLANNING AREA VII, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 4TH STREET AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0210-082-47, A. Recitals. 1. JPI Westcoast Development, L.P., filed an application for Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00255, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 11th day of June 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. On the 16th day of July 2003, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on July 16, 2003, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment is consistent with the flexible land use concept of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan or the General Plan and will provide for the logical development of the Planning Area VII and the General Plan and with related development; and CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2003-00255- JPI WESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT, LP. July 16, 2003 Page 2 b. The amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Industrial Districts chapter of the Development Code; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan, and the purposes of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified as a Master EIR for the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21157.1 provides that the preparation and certification of a Master EIR allows for the limited review of subsequent projects that were described in the Master EIR as being within the scope of the reporting accordance with certain requirements. However, because of the changes that are submitted by this project, an Addendum was prepared for said project. An addendum tothe Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Final EIR is appropriate documentation because some changes or additions are necessary to describe the proposed residential project but none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. 'The City Council has reviewed and considered the attached addendum based on the following findings: a. There have not been substantial changes in the project that require major revisions to the previous EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. b. There have not been substantial changes with respect to the cimumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR because of the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exemise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, that shows any of the following: 1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, 2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, 3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or 4) mitigation measures or alternatives, which are considerably different from those analyzed in the final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00255, as shown in the staff report. 6. The Secretary to this Council shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUB-AREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA VII ADDENDUM TO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 2001 GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR and IASP SUB-AREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR (SCH No. 93102055) Prepared for: JPI Westcoast Development, L.P. 8910 University Center Lane, Suite 150 San Diego, California 92122 Prepared by: BonTerra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 May 5, 2003, As Revised June 19, 2003 IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs ADDENDUM TO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 2001 GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR AND IASP SUB-AREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR 1. PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM This Addendum to the previously certified City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (ELF{) and the previously certified Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub-Area 18 Final EIR was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public F{esources Code §21000, et seq and the CEQA Guidelines California Code of Regulations [}15000, et seq. CEQA Guidelines §15164(a) states that "the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified ElF{ if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent ElF{ have occurred." Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162, a subsequent ElF{ is only required when: a) substantial changes are proposed in the project.., or; b) substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken.., which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.., or; c) new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous ElF{ was certified as complete.., that shows that (i) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; or ii) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; or iii) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or iv) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative." This Addendum analyzes the differences between the land uses which were previously approved by the City of F{ancho Cucamonga for the Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub- Area 18 Planning Area VII and the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and the currently proposed land uses for Planning Area VII. The City of F{ancho Cucamonga has determined that changes associated with the proposed land uses are minor and not substantial. No new significant impacts will result from these changes, nor is there substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified environmental impacts. In addition, there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that would require any revisions to the previously certified Final EIRs. These conclusions have been reached based on the preparation of technical analyses, as necessary, to assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed land uses. The proposed land uses would result in a reduction in the generation of vehicular traffic when compared to the existing approved land uses for Planning Area VII. Although the existing land uses would not directly generate students, the student generation rate associated with the type of residential development that has been implemented within the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan site has resulted in a substantially lower generation rate than assumed by the applicable school districts. However, project applicants are required to pay school fees based on the adopted student generation rates of the applicable school districts. While the proposed land uses would require increased potable water when compared to the existing permitted land uses for Planning Area Vii, there is sufficient water supply to accommodate the needs of the proposed land uses. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §'15164, an Addendum to the previously certified City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 /ASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs Genera/ Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the previously certified Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (/ASP) Sub-Area 18 Final EIR is the appropriate environmental documentation. /ASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs 2. LOCATION The approximate 380-acre Sub-Area 18 Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) is located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, as depicted in Exhibit 1. The IASP Sub-Area 18 is bordered on the south by Fourth Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station, and on the west by Cleveland Avenue and Utica Street. Planning Area VII is one of the 11 planning areas that comprise the Specific Plan site. Planning Area VII is bordered by Fourth Street to the south, Fifth Street to the north, Milliken Avenue to the east, and two apartment communities to the west, as depicted on Exhibit 2. Existing and planned land uses surrounding the project site include the following: · To the north: Fifth Street and an existing office building on the southern portion of Sub- Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VIII. · To the south: City of Ontario. Fourth Street, Kohl's department store, and a vacant mixed-use parcel. · To the east: Milliken Avenue, existing office and light industrial development, and a vacant parcel. A City of Ontario water well site is located contiguous to Planning Area VII on the west side of Milliken Avenue. · To the west: Ironwood and Fairway Palms Apartment Communities (Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VI) 2.1 SITE CHARACTERISTICS The approximate 24-acre site contains grape vineyards with a fairly dense cover of invasive and non-native annual plants. The site contains no structures or predominant features. Onsite elevations range from approximately 1,055 feet above mean sea level (msl) to the north to 1,040 feet above msl to the south; total relief across the site is 15 vertical feet over approximately 1,200 linear feet. P/JPl\Specific Plato0505003 DOC 3 Rancho Cucamonga 6th / / ~ Vacant: '~' · Mixed Use · ~ Office Buitdings: Golf Course: '~ Industrial Park Open Space ~. Office Buildir Mixed Use 5 th 500' Office Buildings: Industrial Park Apartment / Mission Vista Communities: / c ~ Mixed Use/ ..c;~ Golf Coume: ~ Project Site: i ~ m Open Space j Mixed Use .~',,,~i [ : Vacant: .-: industrial Park a.~ 4th Vacant Kohl's Department Store: . Restaurant ~ ~- ~ Mills Ontario Center Specific Plan ~ (Urban Commercial) ~ Surrounding Land Uses Exhibit 2 Jefferson at Fourth and Milliken (Case # DRC 2003-00254 and DRC 2003-00255) 250 0 250 500 Feet - ~2 ' 11 '-"" '-t ..... -"~..~,{,.;~ ~ - ~. . ~ - i ~' ~'; '"- -E . . . Project Site Location Exhibit 1 Jo~orsoD ~t Fo~D ~0~ Mfl][Ro~ (caso ~ D~c 200~-00254 on~ DRC 200~-00255) IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VI/ Addendum to Previously Cellified Elas 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT In July 1994, the City of Rancho Cucamonga certified a Final EIR (SCH No. 93102055) and approved the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan for the approximate 380-acre site, inclusive of Planning Area VII, incorporating a mix of land uses. The intent of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan was to create a unique master planned project that integrated a broader mix of uses in this area, including office, light industrial, hotel/conference, retail, restaurant, entertainment, multiple family residential, and research and development uses around a championship gotf course. Planning Area VII is designated Mixed-Use in the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan and the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The adopted Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan assumed the development of Planning Area Vlt with up to 730,000 square feet of mixed commercial uses such as retail, restaurant, banking, and office uses. Residential development is a permitted use within the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan area, however, not within Planning Area VII. With respect to Planning Area VII, the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan states: "Planning Area VII, located at the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Fourth Street, is approximately 24 acres and could include mixed-use commercial; indoor recreation/ entertainment; an option for hotel/conference center; office; research and development/ light industrial/business park, and multiple family residential. Planning Area VII is a key entry parcel to Sub-Area 18 and is positioned to respond to economic/market factors both within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Ontario." 3.2 CURRENTLY PROPOSED LAND USES As depicted on Exhibit 3, the project applicant, JPI Westcoast Development, L.P., is requesting an amendment to the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan and the IASP Sub- Area 18 Specific Plan to allow multiple-family residential uses as an additional permitted use in Planning Area VII. The proposed amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan would allow for up to 499 high-density multi-family dwelling units and up to 43,738 square feet of commercial uses on Planning Area VII. The General Plan would be amended to increase the allowable acreage and dwelling units allocated for residential development within the IASP Sub- Area 18 Specific Plan site. The IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan would be amended to identify multiple family residences as an additional permitted use within the Mixed-Use land use designation for Planning Area VII. The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan) states that the purpose of the Mixed-Use designation is to: "...stimulate and guide development in special opportunity areas where land use change is desired. Mixed Use development may occur in two ways: 1) as a combination of uses in a single development project on a single parcel of land; or 2) as a combination of uses on multiple parcels within a specified district of the City. In either case, the intent is to achieve a complete integration of the uses and their support functions into a common concept... With respect to IASP Sub-Area 18, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan) states: 6th / / Empire Lakes Golf Course 5th ' Mission Vista 4th , ~ I Kohl's Department Store Land Use Designation Existing: Mixed Use , Proposed: Same, amend to permit Multiple Family Residential Ontario Mills Shopping Center Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Exhibit3 Jefferson at Fourth and M/I/ikon/Case # DRC 2003-00254 and DRC 2003-00255) 250 0 250 500 Feet IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs "The Sub-Area 18 Mixed-Use area reflects the land use mix approved through the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan...The intent of the Mixed Use designatic,n is to: · Promote planning flexibility to achieve more creative and imaginative employment- generating designs; · Integrate a wider range of retail commercial, service commercial, recreation and office iJses within the industrial area of the City; and · Allow for the sensitive inclusion of high density residential development that offers high quality multi-family condominiums and apartments for employees desiring housing close to work and transit." Approval Actions The following approval actions by the City of Rancho Cucamonga are as follows: · Approval of the Addendum to Previously Certified City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final EIR and Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Final EIR. Any approval actions related to the general plan and specific plan amendments would first require the acceptance of an environmental document as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and City of Rancho Cucamonga CEQA Guidelines. · City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Amendment. This amendment would change Table 111-9 Industrial Specific Plan-Sub-Area 18 Mixed-Use to increase the allowable residential acreage and dwelling units and reduce the allowable commercial acreage. · Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub-Area 18 Amendment. This amendment would expand the previously approved IASP Sub-Area 15, Planning Area VII designation of Mixed-Use to allow for residential uses, in addition to the currently permitted office, research and development, and commercial uses for the planning area. IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs 4. COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following provides a summary analysis of the environmental impacts previously identified in the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Final EIR, which included development of Planning Area VII, as well as consistency with the mitigation program set forth in the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final EIR. A comparison of the identified impacts for the previously approved project to the potential impacts associated with the currently proposed land uses is provided below. 4.1 LAND USE Previously Approved Project Planning Area VII contains grape vineyards. Development of this planning area would result in the conversion of farmland to urban land uses and the removal of all vineyard remnants from the site. The loss of vineyards and the conversion of farmland were identified in the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Final EIR as significant unavoidable impacts associated with development of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan area, including Planning Area VII. The vineyards would be removed by development of Planning Area VII. These unavoidable impacts were overridden by City of Rancho Cucamonga in favor of the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan development goals and objectives. As a part of certification of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Final EIR and approval of the Sub-Area 18 project, Planning Area VII was designated Mixed Use and approved for development with up to 730,000 square feet of mixed commercial uses such as retail, restaurant, banking, and office. These land uses were identified as being compatible with existing and planned onsite and offsite surrounding land uses. Adopted Mitigation Program No feasible mitigation measures were available to mitigate the removal of active grape vineyards from Planning Area VII. No other mitigation was required. Currently Proposed Land Uses The amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan would allow for future development of Planning Area VII with up to 499 of high-density multi-family residential dwelling units and up to 45,738 square feet of commercial uses. As indicated in Table 1 (Table 111-9 Industrial Specific Plan-Sub-Area 18 Mixed-Use of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan), this change would result in an increase in the overall number of residential dwelling units and acreage within IASP Sub-Area 18 and an overall decrease in commercial acreage within the IASP Sub-Area 18. Although residential development was not specifically proposed when the IASP Sub-Area 18 Final EIR was certified and the Specific Plan project originally approved, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Mixed Use land use designation for IASP Sub-Area 18 permits residential uses. Subsequent to approval of the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan, the Specific Plan has been amended to allow for multiple family residential uses in designated planning areas. IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific P/an Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified E/Rs TABLE 1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN-SUB-AREA 18 MIXED USE · Acreage Range · Average Density Percent (dulac) Estimated "Most Case" land Use Range · Dwelling Units Acres/Dwelling Units (du) Commercial--retail, service 9% - 15% 34 - 57 acres 40 acres commercial, tourist commercial, office (commorcial and professional) Office-Professional Medical Corporate Offices 24% - 30% 90 - 115 acres 89,5 acres Public/Quasi-Public 43% 165 acres 165 acres Recreation 7% - 19% 27.75 d'_'./:c _ ......... 25 27 da/ac1' 27 du/ac 694 to 1,887 du 1,887 du ROW-Metrolink Parking 7% 10.3 acres 10.3 acres TOTALS 100% 375.8 acres 375.8 acres As with the previously approved project, future development of Planning Area VII with residential and commercial uses would remove grape vineyards and result in the loss of farmland. This significant, unavoidable impact was contemplated by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in their approval of the IASP Sub-Area 18 project; the currently proposed land uses would not result in any new significant impacts associated with the loss of vineyards and farmland. The proposed land uses for Planning Area VII would allow for the integration of residences into the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan that would provide mixed-use urban scale residential and retail uses in this portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Mixed-Use land use designation includes residential uses as one of the typical land uses within a mixed-use project. The General Plan states that the Mixed-Use designation is intended to "...stimulate and guide development in special opportunity areas where land use change is desired...the intent is to achieve a complete integration of the uses and their support functions into a common concept... With respect to the IASP Sub-Area 18 area, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan) states "The Sub-Area 18 Mixed- Use area reflects the land use mix approved through the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan...The intent of the Mixed Use designation is to:...AIIow for the sensitive inclusion of high density residential development that offers high quality multi-family condominium',; and apartments for employees desiring housing close to work and transit." The proposed land uses would be consistent with the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final EIR as follows: P ~JPl\Specific Plan 0505003 DOC 7 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs LU-1 Accommodate new development in a manner that enables the City's residents and businesses to readily be integrated into the social and physical structure of the City. LU-2 Promote development that is sustainable in its use of land in relation to the impact upon natural resources, energy, air and water quality. LU-3 Promote opportunities to develop mixed-use areas and projects in carefully selected areas. LU-4 Restrict strip commercial development in favor of more focused commercial or mixed-use centers. LU-5 Restrict the intensity of commercial concentrations at intersection, other than town center and regional center locations, to two corners. LU-7 Development densities and intensities shall be implemented within the ranges specified in the General Plan: neither higher nor lower than the limits in the range. LU-11 Allow medium and high density residential uses along transit routes in mixed-use areas and in the vicinity of activity centers. Mitigation Program IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Mitiqation Measures As previously noted, no feasible mitigation measures were available to mitigate the removal of grape vineyards from Planning Area VII. No other mitigation is required. 4.2 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Previously Approved Proiect The IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Final EIR traffic analysis identified that the Specific Plan project would generate approximately 64,011 average daily trips (ADT), with 7,648 trips during the p.m. peak hour. Of these vehicular trips, the approved mix of land uses for Planning Area VII would generate 16,178 ADT (approximately 25.3 percent of the total project ADT), with 1,755 trips during the p.m. peak hour (approximately 22.9 percent of the total project p.m. peak trips). Table 2 identifies the trip rates and trip generation for the approved Planning Area VII land uses. Since certification of the Final EIR and adoption of the Specific Plan, changes in the intensity of development and/or mix of land uses within some of the planning areas have occurred resulting in an overall reduction in the total vehicular trips associated with the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan area. These changes are as follows: · Planning Area Ih Approved for retail, theater, recreation, and restaurant uses; proposed for 285,000 sq.ft, of office uses. · Planning Area Ill: Approved for office and retail uses; the planning area is a part of the Empire Lakes Golf Course. IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs TABLE 2 EXISTING PERMITTED LAND USES IN PLANNING AREA VII TRIP RATES AND TRIP GENERATION ADT P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Size Rate Trips Rate Total In Out Retail 130 TSF 64.05 8,327 5.97 776 388 388 Restaurant 20TSF 205.36 4,107 16.26 325 176 150 Bank 30 TSF 140.61 4,218 17.35 521 229 291 Office 450 TSF 9.72 4,375 1.25 563 96 467 Adjustment for Retail/ <7,585> <672> <344> <328> Restaurant Pass-by (39%) Total 16,178 1,755 669 1,087 ADT = Average daily tdps TSF = thousand square feet Source: IASP Sub-Ama 18 Specific Plan EIR, 1994. · Planning Area IV: Approved for office uses and a restaurant pad; the planning area was built with only office uses (Empire Lakes Corporate Center). · Planning Area VI: Approved for office uses; under construction with 496 apartments. · Planning Area IX: Approved for restaurant and office uses; built with 521 apartments. Table 3 provides a comparison of the total trip generation for the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan, as approved and with the land uses changes noted above. As shown in Table 3, the previously approved Specific Plan was expected to generate 64,011 ADT. With the land use changes noted in the table, buildout of the Specific Plan site would generate 25,666 ADT, a reduction of approximately 60 percent. The Final ELF;: noted that the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan project would contribute to significant unavoidable impacts to the regional circulation system. These unavoidable impacts were overridden by' City of Rancho Cucamonga in favor of the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan development goals and objectives. Adopted Mitigation Program Mitigation adopted as a condition of approval for the previously approved overall IASP Sub- Area 18 Specific Plan project is as follows: · Assuming that potential traffic impacts occur as projected in the traffic impact analysis, the proposed Sub-Area Specific Plan shall contribute a traffic fee in accordance with the City's adopted traffic impact fee program (Transportation Development impact Fee Ordinance No. 445) as the project's fair share contribution to circulation improvements identified as necessary at the time of issuance of building permits. These improvements may consist of the improvements described in Section 5.2.3 (of the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Final EIR). P tJPl\Specific Plan 0505303.DOC 9 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Speci§c P/an Planning Area VI~ Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs TABLE 3 IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN DALLY TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Approved Actual or Currently Proposed/Approved Land Use Size I Units IRate t Trips Size IUnits IRate I Trips Planning Area I Golf Course I 155] AcresI 8.33I 1,291 (N° change) I I I 1,291 Planning Area II (Proposed for Office Use) Retail 130 TSF 64.05 8,327 285 TSF 10.87 3,097 Theatre 12 Screens 153.33 1,840 Health Club 120 TSF 15.94 1,913 Restaurant 40 TSF 205.36 8,214 Bowling Alley 60 TSF 33.33 2,000 Adjustment for 10,255 retail/restaurant pass-by (38%) Subtotal 16,008 3,097 Planning Area III (Part of golf course) Office 150 TSF 12.71 1,907 19 Acres 8.33 158 Retail 90 TSF 73.52 6,617 Restaurant 10 TSF 205.36 2,054 Adjustment for 4,769 retail/restaurant pass-by (45%) Subtotal 6,675 158 Planning Area IV (Office constructed without restaurant) Office (w/support 240 TSF 11.33 2,720 240 TSF 11.33 2,720 retail) Restaurant 20 TSF 205.36 4,107 Adjustment for 1,027 restaurant pass-by (75%) Subtotal 3,747 2,720 Planning Area V (Proposed for uses below) Hotel/Conf. Ctr. 150 Room 15.97 2,396 Light TSF 6.58 875 industrial Office 150 TSF 12.71 1,907 Office TSF 13.45 1,600 Retail 120 TSF 66.00 7,920 Restaurant 20 TSF 205.36 4,107 Adjustment for 7,216 retail/restaurant pass-by (40%) Subtotal 11,519 2,475 Planning Area VI (Approved for 496 apartments) Office I 425 I TSF I 9.86 I 4,190 Apartments I ou I I 3,269 IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs TABLE 3 (continued) IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN DAILY TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Approved Actual or Currently Proposed/Approved Land Use Size I Units I Rate I Trips Size I Units I Rate I Trips Planning Area VII (Proposed for uses below) Retail 130 TSF 64.05 8,327 Retail: TSF 42.92 1,320 30.748 Restaurant 20 TSF 205.36 4,107 Restaurant: TSF 130.34 1,955 15.0 Bank 30 TSF 140.61 4,218 Apartments: DU 6.63 3,308 499 Office 450 TSF 9.72 4,375 Adjustment for 7,585 retail/restaurant pass-by (39%) Subtotal 16,178' 6,583 Planning Area VIII (Approved for uses below) Office 150 TSF 12.71 1,907 Office: 150 TSF 12.71 1,907 Restaurant 10 TSF 205.36 2,054 Senior DU 4.13 1,090 Housing: 254 Business Park 160 TSF 14.37 2,299 Adjustment for 513 restaurant pass-by (75%) Subtotal 4,719 2,997 Planning Area IZ (Approved for 521 apartments) Office 140 TSF 12.93 1,810 Restaurant 10 TSF 205.36 2,054 Business Park 140 TSF 14.37 2,012 Adjustment for 513 restaurant pass-by (75%) Subtotal 4,335 3,454 Planning Area X (No change) Retail 50 TSF 91.65 4,583 Business Park 150 TSF 14.37 2,156 Adjustment for r(;tail 1,971 pass-by (57%) Subtotal 4,126 4,126 Planning Area Xl (Proposed for distribution facility) Office 115 TSF 13.56 1,560 Warehouse: TSF 4.59 1,893 412 Restaurant 10 TSF 205.36 2,054 Business Park 150 TSF 14.37 2,156 P LJPIISpec[fic Plan 0505003 DOC 11 Rancho Cucamonga /ASP Sub-Area 18 Specific P/an P/anning Area VII Addendum to previously Certified c-IRs TABLE 3 (continued) IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN DAILY TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Approved Actual or Currently Proposed/Approved Land Use Size Units Rate Trips Size Units Rate. Trips Adjustment for 513 restaurant pass-by (75%) Subtotal 4,228 Metrolink Station 3,000 Adjustment for 600 internal TDM trip capture (20%) Subtotal 2,400 Planning Area 6,628 1,893 Subtotal Total Gross New Trips 80,015 32,082 Internal Trip Capture (10%) 7,702 3,208 TDM/Transit Reduction 7,702 3,208 Total Effective Trip Generation 64,011 25,666 Note: Trip generation rates for originally approved development are from the ITE Trip Generation manual, Fifth Edition. Trip generation rates for subsequently approved development are from the ITE Trip Generation manual, Sixth Edition. Currently Proposed Land Uses Table 4 identifies the trip generation rates and the resulting trip generation for the proposed land uses. Based on these trip generation estimates (see Appendix A), the proposed land uses would generate 6,583 average daily trips (ADT), with 588 p.m. peak hour trips. The previously approved land uses for Planning Area VII were expected to generate 16,178 ADT, with 1,755 trips during the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, the proposed project represents the following reduction in total daily traffic and p.m. peak hour traffic when compared to the previously approved project: 9,595 ADT and 1,167 p.m. peak hour trips, respectively. The proposed land uses would be consistent with the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the City of I~ancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final EIF~ as follows: TC-9 The City will allow the following 7 intersections to operate at a LOS E or better... · Milliken Avenue and 4th Street (D, E)..." /ASP Sub-Area 18 Specific P/an Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Ce~fied E/Rs TABLE 4 PROPOSED LAND USES IN PLANNING AREA VII TRIP RATE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY P.M. Peak Hour Land Use UnitslS,F. In I Out I Total ADT Trip Rates Multi-family Residentiala Du 0.42 0.20 0.62 6.63 Shopping Centerb TSF 1.80 1.94 3.74 42.92 Restaurantc TSF 6.52 4.34 10.86 130.34 Trip Generation Multi-family Residential 499 du 210 100 310 3,308 Shopping Center 30~738 55 60 115 1,320 Restaurant 15.000 98 65 163 1,955 Total 363 225 588 6,583 Du: dwelling unit TSF: thousand square feet a. Rates based on Land Use 220-Apartments; Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 6t" Edition. b. Rates based on Land Use 820-Shopping Center; Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 6TM Edition, c. Rates based on Land Use 832-High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant; Source: institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generatien, 6th Edition. Mitigation Program Ho new mitigation is required because the amount of traffic generated by the proposed land uses would he less than the amount of traffic that was expected to be generated by the previously approved land uses for Planning Area VII. The mitigation program adopted as conditions of approval for the Planning Area VII of IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan project and set forth in the Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and General Dynamics Corporation Concerning Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan, July 6, 1994, is applicable to the currently proposed land uses. 4.3 NOISE! Previously Approved Project The potential for noise impacts is typically evaluated for short-term construction noise and long- term operational noise. Construction noise generally represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levets. Noise generated by construction equipment and construction activities can reach high levels, ranging from approximately 65 dBA to 105 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source, depending on the type of equipment being used. Pile driving noise levels are the highest noise levels associated with construction; however, pile drivers would not have been required for the previously approved land uses on Planning Area VII. Grading activities generally have the next highest levels of noise. At 50 feet, grading activities commonly have average noise, levels (e.g., Leq noise levels) of 85 dBA with maximum noise levels as high as 95 dBA. General construction is considered to be quieter than grading operations. The same peak noise levels are often reached during general construction as during grading, but the average noise levels are 5 to 10 dBA less. Because sensitive receptors were not contemplated IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Ce,'lified EIRs in the project vicinity, the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Final EIR did not identify any significant construction-related noise impacts. The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Noise Element (in effect at the time of certification of the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Final EIR) indicated that the "normally acceptable" exterior noise levels for office development and research and development uses is 70 dBA CNEL or less, and "conditionally acceptable" noise levels are 70 to 75 dBA CNEL. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code stated, with respect to office and commercial activities: · All commercial and office activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dBA during the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., and 65 dBA during the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Loading and unloading activities are not allowed during the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. if such activities would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. (Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.10.050, Performance Standards in NOISE ZONE I1.) Further, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has noise standards for land uses within the IASP area. Planning Area VII is designated a Class B area. Applicable Class B noise and vibration performance standards are as follows: Noise: The maximum allowable noise level of any use shall not exceed 75 Ldn as measured at the lot line of the lot containing the use. Where a use occupies a lot abutting residentially zoned land, the noise level shall not exceed 65 Ldn as measured at the common lot line. Noise caused by motor vehicles and trains are exempted from this standard. Vibration: All uses shall be operated so as not to generate vibration discernible without instruments by the average persons beyond the lot upon which the source is located. Vibration caused by motor vehicles, trains, and temporary construction or demolition work is exempted from this standard. Community noise assessment changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA are not discernible. In the range of 1 to 3 dBA, people who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. No scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dBA as a significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dBA. However, in a community noise situation, the noise exposure is over a long time period and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than 1 dBA, and 3 dBA appears to be most appropriate for most people. The IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Final EIR noted that vehicular traffic noise levels adjacent to Planning Area VII along Milliken Avenue and Fourth Street would be significant for outdoor activity areas. All office, research and development, and/or retail outdoor activity areas within the 70 dBA Ldn noise contour would have to be shielded. Onsite operational noise associated with loading and unloading activities at the office, research and development, and/or commercial land uses was not identified as a significant impact. P ~JPl\Specific Plan-0505003 DOC 14 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previous/y Certified E/Rs Adopted Mitiigation Program Mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval for the previously approved project, applicable to Planning Area VII, are as follows: · Construction equipment and trucks shall be properly muffled. · Development of the project site shall be in conformance with the Performance Standards identified in the proposed Sub-Area Specific Plan. · Active outdoor use areas associated with office, commercial, and industrial activities shall be placed outside of the 70 dBA Ldn contours from vehicular and rail traffic, and industrial activities. Any active outdoor uses associated with office, commercial, and industrial activities within the 70 dBA Ldn area are required to be shielded from the dominant noise source, by utilizing sound barrier walls or structures acting as effective sound barriers, to ensure conformance with the City's noise standard. · A detailed noise impact analysis shall be conducted for new onsite commercial or Industrial development with the potential of generating high outdoor noise levels in outdoor areas of existing office, commercial, and industrial areas. · Prior to issuance of a building permit, all commercial and industrial structures shall be designed outside of the 70 dBA Ldn area. If such structures are designed within 70 dBA Ldn contour from any noise sources, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements shall be made and needed noise insulation features shall be included in the design. Currently Proposed Land Uses As identified on Table 5 (Table V-3, Land Use Noise Standards in the General Plan), the Rancho Cucamonga 2001 Genera/P/an identifies noise standards for land use types. TABLE 5 LAND USE NOISE STANDARDS Land Use Interior Standards Exterior Standards Residential - 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 40 dBA 45 dBA - 7 a.m, to 10 p.m. 55 dBA 60 dBA Commercial/Office - 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. None identified 60 dBA - 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. None identified 65 dBA industrial - Cia:ss A (industrial park) 60 Ldn 65 Ldn - Cla~ss B {general industrial) 65 Ldn 75 Ldn - Class C (heavy industrial) 65 Ldn 85 Ldn Proposed land uses in Planning Area VII would be required to comply with requirements set forth for residential and commercial land uses. IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs The General Plan identifies existing and future (year 2020) exterior noise levels along major roadways in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The following information is applicable to Planning Area VII. Existing 2020 Distance to Contours (feet) Distance to Contours (feet) Roadway 65 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Milliken Avenue: 4~ Street to 6~h Street 146 315 315 680 4~h Street: Haven Avenue to Milliken (2020: west of Milliken) 146 315 315 680 The proposed land uses would be consistent with the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 Genera/P/an Final EIR as follows: N-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading plans, the City shall condition approval of subdivisions that are adjacent to any developed/occupied noise sensitive land uses by requiring applicants to submit a construction-related noise mitigation plan to the City for review and approval. The plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment will be mitigated during construction of the project through the use of such methods as: · Temporary noise attenuation fences, · Preferential location of equipment, and · Use of current technology and noise suppression equipment. While the methods described above will reduce the disturbance created by onsite construction equipment, they do not address the potential impacts due to the transport of construction materials and debris. The following measures shall then be required of any proposed development. N-2 The construction-related noise mitigation plan required as part of the previous noise mitigation measure shall specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment (i.e., Monday through Saturday, 6:30 a.m and 8:00 p.m. and not allowed on Sundays and national holidays). Additionally, the plan shall denote any construction traffic haul routes where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. Lastly, the construction-related noise mitigation plan shall incorporate any other restrictions imposed by City staff. N-3 Applicants for new proposed land uses shall specify increased setbacks such that land uses do not lie within the 65 dBA CNEL overlay zone for commercial office and sensitive uses (60 dBA CNEL for residential uses) depicted in Exhibit 5.7-3. This would ensure that any proposed land uses do not exceed the goals of the City General Plan Noise Element. If increased setbacks are not provided, an applicant may implement the following. Prior to development, a developer shall contract for a site-specific noise study for the specific site project. The noise study shall be per[ormed by an acoustic consultant /ASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs experienced in such studies and the consultant's qualifications and methodology to be used in the study must be presented to City staff for consideration. The acoustic consultant shall then prepare a site-specific noise study for the site under consideration. At a minimum, the study shall include an evaluation of the existing setting based on both field measurements and noise modeling. Field measurements are to be project-specific in that they will include measurements at those locations where the most sensitive uses are to be placed in elevated noise area (e.g., nearest dwellings, or rooms to the roadway or freeway). Measurements shall be obtained using a certified Type 1 or 2 integrating sound level meter and shall be of sufficient duration to accurately quantify ambient noise levels. To the extent fe~sible, roadway noise, with simultaneous traffic counts shall be obtained to document traffic-generated noise. These measurements are to be obtained in accordance with methodology prescribed by Caltrans and/or FHWA. Using the obtained traffic noise data, the study shall then project year 2020 traffic volume noise impacts at the project site and any noted sensitive areas. The study shall also note specific measures that will be required to reduce exterior noise levels to meet City Standards. Such measures could include, but are not limited to increased setback, sound walls and/or berms, building orientation to shield more sensitive outdoor recreation areas, etc. If the study determines that the applicant cannot reasonably mitigate exterior noise to less than 65 dBA CNEL, the study shall also include measures to assure that any interior habitable areas do not exceed the interior noise levels included in Table 5.7-4. Any proposed residential development that does not meet the 65 dBA CNEL exterior level with proposed mitigation shall be so noted in the deed of trust and disclosed at the time of initial and all subsequent sales. No residential dwellings shall be placed in areas with exterior noise levels in excess of 70 dBA CNEL, even with the inclusion of mitigation measures. Furthermore, if the study finds that exterior habitable areas at commercial and public use facilities cannot meet a 70 dBA CNEL noise level, the developer shall post warning signs at any entrances to such facilities stating such. Actual wording and placement of these signs shall be determined in consultation with City staff. No development permits or approval of land use applications shall be issued until an acoustic analysis is received and approved by the City Planning Department. Mitigation Program Mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval for the previously approved project are applicable to Planning Area VII land uses. 4.4 AIR QUALITY Previous Approved Proiect Potential shod-term construction-related air quality impacts and long-term operational impacts were assessed in the /ASP Sub-Area Specific Plan Final E/R for the overall project. Construction and operational emissions are considered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to be significant if they exceed the thresholds shown in Table 6. In addition to the thresholds identified in the table, an increase in carbon monoxide IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VI/ Addendum to Previously Certified concentrations in an area that already exceeds national or state CO standards is also considered significant if the increase exceeds one part per million (ppm) for a 1-hour average or 0.45 ppm for an 8-hour average. TABLE 6 EMISSION THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE~ Construction Operations Pollutant pounds/day tons/quarter pounds/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 24.75 550 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 6.75 150 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 2.5 55 Particulate Matter (PM~0) 150 6.75 150 Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 75 2.5 55 a Toxic emissions are considered significant if they expose sensitive receptors to a cancer risk of 1 in 1 million or 10 in 1 million if best available control technology for toxics {T-BACT) is employed. Source: South Coast Air Quality Handbook. Construction Impacts The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook estimates that each acre of disturbed soil creates 26.4 pounds/day of PM10. On a worst-case basis of the entire 24-acre Planning Area VII site undergoing grading on one day, daily emissions were estimated to be 633.6 pounds of PM~0 on the peak day, prior to mitigation. Employee vehicles and equipment emissions would have also resulted in carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, reactive organic compound, and sulfur oxide emissions. Construction-related carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide emissions would be significant. These unavoidable impacts were overridden by City of Rancho Cucamonga in favor of the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan development goals and objectives. Operational Impacts Mobile sources of regional emissions associated with Planning Area VII would include employee and visitor vehicle use and the use of' electricity and natural gas. Localized carbon monoxide emissions at intersections (i.e., "hot spots") associated with the Sub-Area Specific Plan would be lower than baserine levels and would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to unhealthful concentrations of carbon monoxide. The /ASP Sub-Area 18 Specific P/an Final E/R noted that the proiect would herp to implement the regional growth management policy through a reduction in vehicle trips, and an improved jobs/housing balance. Moreover, the impacts of the project are generally within those forecast in the Air Quality Management Plan for the subregion. Therefore, the project would not increase projected exceedances of air quality standards, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards. implementation of office, research and development, and/or commercial land uses on Planning Area VII was not expected to generate toxic pollutants. Moreover, the site is not located within 0.25 mile of' a source of' toxic emissions. IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs Adopted Mitigation Program Mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval for the previously approved project, applicable to Planning Area VII, are as follows: --' · The following SCAQMD mitigation measures were incorporated into the project. To reduce particulate emissions from paved and unpaved roads, and construction activities, the project applicant shall: 1. Use Iow-emission alternative fuel (i.e., methanol, butane, or propane) as practicable in mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractor, scraper, dozer). 2. D~,velop a trip reduction plan to achieve 1.5 AVR for construction employees. 3. Water site and clean equipment morning and evening, at least twice daily. 4. Spread soil binders onsite, and on unpaved roads and parking areas. 5. Comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 concerning implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite. 6. Employ construction activity management techniques, such as extending the construction period, reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously, increasing the distance between emission sources, reducing or changing the hours of construction, and scheduling activity during off-peak hours. 7. Sweep streets if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. 8. Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts. 9. Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 10. Wash off trucks leaving the site and cover all loads of loose material. 11. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them adequately tuned. 12. Use Iow-sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. 13. Use existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. 14. Use Iow-emission onsite equipment (e.g., methanol-, propane-, or butane-powered internal combustion engines) instead of diesel or gasoline. · To reduce automobile emissions by reducing the number of vehicles driven to a work site on a daily basis, the project applicant shall: 15. Provide local shuttle services, and access to regional transit systems and transit shelters. IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified E/RS 16. Work with the City of Rancho Cucamonga to develop and implement a TDM ordinance. The project shall also comply with the requirements of the TDM ordinance. 17. Ensure efficient parking management. 18. Provide preferential parking to high-occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. ,, To reduce vehicular emissions through traffic flow improvements, the project applicant shall: 19. Configure parking to minimize traffic interference. 20. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. 21. Provide a flagperson to guide traffic and ensure safety at construction sites. 22. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. 23. Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. 24. Schedule goods movements for off-peak traffic hours. 25. Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate. · To reduce stationary emissions of operation-related activities, the project applicant shall: 26. Require development practices that maximize energy conservation as a prerequisite to permit approval. 27. Improve the thermal integrity of buildings, and reduce the thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. 28. Introduce window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods. 29. Introduce energy-efficient heating and cooling appliances, such as water heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, air conditioners, furnaces, and boiler units. 30. Incorporate appropriate passive solar design and solar heaters. 31. Use devices that minimize the combustion of fossil fuels. 32. Capture waste heat and re-employ it in nonresidential buildings. 33. Landscape building and median landscape areas with native drought-resistant species, as appropriate, to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. IASP Sub-Area 18 Speci£1c Plan Planning Area VI/ Addendum to Previously Ce~ified E/Re · To protect sensitive land uses from major sources of toxic air pollution, the project applicant shall: 34. Require design features, operating procedures, preventive maintenance, operator training, and emergency response planning to prevent the release of toxic pollutants, as appropriate. 35. Ensure compliance with notification and asbestos removal procedures outlined in SCAQMD Rule 1403 to reduce asbestos-related air quality impacts and health hazards. Currently Proposed Land Uses Construction Impacts The currently proposed land uses would be expected to have the same grading impacts as would the previously approved project. It is anticipated that regardless of land use, the entire Planning Area VII site would be graded. Operational Impacts Future implementation of residential and commercial land uses in Planning Area VII would result in reduced but similar operational air quality emissions when compared to the previously approved project for Planning Area VII. Proposed land uses would generate less vehicular traffic than the approved office, research and development, and commercial uses for the planning area; therefore, SCAQMD thresholds would not be exceeded. The proposed land uses would be consistent with the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga 2001 Genera/P/an Fina/ E/R as follows: ^Q-1 All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per the manufacture's specification. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. AQ-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, all applicants shall submit construction plans to City of Rancho Cucamonga denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that Iow emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that there use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the SCAQMD as well as City Planning Staff. AQ-3 All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coating shall be applied either by hand or high volume, Iow-pressure spray. AQ-4 All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs AQ-5 All construction shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally contractors shall include the following provisions: · Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. · Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. · Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. · Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. · Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. · Sweep streets as necessary if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. · Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. · Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. AQ-10 The proposed commercial areas shall incorporate food service. AQ-11 All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and MetroLink schedules in conspicuous areas. AQ-12 All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 of more employees shall be requested to configure their operating schedules around the MetroLink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. AQ-13 All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate high efficiency/Iow polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. AQ-14 All residential and commercia~ structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping AQ-15 All residential, commercial, and industrial structures shall be required to incorporate light colored roofing materials. Mitigation Program The previously adopted mitigation program for Planning Area VII would apply to the proposed land uses, where applicable for residential and commercial development. IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs 4.5 EARTH RESOURCES Previously Approved Project A strong seismically induced ground-shaking event could affect the project site during the operational lifetime of the development. To reduce the potential impacts associated with seismically i~duced ground shaking on the project site to a level considered less than significant, structures would be designed in accordance with the seismic requirements of the Uniform Building Code. The potential for erosion on the project site is considered to be moderate where vegetation cover is present (i.e., grape vineyards) (source: Soil Conservation Service, 1980). Dust storms are known to occur within the region in which the project site is located. However, due to the high permeability and Iow shrink-swell potential associated with the soils present on the project site, significant erosion impacts are not expected. Root and stock material may have been disposed of at shallow depths on the project site in the areas of the existing grape vineyard operations. The uncovering, collection, and disposal of these materials during grading activities from development of the project site would reduce the potential impacts from the settlement of these materials. Adopted Mitigation Program Mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval for the previously approved project, applicable to Planning Area VII, are as follows: · Similar to all development within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, structures to be constructed under the proposed Sub-Area Specific Plan would be required to comply with all local and state development standards (grading permits, Alquist-Priolo Zone Act of 1972, Uniform Building Code, etc.). As typically required for individual developments within the IASP prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the following is a mitigation measure to reduce the potential impact of seismic settlement and differential compaction in the project site under the development of the proposed Sub-Area Specific Plan to a level considered less that significant: · Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a subsurface geotechnical investigation shall be conducted to determine the likelihood of seismic settlement and differential compaction on the project site. Findings of this investigation shall be submitted to the City and grading operations shall adhere to the recommendations identified in the geotechnical report. Currently Proposed Land Uses A due-diligenc, e level geotechnical study was prepared for Planning Area VII by Leighton and Associates, Inc. in February 2003. The findings of the report are summarized below and the report is included in its entirety as Appendix B. Soils and Geology Planning Area VII is underlain by thick alluvial soil deposits. Groundwater was not present in borings to a depth of 26.5 feet below the existing ground surface nor is it expected to be present up to 350 to 400 feet below the ground surface based on review of regional groundwater maps. IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs Based on site-specific subsurface geotechnical investigation of Planning Area VII, no new significant impacts are anticipated. Based on additional subsurface investigation, the soil located within the upper five to 10 feet is considered to be slightly to moderately compressible with a mild hydrocollapse potential. Onsite soils are also expected to have a very Iow expansion potential and are mild to moderately corrosive to ferrous metals. Seismicity The site is located in southern California, a known seismically active area. No active faults pass beneath Planning Area VII nor is the site located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault. Zone. Therefore, there is little potential for surface fault rupture. However, the presence of regional faults within a 60-mile radius of the site creates a potential for strong ground motion at the site. The Cucamonga fault, located approximately 10 kilometers north of the site, is potentially capable of producing the greatest amount of peak horizontal ground accelerations (ground shaking) on the project site. No new significant impacts are anticipated. As stated before, the depth of groundwater at Planning Area VII is in excess of 50 feet below the existing ground surface. This factor, in addition to the fact that the site is not located in an area mapped as potentially liquefiable in the San Bernardino County Official Land Use Plan for the Guasti Quadrangle indicates that the potential for liquefaction is virtually nonexistent. With respect to the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final EIR, there are no applicable mitigation measures. Mitigation Program The previously adopted mitigation program for Planning Area VII would apply to the proposed land uses. 4.6 HYDROLOGY/DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY Previously Approved Project Hydrology and Drainage Existing surface water runoff drains via sheetflow to existing facilities in Cleveland Street. Development of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan project, inclusive of Planning Area VII, would increase impervious surfaces and surface water runoff. However, master planned downstream drainage facilities have been designed to accommodate the buildout of General Plan land uses, including the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan area. Groundwater The City of Rancho Cucamonga overlies two groundwater basins, the Cucamonga Basin and the Chino Basin. The Specific Plan area overlies the central portion of the Chino Basin. The basin is recharged primarily from rainfall and stormwater runoff. The IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan EIR noted that overall development of the Specific Plan may include the use of groundwater resources. Withdraw of groundwater within the Chino Basin would require a well permit from the Chino Basin Municipal Water District. IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs Water Qualit3~ Short-term water quality impacts could occur on Planning Area VII from grading operations during the rainy season and cause erosion and the transport of silt in downstream surface water flows. Long-term impacts could occur from the transport of urban constituents (i.e., oil, grease, tire particles) within onsite surface flows. Due to the depth of groundwater in the area, no impacts to groundwater quality are expected. Adopted Mitigation Program Mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval for the previously approved project, applicable to Planning Area VII, are as follows: · Similar to development that would be allowed on the project site under the existing IASP, various storm drain improvements will be installed, as development of the proposed Sub-Area Specific Plan progresses, to convey the post-development onsite storm flows into the existing storm drain facilities adjacent to the site. The proposed storm drain facilities will be sized and located to conform to the City's current storm flow conveyance policy. · Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for development of structures, erosion control measures that include Best Management Practices (BMPs) and compliance with NPDES stormwater quality requirements shall be included within construction plans. Currently Proposed Land Uses Runoff from Planning Area VII would drain into a 57-inch storm drain facility proposed to be located in Fourth Street. As with the previously approved land uses for Planning Area VII, the proposed land uses would result in the introduction of impervious surfaces to the site. Required open space within Planning Area VII would allow for continued percolation within the site. Future development of the site with commercial and residential uses would result in a similar amount or a reduction in impervious surfaces when compared to overall development of Planning Area VII with commercial uses, and therefore a similar amount of surface water flow. As with the previously adopted land uses for Planning Area VII, the proposed land uses would result in a similar incremental decrease in the quality of surface water. Like the proposed Sub- Area 18 Specific Plan, proposed land uses would not significantly affect downstream facilities. Groundwater quality would not be affected either by proposed uses or the approved Sub- Area 18 Specific Plan. The proposed land uses would be consistent with the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final EIR as follows: SG-21 The City shall require agricultural operations and new construction to comply with City provisions for preventing soil erosion and excessive generation of dust where the property is vulnerable to these conditions HD-5 During the construction and operation of new development the City of Rancho Cucamonga will require the implementation of best management practices to minimize pollutant runoff. This will include, where applicable, the preparation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Programs (SWPPPs) to control runoff from construction sites. IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified E/Rs HD-8 During the construction and operation of new development, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will implement best management practices to minimize pollutant runoff and percolation into the groundwater basin. This will include, where applicable, the preparation of SWPPPs to control runoff from construction sites. Mitigation Program The previously adopted mitigation program for Planning Area VII is applicable to the proposed land uses. 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Previously Approved Project Implementation of urban land uses on Planning Area VII would result in the removal of grape vineyards, a non-native habitat. During biological surveys conducted for the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan EIR, a single San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei) was observed within Planning Area VII. The San Diego horned lizard is a Category 2 candidate species for federal listing as threatened or endangered. The removal of this species from the site was not considered significant because of the project site's isolation from important natural open space areas, high amount of human disturbance, and lack of native plant communities. The Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly (DSFLF) was not found on the site during focused surveys (BonTerra Consulting, 1998 and February 2003; see Appendix C). The absence of indicator plants, the overall high density of vegetative cover, and the highly disturbed condition of the site makes it highly unlikely that the habitat site would support the DSFLF. Impacts to the DSFLF are not expected to occur from project implementation due to the lack of appropriate soils and vegetation conditions, as well as the adjacency of the existing urban land uses. Adopted Mitigation Program No significant impacts on biological resources would occur; no mitigation was required. Currently Proposed Land Uses Future development of Planning Area VII with proposed commercial and residential land uses would result in the same amount of habitat removal as would occur with the previously approved land uses for Planning Area VII. No significant impacts to biological resources are expected. There are no biological resources mitigation measures set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final EIR that would be applicable to the proposed land uses for Planning Area VII. Mitigation Program No mitigation is required. P/JPl\$peciflc Plan-0505003 DOC 26 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs 4.8 PUBLIIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Water Suppl~. Previously Alpproved Project Development of the 24-acre site with office, research and development, and commemial land uses was prqiected to generate a demand for approximately 72,000 gallons per day of water; this demand could be met by the Cucamonga County Water District. No significant impacts were anticipated. Adopted Mitiqation Proqram No mitigation measures are required. However, incorporation of the following measures would conserve water supplies and reduce impacts to the region's water resources: · All toilet, shower, and faucet fixtures shall be of an "ultra Iow-flow" nature. · Onsite landscaping shall use water-conserving plant material. · Automatic landscaping irrigation systems shall be used. · Automatic shut-off faucets shall be used in offices/commercial/retail facilities. · Landscaping and irrigation systems shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Currently Proposed Land Uses Planning Area VII is within the service area of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). Development of Planning Area VII with residential and commercial uses would increase demand of water from approximately 72,000 gallons per day to approximately 87,970 gallons per day. It is expected that the Water District can serve the proposed land uses. The proposed land uses would be consistent with the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final EIR as follows: W-1 Tile City shall coordinate with the CCWD and Inland Empire Utilities Agency to ensure that adequate water supplies and facilities are available to meet future growth. W-3 Slructures to retain precipitation and runoff on-site should be integrated into the design of the development where appropriate. Measures that may be used to minimize runoff and to enhance infiltration include Dutch drains, precast concrete lattice blocks and bricks, terraces, diversions, runoff spreaders, seepage pits, and recharge basins. W-4 The City shall continue to support the CCWD's efforts to develop the canyon water supply and to encourage water conservation. Water conservation techniques appropriate for new and existing development include: /ASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plen Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified E/Rs · Installing flow restrictors in showers. · Repairing leakywater fixtures. · Promoting drought resistant Iow maintenance vegetation. W-5 The City shall cooperate with efforts of the CCWD to expand the re-use of wastewater for such uses as the irrigation of parkways, golf courses, landscaped areas, and parks, and, if feasible, for industrial processes. W-6 The City shall implement applicable provisions of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal and private projects to protect ground water recharge areas from construction and other potential pollutant runoff. Miti,qation Proqram The previously adopted mitigation program for Planning Area VII is applicable to the proposed land uses. Wastewater Previously Approved Project Development of the 24-acre Planning Area VII site would generate approximately 76,800 gallons per day of wastewater. The CCVVD indicated the existing wastewater system in the project area was adequate to serve the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan project. Adopted Mitiqation Proqram · Development of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan would require payment of fees in accordance with the Cucamonga County Water District wastewater facility fee program. Currently Proposed Land Uses The Cucamonga County Water District anticipates the existing sewer system and sewage treatment plant capacity to be adequate for the proposed land uses. Future development of Planning Area VII with residential and commercial uses would result in an increased generation of wastewater from approximately 76,800 gallons to 140,670 gallons per day because of higher generation rates associated with residential development when compared to office, research and development, and commercial development uses. This increase is not expected to significantly affect master planned wastewater facilities. The proposed land uses would be consistent with the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the F~ancho Cucarnonga 2001 Genera/Plan Final EIF~ as follows: WW-1 The City shall coordinate with the Inland Empire Utility Agency and Cucamonga County Water District to ensure that adequate wastewater facilities are available to meet future growth. Mitiqation Proqram The previously adopted mitigation program for Planning Area VII is applicable to the proposed land uses. /ASP Sub-Area 18 Specific P/an Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Ce~ified EIRs Solid Waste Previously Approved Project Development of Planning Area VII with office, research and development, and commercial uses would result in the generation of approximately 5.3 tons per day of solid waste. While development of the planning area would increase existing solid waste generation, the development of the Sub-Area Specific Plan would be required to comply with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element and City-approved source reduction and recycling programs. No significant impacts were identified. Adopted Miti,qation Proqram · The project applicant shall implement a source reduction and recycling program for the proposed Sub-Area Specific Plan which may include the following: - Provide recycling facilities that allow paper, metal, plastic and glass to be separated. - Compost green waste. - Use minimal maintenance plants for landscaping. Currently Proposed Land Uses Development of Planning Area VII with residential and commercial uses would not significantly impact existing and future solid waste facilities. Because of the reduction in future development of Planning Area VII based on residential and commercial land uses, no new significant impacts would occur. The proposed land uses would be consistent with the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final £1R as follows: SW-1 The City shall continue to implement waste reduction procedures consistent with AB 939. SW-2 The City shall coordinate with the County of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino Association of Governments, and solid waste haulers to ensure adequate services and facilities are available within and outside the County to collect and dispose of solid waste. Mitigation Proqram The previously adopted mitigation program for Planning Area VII is applicable to the proposed land uses. Schools Previously Approved Project The rASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan site is located within the boundaries of the Cucamonga School District (CSD) and Chaffey Joint High School District (CJUHSD). The EIR determined that project implementation would have indirect impacts. Future employees at the project site IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs could create a demand for additional housing; these employees may have children who attend schools within the CSD and CJUHSD. Adopted Mitiqation Proqram · Prior to occupancy, development impact fees in accordance with CSD and CJUHSD shall be paid. Currently Proposed Land Uses Development of the project site would directly generate new students attending schools within the Cucamonga School District (CSD) and Chaffey Joint Union High School District (CJUHSD). Within the area served for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, CJUHSD has three high schools. CJUHSD has a generation rate of 0.20 high school students per dwelling unit, a design capacity of 15,485 and an enrollment of 19,567 students (source: Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan). A fourth high school site is planned east of Chaffey College. The Cucamonga School District (CSD) operates three schools within the Rancho Cucamonga service area, two elementary schools and one junior high school. The CSD design capacity is 2,260 students (source: Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan). For multi-family residences, the CSD uses a generation rate of 0.223 students per dwelling unit (source: Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan). Based on a maximum of 499 multi-family dwelling units in Planning Area VII, future development would generate 111 elementary/junior high school students and 100 high school students. Within the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan site, there are four other residential developments that have been implemented and/or constructed, one of these being a senior housing project. As of March 2003, the generation rate associated with existing Specific Plan residential development has resulted in a student generation rate of 0.09, compared to 0.20 for CJUHSD and 0.223 for CSD. Following the approval of Proposition IA by the voters of the State of California, Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), was fully implemented on November 4, 1998. One of the provisions of SB 50 was the · suspension of the Mira-Hart-Murrieta court decisions until January 1, 2006. Under SB 50, statutory caps have been placed on developer fees, and local governments cannot deny a project based on the adequacy of school facilities. In lieu of the powers granted to the school districts by the Mira-Hart-Murrieta court decisions, SB 50 provides school districts with a reformed statutory school fee collection procedure that, subject to certain conditions, authorizes school districts to collect alternative school fees on residential developments. In order to levy alternative fees, a school district must first approve a one-time School Facilities Needs Analysis that assesses existing capacity and unhoused students. In accordance with California Government Code §65995(h)(I): "The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed pursuant to Section 17620 of the Education Code in the amount specified in Section 65995 and, if applicable, any amounts specified in Section 65995.5 or 65995.7 are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073, on the provision of adequate school facilities. A State or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or /ASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area Vfi Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073 on the basis of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amour~ts authorized pursuant to this section or pursuant to Section 65995. 5 or 65995.7, as applica~ble." There are no school mitigation measures set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga 2001 Genera/ Plan Final Ehql that are applicable to the proposed land uses. Mitiqation Pro!:lram The previously adopted mitigation program for Planning Area VII is ap¢cable to the proposed land uses. 4.9 ENERGY DEbIAND AND CONSERVATION Previously Approved Project Development of Planning Area VII with office, research and development, and commercial uses would result in a demand of approximately 5.19 million kilowatt hours per year of electricity. Although the approved land ustgs would result in an increase in existing demand for electricity, project demand is within service proiections of Southern California Edison. Development of the site would demand approximately 25.4 million therms of natural gas per year. While land uses proposed on the site would increase the existing demand for natural gas, the demand can be met by the Southern California Gas Company. Adopted Mitigation Program No mitigation measures are required. However, the following measures are proposed to minimize overall energy consumption. · In order to conserve energy, individual developments on the project site shall incorporate energy efficient technologies, practices, and equipment to reduce the onsite demand of electricity, natural gas and fuel. · Implementation of the project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Uniform Building Code Currently Proposed Land Uses As shown in Table 7, implementation of the proposed land uses would decrease the annual demand for electricity from approximately 5.19 million kwh annually to approximately 2.36 million kWh annually, and would decrease the annual demand of natural gas from approximately 25.4 million therms annually to 23.05 million therms annually compared to the approved land uses for Planning Area Vtl. Because the proposed land uses would reduce both natural gas and electrical demands associated with future development of the Planning Area VII site, no new significant impacts would occur. The Southern California Edison Company can install electric distribution facilities and provide electric service in accordance with its Tariff Schedules that are the effective rules and rates of the Southern California Edison Company on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. The Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the project IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRS is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided from an existing main located in Milliken Avenue. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension plans on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual agreements are made. TABLE 7 ENERGY DEMAND Land Use Units/Area Demand Factor (million therms) Natural Gas Residential 499 du 43,138 cf/unit/yr 21.53 Commercial 43,738 sq.ft. 34.8 cf/sf/yr 1.52 Total 23.05 I I Annual Land Use Units/Area Demand Factor (million kwh) Electricity Residential 499 du 5,626.5 kWh/unit/yr 0.28 Commercial 43,738 sq.ft. 47.45 kWh/sf/yr 2.08 Total 2.36 cf/unitJyr: cubic feet per dwelling unit per year cf/sf/yr: cubic feet per square foot per year du: dwelling unit sq.ft: square feet kWh/unit/yr: kilowatt hour per dwelling unit per year kWh/sf/yr: kilowatt hour per square foot per year The proposed land uses would be consistent with the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan as follows: NG-1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall provide population projections to The Gas Company to ensure they have adequate information upon which to project natural gas demands. NG-2 The City shall coordinate with The Gas Company to ensure adequate services and facilities are available to provide for future development. ES-1 The City will promote and pursue strategies to decrease dependence on imported non-renewable energy resources. ES-2 The City will promote energy efficiency and renewable energy resources. ES-3 The City shall initiate and promote measures into land use and circulation planning that will contribute to the reduction of operational energy requirements. ES-4 The City shall review existing land use and zoning regulations to assess and identify further opportunities for energy conserving measures, including development of an infrastructure to support the use of alternative fuel. ES-5 The City will establish and coordinate energy efficiency programs to assist residential users. /ASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs ES-6 The City will promote energy efficient design in all projects. ES-7 The City will promote integration of energy efficient programs in all types of commercial development proiects. · ES-9 The City shall continue pursing strategies to promote a balance of housing and employment opportunities within the City and surrounding region. Mitigation Program The previously adopted mitigation program for Planning Area VII is applicable to the proposed land uses. 4.10 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Previously Approved Project Use of the project site for grape vineyards indicates the potential for herbicide residue in shallow site soils. Herbicides are not considered to be a public health threat and can be remediated, if necessary, using readily available techniques. Research and development land uses on Planning Area VII could use and/or generate hazardous materials; however, local, state, and federal regulations/requirements and guidelines provide mechanisms to ensure proper storage and transport of hazardous materials and trained response to any potential hazardous material incidents. Adopted Mitigation Program · Development currently being proposed, constructed, or completed under buildout of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan are required to comply with all existing local, state, and federal regulations/requirements and guidelines that provide for mechanisms to ensure proper storage and transport of hazardous materials and treatment of any potential hazardous material incidents. Therefore, no further mitigation measures are required. Currently Proposed Land Uses Implementation of future development associated with the proposed land uses would be required to comply with all mandated regulations. Implementation of the residential and commercial land uses are not expected to result in a significant impact with regard to hazardous materials. Residential development would not be expected to generate or use hazardous materials. Nc new significant impacts would occur. The proposed land uses would be consistent with the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan as follows: HMC-1 The City shall continue to support the County of San Bernardino's management of the Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program (HMDP) to identify and regulate businesses handling extremely hazardous materials, or hazardous materials within regulated quantities. IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIR$ HMC-2 The City shall continue to maintain and implement the Household Hazardous Waste Element, in accordance with State law, to provide handling and emergency response services for household hazardous waste. HMC-3 The City shall continue to padicipate in the County-wide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to address storm water runoff, pollution prevention, and illegal discharge of waste into storm drains in the community. Mitigation Program The previously adopted mitigation program for Planning Area VII is applicable to the proposed land uses. IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area VII Addendum to Previously Certified EIRs 5. CONCLUSIONS An Addendum to the previously certified City of Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Final Environmental' Impact Report (Ell{) and the previously certified Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub-Area 18 Final EIR is the appropriate documentation because some changes or additions are necessary to allow for multiple family residential uses as additionally permitted use within the Mixed-Use land use designation as set forth in the General Plan for IASP Specific Plan Sub-Area 18 and in the Specific Plan for Planning Area VII. None of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines §15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent Ell{ have occurred. The City of l{ancho Cucamonga finds that: · there have not been substantial changes in the project that require major revisions to the previous EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; · there have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIRs due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or · there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, that shows any of the following: a) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIRs, b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Ell{s, 'c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final Ell{s would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. APPENDIX A TRAFFIC STUDY 06-19-Z003 10:43am From-JPI +86845617'16 T-l??' P.002/006 F-968 I May 12. 20O3 Ms. Heidi Mather Regional Development M.nagcr JPI Westcoast DevelopmenT. L-P- g910 University Center l~nc, S~i[e 150 San Diego, California 92122 Subject: G~ueral Dynamics Planning Area Vii GPA/SPA Dear Ms. Mather: JPI Westc:oa~t Development is proposing a General Plan Arr~ndmenr/Specific Plan An~ndmen[ m~{~ ~e ]~d u~s pe~ in Planning Area VH of ~e ~neral Dy~cs pro~y. Planning ~ea Vfl is l~a~d on the no.west comer of~e mte~tion of Foo~ Sucet ~d Milliken Avenue. lhe City of ~cho Cuc~onga. LSA Associates. ~c. fLSA) prepped a S~ Bem~ino County Congestion Managc~nt ~og~m (C~) Traffic ~act Analysis (T~) for &e General ~cs prape~ in J~, 1994. Thc T~ w~ subsequently approved by ~e City ofR~cho C~camonga and thc S~ Bemardino ~s~iared Gove~uts (S~AG). ~neral Dynamic~ and ~e City of Rancho Cuc~nga si~cd a ~velop~nt a~ee~.t ideuri~g ~c ime~don ~prow~n~ thai would required ~ conj ~crion ~ith [he develop~nt of ~e Gene~ Dyn~cs pro~y. LSA ~s anMyzed the ~p g~n~ration of the land uses ~.ed in Planing ~ea V H ~r the pro~sed General Plan A~nd~n~S~cific Plan ~ndment and compared i~ ~o Ibc ~ip generaiion ~s~d tor ~e s~ Pla~iug Area in the approved T~. TMs leirer su~zes ihe results of o~r ~nalysis The General PI~ ~nd~ngS~ific Plan ~ndm~nt would ~t 499 apu~r~nt ~lm, 15.~ ~u~c feet of resta~am uses, and 30,748 ~q~re &et of general retail uses. Thc p.m ~ak hour ~d ~ily uip generation for ~e propo~d l~nd u~s w~s calculat~ using Ifip generation ~es from the ~sritulr of Tr~ns~r~ion En~ncer~ (~E) Trip Generation (6~ ~ition). Table A su~rl~s the p.m. ~ak ho~ ~d daily mp generation for th~ proposal land us~s. As show. in Table A, the proposed Mnd ~s ar~ cx~c~d to gene~te 6,583 dMly ~ps, with 588 ~ps ~cumng during th~ p.m ~uk hour. Table A also sa~ts the ~ip generation for thu land us=s assu~d [or Ih~ Pla~ing Area in approved ~ner~l Dy~c s TIA. ~ shown in Table A. i~ approved land uses ~e exacted to generate 16.178 daHy ~ips, ~i~h 1,755 i~ps ~cumng during the p m ~uk ho~. Thu~, the ~p generaliou of&e propo~d land uses is subs~Iially lower ~ the mp generation approved for t~e Planning ~ea in th~ TL~. u~r~ wMch the i~rovem~nt~ i~ntified in ~ Gene~{ Dyna~cs devel~nt agrce~m were predicated. 06-19-2~03 10:44am From-JPt +9554591~16 T-l?? P.003/006 F-966 The proposed changes m the l~d uses approved for Planning Area YU ale thc lares! ill a ~s of land use changes [~t hav~ su~T~ti~l~ reduced ~e Total pot~n~a[ tnp g~ner~fion of ~ Geaer~ ~n~cs p~. ~evious changes inclu~ ~e fol]owiag: · Piing ~ea H- Appm*~ for r~il, lhea~er, r~reafion~, ~d res~nt u~s; now pro~ for H~g ~u ~ - Approved for office ~d re~il u~s; now p~ of ~ golf · H~g ~a IV - Ap~ov~ for office ~s ~nd a ~sa~ p~; buih with only the offic~ Plain[ ~ea V - Appro*ed for hote~conference cenler, ~1, ~d res[a~t ul~s; now pro~d for buiiness - Pl~ning ~ea VI- Approv~ f~ offic~ ~s~s; ander cons~uetian wi~ 496 ap~ms. Pl~ning ~ V~ - Approved for offi~, resm~n~ ~d b~ia~ p~k uses; no~ approved for ~or housing ~d office uses. · Piing ~e~ ~ - Approved for restaurant and office u~s; built ~irh 521 ap~nts. Pl~ing ~a ~ - Approved for office, reSmu~m, and busiaess p~k uses; now p~posed for dis~ba~ion facility. Table B pre.ms a comparison of ~e ~oral d~l~ ~ip generation for ~e General Dyna~cs pro~n~ approvtd ~d wi~ ~e cumulative i~t of ~ lind ~s c~ges d~mil~d a~ve. ~ shown ia Table B, · e proj~r as ofi~nal[y approved w~ exacted to generate ~.011 d~ly mp~. Wi~ the l~d m~ changes r~t haw ~en imple~nr~ or ~ cu~mly pro~d, ~ ent~r~ Geaeral D~cs pro.ny ~ould ex~c~d ~o g~nerale 25,667 ~lY ~ps, w~ch reptesen~ a reduction ot a~ost ~ ~rc~m. If you ha~e ~y questions reg~ing ~h~ ~naly~is primmed in l~s l~er, pleas~ f~l fr~ w call (~9) 781-9310. Sincerely. LSA AS$OCIAT£$, INC. Projec[ Mrmager 06-19-200) 10:44am From-JPI +86845Bl?16 %177 P.004/006 F-966 Table A - General Dynamics Pta,n~ng Area VII Trip Generation P~o~oe~!' Land Uses P.M. Peak Hour La~d Use Uni~ In O~ Total Daily Aparm~nt~ 499 D.U. Trips/Uni~~ 0.42 0.20 0.62 6.63 Tnp C~afian 210 100 310 ~,308 Shopping Caner 30.748 TSF Trips/Umt'~ !.80 !.94 3.74 42.92 Trip C_~nerarion 55 60 11.5 1.,32D P. esumrant 15.000 TSF Tnps/Umt~ ~.~2 4.~4 lo.~l~ 13o.34 Tr~p Genera~o~ 98 6~ 163 1,955 TotM Parcel Trip Generation 363 225 588 6,583 Approved Land Uses "' P.M. Peak Hour La~d Use Units la OUt Total Retail 130 TSF Tcips.,'Unif* 2.98 2.98 5.96 64_05 Top Gene-radon 38§ 388, 776 8,327 Resta.rant 20 TSF TripdLImf' 8.78 7.48 16.26 205.36 Top GerteraUon 175 }.50 325 4.107 Bank 30 TSF Taps/Unit* 7.63 9.72 t7 35 140 61 Trip Gcnerahon 229 292 521 4,2 Office 450 TSF TripS/Onif' 0.21 1.0a 1.25 9.72 Top Generation 96 467 563 4,375 TotM PaxccI Trip C~naxauon 888 1297 2,}.85 21.027 Retail/Restore'ant Pass-by redaction (39%) 220 -~ 10 430 4,849 Net New Parcel Tcip Generation 668 1.087 1.755 16.178 Ra c~ ba:~d on Land U~r ..0 - ^pa.qm~n~ from In:~t:mt~: of Tr~a~ponauon Engmeer~ {ITE) 1 ?tp Generation. 6th Edlnon. -~ R:ac~ bas,cd on La.nd U~ 820 - Shopping Center irom ITE Tr~p Grner. nOn, 6~n F~. 3 Roles based on La~ Use 832 - High Tamover (git. Down) Restaurant from IT£ Top Gencru~oon. 6th Ed. a p. atesfaralapro~edlandusesarcrakcnfromlheGeneralDyaam;csRanchoCucamonga l'rq~Tc ltnpact Amay$is (LSA..January 1994L ~hich r~'[t~:d ,on ITE Trip Genemnon. 5th Edmon 51! 2~2003 { R?O PW330~aoaelXGP Top Gea Comp) 08-19-2003 10:44am From-JPI +85845817'16 T-1TT P.005/006 l:-g68 TabLe B - General Dynamics Project Daily Trip Generation Comparison .and U~ Siz~ Un;'~ , , Rate 2~'{?s L~"~ Us~ Size UniT~ Ra~ , ,,, ~]fC~ 155 Ac~s 8.3~ 1,2~1 (No ~} 1,291 ~ ~a ~ [~o~ for Office U~) Rc~ll 1~ TSF ~.u5 ~,327 Office 285 TSF I0,87 3,~ ~e 12 ~ens 153.33 i,~O H~hh CI~b 120 TSF 15.~ 1.913 R~ ~ TSF 205.36 8~14 Bowh~ AII~ ~ TSF 33.33 ~j~m tbr ~I~ma~nT p~55-b~ (38%) 10.355 Pl~mng ~ea ~ t~ of goff R~I ~ TSF 73.52 6.617 R~m~ 10 TSF 205.36 ~lu~m f~ ~mt~rea~t ~s-by ~45%) 4.769 gu~o~ 6.6~5 8~aiug ~ca iV (Offic~ cou~d wahuut Offic~ (wl~u~ ff~t) 2~ TSF 1133 2.72~ ~'f, cc ~ TgF 11.33 ~t 20 TSF 205.36 4.107 Adju~m~m for rcsma~t ~s-by (75%) 1 ~.~O~ 3.747 Plaa~ug ~ea V (~o~ for ~usmcsa p~, a~ ~ifi:d ~1o~) Ho~l/Conf Cw 150 R~m 15.97 2,396 Light Inamm~ 133 TSF 6.58 '87~ Offigg 150 TSF 12.71 1.~7 Offic. 119 TSF 13.45 Remd 120 TSF ~.~ 7.920 Rc~r~I 20 TSF 205.~ 4,107 A~jus~m fur rcm]lt~s~an/p~-by (~) 7.216 Su~m~ 11.519 Pl~mug ~ca VI (ApproveO iht 4~ ~euts) 3,28t Of~e 435 TgF O.~ 4,t~ Pi~mng ~ea Vg (ho~ for ~g=t ~1o~) Retail 13U ~F ~.05 ~.327 Re[~I 1,32( ~sta~ 20 TSF 2~.~ 4,107 ~sm~t 1,95~ Bgnk ~ TSF 140.61 4,218 Ap~m¢nt~ 3.301 Offic~ 450 T~ 9.72 4.375 Adj~m~gt for re~ta~t pass-oy (39~) 7~85 Sdbwa] 16.178 Pl~ing Ar*~ ~II (Ap~ov~ for u~ ~luw) Office 1~ ~F 12 71 1,~7 O~]cc 150 TSF 12.71 1,90' ~ur~[ 10 TSF 20536 2,0~ S;nior Housing 2~ DU 4-13 Baamc~ P~a 1 b0 TSF 14 37 2.2~ ~j~t~n/Tar rea~j,t p~s-~y (75%) 513 Sub~ 4,719 05-19-Z00~ 10:45am From-JPI +$584581~16 T-I?T P.005/006 F-988 Table B - General Dynamics Projec~ Daily Trip Generation Comparisan namig~ TIA) Actual or Cur~¢ml Size Um~s Ra~ Land U~ S~ze U&m ~ea ~ (Ap~v~ f~ 521 Office 1~ TSF 12.93 1310 Rc~ur~ 10 TSF 205 36 2,0~ Bu~s P~ 1~ TSF 14 37 2.012 ?~ing ~ X (No chugs) 4.12~ B~n~ P~ 15~ TS~ 14.37 2,156 x~u~m for x~] p~s-b~ {~%) t .9~ l 5.bm~l 4,126 Office 115 TSF 13.56 1.5~ ~ehoo~ 412 TSF 4.59 ~s~r 10 ~F 205 3~ 2,0~ 8usin~ P~k 150 '~F 14.37 2,156 ~jas~nr for r~aur~l ~s-by (75%) 513 ]u~oml 4,~8 ~j~t~nr for ,n~ ~M ~p capture (2~) FOTAL GROSS NEW TRIPS 80,015 32.08] NTERN.~L TRIP CAPTI.~.E (lOqO 7.702 3.20~ FDIvl/FRANSfi' ~U~'ION 7,702 3.20~ FOT~ ~C~IVE ~IP O~NE~TION ~,011 Nor= Tnp gcncrauon ~es fot orsgm~ly ap~ovea aevelop~m ~ ~om mr l~ Tfip ~nrrauon m~a~, Fif~ ~idon. Trip gene~on m~s for .~b~ml~ ~ppro*~ ~*clopm~nt ar~ from ~ I~ T6p ~ueagoa ~. gix~ Trip gener~on rules for Light lnoasRial ~a W~e hoag me awragg of ~E r~ ~a rm=~ flora ~mck Trip T6p ge=e~aUon ta~= for ~or H~a~mg ~ ~d on w~ffic ~y for pmj~c~ p~ by Lm~oIL Law. ~ APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL STUDY DUE-DILIGENCE-LEVEL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED M U LTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, NORTH OF 4TN STREET, WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: .]pT WESTCOAST DEVELOPMENT, L.P, 8910 University Central Lane, Suite 150 San Diego, California 92122 Project No. 020873-001 February !3, 2003 .~l,-i~O~ ,..;R~UF C PA Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY February 1~, ~003 Project No. 020873-001 To: JPI Westcoast Development, L.P. 8910 University Central Lane, Suite 150 San Diego, California 92122 Attention: Ms. Heidi Mather Subject: Due-Diligence-Level Geotecbafical Investigation of the Proposed Multi-family Residential Development, North of 4th Street, West of Milliken Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California In response to your request, Leighton and Associates, Inc. has conducted a due diligence-level geotechnical investigation of the proposed multi-family residential development located at the northwest corner of 4t~ Street and Milliken Avenue in the City, of Rancho Cucamonga. California. This study is intended to address the geotechnical feasibility of the site for development and to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations tbr design and construction of the Additional review and/or investigation proposed development. geotechnical will be required based on final project plans. Based upon our preliminary investigation and analysis, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided our recommendations are incorporated in the design and construction of the project. The most significant geotechnical issues at the site are those related to compressible soil. The site is underlain by loose to medium dense or medium stiff to stiffsilty sand and sand'./ silt with some gravel. Partial removal and recompaction of this soil will be necessary to reduce the potential for adverse settlement of structures and other site improvements. Although no grading or construct on plans are available, we anticipate that minor cuts and fills will be required to attain desired grades. The site is not located in a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Study Zone, and is not identified as a potentially liquefiable area on the Geologic Hazard Overlay for Guasti 14125 Telephone Avenue, Suite 1 ,, Chino, CA91710-5770 909,590,4909 ~ Fax 909. 590. 2989 ~ ~A,cw. leightongeo.com 020873-001 Quadrangle of the San Bemardino County Official Land Use Plan (1994). No mapped active or potentially active faults traverse or trend toward the site. However, it is located within an area of historically high seismic activity. Thus, significant ground shaking should be anticipated at the site during the anticipated life of the proposed structures. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further service, please call us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Reviewed by: David C. Smith, RCE 46222 Principal PP/JDI-FPB/DCS/rsh Distribution: (4) Addressee 020873-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paee 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Proposed Development ............................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site Location and Description ..................................................................................... 1 1.3 Pu_qpose oflnvestigation .............................................................................................. 1 1.4 Scope oflnvestigation ................................................................................................. 1 2.0 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 5 2.I Site: Geology ................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions ......................................................................................... 5 2.3 Groundwater ............................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Faulting and Seismicity ............................................................................................... 6 2.5 Secondary Seismic Hazards ................................................................................ ~ ....... 6 2.6 Soil Compressibility .................................................................................................... 7 ' 2.7 Strength Characteristics .............................................................................................. 7 2.8 Soil Expansion Potential ............................................................................................. 7 2.9 Soloble Sulfates .......................................................................................................... 7 2.10 Resistivity, Chloride and pH ....................................................................................... 8 3.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 9 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 10 4.1 Eza'thwork .................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations ................................................................ 11 4.3 Settlement ................................................................................................................... 12 4.4 Slab-On-Grade ............................................................................................................ 12 4.5 Retaining Walls ........................................................................................................... 14 Seismic Parameters 15 4.6 Design 4.7 Cement Type and Corrosion Protection ...................................................................... 15 4.8 Preliminary Pavement Design ..................................................................................... 16 4.9 Temporary Excavations .............................................................................................. 1 6 4.10 Trench Backfill ........................................................................................................... 17 4.11 Surface Drainage ......................................................................................................... !7 4.12 Additional Geotechnical Services ............................................................................... 17 - i- Le ohton and Associates. !nc. 020873-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendices Appendix A - References Appendix B - Geotechnical Boring Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results Appendix D - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figures Figure 1 o Site Location Map - Page 2 Figure 2 - Boring Location Map - Rear of Text Figure 3 - Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail - Rear of Text 020g73-001 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Propos,ed Development Based on the Site Plan, the proposed development is expected to consist of the construction of ten multi-family apartment buildings, a leasing center, pool, underground utilities, access roads, and other associated improvements. The preliminary plans include a 3-acre retail center at the southeast comer of the site. However, we understand that this plan is preliminary and that the development may not include the retail center. Based on the proposed improvements and the existing topography, we anticipate that minor cuts and fills (on the order of 5 feet or less) will be required to obtain the desired finish grades. 1.2 Site Location and Description The approximately 20-acre, roughly trapezoidal-shaped site is located at the northwest comer of 4th Street and Milliken Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. The site is bounded on the north by 5th Street, on the south by 4th Street, on the east by Milliken ,Avenue and on the west by a new multi-family residential development. The site currently consists of a vineyard crossed by several dirt roads and slopes gently to the southwest. t.3 Purpose of Investiqation The purpose of this study has been to evaluate the general geotechnical conditions at the site, to identify, major geotechnicat or geologic issues that would impact site development, and to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. This report is based on our correspondence with you, our understanding of the sit(; conditions, and the 100-scale Scheme 'B' Site Plan, prepared by Architects Orange, dated December 9, 2002. 1.4 Scope of Investiqation The scope of our investigation has included the following tasks: · Back~oround Review - A background review of readily available, relevant, in-house geotechnical reports, literature, and aerial photographs ~vas performed. We also reviewed the geotechnical reports previously prepared by others for the site and adjacent sites. - l - eiehton and/ ,$sooist s I ~ \ : ~-~: - ;: ~ ",~ _. ~': -. ~t II ::,~.__~5 ~ '. ., . :~ . .~ .. ..... ~, ,~, - : BASS MAP: Topo Interactive Maps on CD-Rom, NO SCALE Los Angels Count, Guasti Quadrangle : PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SiTE PROJECT NO. - :' DEVELOPMENT 020873-001 No~h of 4th Street, West of Milliken LOCATION Avenue DATE city o~.~ncho C.c~monga, C~,Jo~ni~ MAP Februa~ 2003 Figure No. 1 020873-001 Pre..field Investieation Activities - Coordinated with Underground Service Alert (USA) to have existing underground utilities located and marked prior to our sub:mrface investigation. Field Investigation - Our field investigation consisted of the excavation, logging and samPling of five hollow-stem auger borings at representative locations within the site. The borings were excavated to a depth of 26.5/'eet below the existing ground surface. Each boring was logged by a member of our technical staff. Representative relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples were obtained at selected intervals for laboratory testing. Logs of the geotechnical borings are presented in Appendix B. Approximate boring locations are shown on the accompanying Boring Location Map, Figure 2. - Laboratory tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed Laboratory Tests and bulk soil samples obtained during our field investigation. The laboratory testing program was designed to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the onsite soils. Tests performed include: In sim moisture content and dry density of existing soils. Atterberg Limits to classi~ the soil and to evaluate engineering properties of the soil. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content to evaluate the' relative compaction of onsite earth materials. Direct shear on remolded soil samples to evaluate the stren~h characteristics of the onsite material when used as compacted fill. Consolidation and hydroconsolidation to evaluate soil compression characteristics. Expansion Index to evaluate the expansion potential of the near-surface soils. Water-soluble sulfate concentration in the soil for sulfate exposure and cement ,vv'pe recommendations. Resistivity., chloride content and pH to evaluate corrosion potential of the onsite soils. - 3 - ~e,ghLvF~ aha Assoclaes. inc, 020873-001 Em, ineerin~ Analysis - The data obtained from our back_m-ound review, field exploration, and laboratory testing program was evaluated and analyzed in order to provide the conclusions and recommendations in the following sections. Report Preparation - The results of our geotechnical investigation have been summarized in this report, presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations. -4 - Leig,h'~on and Associates. 020873-001 2.0 FINDINGS 2.1 Site Geoloqy The site,, is located within the Chino Basin in the northern portion of the Peninsular Range geomorphic province of California. Major structural features surround the region including the Cucamonga fault and the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the Chino fruit and Puente Chino Hills to the west, and the San Jacinto fault to the east. In addition, this is .~m area of large-scale crustal disturbance as the relativeiy northwestward moving Peninsular Range Province, collides with the Transverse Range Province (San Gabriel Mountains) to the north. Several active or potentially active faults have been mapped in the region and are believed to accommodate compression associated with this collision. The site is located approximately 10 kilometers south of the Cucamonga Fault Zone. This is a major active fault zone forming the steep escarpment between the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the basin floor on the south. The site is underlain by alluvial soil eroded from the San Gabriel Mountains and deposited in the site vicinity. 2.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions Based upon our review of pertinent geoteclmical literature, and our suo.urface exploration, thick alluvial soil Within the 10 feet. these deposits the site is underlain by deposits. upper generally consist of loose to medium dense or medium stiff to stiff, silty sand and sandy silt with some gravel. Below 10 feet. the alluvial soil generally consists of !oose ro dense, fine- to coarse-grained silty sand, gravelly sand, and sand to the depths investigated.. Occasional cobbles were encountered at the surface and in some of the borings during Bedrock was not encountered during our exploratory borings. drilling. The in situ moisture content of the soil within the upper 10 feet ranged from 1 percent to 14 percent. 2.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in any of our borings performed during this investigation to a maximum depth of 26.5 feet. Based on our review of various groundwater maps (Wildermuth, 1997; CDWR, 1970), groundwater is expected to be on the order of 350 to 400 feet below the ~ound surface in the vicinity, of the site. As such, groundwater is not expected to be a constraint to the proposed development. :" .... ' ' ~ "'"* ° !nc:, _elon[o~, ~n~ A,%odote 020573-00! I 2.4 Faulting and Seismicity I Our review of available in-house literature indicates that there are no known active or potentially active faults that traverse the site, and the site is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Study Zone. The principal seismic hazard that could affect the I site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along one of several major active or potentially active faults in southern California. The known regional active and I potentially active faults that could produce the most significant ground shaking at the site include the Cucamonga, San Jose, San Jacinto, and Chino-Central Avenue faults. Design of the development in accordance with current UBC requirements is intended to reduce the I impact of seismic shaking on the site improvements. I Peak Horizontal Ground Accelerations (PHGA) for the site were estimated using a deterministic seismic hazard analysis, based on currently available earthquake and fault information. The analysis computes the site PHGA that could be expected to result from I an earthquake on a specific fault using the estimated maximum magnitude earthquake event. PHGA's were estimated using the EQFAULT computer program (Blake, 2000), II based on the attenuation relationship by Sadigh et al. (1997). Based on the analysis, the Cucamonga fault (located approximately 10 kilometers north of the site) is potentially capable of producing the greatest PHGA at the site, due to its proximity, fault type, and its maximum earthquake magnitude of 7.0 (Mw). It is estimated that such an earthquake on this fault near the site could produce seismic shaking with a PHGA of 0.41g. I 2.5 Secondary Seismic Hazards I Liquefaction Potential i Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength or stiffness due to a buildup of pore-water pressure during strong ground shaking. Liquefaction is associated primarily with loose (low density), saturated, fine- to medium-grained, cohesionless soils. Effects of I liquefaction can include sand boils, settlement, and bearing capacity, failures below structural foundations. The site is not located in an area mapped as potentially liquefiable in the San Bernardino County Official Land Use Plan tbr the Guasti Quadrangle (San Bernardino County, 1994). I In addition, regional groundwater maps indicate that shallow groundwater conditions do not exist locally. As such, the potential for liquefaction occurrence at the site is considered to be nil. 020873-001 Seismically Induced Settlement Dur/n~,, a strong seismic event, seismically induced settlement can occur within loose to moderately dense, dry or saturated granular soils. Settlement caused by ground shaking is often nonuaiformly distributed, which can result in differential settlement. We have performed analyses to estimate the seismically induced settlement using the methods set forth by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). The potential total settlement resulting from seismic loading is estimated to be less than 1 inch, and potential seismically induced differential settlement is estimated to be less than ½ inch over a distance of 50 feet. 2.6 Soil Compressibility Based on our subsurface investigation and laboratory testing, the soil located within the upper :5 to 10 feet is generally considered to be slightly to moderately compressible. The onsite soils exhibit a mild hydrocollapse potential. 2.7 Strength Characteristics A direct shear test was performed on a representative remolded soil sample to evaluate the stren~L:~h characteristics of the soils onsite when used as compacted fill. The results of the laboratory test are presented Appendix in C. 2.8 Soil Expansion Potential A representative sample of the subsurface soil was tested for expansion potential. The results of this test indicate a low expansion potential (Expansion Index of 2). Based very on this. result and the granular nature of the onsite soil, the near-surface soils are expected to have a very low expansion potential. 2.9 Soluble Sulfates Water-soluble sulfates in soil can react adversely with concrete. However, concrete structures in contact with soils containing sulfate concentrations of less than 0.10 percent are considered to have negligible sulfate exposure (IBCO, 1997 edition, Chapter 19). A representative sample of the subsurface soil was tested for water-soluble sulfates. The results of this test indicate a soluble sulfate content of approximately 0.01 percent by weight, indicating negligible sulfate exposure. Leighton and Associates. !nc. I 020873-00] I 2.10 Resistivity, Chloride, and pH I Soil corrosivity to ferrous metals can be estimated by the soil's pH level, electrical resistivity, and chloride content. In general, soil having a minimum resistivity between i 1,000 and 2,000 ohm-cm is considered corrosive. Soil with a chloride coment of 500 ppm or more is considered corrosive to ferrous metals. I As a screening for potentially corrosive soil, a representative soil sample was tested to determine its minimum resistivity, chloride content, and pH level. The chloride content was 43 ppm. The minimum resistivity of the sample was 10.000 ohm-cm, and the pH value was I 7.11. Based on these results, the onsite soils are considered to be mildly to moderately corrosive to ferrous metals. I I ,,. I I I I 020873-001 I 3.0 CONCLUSIONS I Based upon this study, we conclude that the proposed improvements are geotechnically feasible. We have fouad no significant geologic or soil-related constraints during the course of this I investigation ~ahat cannot be mitigated by proper design and construction practices. Specific conclusions are below. I · Compressible Soil - The onsite, near-surface soil is considered slightly to moderately compressible. Partial removal and recompaction of this material will be necessary, to reduce the potential for excessive total and differential settlement. The onsite soils exhibit a mild I hydrocollapse potential. I · Groundwater - Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. Based on the regional groundwater data, ~oundwater will not be a constraint to the proposed development. I · Seismicitw - Although no active or potentially active faults are known to pass tl~rough the site, the proposed improvements are expected to experience strong ground shaking during their I design life. · Secondary Seismic Hazards - Based on current groundwater conditions, the potential for I liquefaction is considered nil. The total settlement resulting from seis~nic loading is estimated to be within generally accepted tolerable limits. I · Sulfate Attack - Concrete in contact with the onsite soil is expected to have l~egligible i exposure to water-soluble sulfates in the soil. · Corrosion - The onsite soil is considered mildly to moderately corrosive to ferrous metals. I I I I Leiohton , no 0208?3-00 ! 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations herein and be revised based future presented are preliminary may on geotechnical studies once development plans are finalized. 4.1 Earthwork All etu'thwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix D, unless specifically revised or amended below or by furore review of project plans. Site Preparation Prior to construction, the site should be cleared of vegetation, trash, and debris, which should be disposed of offsite. Trees and vines should be removed and grubbed out. Any underground obstructions onsite should be removed. The resulting cavities should be properly backfilled and compacted. Efforts should be made to locate any existing utility lines. Those lines should be removed or rerouted if they interfere with the proposed construction, and the resulting cavities should be properly backfilled and compacted. In addition, any undocumented artificial fill, such as stockpiled soil, should be removed from the area of the proposed improvements. Overexcavation and Recompaclion To reduce the potential for adverse differential settlement of the proposed structures, the underlying subgrade soil must be prepared in such a manner that a uniform response to the applied loads is achieved. For the proposed buildings, we recommend that the soil underneath conventional shallow footings be overexcavated and recompacted to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the proposed foundations, for one-story structures, 3 feet below the bottom of the footings for 2- and 3-story structures, or 3 feet below the existing grade, deeper, recompaction whichever is The overexcavation and should extend a minimum lateral distance of 5 feet away from the footings. The soil below slabs-on-grade should be overexcavated and recornpacted a minimum depth of 1.5 feet below the bottom of the proposed slab or 2 feet below the existing ground surface, deeper. whichever is 10 ~;~'~'" ~ C ~z°~c'~'~?.c-,~ 020873-001 Local conditions may require that deeper overexcavation be performed; such areas should be evaluated by Leighton and Associates during grading. I Areas outside the overexcavation limits of the proposed buildings planned ~br asphalt or I concrete pavement and flatwork and areas to receive fill should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the existing ground surface or 12 inches below the proposed finish grade, whichever is deeper. I After completion of the overexcavation, and prior to fill placement, the exposed surfaces i should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned to or slightly above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. I Fill Placement and Compaction I The onsite soil is generally suitable for use as compacted structural fill, provided it is free of debris, organic material, and oversized material (greater than 8 inches in largest I dimension). Any soil to be placed as fill, whether onsite or imported material, should be accepted by Leighton and Associates. All fill soil should be placed in thin, loose lifts, moisture-conditioned, as necessary, :o near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557- 98. Aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative I compaction. Shrinkage and Bulkin~ I The change in volume of excavated materials upon recompaction as fill varies according I to soil type, density., and location. This volume change is represented as a percentage increase (bulking) or decrease (shrinkage) in volume of fill after removal and recompaction. Based on our field and laboratory, data, we estimate an average I in the of 10 to 15 for the near-surface soils. These compaction shrinkage range percent estimates are preliminary, and do not factor in removal of oversize material or debris. I 4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations I Based on our investigation, conventional shallow foundations may be used to support the loads of one to three-story, wood-frame-type structures. Overexcavation and recompaction of the footing subgrade soil should be performed as detailed in Section 4.1. For planning purposes, the footings should have an embedment depth of 18 inches for 2- to - I 1 - Leighton Ao ociot, ... 020873-001 3-story buildings and 12 inches for one-story buildings. Isolated and continuous footings should ihave a minimum width of 24 and 18 inches, respectively. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf may be used, based on the minimum embedment depth and width. The allowable beating value may be increased by 300 psf per foot increase in depth or width to a maximum allowable beating pressure of 4,500 psf. The allowable beating pressures are for the total dead load and frequently applied live loads. The so/.1 resistance available to withstand lateral loads on a shallow foundation is a function of the frictional resistance along the base of the footing and the passive resistance that may develop as the face of the structure tends to move into the soil. The frictional resistance between the base of the foundation and the subgrade soil may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.35. The passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcfi assuming there is constant contact .between the footing and undisturbed soil. The allowable bearing pressure and coefficient of friction values may be increased by one third when considering loads of short duration, such as those ':mposed by wind and seismic forces. Footing reinforcement should be designed by the structural engineer. As a minimun~, looting reinforcement should consist of one No. 4 rebar at the top and at the bottom of continuous footings and No. 4 rebars spaced at 24 inches on center in each direction for isolated footings. 4.3 Settlement The recommended allowable beating capacity is generally based on a total allowable, post construction settlement of 1 inch. Differential settlement is estimated at 1/2-inch over a horizontal distance of 30 feet. Since settlement is a function of footing size and contact beating pressure, differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists. These settlement estimates should be reviewed by Leighton and Associates when final foundation plans and loads for the proposed structures become available. 4.4 Stab-On-Grade Concrete slabs subjected to special loads should be designed by the structural engineer. Where conventional light floor loading conditions exist, the following minimum - 12 - ~ ~F,+~~, ~ncl 020873-001 recommendations, which are based on a very low soil expansion potential, should be used: ., A minimum slab thickness of 4 inches (nominal) reintbrced with a minimum of No. 3 rebar placed at 24 inches on center in each direction and placed with adequate concrete cover. A moisture barrier consisting of 6-mil Visqueen (or equivalent) placed below slabs where moisture-sensitive floor covetings or equipment is planned. The moisture barrier should be covered with a minimum of 2 inches of sand. 'Hae moisture barrier may be placed directly on the prepared building pad subgrade, provided that gravel and other objects that could puncture the moisture barrier are removed prior to placement. As an alternative, one inch of sand should be placed prior to placement of the moisture barrier. The subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of t2 inches prior to placing Visqueen, steel or concrete. The Expansion Index of representative soils at finish grade should be verified by Leighton and Associates during grading. Minor cracking of the concrete as it cures, due to drying and shfi~rkage: is normal and should be expected. However, cracking is often ag~avated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hoL dry, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of Iow slump concrete (not exceeding at placement) can 4 inches the time of reduce the potential for sl-Mnkage cracking. Additionally, our experience indicates that the use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations can generally reduce the potential for concrete cracking. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking, concrete slabs-on-grade should be provided w/th construction or weakened plane joints at frequent intervals. Joints should bc laid out to form approximately square panels. Moisture barriers can retard, but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slab. The floor coverings contractor should test the moisture vapor flux rate prior to attempting application of moisture-sensitive flooring. "Breathable" floor covetings or special slab sealants should be considered if the vapor flux 8~v ),ssocisies, iBC. I 020873-001 I rates are high. Floor coveting manufacturers should be consulted for specific recomraendations. I 4.5 Retaininq Walls I Areas planned for retaining walls should be overexcavated in accordance with the recommendations provided for one-story buildings in Section 4.1. We recommend that I retaining onsite, very expansive and constructed with a walls be backfilled low soil backdrain in accordance with the recommendations provided on Figure 3 (rear of text). I Using expansive soil as retaining wall backfill will result in higher lateral earth pressures exerted, on the wall. Based on these recommendations, the following parameters may be used for the design of conventional retaining walls up to 5 feet tall: I Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure (psf/ft) I Active 35 (Level Backfill) I At-Rest 55 (Level Backfill) i Passive 300 with a maximum value of 3,500 psf The above values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the structural engineer I should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. Cantilever walls that are designed to yield at least 0.001H, where H is equal to the wall I height, may be designed using the active condition. Rigid walls and walls braced at the top should be designed using the at-rest condition. I Passive: pressure is used to compute soil resistance to lateral structural movement. In addition, for sliding resistance, a frictional resistance coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. The lateral passive resistance should be taken into account only if it is ensured that the soil providing passive resistance, embedded against I the foundation elements, will remain intact with time. In addition to the above lateral forces due to retained earth, surcharge due to I improvements, as an adjacent structure, the design of the such should be considered in retaining wall. Loads applied within a 1:1 projection from the surcharging structure on i the stem of the wall should be considered in the design. · - 14 - Leiohton and Associates. Inc. 020873-001 The total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at footing overturning and sliding. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be the heel of the for assumed for calculating the actual weight of the soil over the wall footing. Retaining wall footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and a minimum embedment of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. An allowable bearing capacity 2,000 psf may retaining footing design, on minimum footing of be used for wall based the width and depth. This beating value may be increased by 300 psf per foot increase in width or depth to a maximum allowable beating pressure of 4,500 psf. 4.6 Seismic Design Parameters Seismic parameters presented in this report should be considered during project design. In order to reduce the effects of ground shaking produced by regional seismic events, seismic design should be performed in accordance with the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The following data should be considered for the seismic analysis of the subject site: 1997 UBC Seismic Parameters: Seismic Zone: 4 Soil 'Profile Type: St) Seismic Source: Cucamonga Fault Seismic Source Type: Type A Distance to Seismic Source: 10 km Near Source Factor, Nh: 1.0 Near Source Factor, Nv: 1.20 4.7 Cement Type and Corrosion Protection Based on the results of laboratory testing, concrete structures in contact with the onsite soil will have negligible exposure to water-soluble sulfates in the soil. Common Type II cement may be used for concrete construction onsite and the concrete should be designed in accordance with Table I9oA-4 of the Uniform Building Code. Based on our laboratory testing, the onsite soil is considered mildly to moderately corrosive to ferrous metals. The presented report provided to your underground corrosion information in this should be subcontractors. I - 15 - i ,~ioh!or, ,~ r! ' 020873-001 4.8 Preliminary Pavement Desiqn Based on the design procedures current Highway Design Manual, outlined in the Caltrans and using an assumed R-value of 50 for subgrade and 78 for aggregate base course, the followizag flexible pavement sections may be used. Final pavement design should be based on future street'subgrade soil samples collected during construction of the street subgrade and the Traffic index determined by the project civil engineer. Traffic Index Recommended Pavement Section 6 or less 3" asphalt concrete over 4" aggregate base 7 4" asphalt concrete over 4.5" aggregate base All pavement construction should be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Field inspection and periodic testing, as needed during placement of the base course materials, should be undertaken to ensure that the requirements of the standard specifications are fulfilled. Prior to placement of base, the subgrade soil should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches below finished subgrade, moisture-conditioned, as necessary, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Aggregate base should be placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned, as necessary., and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. 4.9 Temporary Excavations All temporary excavations, including utility trenches, retaining wall excavations and other excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications and all OSHA requiremen[s. No surcharge loads should be permitted within a horizontal distance equal to the height of cut or 5 feet, whichever is ~eater from the top of the slope, unless the cut is shored appropriately. Excavations that extend below an imaginary plane at degrees inclined 45 below the edge of any adjacent existing site foundation should be properly shored to maintain support of the adjacent structures. Typical cantilever shoring should be designed based on the active fluid pressure presented in the wall section. If excavations are braced at the top and at specific design retaining intervals, the active pressure may then be approximated by a rectangular soil pressure distribution with the pressure per foot of width equal to 25H, where H is equal to the depth of the excavation being shored. - 16 - ,~ ~i,'~k, ~,n 'Associates. 020873-001 During construction, the soil conditions should be regularly evaluated to verify that conditions are as anticipated. The contractor shall be responsible for providing the "competent person" required by OSHA, standards to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination between the competent person and the geotechnical engineer should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. 4..10 Trench Backfill Utility-type trenches onsite can be back_filled with the onsite material, provided it is free of debris, organic and oversized material. Prior to backfilling the trench, pipes should be bedded in a granular material that has a sand equivalent of 30 or greater. The pipe bedding should be densified in-place by jetting. The native backfill should be placed in conditioned, as necessary, mechanically compacted using a thin lifts, moisture and minimum standard of 90 percent relative compaction. 4.11 Surface Drainaqe Surface drainage should be designed to be directed away from foundations and toward approved drainage devices, irrigation of landscaping should be controlled to maintain, as much as possible, a consistent moisture content sufficient to provide healthy plant growth without overwatefing. 4.12 .Additional Geotechnical Services The preliminary geotechnical recommendatious presented in this report are based on subsudhce conditions, as interpreted from limited subsurface explorations and limited laboratory, testing. This study is intended to address the geotechnical feasibility, of the site for development and to provide preliminary, geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed d~velopment. Additional geotechnical review and/or investigation will be required based on final project plans Leighton and Associates should review the site and grading plans when available and comment further on the geotechnical aspects of the project. Geotechnical observation and testing should be conducted during excavation and all phases of Fading operations. Our conclusions and recommendations should be reviewed and verified by Leighton and Associates during construction accordingly geotecknical and revised if conditions encountered vary from our preliminary, findings and interpretations. The recommendations presented in this report are only valid if Leighton and Associates verifies the site conditions during construction. =e~ohtun and Associates, inc. - 17 - ; .; '~ 020873-001 Geotechnical observation and testing should be provided by Leighton and Associates: · Afl:er completion of site cleating. · During overexcavation of compressible soils. · During compaction of all fill materials. · After excavation of all footings and prior to placement of concrete. During utility trench excavation, backfilling and compaction. · During pavement subgrade and base preparation. · When any unusual conditions are encountered. - ]8 - Leighton and Associates. inc. SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPA, NSiON IND~_.X OF <~ Set 3ENEA~ NOT~ ~ ~ ~ArER~NG I ~FiL~R FA~[C GENERAL NOT"F-S: · WaEerprootino. should be provided where moisture nuisance pro01em through the wail is unde_qrable. · Water proc~ng of the walls is not under purview of the geotecnnlcai engineer · All drains ~hould have a cjmdient of i percent minimum · OurJeE poroon of the subdra~n should have a 4-inch diame.~eY solid pipe discha~ed into a suitaole disposal area cle~igned by the pro]eot enoineer. The suDdram pipe should be acc~ble for maintenance (rodding) 'C~her suOdrain back~iil options are suoiect to the review by the geoteCnnical en.o~neer anO modification of deign parame~e~. i) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densified by water jeU~n@. 2) 1 Cu. )~. per ~c. of 1/4- b:> 1 1/2-1nth .qze eravel wraoped in filter fabnc 3} Pipe Wpe s~ouid be ASTM D1527 Acryion~'tnle Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SOP,35 or ASTM D1785 Poiyvinyl Chloride pla5oc (PVC), SEne'Jute 40, ArmEd A2000 PVC. or approved equivalent. Pipe _--nould be installed with perforations down. Perforations should be 3/8 inch in diameter placed at the ends of a 120-clecjree arc ]n two rows at .3-inch on center (s'~ggered) 4) Rlter faonc should be Nirati 140NC or aoproved eduivalen[. 51 Weeohoie should be 3-inch mimmum diameter and prowded a( 10-foot ma~mum intervals. If e_xocsure is (~JTnitted, weeOhoi~ Should be located 12 inches aPove finished gr-dde. If ~xposure is no[ perro~Cted Suc.~ as for a wad aoiacenc to a s[dewaikYcura~ a pipe under ne sidewalk to 0e discharged through the curd face or equivalent Should be prO~ded. For a ~3e~menc-~fPe wall, a proper suPdra)n outlet sy~em should be pro~ded. 6) Retammo wall pians should be re,~ewed and approved by the geocecnmcai engineer. 7) Walls over Six fee[ )n height are sub)eot to a special rewew by the cjeoceennl~l engineer and roodific~cions EO the ahov~ requireroen~. RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL FOP, WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT WHEN NATIVE MATEFLIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF_<50 Figure 3 020873-001 APPENDIX A References Blake, T. F., 2000, EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from 3-D Fault Sources, Windows 95/98 Version, User's Manual, April 2000. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1975, Recommended Guidelines for Determining the Maximum Credible and the Maximmn Probable Earthquakes: CDMG Note 43. ., 1991~, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, to be used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, February 1998. California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) of Califomia, 1970, Meeting Water Dem~mds in Chino-Riverside Area, Bulletin No. 104-3, Appendix A; Water Supply, Plate 12 & 13, dated September 1970. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997. Uniform Building Code, Volume I1 - Structural Engineering Design Provisions. Sadigh, K., Chang, C. Y., Egan, J. A., Makdisi, F., and Youngs R. R., 1997, "Attenuation Relations for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on Califomia Strong Motion Data" Seismological Research Letters, Vol 68, No. 1, January/February, pp. 180-189. San Bemardino County Planning Department, San Bernardino County Official Land Use Plm~. General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlay, Guasti Quadrangle, FH 28 D, 1994 Tokimatsu, K., Seed, H. B., 1987, "Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking," ,Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878. United States Geologic Survey, 1981, Guasti Quadrangle, California, 7.5 Minutes Series (Topographic), Original Map dated 1966, Photo Revised 1973 and 1981. Wildermuth Environmental, Inc., 1997, Chino Basin Watermaster Water Level Map. Zeiser Geotechnical Inland Empire, Inc., 1993, Background Geotechnical Review Prior to Subsurface Investigation, 375-Acre General Dynamics Site, Rancho Cucamonga, California, PN 93291-00, dated October 27, 1993. A-1 I 020873-001 I i Aerial Photographs Flight Frame Date Scale A~encv I C-193 31 10/15/72 24,000 SBCD I C-279 99 1/21/78 24,000 SBCD C-279 101 1/21/78 24,000 San Bemardino County I Flood Control District I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1 Date 1-17.O3 Sheet 1 of 1 Project JPII4th & Milliken Project No. 020873-001 Drilling Co. 2R Drilling, Inc. Type of Rig Hollow-stem aue Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lb. (automatic) Drop __ Elevation Top of Hole (ft) Location See Boring Location Map z- "~ i~ DESCRIPTION ~ g ~. o ,_ ~ ~' Logged By PP Sampled By PP I '-' R-1 9 108.7 8.7 SM 2': Silty SAND. brown, moist, loose, fine to medium sand. stightl¥ porous 5-- R-2 16 5': No Recovery. Cobbles I ' S-I 10 7.8 ML 1. : bandy S~ t, orana]sh brown, moist, stiff, fine to medium sand ~"': ' -:':' S-2 9 7.1 SP 20': SAND, brownish grey, moist, loose, fine to medium sand ML 21': Sandy SILT, brown, moist, stiff, fine to medium sand 25-- ' "-..-' S-3 9 SM 25.. Silty SAND. brown, rarest, loose, fine sand ~ Total Depth = 26.5 I ~ I Backfilled with soil cuttings. 30-- SAMPLE TYPES: Bag=aulk. R=2.S-in. Ring (Ca Mod), S=SPT, T=Shelby Tube Leightor rtr E Associates GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Date 1-17-03 Sheet 1 of 1 I ~Project JPI/4th & Milliken Project No. 020873-001 Iling Co. 2R Drilling, Inc. Type of Rig Hollow-stem auger le Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lb. (automatic) Drop 30 in~. Elevation Top of Hole (ft) Location See Boring Location Map ~ , ~ ~- - = u~ Log9ed By PP I ~ = I ~ ~ ~-- ~ ~ SampledBy PP .. Bag t -. - '.' R-1 [ 2I 109.7 5.6 SM~ 2': Sil~ S~D, bro~, moisr medium dense, fine to medium ~d, few . .' ~"[ rootlet, slightly porous, ve~ few fine to medium ~vel ~[ 5~ '" R-2 36 114.9 3.9 ] SM 5': Silw. SAND with some ~eraveI, li~t~ brown, sliehtiv~ . moisgd~, medium ' ' '" ' dense, fine to co~e s~d. fine to medium ~vel, sli~tly cemented ' ~-~;,~;.~2~ ~ S-I 30 ~ I.I ~ SW 10' : Gravelly SAND greg slighflvmoist, medium dense to dense, fineto . ~},~.~;,};~ R-3 35 1.7 SW 15': Gravelly SAND, greyish brown, slightly moist, medium dense, fine to 20~ ' '" I S-2 ] 6 SM 20': Sil~ S~D brown moist, loose fine to medium s~d 25 S-3 9 SM 25': Sil~ S~D. or~gish brown, moist, Loose, fine to medium ~ ] No ~oundwater *ncountered during ddlling. ton and Associates m GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 Date 1-17.03 Sheet 1 of 1 m Project JPII4th & Milliken Project No. 020873-001 Drilling Co. 2R DHIling, Inc. Type of Rig Hollow-stem Hole Diameter 8 in. Ddve Weight 140 lb. (automatic) Drop __ Elevation Top of Hole (fi) Location See Boring Location Map ~ ~ -J =. F, ~. -- ~ Logged By PP · o < ~ ~ ' ~ Sampled By PP 0 II Bag I R-1 9 13.1 CL-MII 2': Sandy SILT brown, moist, stiff, fine to medium sand, few rootlets, catiche, non-plastic 5- R-2 15 8.1 SM/MI 5': Silty. SAND/Sandy SILT. brown, moist, loose/stiff, fine to medium sand, few rootlets, caiiche, con-plastic 10' [:- .:~5~.,.-. R-3 1.7 SP l 0': SAND. grey, slightly moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand. fine 15 S-1 17. I SM 15': Silty. SAND. reddish brown, moist, loose, fine to coarse sand 20~-~i! S-2 SP 20': SAND. brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand 25- S-3 M/MIl 25': Si ty SAND/Sandy SILT. brown, moist, medium dense/very stiff, fine to medium sand Total Depth = 26.5 ~ No groundwater encountered during drilling. Backfilled with soil cuttings. 3O SAMPLE T~PES: BacJ,~Bulk.R=2.$-in. Ring (Ca Mod), S--SPT. T=Shelby Tube Leighton and Associates I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 Date 1-17-03 Sheet 1 of 1 m JPii4th & Milliken Project No. 020873-001 Project lling Co. 2R Drilling, inc. Type of Rig Hollow-stem auger le Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lb. (automatic) Drop 30 in__.__:_. Elevation Top of Hote (ft) Location See Boring Location Map ~ Sampled By PP Bag 1 R-1 20 108.3 7.6 SM 2': Silty SAND, brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, big rootlets, some gravel 5-- R-2 37 106.9 5.0 ML 5': Sandy SILT. light greyish brown, dry, very stiff, fine to coarse sand. slightly porous, caliche :'.:'.:'L'SJ ~.5.:7 ~ '-'.-;-::':2.-.': S-1 32 SP 10': Gravelly SAND. grey, slightly moist, dense, fine to medium gravel. fine to coarse sand R-3 42 104.5 3.8 SP/S~ 15': SAND to Sil~ SAND. light brown, moist, medium dense, fine sand S-2 12 SM 20': Silly. SAND, reddish brown, moist, medium dense, fine sand S-3 9 SM 25': Silty SAND. reddish brown, moist, loose, fine to medium sand t Total Depth = 26.5 No ~m-oundwater encountered during drilling. -- Backl~Iled with soil cuttings. Ii 30 SAMPLE TYPES: Bag=Bulk. R=2.S-in. Ring (Ca Mod}, S--SPT, T--She[by Tube Leighton and Associates I m GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Date 1-17-03 Sheet 1 of 1 I Project JPII4th & Milliken Project No. 020873-001 Drilling Co. 2R Drilling, Inc. Type of Rig Hollow-etem ~9_~__ Hole Diameter It in. Ddve Weight 14{) lb. {automatic) Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole (fl) Location See Boring Location Map = o : ~ . ~ _~ o .~~ -. DESCRIPTION - =' -" ~ ~ = = ~ Logged By PP u.l--~" <"' ~Em m ~. g ~ "~ ~ ~' Sampled By PP ·.". Bag 1 · '" R-1 26 I 16.3 6.1 SM 2': Silty, SAND, orangish brown, moist, medium dense, fine sand 5-- .-.' R.2 27 i 3.0 SP/SM~ 5': SAND to SilW SAND. orangish brown, moist medium dense, fine to · '" medium sand ~,.:'~.:2~ R-3 33 10~: No Recovery.. Cobbles upto 3.5" 15-- · .- "-' S-1 9 6.9 SM 15': Silty. SAND. greyish brown, moist· loose· fine to coarse sand -t: ::-::: -,'=.;;.;;~ S-~ 50/6" SW 20': Gravelly SAND, greyish brovm, moist_ very danse, fine to coarse sand _ '-: :',;':.-;-; =:- :-.:. :'-.' -j ~..-..} .:-.}.:.["'.-., S-3 50 SP 25': SAND with some gravel and crushed cobbles, greyish brown, slightly Total Depth = 26.5 No m-oundwater encountered during drillinn. I 3 a led i*sodc . ngs. 30 tton am ctates I A'I-rERBERG LIMITS ASTM D 4318 ~Project Name: ~PI / 4th & Milliken ............. Tested By: RA Date: 01/24/03 No. 020873-001 Input By: LF Date: 01/28/03 Project Boring No.: B-3 Checked By: LF Date: 01/28/03 Sample No.: R_-_i ..... Depth (ft.) 2.0 Visual Sample Description: Yellowish brown silty_.clay (CL-ML) 'I-ES/NO. i 2 1 2 3 Number of Blows [N] ......... 31 21 13 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm) 10.60 11.07 16.52 16.77 18.71 .. Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm) 9.05 9.45 13.68 13.79 15.24 . Wt. of Container (gm) 1.07 1.04 1.04 1.02 1.04 Moisture Content (%) [Wn] 19.42 19.26 22,47 23,34 24.44 60 Liquid Limit 23 For classification of ~ine- Plastic Limit 19 ~ 50 grained soils and fine- ___. grained fraction of coarse- Plasticity Index 4 ~'~ oramed soils CH or OH -- x 40 10USCS Classification .... CL-ML 'o_~: 30 "A"Line PI at"A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) = 2.1_9_ __ :~ 20 CLorOL One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation_ LL =Wn(N/25) o,,, 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 __ PROCEDURES USED Liquid Limit (LL) Wet Preparation 25.00 Multipoint - Wet ~ X ! Dry Preparation 'e Multipoint-Dry 24.°0 X Procedure A "E Multipoint Test ~ ',, Procedure B ~- One-point Test ~ '"',, I .~ 23.00 ........... 22.00 10 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 lO0 Number of Blows 60- For classification of fine- 50 - grained soils and fine.rained --~ 30- ~ 20- 0 · 0 t 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit (LL) I GRAVEL SAND FINE5 COARSE i FiNE i CP~E ; MEDIUM i Fi,'~E I SILT U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMETER 3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #[6 #30 #50 #100 #200 ,, ,, , : :,iiI ,,~, ~° ao il!, ,[i!l~ ,, ',,,11'~ ' I 0 100.000 ~0.000 1 1200 0~00 0.0~0 PARTICLE - SIZE (mm) Boring No.: Sample No.: ; Depth (ft.): Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI B-3 R-1 i 2 s(ML) 0: S0: 50 , NA, Soil Description: Yellowish brown sandy silt s(ML) ~ Project No.: 020873-001 ATTERBERG LTNITS~ PARTZCLE - SZZE CURVE ]PI / 4th & Milliken ":; ...... ~:: ..:.~ ..... ~...:~ i:'~:.; ASTM D 4318, D 422 No Time Readings ~ o ssco ~ o~soo Pressure, p (ksO Moisture , Dr~ Oensity (poOl ¥oid Ratio De~ree of Bodng Sample Depth Content (%) s~tur~uon (%) i NO. NO.: (ft.) B'4 R-2 5.0 5.0 17.8:107.0, 115.3 0.575 0.440 23 i 100 Sample Description: Pale olive sandy silt (ML) Project NO.: 020873-00 ONE - DIMENSIONAL CONSOI.1DATZON m i1~ PROPERTTES of SOILS ]PI/4th & Milliken Teratest Labs. Inc. (AST. D 2435) One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Tera!e$[ L~s. ~*,c. Potential of Cohesive Soils Project Name: JPI / 4th & Milli~k_et) Tested By: RA Date: 01/24/03 Project No.: 020873-001 Checked By: LF Date: 01/2_8./_0.3__ Bodng No.: B-2 Sample Type: Drive Sample No.: R-; Depth (ft.) 5.0 Sample Description: Brown silty sand (SM) ........ Initial Dry Density (PR: 111.2 Final Dry Density (pc0: 110 8 Initial Moisture (%): 3_._8_8 Fina~ Moisture (%) 17.3 Initial Length (in.): ~1.0__000 Initial Void Ratio: 0.5158 Initial Dial Reading: 0.2743 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70 Diameter(in): 2.416 Initial Saturation (%) 203 Apparent Load Swell (+) Corrected Pressure (p) Final Reading Thickness Compliance Settlement (-) Void Ratio Deformation (ksf) (in) (in) (%) % of Sample (%) Thickness 0.100 0.2741 0.9998 000 -0.02 0.5155 -0.02 _ __0.6~0_0 _ 0._2_7.12. . 0.9969 0.09 -0.31 05124 -0.22 H20 0.2642 0.9899 0.09 -1.01 0 5018 -0.92 Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation = [ -0.70 Void Ratio - Log Pressure CurveI 0.5180 0.5160 0.5140 / Tap water 0.5120 -= 0.5100 '~ 0.5080 > 0.5060 0.5040 0,5020 05000 ....... 0.100 1000 10.000 Log Pressure (ksf) ~ One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement i~, Teralest LaDs. Potential of Cohesive Soils Io ~, ........................... (ASTM D 4546) Project Name: JPI / 4th & Milliken Tested By: RA Date: 0W24/03 No.: ~ - Checked By: LF Date: 01/28/03 Project Boring NO.: ~-- Sample Type: Drive Sample No.: ~ Depth (fl) 5.0 Sample Descnpti~ ' Brown sil~ sand (SM) Initial D~ Densi~ (PC0: 111.9 I Final D~ Densi~ (pc0: 110.5 initial Moisture (%): 8.06 Final Moisture (%): 17.3 ~.~ '- InitiaIVoid Ratio: 05065 Length 0n.): Initial Dial Reading: 0.2465 ' Specific GraviS(assumed); 2.70 Di~et~(in): - [ ~-' I tnitial Saturation (%) 43.0 Apparent Load Swell (+) Correcte~ Pressure (p) Fna Reading Se~lement (-) Thmkness Compliance Void Ratio Deformation (ks0 0n) (in) (%) % of Sample (%) Thickness 0A00 0.2470 1.0005 000 0.05 0.5072 0.05 0.~00 0.2447 0.9982 0.08 -0Aa 0.5049 -0.10 H20 0.2431 0.9966 0,08 -0.34 0.5025 Percent Swell I Seffiement After Inundation = ~ -0.1 6 0.5040 -- l 05030 _ -- .......... 0.5020 0 ~0o 1 ooo ~0.000 Log Pressure (ksO 2.00 ..... 1.50 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Horizontal Deformation (in.) 2.00 · 1.50 1.00 · 0.50 ~ ....... 0 0.00 ....... 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 . 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Normal Stress (ks0 Normal Stress (kip/ft2) 0.500 1.000 2.000 Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft2) · 0.542 · 0.920 -~ 1.578 Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) O 0.402 ~ 0.748 ._ 1.300 Deformation Rate (in./mip.) 0.050 0.050 0.050 Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.000 1.000 1.000 Diameter (in.) 2.415 2.415 2.415 Initial Moisture Content (%) 11.54 11.54 11.54 Dr:,' Density (pcf) 109.8 109.9 109.9 Saturation (%) 58.3 58.4 58.4 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 0.9949 0.9912 0.9788 Final Moisture Content (%) 16.1 16.2 16.0 - DIRECT SHEARTEST RESULTS Boring No.: B-2 -- Project No.: 020873-001 C~drainedISample No.: Baa 1 JPI / 4th & Milliken .,~,-"~ ~. -~nr [Depth (ft) 0-5 ~~r,c I_- -.~_- "7 ~-- ..... ~ ~: Brown silty sand fSM) 01-03 COMPACTI'ON TEST ASTM D 1557 Project N me: 3PI/4th + Milliken Tested By: MTR Date: 01/22/03 Project No.: 020873-001 Input By: MTR Date: 01/24/03 Boring No.: B-2 Depth (ft.) 0'-5' Sample No.: Bag 1 Visual Sample Description: Brown si sand Preparation Method: J~ Moist ~ Mechanical Ram Dry Manual Ram Mold Volume (ft a) L0.03322 j /?am We/~Tht 20 LBS Drop 78 inches +0% +2.5% +50/0 +7.5% TEST NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gl ;: 3699.0 3775.0 3848.0 ; 3768.0 Weight of Mold (gl 1803.0 1803.0 1803.0 ' 1803.0 Net Weight of Soil (g) 1896.0 1972.0 2045.0 1965.0 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) : 483.50 ~ 496.90 4-21.30 447.60 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (gl ~ 459.00 i 460.80 ' 383.50 ! 397.60 Weight of Container (gl , 55.10 I 50.10 4-9.50 48.80 Moisture Content (%) 6.07 8.79 11.32 14.33 Wet Density (pcO 125.8 ! 130.9 135.7 130.4- D~ Density (pc0 118.6 120.3 121.9 114.1 Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 1:I22 0 ] Optimum Moisture Content (% PROCEDURE USED 132.0 Procedure A i : I ' i ; ~ , S~oil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve , Mold: 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter ! j j fi sm GR, = 2.65 BIo~ per layer: 25 (~enW-five)~~ ' May be used if No.4 retained < 20% 127.0 ~ ' ~ ~ ,rocedureB , ~~ ~N'Xx/~ ' ' Laye~: 5 (Five) ~ Use if + ~4 > 20% and + 3/8" < 20% m 122.0 ' ~ Procedure C ~ ' t i/ Soil Passing 3/4 Jm (19.0 mm) Sieve ~ / Mold: 6 In. (152.4 mm) diameter Blows per la,er: 56 (fi~-~x) Use if + 3/8 in >20% and + 3/. m <30% 1170 j I I Panicle-Size Distribution: L ' I j A~erberg Limit: : , 50 100 15.0 20.0 LL, PL,P] Moisture Content (%) I COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1SS7 I Tera[est Laos, Jno, Project Name: ]P]/4th + Milliken Tested By: HTR Date: 01/22/03~ i Project No,: 020873-001 Input By: MTR Date: 01/23/03 Boring No.: B-3 Depth (ft.) 0'-5' Sample No.: ~ 1 mvisual Sample Description: Brown si sand Preparation Method: ~ Moist ~ Mechanical Ram I Dry Manual Ram Mold Volume (ft 3) ] 0.03322 I Ram Weight 10 IJ~S Drop 18 inches +0% +2.5% +5% +7.5% TEST NO. i 2 3 4 5 i 6 _.WL Comp. Soil + Mold (g) __ _ 3728.0 3845.0 3842.0 : 3763,0 Weight of Mold (g) 1803.0 1803.0 1803.0 1803.0 Net Weight of Soil (g) 1925.0 2042.0 2039.0 1960.0 We_t W_~ht of Soil + Cont. (9) 455.30 505,20 i 455.00 455.00 Dry ~Neig_h_~ of Soil + Cont. (g) 427.90 464.70 409.30 401.70 Weight of Container (g) 50.40 : 54.70 : 47.60 i 45.20 Moisture Content ( O_/q ) 7.26 9.88 12.63 14.95 _ Wet Density _ _~c0~ ..... ~127_.~7. 135.5 135.3 130.1 .~ (pc~ 119.1 123.3 120.1 113.2 Maximum Dry Density (pcf) [ :~25.0 ] Optimum Moisture Content (%) I PROCEDURE USED 132.0 I '\ \'k I I Procedure A I Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold: 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter~~ SP. GR. = 2.65 SP. GR = 2.70 L2yers: 5 (Five) SP GR =2.75 , Blows per layer: 25 (~en~,-five) May ~ used if N0.4 re~ined < 20% 1~7.0 I E~ Procedure B , Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold: 4in. (101.6 mm) diameter ~ , Layer: S (Five) Blows per layer: 25 (~en~-five) ,Useif+.4>20%and+3/8"<20%~ ProcedureC Soil Pa~ing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve ~ ~ ~ m Mold: 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Blows per layer: 56 (fi~-six) Use if + 3/8 in >20% and + :Y. in <30% 117.0 Pa~icle-Si~e Distribution: A~erber9 Limit: I I ~2.o ' LL, PL, P~ s.o ~o.o ~s.o ~oisture Content (%) I EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS ~ As'r~ D 4829 Project Name: .1PI / 4th & Milliken Tested By: 3HW Date: 02/04/03 I No. 020873-001 Checked By: LF Date: 02/12/03 Project Boring No.: B-3 Depth (t~.) 0-5 i Sample No.: Bag 1 Visual Sample Description: Brown silty sand (SM) I Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 1000.00 Wt. of Container No. (g) 0.00 Dry Wt. of Soil (g) 1000.00 I Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve 0.00 Percent Pass ng # 4 100.00 I MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test Specimen Diameter (in.) 4.01 4.01 I Specimen Heiqht (in.) 1.0000 1.0020 Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) 618.40 431.30 Wt. of Mold ~g). 209.00 0.00 I Specific Gravity [Assumed) 2.70 2.70 Container No. O O Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 826.90 640,30 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)_ 760.70 585.60 Wt. of Container ~g) 0.00 209.00 Moisture Content (°/_o) 8.70 14.52 I Wet 123,5 129.8 Density (pc0 Dry Density (pct') 113.6 113.4 Void Ratio 0.484 0.487 I Total 0.326 0.328 Porosity Pore Volume (cc) 67.5 67.9 Degree of Saturation (%) [ S rheas] 48.6 80.5 I SPECZMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h. I Elapsed .time Dial Readings Date .time Pressure (psi) (min.) (in.) I 02/04/03 10:11 1.0 0 0.0700 02/04/03 10:21 1.0 10 0.0695 Add Distilled Water to the Specimen I 02/05/03 8:50 1.0 1349 0.0720 02/05/03 16:33 1.0 1812 0.0720 I Expansion Index (El meas) : ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 2.5 Expansion Index ( EI ) so = EI meas- (50 -S meas)X((65+EI rneas) / (220-5 ,~eas)) 2 I ~ SO~L RES~'ST~V~TY TEST Teratest Labs. Inc. DOT CA TEST 532 ! 643 Projec~ Name: .]PI / 4th & Milliken Tested By: VI Date: 01/22/03 I Project No.: 020873-001 Data Input By: LF Date: 0~/30/03 Boring No.: B-3 Depth (ft.): 0-5 Sample No.: Ba,] 1 I Sample Description: Brown siJty sand (SM) Adjusted Resistance Hoisture Content (%) (MQ) 6.53 Specimen ' Water Added Moisture Soil Re$istivit Reading No. (mi) (Wa) Content (ohmocm) Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 210.39 (NC) (ohm) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 201.13 1 100 14.72 2500 16865 Wt. of Container (9) 59.25 2 200 22.92 1600 10794 Container No. R2 3 300 31.11 1500 10119 Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)- 1300.00 4 400 39.30 1550 10456 Box Constant 6.746 5 MC =((( 1 + Mci/100)x(WafqNt+ 1))- 1)x100 Min. Resistivity Moisture Content Sutfate Content Chloride Content Soil pM, (ohm-cra) (%) (ppm) (ppm) pH lemp..(°C) DOT CA Test .~;32 / 643 DOT CA Test 417 Part 1~ DOT CA Test 422 DOT CA Te~t 532 / 643 10100 28.0 79 43 7.11 20.3 17000 16000 I A 15000 ---' i~i -- -~-' i ~ 14000 I "~ 13000 ~ 12000 O 11000 10000 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 Moisture Content (%) I APPENDIX D LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING Table of Contents Section Paee 1.0 GENERAL 1 1.1 Intent 1 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record 1 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor 2 2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 2 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 2.2 Processing 3 2.3 Overexcavation 3 2.4 Benching 3 Evaluation/Acceptance Areas 3 2.5 of Fill 3.0 FILL MATERIAL 4 · 3.1 General 4 3.2 Oversize 4 3.3 Import 4 4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 4 4.1 Fill Layers 4 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning 4 4.3 Compaction of Fill 5 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes 5 4.5 Compaction Testing 5 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing 5 4.7 Compaction Test Locations 5 5.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION 6 6.0 EXCAVATION 6 7.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS 6 7.1 Safety 6 7.2 Bedding and Backfill 6 7.3 Lift Thickness 6 7.4 Observation and Testing 6 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 1.0 General 1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the . geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geoteclmical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior 'to the commencement of the grading. Prior commencement of the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the tO grading, "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, tnapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and fi'equent basis. 3o3o.495 I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications I 1.3 The Earthwork Conlxactor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be I qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical I report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with I the plans and specifications. The Conwactor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical I Consultant work that indicates the of earthwork the a plan sequence grading, number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of dally earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall I inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The I Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. I The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading i codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, 'such as unsuitable soil, i improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may I recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. I 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled I 2.1 Clearine and Grubbine: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical I Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending I on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. I I 3030.4~$ 2 I I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications i1~ If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately' for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. I As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents I that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. I 2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. I Existing ground that i's not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and I free of features that would inhibit un/form compaction. uneven 2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the · approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benchine: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 I (horizontal to vertical units), the grouad shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a I minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by I the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. I 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical I Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance fi-om the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed I areas, keys, and benches. I 303o.495 3 I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill . material. 3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buffed or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geoteclmical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not and such that oversize material is completely occur surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within lOvertical feet of finish grade or within 2feet of future utilities or underground construction. 3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thicknesg. The Geoteclmical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditionine: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D 1557-91 ). 303o.495 4 I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Io 4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and i evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or I of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. I 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods I satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon producing completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be i at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557-91. 4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and I frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a i random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). IO 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. I In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be I accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. 4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade I stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations w/th sufficient accuracy. At a mirfimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal dislance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test I locations shall be provided. 1o LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 5.0 Subdraln Installation Subdmin systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additic~nal subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, material or depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 6.0 Excawttion Excawttions, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials lbr construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by *.he Geotechnlcal Consultant. 7.0 'French Backfills 7.1 Safety: The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for sat~ty of trench excavations. 7.2 Bedding and Backfill: All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance With the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to Itbot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.3 Lift Thickness: Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method. 7.4 Observation and The of the around the Testing: jetting bedding conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 3030.495 6 Leaend SCALE: 1"= 200' +- {~ Approximate Boring Location B-1 I 'Proposed Multi-family BORING PROJECT NO. ~ Residential Development 020873-o0'1 North of 4th Street, West of Milliken Avenue LOCATION DATE City of Rancho Cucamonga, California MAP February 2003 FIGURE NO. 2 APPENDIX C DELI SANDS FLOWER LOVING FLY REPORT CONSULTING An Environmental Planning~Resource Management Corporation February 14, 2003 .. '.,,~ Ms. Heidi W. Mather VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL · Regional Development Manager (858) 458-1716 JPI 8910 University Center Lane, Suite 150 San Diego, California 92122 Subject: Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Assessment for the Approximately 24-Acre 4th and Milliken Site Located in the City of /~/'~'~/ Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (/~_~// Dear Ms. Mather: Ben/efta Consulting per[armed a focused Delhi sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomida$ terminatus abdominalis) (hereinafter referred to as DSFLF) habitat assessment for the approximate 25-acre located at the northwest corner of the intersection of 4th Street and Milliken Avenue, which is located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardino County, California (see Parcel VII on O~ attached exhibit provided to BonTerra Consulting by Oore, Inc.) approximately one -~-~, (1) mile northwest of the Interstate 10-Interstate 15 interchange. The site was !.?~.' surveyed by a BonTerra Consulting biologist for the purpose of evaluating the - _ --~-!-}~" potential for occurrence of the federally endangered DSFLF. In September 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) finalized the Delhi Sands Flower-loving flyRecoveryPlan (USFWS, 1997) (henceforth referred to as the Recovery Plan). The recovery strategy in the Recovery Plan has three operating goals: 1) to work with appropriate land owners and local jurisdictions to preserve ~..~..~?,.,) _ and/or enhance habitat occupied by DSFLF; 2) to implement a restoration program for lands with the highest potential for DSFLF habitat to be restored; and, 3) initiate c~.~.~_~.,~;.~' a captive breeding and release program in order to introduce/reintroduce the DSFLF ·, ,.. into historic or restored habitats. Based upon the current and historic range of the DSFLF and the mapped locations of Delhi sands soils, three recovery units (cf, critical habitat areas) were designated within the Recovery Plan. These recovery units are designated as Colton, Jurupa, and Ontario. The 4th Street and Milliken Avenue site is located within the Ontario Recovery Unit. i5' Koimus Dr,,e Furthermore, according to the Recovery Plan, the area around the 4th Street and Milliken Avenue site is noted as containing Delhi sands soils. The Recovery Plan Su~e E-200 notes several habitat characteristics that have been correlated to locations current and historic DSFLF populations. These habitat characteristics are: 1) the presence Costa Mesa of three indicator plants that are usually present in occupied fly habitat (i.e., common buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), telegraph weed ( Heterotheca grandiflora ), and ~¢o'nia 92620 croton (Croton sp.); 2) vegetative cover is less than 50 percent (more typically in the range of 10 to 20 percent); and 3) adult sightings are more likely in relatively ,7: zl ~ ?! 9q undisturbed habitat, as indicated by the presence of native annuals and perennials 171z.} 444 959c~ fa,, Ms. Heidi W Mather February 14, 2003 Page 2 (such as those listed in Appendix E of the recovery plan). The presence/absence of these characteristics on the site provides the basis of the habitat assessment for the DSFLF. SURVEY METHODS The purposE; of the surveys was determine the presence or absence of DSFLF habitat characteristics on the sites and to qualitatively determine the potential for DSFLF to occur. Surveys consisted of a combination of linear and meander transects that traversed the entire 24-acre site. All plant species observed were recorded in field notes and were identified in the field or were identified using taxonomic keys in Hickman (1993). The location and density of the vegetative cover on the site was qualitatively estimated. The overall habitat quality of the site, based upon level of disturbance, was estimated based upon review of aerial photography (TerraServer, 2003) and observations made in the field. The survey was performed by Jeff Galizio of BonTerra Consulting on February 4, 2003. SURVEY RESULTS Veqetation The entire 4th Street and Milliken Avenue 24-acre site is dominated by the fallow remnants of a former vineyard and a fairly dense cover of invasive and non-native annual plants. The remnant grape vines (Vitis sp.) are uniformly spaced and in rows, apparently in the same locations as when the site was part of an active vineyard. Hummocks of sand have collected at the base ora majority of the remnant grape plants; however, these hummocks are nearly completely covered by non- native and invasive grasses (Poa spp,. Hordeum sp., and Festuca sp.). The interstitial areas between the grapes are covered by storksbill (Erodium spp.). Other annual species observed included dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), mustard (Sysimbruim sp. and Brassica nigra), and fiddleneck (Amsinckia Menziesii var. intermedia). Delhi Sands Flower-Lovinq Fly Habitat Characteristic~ Indicator Plants None of the three indicator plants, identified in the Recovery Plan as usually present in occupied DSFLF habitat: common buckwheat, telegraph weed, and croton were observed on the site at the time of the survey. Common buckwheat and croton are perennial plants that, if present, would have been observed. Telegraph weed is an annual, but would have been identifiable if present on the site at the time of the survey. Vegetative Cover Vegetative cover on the site was estimated to range from 20% to 80%, and averaged between 60% and 70%. Th(; southwestern portion of the site appeared to support the least vegetative density, but also appeared to have been disturbed most recently. Level of Disturbance The current state of the site is that of a disturbed and inactive grape vineyard. Analysis of aerial photography (circa 1994) indicates that, at that time, the site may still have been in use as an active vineyard. The site is completely surrounded by recent residential and commercial, which was not present in the 1994 aerial photography. Active constructions was occurring immediately to the south and the west of the site at the time of the survey. The substrates (soirs) on the site also Ms. Heidi W. Mather February 14, 2003 Page 3 exhibit the effects of much disturbance as a result of previous agricultural activities on the site and ' soil compaction resulting from the possible access of construction vehicles through the site to adjoining parcels. Conclusions The absence of indicator plants, the overall high density of vegetative cover, and the highly disturbed condition of the site makes it highly unlikely that the habitat on the 4th Street and Milliken Avenue site, in its current condition, would support the DSFLF. One species (fiddleneck) listed in Appendix E of the Recovery Plan was observed on the site. As mentioned previously, one of the goals of the Recovery Plan is to implement a restoration program for lands with the highest potential for DSFLF habitat to be restored. Though there is some DSFLF habitat restoration potential on the site, the history of disturbance and encroaching development would preclude this potential from being considered high. BonTerra Consulting would estimate the potential for DSFLF habitat restoration at the site as "limited." Recommendations Though the presence of DSFLF is unlikely and the restoration potential of the site is limited, the location of the site in the Ontario Recovery Unit of the Recovery Plan and the apparent presence of Delhi sands soils on the site, it is recommended that concurrence of these conclusions by the USFWS is obtained prior to site development. Please contact Jeff Galizio at (714) 444-9199 if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, BONTERRA CONSULTING Senior Project Manager, Biological Services R:lProleCts~JPi~0041Habitat Assess-021403 wpd Attachment Ms. Heidi W. Mather February 14, 2003 Page 4 REFERENCI=S California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2003. California Natural Diversity (RareFind) Database (CNDDB). California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, California. Hickman, J.C. Editor. 1993. The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. TerraServer, 2003. Digital aerial photograph of project area (circa 1994) available over the internet via search of the TerraServer website (http://terraserver. homeadvisor, msn.com) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) Recovery Plan. USFWS Portland, Oregon. 51 pages. RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUB-AREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department, Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 January 1994 Revised February 2001 Revised March 11, 2003 Rancho Cucarnon,~a IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 · 1.2 Planning Process and Background .................................................................. 1-2 1.3 Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Scope and Format ................................................. 1-2 1.4 Project Description ...................................................................................... 1.5 Public Facilities and Services ........................................................................... 1.6 Phasing Plan ................................................................................................... 1.7 Processing Criteria for the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan ...................................... '~/- 1.8 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 1-7 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Regional and Local Setting .............................................................................. 2,,-1,, 2.2 Project Characteristics ..................................................................................... ~'~ 2.3 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................... 2.4 Issues, Constraints, and Opportunities ............................................................. 2-4 3 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY 3.1 Relationship to the Industrial Area Specific Plan .............................................. 3-1 3.2 Relationship to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan ..................................... 3-2 4 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 4.1 Development Concept ..................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Land Use Plan ................................................................................................. 4-6 4.3 Circulation and Access .................................................................................. 4-11 4.4 Infrastructure ................................................................................................. ~11~ 4.5 Grading Concepts/Drainage ........................................................................... .ub,cServ,ces .............................................................................................. 4.6 4.7 Economic Development ................................................................................. 4- 17 5 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS Introduction ...................................................................................................... 71,, 5.1 5.2 Land Use Types .............................................................................................. 5.3 Design Guidelines and Standards .................................................................. 5-1 5.4 Development Standards ................................................................................ 5-28 6 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Introduction ...................................................................................................... 6-! 6.1 6.2 Regulatory Procedures/Development Regulations ............................................ 6- 1 6.3 Sources of Financing ....................................................................................... 6-8 6.4 Phasing (Land Use/Infrastructure) ................................................................. 6-11 6.5 Marketing Strategy ......................................................................................... 6-11 Rancho Cucamon~a IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific P/an TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Appendices A Fiscal Impact Report B General Plan/IASP Consistency Rancho Cucarnon~a IASP Sub-Area 18 Speci~c Plan LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1-1 Summary Land Use Development Program ............................................................. 1-4 4-1 Summary Land Use Development Program ............................................................. 4-5 4-2 Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Estimated Employment ................................................ 4-19 5-1 Summary Land Use by Planning Area ..................................................................... 5-3 5-2 Land Use Type Definitions .................................................................................... '~ 5-3 Suggested Plant Palette by Landscape Zone ....................................... ~ ................ - 5-4 Streetscape Landscaping Theme .......................................................................... 5-22 5-5 Acceptable Plant Materials for Low Level Screening ............................................. 5-25 5-6 Development Standards Summary ........................................................................ 5-29 5-7 Streetscape Setback Requirements ...................................................................... 5-34 5-8 Performance Standards ........................................................................................ 5-42 Rancho Cucamon~a IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan LIST OF FIGURES Fir:lure Follows Pa,qe 1-1 Conceptual Development Plan ...................................................................................... 1-3 2-1 Regional Location Map ................................................................................................. 2-2 : 2-2 Relationship of Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan to IASP ....................................................... 2-2 2-3 Project Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................... 2-2 2-4 Ama Development Context ........................................................................................... 2-2 4-1 Summary Site Analysis ...................................................................... : .......................... 4-2 4-2 Area 'Transportation Network ........................................................................................ 4-2 4-3 Conceptual Development Plan ...................................................................................... 4-4 4-4 Conceptual Land Use Plan ........................................................................................... 4-8 4-5 Existing Circulation Network ....................................................................................... 4-12 4-6 Conceptual Circulation Plan ........................................................................................ 4-12 4-7 Water Concept Plan ................................................................................................... 4-12 4-8 Wastewater Concept Plan .......................................................................................... 4-14 4-9 Reclaimed Water Concept Plan .................................................................................. 4-14 4-10 Electrical Concept Plan ......................................................................................... 4-14 4-11 Natural Gas Concept Plan ..................................................................................... 4-14 4-12 Telephone Concept Plan ....................................................................................... 4-14 4-13 Cable Television Concept Plan ............................................................................. 4-16 4-14 Grading Concept Plan ........................................................................................... 4-16 4-15 Drainage Concept Plan ......................................................................................... 4-16 5-1 Conceptual Streetscape Master Plan .................................................................... ;..... 5-21 5-2 Major Artedal Divided Street Classification .................................................................. 5-21 5-3 Secondary Street Classification .................................................................................. 5-21 5-4 Local Street Classification ........................................................................................... 5-21 5-5 City Gateway Feature ................................................................................................. 5-23 5-6 Streelscape Setback Requirement-Major Arterial/Special Boulevard .......................... 5-35 5-7 Streetscape Setback Requirement-Secondary Street ................................................. 5-35 5-8 Streetscape Setback Requirement-Local Street ......................................................... 5-35 5-9 Building Setback Requirements-Rear and Side Yards ................................................ 5-35 5-10 Building Height Setback ........................................................................................ 5-35 5-11 Building Projections .............................................................................................. 5-35 5-12 Industrial Loading Dock Requirements .................................................................. 5-39 6-1 Proposed Infrastructure for the Golf Course-Water, Wastewater, and Reclaimed Water ..................................................................... 6-12 6-2 Proposed Infrastructure for the Golf Course-Storm Drains, Electricity, and Telephone ................................................................................... 6-12 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area ~ 8 Specific Plan '1.2 PLANNING PROCESS AND BACKGROUND In 1993, a multitude of discussions were held with the City of Rancho Cucamonga to strateGize on the reGulatin9 of the General Dynamics properS/ with the City. The pending vacancy of approximately 1,000,000 square feet of of~ce space required a creative approach for encouraGinG future reuse of the buildings, as well as a strategy for development of 300 acres of adjacent vacant properties. The discussions resulted in the preparation of a conceptual land use plan identJfyin9 the development potential of a championship quality §olf course as the central theme, with a variety of supportin9 land uses surrounding the Golf course. A Memorandum of UnderstandinG was approved by the Rancho CucamonGa City Council in September 1993 outlining a review process that would encourage public review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applications for a specific plan, General plan amendment, and environmental impact report were submitted in October 1993. The draft Specific Plan for Sub-Area 18 and a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were made available for public review on January 26, 1994. The public comment period was concluded on March '11, 1994. Three public meetings were conducted by the Planning Commission to review the EIR and Specific Plan in January, February, and March 1994. The final EiR was certified and the Specific Plan approved by the Rancho CucamonGa City Council in June 1994. Subsequent to 1994, the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan has been amended. In November 2000, the Rancho CucamonGa City Council approved an amendment to the Sub-Area '18 Specific Plan to permit multi-family residential uses as an additionally permitted use in the mixed use Planning Area IX. In May 2001; the Council approved an amendment to permit multi-family residential uses as an additionally permitted use in Planning Area VI. In September 2002, the Council approved an amendment to permit market rate senior housing in Planning Area VIII as an additionally permitted use. In June 2003, the Council approved an amendment to the Sub-Area 15 Specific Plan to also permit multi-family residential uses as an additionally permitted use in mixed use Plannin,q Area 1.3 SUB-AREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN SCOPE AND FORMAT All future development within Sub-Area 18 shall occur in accordance with the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan. The Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan is consistent with the requirements of the Sections 65450- 65507 of the California Public Resources Code, Rancho CucamonGa Development Code, the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the City of Rancho CucamonGa General Plan. The Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan defines the development concept for the proposed mixed-use project and applicable development regulations for the project, so that subsequent project-related subdivision maps, Grading plans, and other discretionary permits can be approved. All discretionary permits with the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan will be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Specific Plan. 1 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM This table is conceptual to illustrate and summarize the maximum development potential of the project. See Section 4.2, Land Use Plan, as well as Table 5.1 and 5.2 for permitted land uses and definitions. Types of Uses _ - ~ = ~' Maximum (Floor Planning ~ ~ ~=i ~ ,? Development Area Planning Area Size 8 = i E ~ ~ ~' ~_ Potont~l (tff or R~tlo) or Existing Facilities · Building 600 V~ 27 · · · · · · · 308,000~ 0.25g Building 601 IV; 17 · · · · · 242,0002 0.359 Building 602 II 28 · · · · · · · · 425,000 0.35g Subtotal 72 975,000 0.31 Golf Course I 151 · · · · · 60,000 0.01 (including clubhouse and maintenance faclfh'y) Golf Practice III~ 22 · · · · · 0 · · 15,000~ 0.019 Facility (lighted) Subtotal 173 75,000 0.01 Industrial Parcels 4 60,984 ~0.70~ VIII 13.4 · · · 173,804 0.35 X 24 · · · · · · 200,000 0.20e Xl 18 · · · 275,000 0.35 59.~4 7O9,788 Multiple Family VI 23 · 567 du 14-24 Residential du/ac Vl_J 2_.Q0 · 499 du 24-30 du/ac VIII 9.7 ·" 264 du 24-30 du/ac IX 20.5 · 521 du 24-30 du/ac 734.2 d__u dc/cc Permitted: up to 1,888 du Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Ama 18 Specific Plan Total 378? 1,759,788 sq.ft. 1,851 du Permitted: up to 1,888 du Notes: 1. Ultimately demolished and mdeveloped as mixed-use commercial: 440,000 sf. 2. Could be intensified with parking deck and +10,000 sf addition of retail/restaurant/fast food. 3. Existing facility could be adaptively m-used or redevelobed as a family recreation/entertainment center or mixed-use commercial. 4. Could be redeveloped ultimately to mixed-use commercial: 290,000 sf. 5. Alternative hotel and conference center site. 6. Multiple family market rate senior housing. 7. Includes 5 acres for vacoted part]on of Cleveland Ave. 7. Ultireately could be 3,707,000 sf with overall FAR: 0.23. 8. FAR: 035 for 13-acm area excluding the Metrolink parcel (10 acres). 9. Where a hotel is developed, the maximum allowable FAR for the Planning Area can increase to FAR 0.70. 1.4.4 PLANNING AREA IV-OFFICE/COMMERCIAL USES Planning Aroa IV is approximately 17 acros and could include the rouse of the 601 Building or rodevelopment of the site to include a variety of uses. The existing building may be ronovated to provide office space for "back-office" type users. The western portion of the planning area may be used for outdoor rocroation facilities or for decked parking. 1.4.6 PLANNING AREA V-OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL USES Similar to Planning Aroas II and III, this approximately 27-acre planning area contains an existing building (Building 600). Development of Planning Area V could provide for the reuse of the building for office/industrial uses. However, due to the building design, interim space configuration, age, and visual gateway location, the rouse adaptability of Building 600 is limited. Planning Area V could eventually be eliminated and development of a mixed commercial nature could occur. Uses including indoor/outdoor recreation, hotel/conference center, mixed-use commercial, research and developmentJlight industrial, and restaurant aro proposed. t.4.6 PLANNING AREA VI-OFFICE USES/BUSINESS PARK/MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Planning Aroa VI is approximately 23 acros and includes the greatest amount of golf course footage of any planning aroa within the Sub-Aroa 18 Specific Plan. The summary land use matrix (Table 5- 1, Summary of Land Use Type by Planning Aroa, included in Section 5) identifies a vadety of uses that aro compatible with the golf course including: indoor recreation/entertainment; rostaurant; mixed-use commercial; hotel/conferonce center; office/commercial; rosearch and development/light industrial/business park; and multiple family residential. 1.4.7 PLANNING AREA VII-MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Planning Area VII, located at the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Fourth Street, is approximately 24 acres and could include mixed-use commercial; indoor rocroation/entertainment; an option for hotel/conferonce center; office; =~d research and development/light industrial/business park, and multiple family residential. Planning Area VII is a key entry parcel to Sub-Aroa 18 and is positioned Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Ama 18 Specific Plan to respond to economic/market factors both within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Ci~ of Ontario. 1.4.8 PLANNING AREA VIII-OFFICE/COMMERCIAL/SENIOR HOUSING Planning Ar~a VIII is approximately 21 acres; allowable uses within the planning area are office, mixed-use c~>mmemial, and market rate senior housing. This planning area has prime arterial frontage along Milliken Avenue and Sixth Street. Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan 3.1 RELATIONSHIP TO THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN The goal of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan was to create a stand-alone document that could be integrated into the IASP as a self-contained Specific Plan. Adoption of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan required minor amendments to the IASP and General Plan. A listing of those amendments is provided below: iASP Amendments · IASP Sub-Areas-The Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan was added to the IASP as a new Sub-Area subject to a new range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses. · Open Space Network-Minor revisions to the discussion on Open Space Networks were provided to include the golf course within Planning Areas IA and IR. The golf course was designated in the IASP as a permitted use within the Open Space Category. · Circulation Network-The reference to Cleveland Avenue as a secondary arterial was eliminated in the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan north of Sixth Street. Cleveland Avenue will function as a local industrial roadway and, south of Sixth Street, Cleveland Avenue will be vacated. · Cate.qories of Industrial Uses-A new general category of use "Mixed-Use" was added to the IASP. This category will be the same as that added to the General Plan (described in Section 3.2 below), and recognizes the broader range of commercial, office, retail, residential, and recreational activities permitted in the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan. Sub-Area Fi.qures-A variety of figures within the IASP were amended to reflect the boundaries of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan. The figures for Sub-Area 11 and Sub-Area 12 were revised, along with the text in each section, to reflect the reduction in Sub-Area size and the changes to Cleveland Avenue. · Residential Use-A new category of residential use was added to the IASP. This category allows for multiple family residential development. Multiple family residential uses are only permitted in Planning Areas VI, VII, and IX of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan. Multiple family market rate senior housing is only permitted in Planning Area VIII. 3.2 RELATIONSHIP TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN A thorough assessment of the relationship of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan to the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is provided in Appendix B. Notable items contained within the discussion are summarized below. General Plan Amendments · The amendments to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan were similar to the amendments to the IASP. The changes generally related to figures being modified, changes due to Cleveland Avenue being reclassified as a local industrial collector, and the golf course being shown as an open space use. The Open Space designation includes specific regulations and standards as discussed throughout the Specific Plan. The Development Code Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Ama 18 Specific Plan regulations for Open Space do not apply to the golf course uses within the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan. Land Us,~ Changes · Industrial Land Uses-The General Plan previously had three categories of industrial land uses: Industrial Park, General Industrial, and Heavy Industrial. However, it was felt that these three categories could discourage the City General Plan objective of promoting planning flexibility and the mixture of different, but compatible land uses. In order to expand the wariety of commemial and recreational uses contemplated within Sub-Area 18, and to help Ioetter integrate this portion of the southern boundary of the IASP with anticipated regional market trends, the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan proposed a new category of land use entitled "Mixed-Use,' consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The Mixed-Use category permits a wide range of commemial and industrial activities, including medium, light, and custom manufacturing; reseamh and development; office; recreation; residential; mixed-use commemial; retail; and general commercial uses. · Open Space-The golf course within Sub-Area 18 is designated "Open Space." "Open Space" is defined to include golf course uses within designated areas adjacent to commercial, industrial, or residential uses. · Residential Use-Development of a multiple family residential apartment complex is permitted only in Planning Areas VI, VII, and IX of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan designation of Mixed Use. Multiple family market rate senior housing is permitted in Planning Area VIII consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan designation of Mixed Use. Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan SECTION 4 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK The Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan identifies a strategy for future use and development of the project site. This Specific Plan has been formulated based upon an assessment of existing site and environmental factors, the IASP, real estate market conditions, and community context, as well as discussions with City staff, community leaders, Metrolink representatives, and local, regional, and national real estate development interests. 4.1 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 4.1.1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION As depicted in Figure 4-1, the project site is approximately 380 acres, divided into three prima~j tracts defined by existing major arterial roadways and railroad tracks. It was identified in the IASP as being with Sub-Areas 10, 11, and 12. West Tract: +74 acres Bound by Fourth Street, Cleveland Avenue, Sixth Street, and Utica Avenue, this tract contains three industrial/office buildings, including: · Buildin,q 600-±308,432-square-foot industrial building, including one-story, high beam industrial space and two-story central core office space. · Buildin~l 601-±242,028-square foot, three-story office building with large floorplate and extensive in-floor wiring distribution network. · Building 602-±424,968-square foot industrial building, incorporating ± 217,612 square feet of one-story, high-beam industrial space, .190,556 square feet of two-story perimeter office space, and 216,800 square feet in a detached structure (602A). South Tract: ~ fSO acres Bound by Fourth Street, Milliken Avenue, Sixth Street, and Cleveland Avenue, this tract is contains vineyards, vacant land. As a part of implementation of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan, a prior parcel map and onsite street improvements near Fourth Street and Cleveland Avenue were vacated. North Tract;. ~151 acres Bound by Sixth Street, Milliken Avenue, the AT&SF railroad tracks, and Cleveland Avenue, this tract is partially developed. The tract includes vineyards, an electrical substation in the northwest comer of the tract, a Metrolink Station, office development, and planned multiple family residential apartments. A major underground water line within a 40-foot-wide easement runs through the tract on an east-west axis approximately 600 feet south of the tract's northern property line. An existing 40-foot-wide irrevocable easement along a future Seventh Street alignment will be vacated to accomplish the plan. 4.1.2 ATTRIBUTES OF THE PROPERTY The property has a number of significant attributes upon which the Specific Plan is based. These attributes ar~ illustrated in Figures 2-4 and 4-2. The attributes include the following: · Central location to major business/industrial/warehousing/distribution centers and master planned residential communities. · Proximity to Ontado International Airport (1.35 miles southwest). · Highly accessible from regional expressways including 1-10, 1-15 and the future 1-210 expressways (0.67 mile south, 0.75 mile east, and 3 miles north, respectively). · Extensive major arterial road frontage provided by Fourth Street, Sixth Street, and Milliken Avenue (3,900 feet, 3,900 feet, and 5,200 feet, respectively). · Proximity to Metrolink Station location at the northeast comer of the project site. · Large, readily developable land under single ownership and free of any apparent major environmental constraints. · Potential re-use of existing onsite buildings. · Scenic mountain backdrops to the north (San Gabriel Mountains) and the south (Santa Aha Mountains). 4.1.3 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT/STRATEGY Overall Concept The Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan envisions reposifioning the property as a Mixed-Use development serving as a central amenity area for the surrounding IASP and a transition area from the commercial areas to the south and the industrial areas of the IASP to the east, west, and north. Proposed uses include recreational, hotel/conference center, retail, restaurant and entertainment, and regional transit (Metrolink Station) uses, as well as office, research and development, light industrial uses, and multiple family residences oriented to current and anticipated future market demand. The development of this property as intended to serve as a catalyst for the further development of the surrounding IASP area as a major regional employment center. Basic Strategies The primary strategies behind the development concept are enumerated below. · Provide a Specific Plan with an innovative development concept that will promote a strategic competitive advantage in today's real estate market while serving as a catalyst for the successful buildout of the surrounding IASP. · Create a distinctive Mixed-Use environment with numerous amenities which combines compatible land uses with business services, residences, and recreation, including a championship golf course as its centerpiece. Rancho Cucarnonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Spec~c P~an Provide flexibility needed to respond to today's changing real estate market conditions, as well as opportunities created by such major developments in the immediate area as the Ontario International Airport, Metrolink Station, Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex, and Ontado Mills shopping center. · Incorporate a market-based development program of compatible and synergistic uses targeted to both immediate and long-term opportunities. · Provide expanded employment opportunities complimented by new residential development and recreation, retail, and service amenities serving the broader IASP aroma that will promote a sound, diversified economic base and high quality of life for the City. · Accommodate future growth and expansion of employment opportunities in the aroma with excellent in-place transportation infrastructure and public transit. · Provide highly attractive development parcels that arum appropriately sized and configured, highly accessible, and take maximum advantage Of artedal roadway visibility, golf course amenity frontage, and views of scenic mountain backdrops. · Creatively incorporate potential adaptive mmuse of the existing General Dynamics buildings and facilities to the extent feasible. · Provide an easily phased development plan that can be implemented on an incremental, project-by-project basis while being governed by an overall plan framework and coordinated with development of related public improvements. · Provide an attractive business environment that conveys a high quality of design, that compliments the design character of the site's natural setting and surrounding aroma development, and that relates compatibly with the existing IASP's design guidelines and development standards. · Provide a positive fiscal impact with substantial new revenues to the City and Redevelopment Agency in terms of additional property taxes, sales taxes, bed taxes, and redevelopment tax increment generated by the proposed development. 4.1.4 URBAN DESIGN CONTEXT Physical Form and Appearance The Sub-Aroma 18 Specific Plan envisions the property as a Mixed-Use development of interrelated planning area organized as a series of linked anchors that take advantage of the extensive arterial roadway frontage and visibility, and the amenity frontage created by the golf course to maximize value and marketability (Figure 4-3). Distinguishing elements of the Specific Plan include the 18-hole championship golf course with clubhouse and related facilities, hotel/conference facility, possible family-oriented recreation/retail/entertainment facility (potential mm-use of Building 602), mixed-use commercial center at Milliken Avenue/Fourth Street, Metrolink Station at Milliken Avenue, multiple family apartments, office, research and development/light industrial, and supporting commercial uses, all within a planned business park environment. Detailed information about these planned uses is provided in Section 4.2 and Table 4-1. Potential uses would be permitted or conditional uses, as specified in Section 5.2 of this Specific Plan (Tables 5-1 and 5-2). Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Spec~c Plan The Sub-Arena 18 Specific Plan integrates itself into the community fabdc through a strong framework established by the existing arterial roadway network and proposed uses that compliment the surrounding IASP sub-areas. Specific Plan access intersections are consistent with City standards, including l/4~-mile spacing of median breaks and 1/8-mile spacing of "right turn in/out only" access points along major arterial roads bounding the site. To facilitate the fuller integration of uses, the Specific Plan calls for modifying or vacating portions of Cleveland Avenue between Fourth and Sixth Streets, while retaining these intersections as site access points. Vacating Cleveland Avenue as a through route between Fourth and Sixth Streets would provide :~5 acres of land to the development plan. Special Boulevards Consistent with the IASP and the General Plan of Rancho Cucamonga, the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan recognizes and reinforces Milliken Avenue, Fourth Street, and Sixth Street as special roadway corridors that convey a consistent design theme and streetscape image, as well as appropriate architectural and landscape edges facing onto these special boulevards. The Specific Plan incorporates the City's established landscape design theme and character for Milliken Avenue, as exemplified currently along the northeast comer of the project site. Landscape Design Landscaping will serve as a major design component of the Specific Plan fulfilling and will fulfill several important functions: · Convey the basic organization and character of development. · Distinguish special boulevards framing the area. · Create special design accent features that enhance important places such as project entries and building entrances. · Integrate buildings into the site. · Provide amenities along pedestrian walkways and plazas, as well as shade/wind protection. · Soften and buffer parking areas. · Screen service areas. TABLE 4-1 Rancho Cucamonga IA SP Sub-Area t8 Specific Plan TABLE 4-t SUMMARY OF LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM This table is conceptual to illustrate and summarize the maximum development potential of the project. See Section 4.2 Land Use Plan, as well as Table 5.1 and 5.2 for permitted land uses and definitions. Types of Uses =~ Maximum (Floor Planning Area S~se ~ ~ Potential (sf or Ratio) or Existing Facilities · Building 600 V~ 27 ~ ~ · ~ ~ · · 308,000~ 0'25~ Building 601 IV~ 17 · · · · · 242,000~ 0'35° Building 602 II 28 · · · · · · · · 425,000 0.35° Sub~tal 72 975,000 0.31 ~olfCourse I 151 · · · · · 60,000 0.01 including clubhouse and maintenance facility) Golf Practice III4 22 · · · · · O · · 15,0004 0-01° Facility (lighted) Subtotal 173 75,000 0.01 j Commercial/ VII _424 · · · · · · · 60.984~ 0.3~5 I~dustrial Parcels ~*0.?0°~ VIII 13.4 · · i · 173,804 0.35 X 24 · · · · · · 200,000 0.20~ Xl 18 · · · 275,000 0.35 Subtotal ~-9=459.4 709.788 Multiple Family VI 23 · 567 du 14-24 Residential du/ac VII 20 · 499 du 24-30 -- -- du/ac Vlll 9.7 ·s 264 du 24-30 du/ac IX 20.5 · 521 du 24-30 du/ac ....... 1,851 24-39 Subtotat 53.2734.2 ~ '~='~ '~" d~u du/a~ permitted: up to 1,888 du Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area t8 Specific Plan Total 378? 1,759,788 1,851 du Permitted: up to 1,888 du Notes: 1. Ultimately demolished and redeveloped as mixed-use commercial: 440,000 sf. 2. Could be intensified with parking deck and +10,000 sf addition of mtail/restauran~ast food. 3. Existing facllit ~, could be adaptively re-used or redeveloped as a family recreationlentertainment center or mixed-use commercial. 4. Could be mdeveloped ultimately to mixed-use commercial: 290,000 sf. 7. Alternative hotel and confemnca confer site. 8. Multiple family market rate senior housing. 7. Includes 5 ac~es for vacated podJon of Cleveland Ave. 7. Ultimately coukl be 3,707,000 sf with overall FAR: 0.23. 8. FAR: 035 for '13-acm area excluding the Metrolink parcel (10 acres). 9. VVllere a hote~ is developed, the maximum allowable FAR for the Planning Area can increase to FAR 0.70. Rancho Cucemonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan HoteYExecutive Conference Center/Residential (Planning Areas II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII) Reinforcing the concept of creating an amenity core area sewing the surrounding employment center that is close to Ontario International Airport, a hotel/executive conference center oriented to business meetings and executive retreats is proposed. The hotel/conference center coutd be located in Planning Area V, VI, or VII based upon its development timing and the particular location preferences and requirements of the selected hotel operator. Multiple family residential uses are also permitted in Planninq Areas VI and V]I. 4.2.3 SOUTHEASTERN ANCHOR (Fourth Street and Milliken Avenue) Planning Area VI: · Office/Commercial/Residential Planning Area VI has both visibility from Fourth Street and extensive golf course amenity frontage. It is envisioned to be a campus-style office/business park. This parcel is also a potential site for the hotel/conference facility, mixed-use commercial center, and/or multiple family residential development. Planning Area VII: · Mixed. Use Commercial/Residential ('gateway'project) This Planning Area is focused on the prime comer of the overall property at the intersection of Fourth Street and Milliken Avenue. It is proposed to become a mixed-use commercial center complimenting the 1.65 million-square-foot Ontario Mills regional retail mall and 2.5 million square feet of office/commercial space. This site is also designated by Rancho Cucamonga as a "gateway" to the City because of its strategic location entering the City and ready access to both 1-10 and 1-15. Multiple family residential development is also permitted on this site. Potential uses for this parcel include: · Retail · Multiple Family Residential · Restaurant/Entertainment Personal, Business, and Professional Services · Health Club · Hotel/Conference Center 4.2.4 EASTERN ANCHOR (Sixth Street and Milliken Avenue) Planning Area VIII: · Office/Commercial/Senior Housing Planning Area VIII is located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Milliken Avenue which will become a prime intersection when Sixth Street is ultimately extended to a new proposed interchange with 1-15. This parcel enjoys both prime arterial road frontage and golf course frontage. Possible uses include office, research and development, and market rate senior housing, as well as commercial pad sites for fast food or banking adjacent to primary roadway entrances. With the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan completion of the future interchange with 1-15, Planning Area VIII may also include certain types of retail uses. Market rate senior housing is intended to facilitate the construction of rental housing units that will serve the cucrent and long-term City need for senior citizen-oriented dwelling units while maintaining a high degree of quality in project design and construction. This type of development shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws. The primary resident population group that is intended to be served by market rate senior housing development is senior citizens who meet the following criteria: a. For tenants, residents, or occupants who are married to each other, either spouse shall be 55 years of age or older. b. For individuals who are not married, each individual shall be 55 years of age or older with the following exceptions: · Non-seniors may live in the development if they are 45 years of age or older, or a person providing primary physical or economic support to the senior citizen; or, · A non-senior guest may stay with a senior for up to 60 days per year. Senior housing developments must meet the following physical requirements: a. Extra wide entryways, walkways, hallways, and doorways in the common areas of the development. b. Walkways and hallways in the common areas must be equipped with railings or grab bars to assist persons who have difficulty with walking. c. Walkways and hallways in the common areas must have sufficiently bright lighting to assist persons who have difficulty seeing. As an incentive to developers to build senior housing projects, the parking requirements may be reduced below that required for typical multi-family development. Reduction in the number of parking spaces shall be addressed on a case-by-case basis subject to the provision of a parking study and the establishment of a development agreement. Market rate senior housing development, including reduced parking requirements are predicated upon the long-term availability of the units for the target population previously defined. In order to ensure that the units remain available and affordable to this group, the developer will be required to enter into a development agreement with the City per California Government Code § §65864 through 5869.5. Rancho Cucemonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan TABLE ,5-1 SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPE BY PLANNING AREA Planning Area MANUFACTURING Custom Light Medium WHOLESALE/STORAGE/DISTRIBUTION Public Storage (indoor) Light Medium MATERIALS RECOVERY Collection Facilities RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (R&D) Research & Development (R&D) OFFICE Office CNIC Administrative Civic Services Cultural Public Assembly Public Buildings (libm~, post office, etc.) Public Safety & Utility services Religious Assembly PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC USES Child Care Facilities Clubs/Lodges (Private and Public) Convalescent Facilities/Hospital Educational Institutions (pdvate and Public) Transportation Facilities RECREATION Golf Course Golf Practice/Training Facility Recreational Facilities (indoor/outdoor) ENTERTAINMENT Entertainment Facilities (1) P P C P P P C C C C Rancho Cucamor~a IASP Sub-Ama 'i$ Specific Plan Planning Area Ty~ of U~ I II III W V ~ ~1 ~11 IX X XI Fami~ Ente~i~ment ~nter (~) P P P P P ~NG & DREJKING EST~HMEN~ S~ ~r(1) P P P P P P ~NSIE~ ACCOMMODA~ON~N FE~NCE CEN~R Confemn~ ~r~ter P P P P P P P ~e Tmin[ng ~nter P P P P P P M~E~SE COMMERC~ M~U~ ~me~al ~n~r PERSO~USlNE~ SERVICES Busi~ Sup~ff Se~ Funeral & Cmm~ ~ Pe~nal ~w~ Re.ir ~ AUTOMOBI~EHICLE SERVlC~ A~omo~ ~wi~ ~uff C C C C ~omo~ ~ S~fion C C C C C C C S~ A~o~ Sa~ C C C C C C C C ~L-BUSIN~S SUPPLY~E~ICES Busi~ ~ R~il & ~i~ R~AI~O~ENIENCE ~D Convenien~ Sa~s & ~wi~ ~NL-FOOD & B~E~GE ~D F~ and ~e Sa~ ~L~ENE~L R~il~neml (2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) ~ in Pa~ing Lo~ P P P P P R~L-HOME ~MPROVEMENT RE~D BuiMin~ng Equi~ Suppl~ & Sa~ P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) Fum~m~ome Fumishing~Antiques P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) H~ ~pl~an~mni~ P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) GENE~L COM~ERC~ Busings SuppN--Re~iF~wi~ Rancho Cucarnonga IASP Sub-A. pee 18 Specific plan Planning Area Type of Use I II III IV V Vt vtl VIII IX X Xl Communications Sewiess P P P P P P P P P P Parking (commercial) P P RESIDENTIAL Multiple Family Dwellings (3) P -P P Senior Housing (3)(4) P KEY:P = Permitted Uses C = Conditionally Permitted Use Blank Box = Not permitted Use (1) Where live entertainment is present, such uses are subject to a ctiY entertainment Permit- (2) Permitted as part of a mixed use commercial or retail center. (3) Residential permitted without industrial in the same planning area. (4) Senior housing subject to a development agreement. /7 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan TABLE 5-2 (Continued) LAND USE TYPE DEFINITIONS RETAIL-CONVENIENCE RELATED RETAIL-HOME IMPROVEMENT RELATED Convenience Sales and Services Building/Lighting Equipment/Supplies and Sales Activities typically include, but are, not limited to Activities typically include, but are not limited to: the retail sales from the premises of frequently the retail sale or rental from the premises of goods needed small personal convenience items and and equipment, including paint, glass, hardware, professional services which are used frequently, fixtures, electrical supplies, cultivators, short-haul Uses typically include, but are not limited to: trailers, lumbar, and hardware, and may have toiletries, tobacco and magazines, beauty and outdoor storage where allowed. Hardware stores barber shops, apparel laundering, and dP/cleaning are included is this use category, agencies, and film processing. Furniture/Home Furnishings/Antique Stores RETAIL-FOOD & BEVERAGE RELATED A retail business which pdmadly provides furniture, Food and Beverage Sales home furnishings, and/or antiques for home or business use. Activities typically include, but are not limited to the retail sale from the premises of food and Home Appliance/Electronics Stores bavereges for off-premises consumption. Uses typically include, but are not limited to: mini- A retail business which pdmadly provides kitchen markets, liquor/wine/beer stores, retail bakedes and laundry appliances, television, stereo and specialty/.(~ourmet food market; and, catedng equipment, and computer electronic goods for businesses excluding chain-type grocery stores, home use. RETAIL-GENERAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL Retail-General : Communications Services Retail busine4mes which are odented toward Activities typically include, but are not limited to: serving the general needs of residents, broadcasting, and other information relay sen~ces employees, and visitors of the community, in accomplished primarily through use of electronic facilities es part of a shopping center, mixed-use and telephonic mechanisms. Uses typically commercial center, or independent establishment, include, but are not limited to: television and radio including, but not limited to: apparel/clothing studios and ~.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'cgmph offices. accessories; art/music/photography, bookstore, business sappties; gifts/cards/stationa ry; Parking (Commercial) candy/confectienery; computers and software; department stores; drug stores/pharmacies, An automobile parking facility ope~,~=d for fee or eyewearl~l~st, fast food court/restaurants; profit, including either a surface lot or a perking jeua~/;, nea~i~aper/magazines; shoes; spe~ng slmcture. goods; stamplcoin/collectibles; television/radio; telephone/elecln~ics; toys; variety goods; video RESIDENTIAl_ USES sales/rentals; indoor wholesale/retail; and ~ sales ouflete. High-ResiderYdal Densfly Kiosk in Parking Lots This district is intended es an area for high-density multiple-family residential use, with site A small ~re, pavilion, or gazebo not devefopmefltreguiatJonsthatassuredevetopment used for convenience retail and services, and densities are up to 30 dwelling units per gross located within a parldng lot to primarily serve acre. customers while in their automobiles. Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-'Area 18 Spec~c Plan 'Senior Housing forth in the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Areal 18 Specific Plan and all applicable state and Market rate senior housing shall be permitted in federal laws goveming senior housing Planning Area VIII, subject to the provisions set development. Rancho Cucamor~ga lASP Sub-,4rea 18 Specific Plan 5.3.3 LANDSCAPE Overall Thematic Character The overall thematic character of landscaping within Sub-Area 18 is intended to reinforce and · enhance the open natural setting of the site using two basic landscape zones with natural transitions between them: · _Oasis Zone-This landscape zone is generally reserved for special landscape areas and features such as the golf course, major project entries and features, building entrances, and other areas associated with high visibility and pedestrian use. This zone is generally characterized by a lush green landscape incorporating turf areas, flowering annuals and/or shrubs, evergreens, and shade trees that provide a cool, inviting character with rich colors and textures, and combined, where appropriate, with water features such as lakes, ponds, or fountains. · Native Garden Zone-This landscape zone is generally the basic palette most common throughout the development parcels of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan, and is composed of native plant materials rich with color and texture which combine aesthetically pleasing environments with reduced irrigation requirements. The Native Garden Zone is composed of ground covers and mounding shrubs, as well as native evergreen and deciduous trees that are drought-tolerant. This landscape zone is combined with plazas, courtyards, and water features where appropriate. Table 5-3 identifies the suggested plant pallets for each landscape zone. Streetscape Streetscape landscaping shall provide a strong, unifying landscape theme for the overall project and shall reflect the hierarchy of the street classification (Figures 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4) in terms of scale and character, and exhibit design continuity in landscape treatment between the street right-of-way and adjacent landscape setback. Table 5-4 describes the landscaping themes for streets. · Street trees of similar species shall establish a consistent design pattern and character within the parkway of each street (Table 5-4). · Special landscape treatments should serve to demarcate primary entry intersections while preserving safe sight lines, in accordance with the City Engineer's policy regarding intersection lines of sight. · Shrub, planting and berming shall generally be used to screen transformers and switch boxes within the streetscape parkway, as well as adjacent parking and service areas. · Streetscape landscaping should serve to help frame "view windows" into the golf course where the street adjoins the course. ~,~;~_~uPM~O~ s~ ~o2osot.~ 5-18 Development Guidelines and Standards Rancho Cucamonge IASP Sub-Area 18 Speci~c Plan TABLE 5-4 STREETSCAPE LANDSCAPING THEME Street Tree Types/Species Planting Provisions/Treatments Median 1. Milliken Street Trees: Avenue Existing (in-place) (Special C~ty · Braachychiton Populneus · Informal d~lts Gateway Blvd.) (70%) (Bottle tree) · Average Spacing: 25 ft. on center · Liquidambar Straciflua (30%) · Plantings to be incorporated into (Palo Alto Sweet Gum) landscape setback. · Street tree easements may be Planning Areas VII and IX required outside the right-of-way (additionally permitted street trees): Planning Areas vg and IX (altemative permitted provisions): · Washingtonia filifera (California Fan Palm) Foreground: · Washingtonia robusta (Mexican Fan Palm) · California Fan Palm or Mexican Fan Palm Formal placement Accent Trees Average Spacing: 40 ft. on center (double row) · Albizia Julibdssen (Silk Tree) · Lagerstroemia Indica (Crape Background: My~le) · Cinnamomumum Camphora · Bottletree (70%) (Camphor Tree) * Palo Alto Sweet Gum (30%) · informal d~fts · Average Spacing: 25 ft. on center · Plantings to be incorporated into landscape setback. · Street tree easements may be required outside the right-of-way 2. Fourth Stroet~ Street Trees: Foreground (Major Arterial) · Platanus Acerffolia London · Semi-formal · Per Wildan Assoc. Plane Tree) · Average Spacing: 30 ft. on center street plan. · Incorporate existing mature · Median landscape Street Trees: Background General Dynamics straet responsibilities landscape to the extent between City of · Pinus Cana#ensis (Canal7 possible. Rancho Island Pine) · Locate trees to minimize contiict Cucamonga and with overhead transmission lines. Ontario to be Planning Area VII (additionally · Coordinate with Edison pruning determined. permitted foreground =,{,~-et policies. · Street tree easements may be tree): required outside right-of-way. · Washingtonia filifera (California Fan Palm) Planning ~'ea Vll (additionally permitted background street tree): · Platanus Acerffolia London Plane Tree) Planning Area VII (accent tree): · Lagerstroernia Indica (Crape Myrtle) Rancho Cucarnonga IASP Sub-Ama 18 Specific Plan Street Tree Types/Species Planting Provisions/Treatments Median 3. Six'~t Stree,t' St.J~t Tree: (MaJor Arterial) · Magnolia Grandifora (Majestic · Semi-formal/regular Per City Master Plan Beauty Magnolia) · Tree spacing: 30 ft. on canter for Sixth Street. Planning Area IX (additionally Planning Area IX (alternative permitted street trees): permitted provisions): · Washingtonia filifere (California Foreground: Fan Palm) · Washingtonia robusta (Mexican · California Fan Palm or Mexican Fan Palm) Fan Palm · Formal placement, · Average Spacing: 40 ft. on canter (double row) Background: · Majestic Beauty Magnolia · Semi-formal/regular Tree spacing: 30 ft. on center 4. Utica Avenue Street Tree: (Existing Sheet) , · Pinus Canariensis (Canary · Semi-fon~nal/regular N.A. Island Pine) · Tree spacing: 25 ft. on center · Incorporate existing mature General Dynamics street landscaping to the extent possible. 5. Cleveland Street Tree: Avenue (Local Street) · Pinus Canadensis (Canary · Semi-formal N.A. Island Pine) · Tree spacing: 25 ft. on center a. A beautification Master Plan for parkways along Fourth and Sixth Streets shall be prepared for City approval. The beautification Master Plan can be included in individual Master Plans for Planning Area development or processed as part of the overall design concepts for the Specific Plan in a separate document. Rancho Cucamon~a IASP Sub*Ama 18 Spec~c Plan - Particular design attention shall be placed along special City boulevards to provide a · complementary streetscape character, an enhanced buildinG appearance, and screening of parking and service areas from public view. - Development parcels adjacent to the golf course sha~l, when developed, provide a minimum 10-fcot-wide building and parking landscape setback that complements the golf course landscaping. ^ minimum 6-foot-high view fence may be provided that will facilitate view windows and secur~y while restricting unwanted pedestrian or vehicular access into the course. - At parking lot and service area locations, landscaping (trees and shrubs) shall be intensified to screen them from view on the golf course. -At building ~ocetions, trees should be placed to help frame views of the golf course and accent the buildings. · ~s-Landscaping shall serve to integrate structures into their site and enhance the architecture. - Long building elevations should be broken up by tree planting. - Foundation planting should be utilized to help settle buildings into their site. - Special accent planting should be used to high)ight building entrances and other special features. - Tree arrangements should preserve and frame scenic views of the golf course, mountain backdrops, and other aesthetic features. -Landscape design treatments should promote building energy conservation and provide wind screening of outdoor pedestrian areas. · ~a-Parking lot ~andscaping is required for screening of large parking areas to limit their visual impact and to provide shade. - Use berming, iow walls, and/or shrub landscaping to screen parking areas from public streets. - Use canopy trees within parking areas to provide shade and reduce glare. - Use landscape islands at the end of stall rows to define circulation and provide shade. · Service Area/Equipment Screenina-Use Iow. level landscaping in combination with minimum 6-foot-high screen walls to shield outdoor service areas and equipment from public view (see Table 5-5 for appropriate landscape plant materials for screening). · ~se special paving to create an attractive and unifying element of site development in high use pedestrian areas, such as entdes, plazas, and courtyards. Plant Materials · ~lication-Use plant materials appropriate to their particular zone application (i.e., 'oasis' or "native garden' zone). R:~n.=O~ Se~ae s.aa~ol.v,~a 5-24 Development Guidelines and Standards Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan TABLE 5-5 ACCEPTABLE PLANT MATERIALS FOR LOW LEVEL SCREENING Size at 3 Yearn Minimum Height x Width Spacing Botanical Name Common Name (feet) (feet on center) Buxus japonicum Japanese Boxwood 5 x 4 3.0 Cadssa grandiflora Natal Plum 5 x 4 3.5 Cistus ladan~.,r Cdmson Spot Rock Rose 4 x 5 4.0 Coprosma baued Copromsa 6 x 5 3.~ Echium fasttmsum Pride of Madeira 6 x 6 6.0 Elaeagnus puIIgel3s Silvelt~ 6 x 6 5.0 Escallonia f~ades~ Escallonia 5 x 5 4.0 Hakea suaveolens Sweet Hakea 6 x 5 4.0 Hibiscus msa-sinensis Chinese Hibiscus 5 x 5 5.0 Ligustrum texanum Japanese Privet 6 x 4 3.0 Myoporum laetum Myoporum 6 x 6 5.0 Nedum oleander Oleander 6 x 6 4.0 Photinia frased Phofina 6 x 5 4.0 Phonnium teflax New Zealand flax 7 x 6 6.0 Pittosporum tobira Tobira 3 x 4 4.0 Viburnum japc,nicum Viburnum 6 x 5 4.0 Xylosma congestum Xylosma 5 x 5 4.0 Note: Alternative plant materials shall be allowed that promote the objectives of AB 325 by encouraging water conservation. 5.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Development Standards of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan address eight factors which include: · General Provisions · Master Plan Requirements · Minimum Parcel Size · Setl~ok Requirements · Landscape Requirements · Parking and Loading Requirements · Interim Uses Performanse 8tandard~ Planning Area IX Recreational Amenities Table 5-6 summarizes the application of basic development standards on a planning area basis, including minimum parcel size, landscape area requirements, maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and performance standards. The setback requirements are dete~nined in accordance with the street classification and pa~cular side yard and mar yard conditions. TABLE 5-6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUMMARY Planninq Area Standardsl II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Minimum Pan=el Size (Acres) n/a I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 Minimum Percentage of Landscape Ama (% of Net Lot Ama) n/a 15 15 15 15 15 10 10 31 10 Pen~ormance Standard (Schedule) n/a A A A A A B B B B Maximum FIoor Area Ratio (FAR)/ n/a 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.70 0.35 0.56 0.35 Residential Density 14-24 24-30 24-30 Note: Where a hotel is developed, the rnax~mum allewable FAR fo~ the Planning Area can increase to FAR 0.7. The FAR for the hotel, if the entire planning area is not used for such use, can exceed the 0.7 FAR es long as the entire planning area does not ~ 0.7 FAR as shown in the conceptual Master Plan. Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Ares 18 Specific Plan 5.4.4 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Setback requirements are intended to provide .adequate open space for building separation, landscape treatment, as well as attractive architectural and site planning design solutions that foster vadet~j and interest within a cohesive overall character Of. development. The following standards sl~all apply in all areas of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan. Streetscape Setbacks · Streetscape setbacks standards, including the minimum building setback, minimum parking setback, and the average depth of landscaping along public and private street frontages, are determined from ultimate face of curb. · Streetscape setback requirements are established according-to. street classification and shall be as specified in Table 5-7 and illustrated in Figures 5-6, 5-7, and 5-8 (except when modified as provided for below). I TABLE 5-7 STREETSCAPE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS (Determined from Ultimate Face of Curb) Average Depth Building Setback~ Parking Setback Str~ Classifi~tion ~Landscam"f .... ' , (feet)~ ~ (feet) Major Arterial and Special 45 45 25 Boulevard Milliken Avenue adjacent to 35 35 25 Planning Area VII between Fourth Street and the Disbiet Water Well Site" Secondary 35 35 20 Local 25 25 15 Sixth Street adjacent fe 25 44 19 Planning Ama IX° a. The average depth shall be uninterrupted from the face of curb, except for sidewalks, pedestrian hardscape, plazas and courtyards, monument signs and golf course security view fences. b. Street frontage walls and fences over 3 feet in height are subject to building setbacks, except golf course security view fences and golf course/driving range/practice facility ball barrier trotting (pole moontad). c. Average landscape setback requirements shall be averaged from the galf couree (Planning Area I) to other Planning Areas, but not less than the required minimum parking setback. d. Applies only to the JPI project for multiple-family residential uses in Planning Area IX. e. Applies only to Planning Ama VII. Building Setbacks Building setbacks shall be as follows (except when modified as set forth below): · Front-As shown per street classification in Figures 5-6 through 5-8 and Table 5-7. · Interior Rear--None, except when rear lot area abuts a side street, the setback shall be 5 feet minimum, and where it abuts the golf course, the setback shall be 10 feet minimum (Figure 5-9). ~u~c~J~x~ s~ns.o=os~.~x~ 5-34 Development Guidelines and Star~ards - The minimum landscaped coverage requirement may be reduced bythe Cit~ Planner when it is determined that the project is designed to the highest aes~e~ qualitycom~ter~ with - A maximum of 5 percent credit toward the required landscape/hardscape coverage shall be permitted where appropriate public art is to be displayed in a setting which enhances pedestrian spaces and building architecture. Berms - Bermed landscaping shall be incorporated wherever possible within the landscape seil3ack and used to screen parking and loading areas. Linear sidewalks and urban scale landscaping are permitted in P arming Area~ VlI'~ IX. Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Ama 18 Specific Plan 5.4.8 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Performance standards are intended to assure basic compatibility of adjacent uses based upon their operating characteristics and provide for a healthy, safe, and pleasing environment consistent with the nature of surrounding activity. The performance standards contained within Table 5-8 are applied as follows: Class A Performance Standards are the most restrictive of the performance standards for non-residential uses. They are applicable to all Planning Areas south of Sixth Street, ir~ctuding Planning Areas IA, II, III, IV, and V. Class B Performance Standards are employed for all Planning Areas north of Sixth S~;'eet, with the exception of ~ Area IX. These standards are intended to provide for a broad range of activity while assuring a basic level of Tie standards apply to Planning Areas lB, X, and XI. - Class C Performance Standards are employed for residential development, which applies to Planning Areas VI, VII, VIII, and IX. 5.4.9 PLANNING AREA VI: MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL AND SITE AMENmES The following list of amenities, or other similar amenities, es may be appmvad by the Planning Director, wou~d be included in muffJple-fa~ residenltal projects ~ in Planning Area VI: 1. Spa with overhead shade structure 2. Fire p~t with gas line 7. Golf course adjacent pedestrian paeso 8. View areas with overheads and 9. Croauet lawn 10. Rose garden 11. Fountain courtyard 12. Patio 13. Palm court 14. (~azebo 15. Puffing green 16. Exercise stations; walking paths throughout site 17. Turf area 18. Turf 19. Turf area Rancho Cucamor~a IASP Sub-A~ga f8 Specific P/an Weline~ Cen~r ~en~es 20. Re~pfionist and me~Ge ~ard ~ mail ~nt~ 2~. Billiards 22. Porches 23. ~u~u~o~ ~a~mom~heater 2~. ~, jui~ b~r, ~nd ~f~ 25. W~I~ di~ ~ 26. Hea~y ~ ~ mom 27. R~ libra~ 28. Ho~y a~ ~ff ~ ~. ~m~ ~ ~ busin~ ~er 30. Full ~wi~ ~ (ma~e, ~ls, ~ir ~m) ~ ~e ~'s a~ ~'s ~m 5.4.10 P~NNING AREA VIh MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL AND SITE AMENITIES Amenities associated with Planninq Area VIII would be provided subje~ to Ci~ development code requirements, and may include the following: 1. Conde~e 2. ~ ~nter 3. M~ia Room 4. Ga~ R~m 5. ~e~ Room 6. T~ing ~en 7. ~e Tu~ ~a 8. Main ~mming Pool 9. Main Spa 10. ~ ~mming Pool 11. ~a~ Spa 12. Fire P~ 13. BuiE~ ~ at Main ~mming P~I 14. Sh~ S~m ~ Main ~mming P~ 15. G~ ~ Ro~ Gard~ 16. R~ Ga~ 17. ShOe ~re ~ ~ S~m~ P~I 18. ~ ~ ~nda~ ~ming P~I 19: ~e~ ~ '~' ~ ~:-~ ~i~i~s 20. Ba~e ~ea ~ 'pas~' a~s ~ ~ilding 5.4.1t P~NNING AR~ IX: MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RECR~TIONAL AND SITE AMENITIES Recrea~on Am~Facili~es 1. Reso~-s~le swimming pool 2. Spa 3. Fire pit 4. Three-hole putting grin . ~ ~ ~ Gen~ Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Ama 18 Specific Plan 5. Lawn volleyball court 6. Horseshoe pit 7. Garden gazebo 8. Poolside barbeque pit and serving areas 9. Barbeque node with picnic tables 10. Barbeque node with picnic tables 11. Barbeque node with picnic tables 12. Personal garden area 13. Open space/recreational area 14. Open space/recreational area 15. Open space/recreational area 16. Walking trail along the Empire Lakes Golf Course 17. Par course 18. Movie theater with THX Surround Sound 19. State-of-the-art exercise facility 20. Game room 21. Teaching kitchen 22. Community room 23. Bocce ball court ~ A N C H O C U C A M O N G A I ....... ~ .~,;,~;;;:-'-~- ...... (~O~IJNITY ~ERVICE& DATE: July 16, 2003 TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PURCHASE-AND-SALE AGREEMENT - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY COUGAR, LLC. - A PROPOSED PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR 3.432 ACRES OF LAND IN THE OPEN SPACE/PARK LAND USE DISTRICT OF THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MILLIKEN AVENUE SOUTH OF THE MILLIKEN PARK SITE. APN: 227-811-03. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and LDC Cougar, LLC, the Draft Negative Declaration and the Initial Environmental Study for the sale of 3.432 acres of land located south of Milliken Park. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City currently owns a parcel of approximately 4.75 acres of land on the east side of Milliken Avenue, south of Milliken Park. Approximately 1.3 acres of this property is improved with parking areas serving the park to the north, leaving 3.432 acres of undeveloped property. The City originally obtained this property envisioning working with the Rancho Cucamonga YMCA to develop a program facility on the site in the future. From the beginning, Lewis Development Company has been very supportive of the YMCA programs and has been committed to helping the YMCA realize their facility goal at the appropriate time. This 3.432 acre property was never planned to be part of the Milliken Park improvements and was not acreage required for park purposes by previous developments in the Terra Vista area. The City has recently been successful in obtaining state and federal funds that will allow for the construction of the first phase of the Central Park improvements, located north of the subject property at Baseline Road and Milliken Avenue. This first phase of Central Park wilt include a Community and Senior Center building to serve the Terra Vista area /7/ Page 2 July 16, 2003 PROPOSED PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT as well as the entire community. In the preliminary planning for this Community/Senior Center, discussions were held with the YMCA and representatives from Lewis Development regarding the most effective and efficient manner for the YMCA to meet their programming goals in the future. These discussions resulted in the determination that the City would permit the YMCA to develop a program facility within Central Park in the future as their fundraising allows. Development of the YMCA facility on Central Park will place it in closer proximity to other City recreation facilities on the park including the Community/Senior Center, the future Family Aquatics Center, future Tennis Center and open space improvements. Plans have been developed to permit the YMCA to lease a portion of the phase 1 Community/Senior Center for some programming until such time as they can build their own facility on the park. Lewis Development representatives have expressed their support of this partnership and agreed to continue their initial offer to help make this plan a reality. This programming partnership plan now results in the 3.432 acre piece of undeveloped land south of Milliken Park not being required for the future YMCA facility. In order to provide the City with additional funding for the construction of the Central Park building, Lewis Development has agreed to purchase the property at an extremely generous price and to provide additional park mitigation funding to be used for the Central Park project. This undeveloped property south of Milliken Park is contiguous with other land they own and will be included as part of a future project proposal. The existing 4.75 acre parcel will be reduced by a boundary line adjustment, excluding that portion of the site already improved with the City's parking lot. The purchase price for the remaining 3.432 acres is $1.4 million and the park mitigation amount is $600,000. Payments will be made to the City in accordance with designated milestones outlined in the agreement. This will provide up to $2 million in additional funding for the Central Park project. Since these amounts reflect a significant amount of generosity on behalf of Lewis Development and the Lewis family, appropriate recognition is being planned for the Central Park Community/Senior Center facility. Attached as Exhibit No. 1 is the recommended Purchase and Sale Agreement. Sale of City owned property requires the approval of certain environmental assessments. Attached to the staff report as Exhibit No. 2 is a Negative Declaration/Initial Environmental Study for consideration and approval by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT This Purchase and Sale Agreement will provide up to $2 million in additional funding for the Central Park development. Respe( tfully submitted, Kevin~ ~cArdle Community Services Director Attachments EXHIBIT #1 PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT This Purchase and Sale Agreement (this "Agreement") is entered into this __ day of July, 2003 (the "Effective Date"), by and between CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a California municipal corporation ("Seller"), and LDC COUGAR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, ("Buyer"). Seller and Buyer are sometimes individually referred to as a "Party" and are sometimes collectively referred to as "Parties." This Agreement is made, in part, with reference to the following relevant facts: RECITALS A. Seller is the owner in fee simple of Parcel3 of Parcel Map 11286 consisting of approximately four and seventy-five hundredths (4.75) acres located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City"), California (the "Seller Parcel"), legally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and as further identified on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A-1 ". B. Buyer desires to purchase, and Seller desires to sell, the Seller Parcel except for that portion of the Seller Parcel generally identified on Exhibit "A-I" as "Park Site" which has been improved as part of the adjacent Milliken Park (the "Park Area"). As such, the "Property" to be sold to Buyer is 3.432 acres of real property comprised of the Seller Parcel less the Park Area which shall be excluded by a boundary line adjustment to be processed by Buyer (the "BLA") adjusting the boundary line between Milliken Park and the Seller Parcel. C. Buyer desires to purchase the Property and Seller desires to sell the Property to Buyer, all subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. The City has taken all actions, including conducting all required appraisals, necessary to cause the Property to be available for sale to Buyer. D. The Property is currently zoned for recreational purposes and was previously intended for development of a YMCA facility and/or for the expansion of Milliken Park. E. Buyer intends to process a General Plan amendment, Terra Vista Community Plan amendment, and residential tentative map (the "Tentative Map") covering (i) the Property, (ii) Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 15349 (the "RC Parcel") and (iii)ce'rtain additional property owned by Buyer adjacent to the Property, all as identified on Exhibit"A-2" attached hereto for development of a 168-unit residential condominium project (the "Project"). NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the recitals, covenants and other provisions set forth in this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1.0 CERTAIN DEFINITIONS The following terms when used in this Agreement shall have the following meanings: 1.1 "Agreement" means this Purchase and Sale Agreement, including all exhibits and amendments hereto. 1.2 "Appeal Period" means the period of time following City Council approval of the Development Approvals during which a judicial appeal of the Development Approvals may be flied under California law. 1.3 "Closing Date" means the date determined pursuant to Section 4.2 on which the Closing occurs. 1.4 "Closing" means the recordation of the Deed in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement 1.5 "City" means the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California. 1.6 "Deed" means a duly authorized, executed and acknowledged completed grant deed conveying the Property from Seller to Buyer, in the form of Exhibits "B" attached to and made a part of this Agreement. 1.7 "Deposits" mean the sums delivered by Buyer to Escrow Holder in immediately available funds as set forth in Section 3.2 below. 1.8 "Development Approvals" means final City approval of (i) the General Plan amendment and Terra Vista Community Plan to rezone the Property and the RC Parcel to MH zoning, (ii)the Tentative Map, (iii)the BLA, and (iv)all related California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) approvals. 1.9 "Due Diligence Date" means the second (2nd) business day after the Effective Date. 1.10 "Effective Date" means the date a fully executed original of this Agreement is delivered to Buyer by Seller, which date is hereinabove written. 1.11 "Escrow" means the escrow opened with Chicago Title Company pursuant to the Escrow Instructions to effect and transact the sale and purchase of the Property in accordance with this Agreement. 1.12 "Escrow Instructions" means those escrow instructions as set forth in this Agreement and in any additional instructions from time to time requested by Escrow Holder to affect the sale and purchase of the Property by Seller to Buyer in accordance with this Agreement. 1.13 "Hazardous Materials" means any chemical, substance, material, controlled substance, object, condition, solid or hazardous waste or combination thereof which is hazardous to human health or safety or the environment due to its ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, toxicity, or other harmful or potentially harmful property or effects. Hazardous Materials include, without limitation, any flammable explosives, radioactive materials, hazardous wastes, toxic substances or related materials, and substances defined as "hazardous substances," "hazardous material," "hazardous wastes," or "toxic substances" in, under or pursuant to any Environmental Laws (as that term is defined above). "Hazardous Materials" shall also include oil or petroleum and petroleum products, asbestos, and any asbestos containing materials, radon, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), urea formaldehyde insulation, lead paints and coatings, and all of those chemicals, substances, materials, controlled substances, objects, conditions and waste or combinations thereof which as of the Effective Date and as of Closing are listed, defined or regulated in any manner by any applicable federal, state or local Environmental Law {as that term is defined above). For purposes of this Agreement, the terms "encumbrance" and "encroachment" shall not be deemed to include the presence of any Hazardous Material contamination on, in or under the Property or the underlying groundwater. 1.14 "Property" means the land described in Exhibit"A" attached hereto excepting the Park Area, plus, (a) all rights, privileges, easements, tenements, hereditaments, rights of way, and appurtenances which belong to or appertain to the Property and other property rights, if any, that are owned by Seller as of the Effective Date with respect to the Property, including, without limitation, rights to all minerals, oil, gas, and other hydrocarbon substances on and under such Land, if any, as well as all development rights, air rights, and water rights, relating to the subject land; and (b) all intangible property owned or held by Seller in connection with the Property or with the use thereof, including, without limitation, all permits, maps, surveys, and plans. 1.15 "Title Company" and "Escrow Holder" means Chicago Title Insurance Company, 560 E. Hospitality Lane, San Bernardino, California 92408, Attn: Cindy Parsell. 1.16 "Title Policy" means a California Land Title Association (CLTA) [1970] Form B Owner's Policy (a "CLTA Policy") insuring Buyer, in the amount of the Purchase Price, that fee title to Property is vested in Buyer, subject only to (a) the exceptions approved or waived by Buyer pursuant to Section 5.1.1., (b) matters shown by a correct survey of the Property or a physical inspection of the Property and (c) any other matters created, permitted or approved by Buyer; provided that Buyer, at its election, may require Title Company to issue an updated or different form of Title Policy, including but not limited to an American Land Title Association ("ALTA") Form B 1970 Extended Coverage Owner's Policy (an "ALTA Policy") if (a) the Closing is not delayed thereby; (b) Buyer shall pay the increment premium for any such updated or different form of Title Policy; and (c) Buyer shall provide and pay for the cost of any new survey of the Property required therefor (the '~Survey"). /75 2.0 PURCHASE AND SALE Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Seller agrees to sell and Buyer agrees to buy the Property. 3.0 PURCHASE PRICE/PARK MITIGATION 3.1 Purchase Price 3.1.1 The purchase price ("Purchase Price") for the Property shall be One Million Four Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($1,400,000.00). 3.1.2 The Purchase Price is payable as follows: (a) Buyer shall pay, by wire transfer of funds or cashier's check, the Deposits set forth in Section 3.2 below in the total sum of One Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,300,000.00) to Escrow Holder which shall be applicable to the Purchase Price. (b) The balance of the Purchase Price in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) (the "Final Payment"), plus the Park Mitigation Payment of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00) described in Paragraph 3.3 below, shall be paid to Escrow Holder in cash, by wire transfer of funds or cashier's check, at least one (1) day before the Closing Date but no later than August 21,2003 for release to Seller at Close of Escrow. 3.2 Deposits. Provided Buyer has not previously terminated the Agreement, Buyer shall pay the following Deposits to Escrow Holder which shall be placed in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of Buyer until released to Seller as follows: (a) Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00) on or before the third business day after the Effective Date for immediate release to Seller; and (b) Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000.00) on or before August 1,2003 for immediate release to Seller; and (c) The Deposits shall, after release to Seller, be nonrefundable to Buyer except in the event of Seller's breach of this Agreement or as otherwise expressly set forth in this Agreement. In the event Closing does not occur as a result of a breach of this Agreement by Buyer, Seller shall retain the Deposits as liquidated damages pursuant to Article 17.0 of this Agreement. 3.3 Park Mitiqation. In addition to payment of the Purchase Price, Buyer shall pay a lump sum cash payment to the City in the total amount of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00) at Close of Escrow as set forth in Paragraph 3.1.2(b) as mitigation for the Sellers' loss of the Property for park/open space/recreational purposes. Seller and Buyer agree that such payment is reasonably equivalent to the costs Buyer would have paid to improve the Property for park purposes under the terms of that certain Terra Vista Park Development Agreement No. 1 dated June 7, 1984, and all amendments thereto. 4.0 ESCROW 4.1 Openinq of Escrow. Escrow shall be deemed open on the Effective Date. Within three (3) business days after the Effective Date, the Parties shall deliver signed Escrow Instructions consistent with the terms of this Agreement to Escrow Holder. The Escrow Instructions shall not modify or amend this Agreement. However, the Parties shall execute any additional instructions requested by Escrow Holder in a manner consistent with the Agreement. 4.2 Close of Escrow. Subject to satisfaction of the conditions to close set forth in Section 5.0, the Closing Date shall be the earlier of (i)the fifth (5th) business day after satisfaction of the Development Approvals Condition as provided in Section 5.1.4, or (ii) December 30, 2004. 4.3 Closinq Deliveries. Buyer and Seller shall, respectively, at least one (1) day before the Closing Date, deposit with Escrow Holder the documents, funds, and other items set forth below: 4.3.1 Seller shall cause to be delivered to Escrow Holder the following documents and instruments and any other items specified in this Agreement, duly executed and acknowledged in recordable form where applicable: (a) Its Deed in favor of Buyer for the Property, and subject only to those Title Objections (defined below in Section 5.1.1 ) accepted or waived by Buyer as provided in such Section 5.1.1; and (b) Current real property tax statements, if available. 4.3.2 Buyer shall cause to be delivered to Escrow Holder the following funds, documents and instruments and any other items specified in this Agreement, duly executed and acknowledged in recordable form where applicable: (a) Immediately available funds payable to Escrow Holder representing the cash payments due in accordance with Article 3.0 above and Article 7.0 below; (b) Properly completed and executed California Preliminary Change of Ownership Report ("PCOR") with respect to the Property. 4.3.3 On or before the day before the Closing Date, Seller and Buyer shall cause to be delivered to Escrow Holder such other funds, instruments, and documents as may be necessary in order to complete the close of Escrow contemplated hereunder. 4.3.4 Escrow Holder is hereby instructed to close Escrow on the Closing Date or as soon thereafter as, (a) the Title Company is irrevocably committed to issue the Title Policy for the Property (as provided in this Agreement) and (b) Escrow Holder has received all funds, documents, and other items set forth in Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and 4.3.3 above. 4.3.5 On the Closing Date, Escrow Holder shall: (a) Cause to be recorded one executed and acknowledged original of the Deed for the Property and cause to be filed the PCOR with respect to the Property; (b) Make such payments and charges as are described in Article 3.0 above and Article 7.0 below; (c) Deliver, or cause to be delivered, to Seller the balance of the Purchase Price remaining (i) after the payment of all of Seller's charges and (ii) after crediting to Seller all payments and other credits previously made on account of the Purchase Price, if any, such balance to be paid either by cashier's check or by wire transfer of same day funds; (d) Deliver, or cause to be delivered, to Seller the appropriate document described in Section 4.3.2(b); (e) Deliver, or cause to be delivered, to Buyer the items and documents described in Section 4.3.1(b) above and a conformed copy of the recorded Deed; (f) Deliver, or cause to be delivered, to Buyer its original copy of the Title Policy; and (g) Prepare and deliver to each Party a closing statement reflecting all sums received by Escrow Holder and the final allocations of all payments and charges credited to and against each Party. 4.3.6 Subject to Article 6.0, possession of the Property shall be given to Buyer on the Closing Date. 5.0 CONDITIONS OF ESCROW 5.1 Buyer's Conditions Precedent. The Closing and Buyer's obligations to purchase the Property are subject to Buyer's approval or waiver of the following conditions, each of which is for Buyer's benefit: 5.1.1 Preliminary Report. Buyer's review and approval of a preliminary title report for all of the Property prepared and delivered by Title Company, together with copies of all documents referred to therein (collectively, the "Preliminary Report"). On or before ten (10) days after the Effective Date, Escrow Holder or Title -6- Company shall deliver a Preliminary Report to Buyer and Seller, including a plot of all easements of record appearing on the Preliminary Report. Within ten (10) days after Buyer's receipt of the Preliminary Report, Buyer shall notify Seller and Escrow Holder in writing of any objections which Buyer may have to the Preliminary Report (the "Title Objections"), including, without limitation, the legal descriptions used therein, a general objection to matters that would be shown by a correct survey of the Property or a physical inspection of the Property. The Parties agree that any monetary lien (other than any assessment bonds) upon any of the Property is a Title Objection which Seller must remove from its Property, if so affected, on or before Closing as a condition to Buyer's obligation to close Escrow. Buyer's failure to submit written notice of any Title Objections within the time stated above shall be deemed Buyer's approval of the Preliminary Report, including all documents referred to therein. Within ten (10) days after receipt of notice of Buyer's Title Objections, Seller may give written notice of its covenant ("Notice of Title Covenant") to remove or have the Title Company endorse around, at Seller's sole cost, Buyer's Title Objections prior to Closing. If Seller chooses not to give such written Notice of Title Covenant to Buyer concerning Buyer's Title Objections within such ten (10) day period, then Buyer shall have the option to either (a) terminate this Agreement in its entirety on or before the Due Diligence Date with neither Party having any further obligations under this Agreement, or (b) elect to proceed with this Agreement in its entirety by waiving all such Title Objections. 5.1.2 Survey. Buyer, in its sole discretion, may perform a Survey of all or any portion of the Property, subject to Article 6.0 below. Buyer shall notify Seller and Escrow Holder in writing of any objections to the Survey on or before the fifth (5th) day prior to the Due Diligence Date. At least one (1) business day prior to the Due Diligence Date, Seller may give written notice of its covenant ("Notice of Survey Covenant") to remove or have the Title Company endorse around, at Seller's sole cost, Buyer's Survey Objections prior to Closing. If Seller chooses not to give Buyer its Notice of Survey Covenant concerning each of Buyer's Survey Objections at least one (1) business day prior to the Due Diligence Date, Buyer shall have the option to either (a) terminate this Agreement in its entirety on or before the Due Diligence Date with neither Party having any further obligations under this Agreement, or (b)elect to proceed with this Agreement in its entirety by waiving all such Buyer's Survey Objections. 5.1.3 Due Diliqence Approval Period. During the period from the Effective Date until the Due Diligence Date (the "Due Diligence Period"), Buyer shall determine whether or not the Property is acceptable to Buyer. Buyer's review and approval on or before the Due Diligence Date of all other aspects involving Buyer's prospective purchase of the Property not addressed in Sections 5.1.1 or 5.1.2, shall include, but not be limited to, zoning, soils conditions, geology, engineering requirements, environmental matters, economic feasibility, feasibility for CEQA mitigation purposes, Hazardous Materials, and any other requirements or restrictions of the City, the County of San Bernardino ("County") and/or other Governmental Agencies concerning the Property. Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time during the Due Diligence Period as set forth in Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and this 5.1.3 by delivery of written notice thereof to Escrow Holder and Seller on or before the Due _,. Diligence Date. Buyer's failure to terminate this Agreement on or before the Due Diligence Date shall be deemed approval and acceptance of, and a waiver of any objections to, all conditions in Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and this 5.1.3. In the event Buyer elects to terminate this Agreement pursuant to this Section 5.1.3, (a) Buyer shall pay all costs and expenses of Escrow Holder, (b) Escrow Holder shall cancel the Escrow, and, (c) except for those matters deemed to survive termination of this Agreement, none of the Parties shall have any further obligations to each other arising out of this Agreement. 5.1.4 Development Approvals. A condition precedent to Buyer's obligation to purchase the Property is City approval of the Development Approvals and expiration of the Appeal Period without any legal challenge to the Development Approvals during the Appeal Period (the "Development Approvals Condition"). If the Development Approvals Condition is not satisfied by December 30, 2004, then unless Buyer waives this condition by electing to close the Escrow on or before December 30, 2004, then the Final Payment and Park Mitigation Payment shall be returned to Buyer by Escrow Holder, the Escrow shall be cancelled with Buyer paying all costs and expenses of Escrow Holder, and the Agreement terminated. If this condition is satisfied, and Buyer fails to purchase the Property, then Seller shall retain the Deposits and the Final Payment as liquidated damages and the Park Mitigation Payment shall be returned to Buyer. Buyer acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement does not constitute any approval or pre-approval by the City of the Development Approvals and shall not be construed or interpreted to be any intent by the City to approve the Development Approvals. Further, nothing herein shall be deemed a commitment by the City to approve the Development Approvals, it being understood and agreed that such adoption and approval are legislative and/or quasi-judicial acts within the unencumbered discretion of the City Council and subject to all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes and other procedural matters in accordance with all applicable State and City laws. 5.2 Seller's Condition Precedent. The Closing and Seller's obligations to sell the Property are subject to Buyer's performance of each obligation and requirement under this Agreement and within the time period(s) designated, including, without limitation, Buyer's obligations to deliver the Deposit within the time period(s) designated. 6.0 BUYER'S RIGHTS PENDING ESCROW 6.1 Provided that this Agreement shall then be in effect, during the Due Diligence Period, Seller shall make available to Buyer, its representatives, agents and independent contractors (collectively, "Contractors"), at Seller's business offices during normal business hours, the files of Seller relating to the Property, including any plans and specifications, permits and certificates of occupancy, biological, wetlands, hydrology, environmental, and engineering studies, surveys, soils reports, architectural designs and plans, DRE filings, and market studies and all other documents concerning the physical condition of the Property, (collectively, the "Property Information"). Buyer and its Contractors may inspect and copy, at Buyer's expense, the Property Information. 6.2 Buyer and Contractors shall have the right as is reasonably required to conduct testing and inspection of the Property; provided, however, that Buyer shall not perform any subsurface investigations, inspections or tests of the Property (e.g., borings, drilling or other invasive testing) without obtaining Seller's prior written approval as to the scope of such inspection, investigation or test, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. In the event Buyer or Contractors perform any of this type of work upon any of the Property and Buyer thereafter terminates this Agreement, Buyer shall, at its sole expense, and promptly after the date of such termination, restore the Property to substantially the same physical condition as existed prior to such work, and repair any physical damages resulting from Buyer's activities thereon. Buyer shall indemnify and hold harmless the Seller from any costs, damages or injuries, including any fines or penalties, arising from or related to Buyer's testing, inspection and/or access at the Property. 7.0 CLOSING COSTS AND PRORATIONS 7.1 Taxes. Any real property taxes and assessment installments which will be assessed against the Property for that portion of the fiscal year in which the closing occurs shall be paid by Buyer after the Closing Date. This provision shall include any supplemental assessments, assessment installments or any other real property taxes which are attributable only to periods on and after Buyer's acquisition of the Property, as such items will be the sole responsibility of the Buyer. 7.2 Seller's Costs. On the Closing Date, Seller shall pay the cost of (a) any documentary transfer taxes and/or sales taxes, if applicable, (b) one-half (1/2) of any escrow fees (except cancellation fees) and (c) one-half (1/2) of the cost of the Title Policy. For purposes of interpreting this Section 7.2 and Section 7.3 following, "escrow fees" are defined to include all expenses of Escrow including charges for the preparation, acknowledgment and recordation of documents reasonably required to implement the provisions of this Agreement and subsequent escrow instructions unless specifically requested by or for the benefit of Seller or requested by or for the benefit of Buyer, in which case the Party for whose specific benefit that fee is incurred shall bear the cost of that fee in its entirety. 7.3 Buyer's Costs. Buyer shall pay the cost of (a) one-half (1/2) the cost of the Title Policy, (b) any endorsements to the Title Policy and any increment increase to the premium of the Title Policy should Buyer obtain an ALTA Title Policy, (c) the cost of any Survey, (d) the cost of all recording fees, (e) one-half (1/2) of the cost of any escrow fees, and (f) any escrow cancellation fees. 8.0 BROKER'S COMMISSIONS No broker commission, finder's fee or any other compensation are due to any party concerning this Agreement. Seller and Buyer each represent and warrant to the other that no person or entity can properly claim a right to a commission, finder's fee or other compensation with respect to the transaction contemplated by this Agreement through such party, including any negotiations preceding the execution hereof. Each Party agrees to indemnify, defend, release and hold the other harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, costs or demands arising from or related to any claim for commission, finder's fee or other compensation alleged to have been incurred on its behalf. Buyer discloses that its sole manager, Lewis Operating Corp., a California corporation ("LOC"), is a licensee of the California Department of Real Estate, but LOC claims no commission or finder's fee in connection with this transaction. 9.0 SELLER'S REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Seller represents, as of the Effective Date and the Closing Date: 9.1 Title. It is contemplated by the Parties that Seller will have reviewed the Preliminary Report, and based on Seller's knowledge, will notify Buyer in writing whether there are any encumbrances affecting the title to the Property other than those shown on the Preliminary Report. 9~2 No Litiqation. Except as otherwise disclosed in writing by Seller to Buyer, to Seller's knowledge there is no pending or threatened litigation, annexation, condemnation, or other proceeding involving the Property. 9.3 Enforceability. This Agreement and all other documents delivered by Seller to or for the benefit of Buyer have been or will be duly authorized, executed and delivered by the Seller, are legal, valid and binding obligations of Seller, and are enforceable in accordance with their respective terms. 9.4 No Bindinq Commitments. To Seller's knowledge Seller has not made, and, from and after the Effective Date until the Closing Date, Seller will not make, any written contractual commitments to any governmental agencies, or adjoining or surrounding property owners that would interfere with Buyer's ability to use the Property for the Project. 9.5 No Violation. To Seller's knowledge, neither the entering into of this Agreement nor the consummatfon of this sale will constitute a violation or breach by Seller of any contract or other instrument to which it is a party, or to which it is subject, or by which any of its Property may be affected or any judgment, order, writ, injunction or decrees issued against or imposed upon it, or will result in a violation of any applicable law, order, rule or regulation of any governmental agency. 9.6 No Waste. From the Effective Date until the Closing Date, Seller shall not commit waste in or upon its Property. Waste shall include, but not be limited to, any injury to the Property which renders it in a condition materially different from its condition at the Effective Date. From the Effective Date until the Closing Date, Seller shall not knowingly permit any dumping of extraneous material within the Property, and in the event such occurs with Seller's permission, Seller shall remove same prior to Closing Date. 9.7 No Knowledqe of Hazardous Materials. To Seller's knowledge, Seller has not received written notice and has no actual knowledge of the existence of any -10- Hazardous Materials on or under the Property or of any pending investigation of the Property for violation of Environmental Laws. During the Due Diligence Period, in accordance with Section 6.2, Buyer shall have the right to conduct appropriate tests of water and soil to ascertain the existence of Hazardous Materials on the Property. In the event Buyer discovers the presence of Hazardous Materials on the Property during the Due Diligence Period, Buyer may terminate this Agreement prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period, whereupon all of the Deposit not previously released to Seller shall be returned to Buyer. 9.8 Selter's Knowledqe Defined. As used in this Agreement, "Seller's knowledge" means the actual knowledge of the Designated Employee(s) of Seller (as hereinafter defined), and shall not be construed, by imputation or otherwise, to refer to the knowledge of Seller or any affiliate of either Seller, to any property manager, or to any officer, employee, agent, manager or representative of either Seller or any affiliate thereof or to impose upon such Designated Employee(s) of Seller any duty to investigate the matter to which such actual knowledge, or the absence thereof, pertains. As used herein, the term "Designated Employees of Seller" shall refer only to the following persons: Kevin McArdle. 9.9 No Agreements. To Seller's knowledge, the Property is not encumbered by any written obligation to pay and/or reimburse any party for the design, analysis, or construction of improvements to such Property or for the benefit of such Property which has occurred prior to the date of this Agreement. 10.0 BUYER'S REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Buyer represents and warrants to Seller as of the Effective Date: 10.1 Independent Investigation. Buyer is a sophisticated owner and developer of real property, familiar and experienced with requirements for the development of real property. Buyer shall conduct an independent investigation with respect to the Hazardous Materials on or under the Property, Environmental Laws affecting the Property, and all zoning and subdivision laws, ordinances, resolutions, and regulations of all Governmental Agencies which relate to the use and improvement of the Property. 10.2 Enforceability. This Agreement and all other documents delivered by Buyer to or for the benefit of Seller has been or will be duly authorized, executed, and delivered by Buyer, are legal, valid and binding obligations of Buyer, and are enforceable in accordance with their respective terms. 11.0 EFFECT OF REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Each representation or warranty of a Party is material and is being relied upon by the other Party, is true as of the Effective Date, will be updated at all times through Closing promptly upon a Party becoming aware of any change therein, and shall survive for a period of one (1) year after the Closing Date and shall thereafter terminate and be of no further force or effect. .,,_ / 12.0 RELEASE AND INDEMNIFICATION OF SELLER 12.1 AS IS Sale. Buyer understands and agrees that the Property are being sold and conveyed to and accepted by Buyer in an "as is," "where is" and "with all faults" condition. Buyer hereby expressly acknowledges and agrees that, subject to compliance with Article 6.0, prior to the Due Diligence Date, Buyer has been afforded the opportunity to make and has made all inspections, examinations and evaluations of the Property and matters related thereto as Buyer desires, including without limitation, investigation of Hazardous Materials on or under the Property, and all governmental laws and regulations, including Environmental Laws, to which the Property may be subject. Subject to Articles 9.0 and 11.0 above, Buyer accepts the Property on an "as is," "where is" and "with all faults" basis in sole reliance on such inspections, tests, examinations and evaluations of the Property and related matters, based on its independent review and determination of the applicability and effect of such laws and regulations, including all Environmental Laws. 12.2 Buyer's Assumption of Risk and Indemnification of Seller After Buyer Takes Title. Buyer acknowledges that it is entering into this Agreement on the basis of Buyer's own investigation of the physical and environmental conditions of the Property, including subsurface conditions and the existence of Hazardous Materials at the Property, and Buyer assumes the risk that adverse physical and environmental conditions, including the presence of Hazardous Materials, may not have been revealed by its own investigation. Buyer further acknowledges that Seller, its agents and employees and other persons acting on behalf of Seller, have made no representation or warranty of any kind in connection with any matter relating to the condition, value, fitness, use or zoning of the Property upon which Buyer has relied directly or indirectly for any purpose except as set forth in Section 9 above. Buyer hereby waives, releases, and forever discharges Seller, Seller's employees, agents, or any other person acting on behalf of Seller, of and from any claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, damages, costs expenses or compensation whatsoever, direct or indirect, known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, which Buyer now has or which may arise in the future on the account of or in any way growing out of or connected with the physical condition of the Property or any law or regulation applicable thereto (collectively the "Property Conditions"). Upon Closing, Buyer shall indemnify, defend (with legal counsel of Seller's choice) and hold harmless the Seller from any legal actions, claims, administrative proceedings, damages, fines, penalties, costs, expenses, and related attorneys' fees and litigation expenses (collectively the "Claims"), related to, or arising from, the Property Conditions. The foregoing release and indemnity shall not apply to any claims, damages, costs, expenses, or liability (collectively the "Excluded Claims") incurred by Seller arising from or related to (i)any injury to any persons or to any personal property (excluding the Property or any improvements thereto) which occurred either on the Property, or by reason of the use by Seller, or by a third party, of the Property during Seller's ownership of the Property, or (ii) the sole negligence, fraud or willful misconduct of Seller prior to Close of Escrow. Except for any Excluded Claims, any Claims arising from any Physical Conditions, before or after Seller's ownership of the Property, shall be subject to the foregoing release and indemnity. Buyer and Seller specifically acknowledge that this indemnification and release represent and constitute additional consideration due the Seller in connection with the purchase of the Property by Buyer. 13.0 DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION Prior to the Closing, the entire risk of loss or damage by earthquake, flood, landslide, fire or other casualty shall be borne by Seller, except as otherwise provided in this Section. If, prior to Closing, any part of the Property is so damaged, Seller shall immediately notify Buyer in writing. If such damage is material, Buyer shall have the option to terminate this Agreement as to the Property by written notice to Seller no later than ten (10) days after receipt of the appropriate Seller's notice. For purposes of this Section 13, "material" shall be deemed to be any damage or destruction where the cost of repair or replacement is estimated to be Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) or more, or shall take more than one hundred twenty (120) days to repair, in Buyer's good faith judgment. If Buyer terminates this Agreement pursuant to this Section, then no Par~y shall have any rights or responsibilities to any other, and that portion of the Deposit then held by Escrow Holder shall promptly be returned to Buyer. Any escrow cancellation fees connected with this termination shall be paid one hundred percent (100%) by the Buyer. If Buyer accepts the Property with such damage, Seller shall assign all insurance proceeds to Buyer and credit Buyer with any applicable deductible or uninsured amount or Seller may elect to, in its sole and absolute discretion, reduce the Purchase Price by such amount. 14.0 ASSIGNMENT OR SALE OF PROPERTY Buyer shall not assign this Agreement without the prior written approval of Seller, which consent may be withheld in the sole discretion of Seller; provided Buyer may assign this Agreement without Seller's consent to any entity in which Buyer, or any member of Buyer, or any shareholder of such member, or any of them individually or collectively, owns a controlling interest. 15.0 NOTICES 15.1 All notices to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and either: (a) sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier, in which case notice shall be deemed given when received, or refused, by the receiving party(les), or (b) by telecopy or similar means, if a copy of the notice is also sent by United States Certified Mail, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered on transmittal by telecopier or other similar means provided that a transmission report is generated reflecting the accurate transmission of the notices, as follows: Notice to Seller: City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: City Manager 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Telecopier: 909.477.2846 Notice to Buyer: LDC Cougar, LLC c/o Lewis Operating Corp. Attn: Mr. Leon C. Swails 1156 N. Mountain Avenue P. O. Box 670 Upland, CA 91785-0670 Telecopier: 909.949.6795 With copy to: Lewis Operating Corp. Attn: W. Bradford Francke, Vice President - Associate General Counsel 1156 N. Mountain Avenue P. O. Box 670 Upland, CA 91785-0670 Telecopier: 909.949.6725 Notice to Escrow Chicago Title Company Holder: Attn: Ms. Cindy Parsell 560 E. Hospitality Lane San Bernardino, CA 92408 Telecopier: 909.384.7855 These addresses may be changed by written notice to the other Party provided that no notice of a change of address shall be effective until actual receipt by the Parties of the notice. 16.0 ATTORNEYS' FEES If either Party files any action or brings any proceeding against the other arising from or related to this Agreement, or is made a party to any action or proceeding brought by Escrow Holder, then as between Seller and Buyer, the prevailing party as determined by the court shall be entitled to recover from the other party as an element of its costs of suit and not as damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the action or proceeding, including any appeal thereof. 17.0 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVIDED BUYER HAS NOT ELECTED TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO ANY OF BUYER'S RIGHTS TO DO SO CONTAINED HEREIN, IF BUYER COMMITS A DEFAULT UNDER THIS AGREEMENT OR CLOSING FAILS TO OCCUR ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSING DATE BY REASON OF SUCH DEFAULT, -14- /~g SELLER, UPON TEN (10) DAYS' PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE TO BUYER DESCRIBING, WITH REASONABLE SPECIFICITY, THE NATURE OF THE DEFAULT AND THE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO REMEDY SUCH DEFAULT, SHALL BE RELEASED FROM THE OBLIGATION TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO BUYER AND SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RETAIN THE DEPOSIT AND FINAL PAYMENT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1671 OF THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE. THE PARTIES AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL OR EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FIX ACTUAL DAMAGES IF BUYER FAILS TO CLOSE THE ESCROW, THAT THE FOREGOING AMOUNT IS A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF THESE DAMAGES, AND THAT SELLER SHALL RETAIN THE SUMS SET FORTH IN THIS PROVISION AS SELLER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO DAMAGES. SELLER WAIVES ANY AND ALL RIGHTS SELLER OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE HAD UNDER SECTION 3389 OF THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE TO SPECIFICALLY ENFORCE THIS AGREEMENT. THE PARTIES WITNESS THEIR AGREEMENT TO THESE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND SELLER'S WAIVER OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE PROVISION BY INITIALING THIS SECTION 17.0. Buyer's Initials Seller's Initials If this Section 17.0 becomes operative, Escrow shall be canceled, and except for those matters contained herein deemed to survive termination, neither Party shall thereafter have any rights or responsibilities to the other. Escrow cancellation fees shall be paid by Buyer. 18.0 BUYER'S REMEDIES Buyer shall notify Seller in writing, with reasonable specificity, of any breach of this Agreement or any representation or warranty contained herein that Buyer discovers at any time before Closing. If Seller fail or refuse to cure the alleged breach within thirty (30) days of Seller's receipt of Buyer's notice of breach, Seller and Buyer agree that Buyer shall have only such remedies as provided in this Section 18 for any such breach, including (i)the remedy to terminate this Agreement and seek damages from Seller, except that such damages shall not exceed Buyer's costs and expenses incurred in connection with Escrow, testing, inspections, and due diligence activities performed under this Agreement in connection with the Property, plus any funds released to Seller under Sections 3.2 and 3.1.2, and (ii) the right to seek specific performance from Seller, and to record a lis pendens against the Property to the extent permitted by law. The Parties witness their agreement to this limitation on Buyer's remedies and Buyer's waiver of equitable relief by initialing this Section 18.0. Buyer's Initials Seller's Initials If this Section 18.0 becomes operative, Escrow shall be canceled, and except as provided for in this Section 18.0, and those matters herein deemed to survive termination, neither Party shall thereafter have any rights or responsibilities to the other. -,,- /¢¢ 19.0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the sale of the Property. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations or representations not expressly set forth herein are of no force and affect. 20.0 TIME OF ESSENCE Time is of the essence for each condition, term and provision of this Agreement. 21.0 COUNTERPARTS AND FACSIMILE SIGNATURES This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts. Each counterpart shall be deemed an original and all taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Signatures to this Agreement transmitted by telecopy shall be valid and effective to bind the party so signing. Each party agrees to promptly deliver an execution original to this Agreement with its actual signature to the other party, but a failure to do so shall not affect the enforceability of this Agreement, it being expressly agreed that each party to this Agreement shall be bound by its own telecopied signature and shall accept the telecopied signature of the other party to this Agreement. 22.0 SEVERABILITY If any term or provision of this Agreement shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect. 23.0 WAIVERS AND AMENDMENTS A waiver of a breach of a covenant or provision in this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any other covenant or provision in this Agreement, and no waiver shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the waiving Party. An extension of time for performance of any obligation or act shall not be deemed an extension of the time for performance of any other obligation or act. Any amendment to this Agreement shall be of no force and effect unless it is in writing and signed by both Seller and Buyer. 24.0 CONSTRUCTION Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Sections are to this Agreement. The Parties hereto acknowledge and agree that each has been given the opportunity to review this Agreement independently with legal counsel and other professionals of each Party's own choosing, and/or has the requisite experience and sophistication to understand, interpret, and agree to the particular language of the previsions hereof. The Parties have equal bargaining power and intend the plain meaning of the provisions herein. Jn the event of an ambiguity in or dispute regarding the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement, such ambiguity or dispute shall not be resolved by any rule _,6. of interpretation providing for interpretation against the Party who causes the uncertainty to exist or against the draftsman. 25.0 GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without giving effect to the principles of conflicts of law thereof. 26.0 BINDING EFFECT . Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. 27.0 COMPUTATION OF PERIODS All periods of time referred to in this Agreement shall include all Saturdays, Sundays, and state or national holidays, unless the period of time specifies business days, provided that if the date to perform any act or give any notice with respect to this Agreement shall fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or state or national holiday, such act or notice may be timely performed or given on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or state or national holiday. A business day means a day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or state or national holiday. The Parties have executed this Agreement, and intend to be bound by the terms hereof as of the date first written above. SELLER: BUYER: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LDC COUGAR, LLC a California municipal corporation a Delaware limited liability company By: LEWIS OPERATING CORP., a By: California corporation - Its Sole Name: Manager Title: By: Name: Title: ATTEST: City Clerk Dated: WBF:km:s\927\G2324-PSA 062603 LIST OF EXHIBITS: A - Legal Description of the Seller Parcel A-1 - Map of Property A-2 - Tentative Map Concept Plan B - Form of Grant Deed EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SELLER PARCEL Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 11286 recorded September 28, 1990 in Book 152, Pages 60-62 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the San Bernardino County Recorder. [EXCEPTING, the 1.27 acre "Park Area" located in the northwest corner of the Seller Parcel.] PAR. 2 P.M. 11286 Port/on to be reta/ned b? ...' ...' ....' .-' .." C/ t.v /............ of t~oncho Cucomong~ ~ "..//'" -D rrl I ~ .... ... 0 x ~ ~ .,-'.."..".,"..' .'.,' 5 P.M. 11286 x m ~ ~ --:---i-._:> .-': ...::-:.: .- .. I J:X652-1699XExhibits[PtnPc13Retain.dwg, 05/13/~ 04:16:23 PM, jkd ~ ~~__~,£ T£NTATIVE TRACT MAP ' TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16512 ". ~ EXHIBIT "B" FORM OF GRANT DEED RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: LDC Cougar, LLC, c/o Lewis Operating Corp. Attn: W. Bradford Francke, Esq. 1156 North Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE I GRANT DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S): DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS $ [] __ unincorporated area [] City of Rancho Cucamonqa Parcel No. [] computed on full value of interest or property conveyed or [] computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAI,4ONGA, a California municipal corporation hereby GRANT(S) to LDC COUGAR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company the foilowin9 described real property in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as more particularly set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a California municipal corporation By:. Name: Date: Title: By:. Name: Date: Title: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF .) On before me, a Notary Public in and for said county and state, personally appeared appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF ) On before me, a Notary Public in and for said county and state, personally appeared appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) Exhibit A to Grant Deed EXHIBIT #2 City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Public Review Period Closes: July 16, 2003 Project Name: Pumhase and Sale Agreement, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00395, Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment DRC2003-00396, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16512, Development Review DRC2003-00394 Project Applicant: Lewis Operating Corp/KB Home Project Location (also sea attached map): Generally located at the comer of Milliken Avenue and Chumh Street. Project Description: A Pumhase and Sale Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Lewis Operating Corp for 4.75 acres of land known as APN: 0227-811-03. Related proposals include a General Plan Amendment for 4.75 acres from Open Space/Park and 4.75 acres of General Commercial (9.5 acres total) to Medium-High Residential (APN: 0227-151-73, 74, 75, and 0227-811-03) and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment for 4.75 acres from Open Space/Park and 4.75 acres of Recreation Commemial (9.5 acres total) (APN: 0227-151-73, 74, 75, and 0227-811-03) and Tentative Tract Map SUB'Cr16512 for a proposed subdivision of 12.19 acres into 3 lots for condominium proposed in the Medium-High Residential District (APN: 0227-151-65, 73, 74, 75, and 0227-811-03) and the related review of the building elevations and site plan DRC2003-00394 for the 168 condominium units on 12.19 acres in the Medium-High Residential District (APN: 0227-151-65, 73, 74, 75, and 0227-811-03). FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine If the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be roquired. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. Date of Determination Adopted By - VIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM O, o, Ran o camo ga (Part I - Initial Study) Planning Division (909) 477-2750 The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of'the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies~ o~dinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full. , .*" *, . ' ~'~ "~ ':~ ' -~' :" INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to peffo~n work required to provide missing infonwation. Applicalion Number for the project to which this form pertains: Tentative Tract No. 16512 ProjectTifle: Brighton I! @ Terra Vista Name & Address of project owner(s): LDC Cougar, LLC, 1156 N. Mountain Ave. r Upland~ CA 91785 City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Dr., Rancho Cucamonaa. CA 91729 i Name & Addreas of developer or project sponsor: KB HOME Greater Los Ancjeles Inc., 801 Corporate Center Dr., #201, Pomona, 'CA 91768 Contact Person & Address: Mr. Jary Cockroft Telephone Number: (909) 802-1133 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): Telephone Numbec INITSTDI.VVPD- 4/96 * P~' Information indicated by asterisk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Previde a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the pdmaG' access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features-'~rom the site, Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) project Location (desc#be): Located at the northeast corner of Milliken Ave. and Church 51:, 4) AssessoYs Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessa~y): 227-151-65, 227-151-73, 227-151-74, 227-151-75 and 227-811-03 '5) Gross Site Area (ac./sq. ft.): 12.19 acres (all public streets have been previously dedicated) '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 12.19 acres 7) Descdbe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet ifnecessaOc Under the'Terra Vista Community Plan, the north portion is zoned Park and the south portion is zoned recrea1:ional commercial, Under 1:he General Plan 1:he north portion is zoned open space and the south portion is zoned general commercial. 8) Include a description of all pen'nits which will be necessaq/ from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: 1) Tentative Tract Map approval 2) Design Review approval 3) Grading Permits 4) Building Permits 5) General Plan Amendment zone change to MH 6) Terra Vista Plan Amendment zone change to MH INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 ' PaT~? 9) Descdbe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including infon"nation on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the uco of the structures. Attach photograph$ of significant features descdbed. In addition, site all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and aroheological surveys, traffic studies): This site of over 12 acres surrounds a storaqe facility on three sides It is bounded by improved streets on the west and south sides and an improved park on the north side. The land to the east is vacant. There is a gentle 2% slope of the land from north to south without any significant changes in grade. The soil is made up of coarse sand, gravel and cobbles. The site is covered with scrub vegetation and native grasses and does not have any trees within its boundary. 10) Descdbe the known culturel and/or historical aspect$ of the site. Site all souroes of information (books, published reporte and oral history): No know cultural or historical elements have occurred on this site. 11) Descdbe any no~e aouroes and HeY ~ve~ Hat now affe~ He site ~irom~ roadway no~ e~.) and how Hey will affect proposed uses: Measurable levels of roadway noise are present along existing perimeter roadways. Construction of sound attenuating perimeter block walls will mitigate the affect of existin9 roadway noise to adjacent homes built with this project. INITSTDI.WPD - 4/96 ' P~e~b 12) Descdbe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate de$cdption of the site in ten*ns of ultimate use which will result from the prosed project. /ndicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of developrnent to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: The project consists of 168 attached condominium units. [nternal local drives will be twenty-six feet wide with off-street parking. The local drives will provide access at two locations, one at Milliken Aven. and one at Church St. 13) Descdbethesun'oundingpreperties, includinginf°rmati°n'°nplantsandanimalsandanycultural'histOdcal'°rscenicaspects' Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops. department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc,): This project surrounds a public storage facility on three sides. It is bounded on two sides by fully improved streets. To the north is an improved park (Milliken Park); to the east is vacant land zoned MH; to the south is a multi-story medical office building; and to the west are two story apartments (Del Mar Apartments). 14) t4fill the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? No INITSTDI.WPD - 4/96 ' ~,~ / 15) Indicate the type ofshort-ten'n andlong-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How willthese noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. What methods of sound proofing ara proposed? '16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: Trees of this nature do not exist on this property. indicate any bo~es of wa~r ~nclud~g domes§c water supplies) into which the site dre~s: This site drains into City of Rancho Cucamonga Master Planned Storm Drain Facilities. 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987-2591. a, Residential (gal/day) 600 gal/day Peak use (gal/Day) 1200 gal/day b. Commercial, find. (gaYday/ac) Peak use (gal/min/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal __ Septic Tank X Sewer, If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests, If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected dally sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates), Forfurther cladfication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987-2591. a. Residential(gaYday) 270 gal/day b, Commercial/Ind. (gaYday/ac) .RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 ' Pa~bZ Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 168 for sale units 21) Anticipated mnge of sale pdces and/or rents: Sale Pdce(s) $ to $. Rent (per month) $ to $. 22) Specifynumberofbedreomsbyunittype: Plan 1-3: 2 bedrooms Plan 4-6: 3 bedrooms 2~ In.cate anEc~ated household see by unit ~pe: Plans 1-3: 2-4 person household Plans 4-6: 2-6 person household 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who win be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: 168 x 0.66 = 110.88 168 x 0.21 : 35.28 b. Junior High; 168 x 0.20 = 33.60 c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Descdbetype~~use(s)andmaj~rfuncti~n(s)~fc~mmercia~~industria~~rinstituti~na~uses: 26) Total floor area of commercial, industdal, or institutional uses by type: INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 ' 27) Indicate hours of operation: 28) Number of employees: Total: Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Pr~vide bmakd~wn ~f anticipated j~b c~assi~cati~ns~ inc~uding wage and sa~ary ranges~ as well as an indicati~n ~f the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that cun'ently reside in the City: '31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be vedfied through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): ALL PROJECTS 32) Havethewater~sewer~~re~and~~~dc~ntre~agenciesservingtheprejectbeenc~ntactedt~deten-ninetheirabi~ityt~previde adequate service to the proposed preject? If so, please indicate their response. No INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 ' ~g~/' 33) In the known history of this property, has theme been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but ame not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and descdbe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the properly, as well as the dates of use. if known. No 34) t~1~ the pr~p~sed pr~ject inv~ve the temp~rary ~r ~ng-term use' st~rage ~r discharge ~f hazard~us and/~r t~xic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. No I hemeby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits pmesent the data and information mequimed for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information pmesented ame true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be mequimed to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Title: ~ ,~/,~ '1 ann'i n~ INITSTDI.WPD - 4/96 ' ATTACHMENT A Water Usaqe Average use per day Residential Single Family 600 gal/day Apt/Condo 400 gal/day Commercial/Industrial General and Regional Commercial 3000 gal/day/ac Neighborhood Commercial 1500 gal/day/ac General Industrial 1500 gal/day/ac Industrial Park 3000 gal/day/ac Peak Usage For all uses Average use x 2.0 Sewer Flows Residential Single Family 270 gal/day ^ptJCondos 200 gal/day Commercial/Industrial General Commercial 2000 gal/day/ac Neighborhood Commercial 100-1500 gal/day/ac General Industrial 2000 gal/day/ac Heavy Industrial 3000 gal/day/ac Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan, 9/86 INITSTDI.WPD - 4/96 ' ATTACHMENTB Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees: Elementary School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-0766 Central 10601 Church Street, Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-8942 Etiwanda 5959 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 .High School Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario, CA 91762 (909) 988-8511 , INITSTDI.WPD - 4/96 ' Pa~q~ ? City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project Files: A Pumhase-and-Sale-Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Lewis Operating Corp. for 4.75 acres of land known as APN: 0227-811-03; General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00395; Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment DRC2003-00396; Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16512; and Development Review DRC2003-00394. 2. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PURCHASE-AND-SALE-AGREEMENT - CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND LEWIS OPERATING CORP. - A proposed Pumhase-and-Sale- Agreement for 4.75 acres of land in the Open Space/Park Land Use District of the of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the east side of Milliken Avenue south of the Milliken Avenue Park site. APN: 0227-811-03. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00395 - KB HOME - The proposed amendment of 4.75 acres from Open Space/Park and 4.75 acres of General Commercial (9.5 acres total) to Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street - APN: 0227-151-73, 74, 75, and 0227-811-03. Related Files: Development Review DRC2003-00394, Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment DRC2003-00396 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16512. On July 16, 2003, the City Council will consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a Purchase and Sale Agreement, Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment DRC2003-00396, Tentative Tract Map SUBTI'16512, Development Review DRC2003-00394, and this General Plan Amendment. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00396 - KB HOME - The proposed amendment of 4.75 acres from Open Space/Park and 4.75 acres of Recreation Commercial (9.5 acres total) to Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street - APN: 0227-151-73, 74, 75, and 0227-811-03. Related Files: Development Review DRC2003-00394, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00395, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16512. On July 16, 2003, the City Council will consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a Pumhase and Sale Agreement, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00395, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16512, Development Review DRC2003-00394, and this Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16512 - KB HOME - A proposed subdivision of 12.19 acres into 3 lots for Condominium purposes in the Medium-High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acta) of the Terra Vista Planned Community located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street. APN: 0227-151-65, 73, 74, 75, and 0227-811-03. Related Files: Development Review DRC2003-00394, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00395 and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment DRC2003-00396. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00394 - KB HOME - The Development Review of building elevations and site plan for 168 Condominium units on 12.19 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street within the Terra Vista Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUBTT16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 2 Community Plan. APN: 0227-151-65, 73, 74, 75, and 0227-811-03. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00395, Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment DRC2003-00396, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16512. 3. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: KB HOME Greater Los Angeles Inc. 801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Pomona CA 91768 4. General Plan Designation: Existinq: Open Space/Park, General Commemial and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) Proposed: Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre). 5. Zoning: Existinq: Open Space/Park, Recreation Commemial, and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) Proposed: Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) 6. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the project's surroundings): Tentative Tract 16512 is located in the southeast quadrant of the Terra Vista Community Plan. Surrounding land uses include Milliken Park on the north boundary and tho recently completed public storage facility (Storage West), located in the midst of the project along Milliken Avenue. Tthe east boundary is currently vacant land which is proposed as future phases of the Lewis Companies Homecoming project. Existing land use on the west side of Milliken Avenue is the Del Mar Apartment neighborhood, and on the south side of Chumh Street is the Rancho San Antonio Medical Center. Church Street forms the south boundary of the site, and Milliken Avenue forms the west boundary. The site slopes gently from north to south at approximately 2 percent gradient. The site is covered with non-native grasses, which are routinely disturbed for weed control. There are no unique features, nor any existing structures or trees on-site 7. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 8. Contact Person and Phone Number: Debra Meier, AICP, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 9. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None GLOSSARY - The following abbreviations are used in this report: EIR - Environmental Impact Report FEIR - Final Environmental Impact Report NOx - Nitrogen Oxides ROG - Reactive Organic Gases PM~o - Fine Particulate Matter RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District URBEMIS7G - Urban Emissions Model Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUBTT16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 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. (,/) Aesthetics (,/) Agricultural Resources (v') Air Quality ( ) Biological Resources (,/) Cultural Resources (v') Geology/Soils ( ) Hazards & Hazardous (v~) Hydrology/Water Quality (v') Land Use/Planning Materials ( ) Energy and Mineral Resoumes ( ) Population/Housing ( ) Mineral Resoumes (,/) Noise ( ) Transportation/Traffic ( ) Public Services ( ) Recreation Utilities/Service Systems ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (,/) 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 revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standard and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation mea~sures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared By: ,,'~'~Y' ~:-C/////~ ~ Date: ~ ( . Reviewed By: / '~/,/ ,~/'~A~.~._~Dats: ./'~..~hZ Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUB'I-I'16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~o~fi~r, Mitigaflen Significant No EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial affect a scenic vista? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('") b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic Highway?. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/') or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a) There are no significant vistas within or adjacent to the project site. The site is not within a view corridor according to General Plan Exhibit 111-15. b) The project site contains no scenic resources and no historic buildings within a state Scenic Highway. There are no State Scenic Highways within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. c) The site is located at the northeast corner of Chumh Street and Milliken Avenue and is characterized by existing residential apartments on the west side of Church Street, Milliken Park on the north boundary, and the Rancho San Antonio Medical Center on the south side of Milliken Avenue. Future phases of the Lewis Companies proposed Homecoming project is located at the east boundary of the site. The visual quality of the area will not degrade as a result of this project. Design review is required prior to approval. City standards require the developer to underground existing and new utility lines and facilities to minimize unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96, unless exempted by said Resolution. d) The project will create new light and glare because the site is currently vacant. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on site plans which require review for consistency with City standards that requires shielding, diffusing, or indirect lighting to avoid glare. Lighting will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the project site. The impact is not considered significant. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ( ) ( ) (v') ( Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) a Williamson Act contract? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Pumhase and Sale Agreement; SUB'I-r16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Signi§cant Mitiga~on SIgni~cant No Incor~ted c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ( ) ( ) ( ) which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: a) The site is located at the northeast corner of Church Street and Milliken Avenue and is characterized by existing residential apartments on the west side of Chumh Street, Milliken Park on the north boundary, and the Rancho San Antonio Medical Center on the south side of Milliken Avenue. Future phases of the Lewis Companies proposed Homecoming project is located at the east boundary of the site. There are approximately 1,300 acres of prime farmlands, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, of which about one-third is either developed or committed to development according to General Plan Table IV-2. The major concentrations of designated farmlands are located in the southern and eastern portions of our City that is characterized by existing and planned development. Further, two-thirds of the designated farmlands pamels are small, ranging from 3 acres to 30 acres, and their economic viability is doubtful; therefore, they are not intended to be retained as farmland in the General Plan Land Use Plan. The General Plan FEIR identified the conversion of farmlands to urban uses as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a statement of overriding conditions was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no Williamson Act contracts within the City. c) The site is located at the northeast corner of Chumh Street and Milliken Avenue and is characterized by existing residential apartments on the west side of Chumh Street, Milliken Park on the north boundary, and the Rancho San Antonio Medical Center on the south side of Milliken Avenue. Future phases of the Lewis Companies proposed Homecoming project is located at the east boundary of the site. The Terra Vista Community Plan area was historically used as vineyards, although most have been removed to allow mass grading operations to occur. There is no longer any agricultural activity in the immediate area. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/') applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ( ) (¢') ( ) ( ) substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ( ) ( ) ( ) any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ( ) (,") ( ) ( ) concentrations? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUBTT16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitiga~on Significant No e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) number of people? Comments: a) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6), continued development will contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. The General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a statement of overriding conditions was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. b) During the construction phases of development, on-site stationary soumes, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use will generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust would also be generated during grading and construction activities. While most of the dust would settle on or near the project site, smaller particles would remain in the atmosphere, increasing particle levels within the surrounding area. Construction is an on-going industry in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Construction workers and equipment work and operate at one development site until their tasks are complete. They then transfer to a different site where the process begins again. Therefore, the emissions associated with construction activities are not new to the Rancho Cucamenga area and they would not violate an air quality standard or worsen the existing air quality in the region. Nevertheless, fugitive dust and equipment emissions are required to be assessed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on a project-specific basis. Therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, developer shall submit construction plans to City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that Iow emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the SCAQMD as well as City Planning Staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high volume, Iow-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUBTT16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant M~tigafion Significant No · Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. · Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. · Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. · Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. · Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. · Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) In accordance with Rule 403 requirements. · Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarpe or other suitable means. 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 403. 7) Chemlcel soil stabilizers (approved by $CAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~o emissions. 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. After implementation of the preceding mitigation measures, short-term construction air quality emissions would remain significant as noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6). Based upon on the URBEMIS7G model estimates in Table 5.6-4 of the General Plan FEIR, Nox, ROG, and PM~0 would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for significance; therefore, would all be cumulatively significant if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less than significant. The General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. In the long-term, development consistent with the General Plan would result in significant operational vehicle emissions on a based upon on the URBEMIS7G model estimates in Table 5.6-4 of the General Plan FEIR; therefore, would all be cumulatively significant if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less than significant. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 10) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to Incorporate high efficiency/Iow polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances and water heaters. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUB'I-]'16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: potentiallyWith Than 11) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping, After implementation of the preceding mitigation measures, the General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in operational emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a statement of overriding conditions was ultimately adopted by the City Council. c) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6) continued development would contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. The General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant and adverse impact for which a statement of overriding conditions was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The project proposed is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. d) Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contamihants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. The project site is located within 1/4 mile of a sensitive receptor, with existing apartment residents located on the west side of Chumh Street and recreation facilities within Milliken Park located along the north boundary of the site. Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super-Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During construction, there is the possibility of fugitive dust to be generated from grading the site. The mitigation measures listed under b) above will reduce impact to less-than-significant levels. e) Typically, the uses proposed do not create objectionable odors. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ( ) ( ) ( ) (,") through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Pumhase and Sale Agreement; SUB'Fr16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: s~g~,c~t Mitigation Significant No C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ( ) ( ) (v') protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Intedere substantially with the movement of any ( ) ( ) (v') native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ( ) ( ) ( ) ("') protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: a) The project site is located in an area developed with residential es proposed within the Terra Vista Community Plan uses. The site has been previously disrupted during construction of perimeter streets and infrastructure, surrounding development, and annual disking for weed abatement. According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan FEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resoumes; therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals due to the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. b) The project site is located in an urban area with no natural communities. No riparian habitat exists on site, meaning the project will not have any impacts. c) No wetland habitat is present on site. As a result, project implementation would have no impact on these resources. d) The majority of the surrounding area has been or is being developed, thereby disrupting any wildlife corridors that may have existed. No adverse impacts are anticipated. e) There are no heritage trees on the project site; therefore, the proposed project is not in conflict with any local ordinance. f) The project site is not located within a conservation area according to General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Plan, Exhibit IV-4. No conflicts with habitat conservation plans will occur. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUB-F]'16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiaJlyWith Than 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ( ) 0 ( ) ('/) significance of a historical resoume as defined in § 15064.57 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the (v') ( ) significance of an amheological resoume pursuant to § 15064.57 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological (,,') ( ) resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ( ) ( ) (,") outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a) The project site has not been identified as a "Historic Resoume" per the standards of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24 (Historic Preservation). There will be no impact. b) There are no known amheological sites or resources recorded on the project site; however, the Rancho Cucamonga area is known to have been inhabited by Native Americans according to the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.11). Construction activity, particularly grading, soil excavation and compaction, could adversely affect or eliminate existing and potential amhaeol0gical resoumes. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: · Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. Consider establishing provisions to require Incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. · Pursue educating the public about the area's archaeological heritage. · Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines. · Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. c) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.11) indicates that the Rancho Cucamonga area is on an alluvial fan. According to the San Bemardino County database, no paleontological sites or resources have been recorded within the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUB'1-]'16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyWith sphere-of-influence, including the project site; however, the area has a high sensitivity rating for paleontological resoumes. The older alluvium, which would have been deposited during the wetter climate that prevailed 10,000-100,000 years ago during the Late Pleistocene epoch of the Quaternary period, when the last "Ice Age" and the appearance of modern man occurred, may contain significant vertebrate fossils. The project site is underlain by Quaternary alluvium per General Plan Exhibit V-2; therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 2) A qualified paleontologist shall conduct a preconstructlon field survey of the project site. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: · Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full- time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. · Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. · Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County Museum. d) The proposed project is in an area that has already been disturbed by development. The project site has already been disrupted by construction of perimeter streets and infrastructure, surrounding development, and annual disking for weed abatement. No known religious or sacred sites exist within the project area. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/*) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Pumhase and Sale Agreement; SUB'I-r16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: potentiaJly With Than b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ( ) (./) ( ) ( ) topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, ( ) ( ) (./) or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ( ) ( ) (,/) 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ( ) ( ) (v') use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Comments: a) 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 Red Hill Fault, according to the General Plan Exhibit V-l, and Section 5.1 of the General Plan FEIR. The Red Hill Fault, passes within 2 miles north of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 4 miles north. These faults are both capable of producing Mw 6.0 - 7.0 earthquakes, respectively. Also, the San Jacinto fault, capable of producing up to M,, 7.5 earthquakes is eight miles northeasterly of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to M,, 8.2 earthquakes, is ten miles northeasterly of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less than significant. b) The Rancho Cucamonga area is subject to strong Santa Ana wind conditions during September to April, which generates blowing sand and dust, and creates erosion problems. Construction activities may temporarily exacerbate the impacts of windblown sand, resulting in temporary problems of dust control; however, development of this project under the General Plan would help to reduce windblown sand impacts in the area as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping are established. Therefore, the following fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~0 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) 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 PM10 emissions. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUB']-r16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 13 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiaJly wi~ Than C) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.1) indicates that subsidence is generally associated with large decreases or withdrawals of water from the aquifer. The project would not withdraw water from the existing aquifer. The site is not within a geotechnical hazardous area or other unstable geologic unit or soil type according to General Plan FEIR Figure 5.1-2. Soil types onsite consist of Tujunga Loamy Sand Soil association according to General Plan FEIR Exhibit 5.1-3. No adverse impacts are anticipated. d) The majority of Rancho Cucamonga, including the project site, is located on alluvial soil deposits. These types of soils are not considered to be expansive. Soil types onsite consist of Tujunga Loamy Sand Soil association according to General Plan Exhibit V-3 and General Plan FEIR Exhibit 5.1-3. These soils are typically o to 5 percent slopes on broad alluvial fans, where the soil is rapidly permeable. No adverse impacts are anticipated. e) The project will connect to, and be served by, the existing local sewer system for wastewater disposal. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal is proposed. 7. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) (v') environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ( ) ( ) (v') acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ( ) ( ) (,") hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ( ) ( ) (,") or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ( ) ( ) ( ) would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ( ) ( ) (,/) an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Pumhase and Sale Agreement; SUB-1-1'16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 14 Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially W~th T~an h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a) ,The project will not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition that is considered a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive that any other in the state. The City has adopted a Standardized Emergency Management System Multi-Hazard Functional Plan to respond to chemical emergencies. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations conceming the storage and handling of hazardous materials and/or waste will reduce the potential for significant impacts to level less than significant. No adverse impacts are expected. b) The proposed project does not include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition that is considered a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive than any other in the state. The City has adopted a Standardized Emergency Management System Multi- Hazard Functional Plan to respond to chemical emergencies. Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials or volatile fuels will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level less than significant. No adverse impacts are anticipated. c) The Coyote Canyon Elementary School is located approximately 1/4 mile west of the site, however, the construction of the proposed residential condominiums will not emit or release toxic or hazardous substances. d) The proposed project is not listed as a hazardous waste or substance.materials site. Recent site inspection did not reveal the presence of discarded drums or illegal dumping of hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. Project site is located approximately 5 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. f) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. g) The City's Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan, which is updated every two years, includes policies and procedures to be administered by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District in the event of a disaster. Because the project includes at least two points of public street access and is required to comply with all applicable City codes, including local fire ordinances, no adverse impacts are anticipated. h) Rancho Cucamonga faces the greatest ongoing threat from a wind-driven fire in the Urban Wildland Inter[ace area found in the northern part of the City according to the Fire District Strategic Plan 2000-2005; however, the proposed project site is not located within a high fire hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-7. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUBTT16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 15 Issues and Supporting information Sources: PotentieityWith 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ( ) (v~) discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or (v') ( ) interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of (v') ( ) ( ) the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ( ) ( ) ('/') the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would ( ) ( ) exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ( ) (',/) ( ) ( ) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area ( ) ( ) ( ) as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ( ) ( ) ( ) which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) Water and sewer service is provided by the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD) and will not affect water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Project is designed to connect to existing water and sewer systems. b) According to CCWD, 43 pement of the City's water is currently provided from ground water in the Cucamonga and Chino Basins. CCWD has adopted a master plan that estimates demand needs until the year 2030. The proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with recharge because it is not within an area Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUBTT16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 16 issues and Supporting Information Sources: S~g,~,c~r~ Mitigation $igniilcant No designated as a recharge basin or spreading ground according to General Plan Exhibit IV-2. The development of the site will require the grading of the site and excavation; however, would not affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be about 288 to 470 feet below the ground surface. As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.9), continued development citywide will increase water needs and is a significant impact; however, CCWD has plans to meet this increased need through the construction of future water facilities. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1) Structures to retain precipitation and runoff on-site shall be integrated into the design of the project where appropriate. Measures that may be used to minimize runoff and to enhance infiltration include Dutch drains, precast concrete lattice blocks and bricks, terraces, diversions, runoff spreaders, seepage pits, and recharge basins. c) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project design includes landscaping of all non-hardscape areas to prevent erosion. A grading and drainage plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 2) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that Identifies 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. d) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A grading and drainage plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off-site. No impacts are anticipated. e) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, all runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project will not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. A grading and drainage plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off-site. No impacts are anticipated. f) Grading activities associated with the construction period could result in a temporary increase in the amount of suspended solids in surface flows during a concurrent storm event, thus resulting in surface water quality impacts. The site is moro than 1 acre; therefore, is required to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Pumhase and Sale Agreement; SUBTr16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 17 Less Then Issues and Supporting Information Sources: $ignifica.t Mitigatto. S~grlJflce~t NO (NPDES) to minimize water pollution. Therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce levels to less-than-significant levels: 3) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-sita to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga In June 2000. 4) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollution Discharge elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Dischargers Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Engineer for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. g) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-5. No adverse impacts are expected. h) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-5. No adverse impacts are expected. i) The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm drain system designed to convey a 100-year storm event. The system is substantially improved and provides an integrated approach for regional and local drainage flows. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, spreading grounds, concrete-lined channels, and underground storm drains as shown in General Plan Exhibit V-6. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according te General Plan Exhibit V-5. No adverse impacts are expected. j) There are no oceans, lakes or reservoirs near the project site; therefore impacts from seiche and tsunami are not anticipated. The Rancho Cucamonga area sits at the base of the steep eastern San Gabriel Mountains whose deep canyons were cut by mountain streams. Numerous man-made controls have been constructed to reduce the mudflow impacts to the level of non-significance with City. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, and spreading grounds both within and north of the City. 9. LAM~USE AJ~)~NG, Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUB'I-1'16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 18 issues and Supporting information Sources: Significant C) Conflict with any applicable habitat consen/ation ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') plan or natural community conservation plan? Comments: a) The site is located at the northeast corner of Chumh Street and Milliken Avenue and is characterized by existing residential apartments on the west side of Church Street, Milliken Park on the north boundary, and the Rancho San Antonio Medical Center on the south side of Milliken Avenue. Future phases of the Lewis Companies proposed Homecoming project is located at the east boundary of the site. The Homecoming project will be of similar design and density to the proposed project. The project and the surrounding area is part of the larger Terra Vista Community Plan. No adverse impacts are anticipated. b) Currently the project site has land use designations of Recreation Commemial (approximately 4 acres), and Open Space/Park (4.75 acres), with the remaining 4 acres being designated Medium Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre). The proposed project includes both a Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment and a General Plan Amendment to designate the entire site Medium Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with land use designations both west and east of the site. The adopted Terra Vista Community plan allows a maximum of 9,200 dwelling units. It is estimated that at build-out there will be 8,433 dwelling units, including the 168 units proposed by this project. The proposed land use amendments do not interfere with any policies for environmental protection. No impacts are anticipated. c) The project site is not located within any habitat conservation or natural community plan area. According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan FEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resoumes; therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals due to the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses. 10, MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments.'. a) The site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resoumes Area according to the City General Plan, Figure IV-1 and Table IV-l; therefore, there is no impact. b) The site is not designated by the General Plan, Figure IV-1 and Table IV-l, as a valuable mineral resource recovery site; therefore, there is no impact. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUB']-i'16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 19 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mittga§on Significant NO 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels ( ) ('/) ( ) ( ) in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ( ) ( ) ( ) groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a) The project site is within an area of noise levels exceeding City standards according to General Plan Exhibit V-13 at build-out, for future residential dwelling units that will be exposed to Milliken Avenue and Chumh Street. Therefore, an Acoustical Analysis was prepared specific to the proposed project. The mitigation of exterior noise will require sound barriers along Milliken Avenue and Church Street in order to reduce exterior noise levels on exterior patios and balconies to 65 dBA CNEL. 1) Sound barriers must be constructed around the first floor patios and second floor balconies adjacent to Milliken Avenue and Church Street as follows: · All first floor patios facing Milliken Avenue shall have a barrier height of 8-feet. · All second floor balconies facing Milliken Avenue shall have a barrier height of 7-feet. · All first floor patios and second floor balconies facing Church Street shall have a barrier height of 5-feet. 2) The required sound control barriers shall be constructed using any of the following materials: masonry block, stucco on wood frame, 3/4" plywood, 1/4" glass or 1/2" LEXAN, earthen berm, any combination of these materials or any material with a surface weight of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot. Initial Study for City of' Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUB'I-I'16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 20 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No In addition, mitigation of interior noise will also be required along Milliken Avenue and Chumh Street in order to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL. 3) The minimum characteristics of the basic building shell shall be: · Exterior wall: siding or stucco, 2"x4" studs, R-13 fiberglass insulation, and 1/2" drywall. · Windows: 3/32" double pane aluminum horizontal sliders. · Sliding glass door: 3/16" double pane aluminum horizontal sliders. · Roof: Shingle over 1/2" plywood, fiberglass Insulation, 5/8" drywall, vented. · Floor: Carpeted (except kitchens and baths). 4) The following building locations require additional mitigation above that which is outlined in condition 3 above: · Add STC 26 glazing to all rooms with any view of Church Street for all buildings along the street frontage. · Add STC 36 glazing to all rooms with any view of Milliken Avenue for all buildings along the street frontage. 5) When mitigation measures depend on having windows closed, as it is along Church Street and Milliken Avenue, it is necessary to provide adequate fresh air ventilation without opening the windows. This is accomplished by installing a "summer switch" and outside ducting to the forced air unit or by Installing air-conditioning in all units adjacent to Milliken Avenue and Church Street. The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.7) indicates that during construction phase, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction equipment, will generate noise exceeding City standards. The following measures are previded to mitigate the short-term noise impacts: 6) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 7) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Planning Division. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Planning Division within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall Immediately notify the Planning Division. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUBTT16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 21 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: s~,c~ Mitigafio~ Significent NO construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 8) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in first phase. The preceding mitigation measures will reduce the disturbance created by on-site construction equipment; however, do not address the potential impacts due to the transport of construction materials and debris. The following mitigation measures shall then be required: 9) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, If heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. b) The uses associated with this type of project normally do not induce groundborne vibrations. As such, no impacts are anticipated. c) The primary soume of ambient noise levels in Rancho Cucamonga is traffic. The proposed activities will not significantly increase traffic; hence, are not anticipated to increase the ambient noise levels within the vicinity of the project. d) See a) response above. e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. Located approximately 5 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. f) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. 12. POPtJLATION I~D HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ( ) ( ) ( ) ("') either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUBTT16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitiga~o~Significant No ~mpact Comments: a) The project is located in a predominantly developed area that was master planned through adoption of the Terra Vista Community Plan in 1983, and will not induce population growth. Construction activities at the site will be short-term and will not attract new employees to the area. No impacts are anticipated. b) The project site contains no existing housing units. No adverse impact expected. c) The project site is vacant land. No impacts are anticipated. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Parks? ( ) ( ) ( ) e) Other public facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) The site, located at the northeast corner of Chumh Street and Milliken Avenue, would be served by a fire station located approximately 1 mile from the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project so no impacts to fire services will occur. No impacts are anticipated. b) Additional police protection is not required as the addition of the project will not change the pattern of uses within the surrounding area and will not have a substantial increase in property to be patrolled as the project site is within an area that is regularly patrolled. c) The Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District serve the project area. Both school districts have been notified regarding the proposed development, and a standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay any school impact fees. With this standard mitigation, impacts to the School Districts are not considered significant. d) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest existing park, Milliken Park, is located adjacent to the north boundary of the project site. Additional existing parks are located within 1 mile of the site. The project Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUBTT16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 23 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: potentiaJlyw~l Tr~ao will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay park development fees, and the proposed project will also be subject to the Park Implementation Development Agreement pertinent to the Terra Vista community Plan. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project will utilize existing public facilities. The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Cumulative development within Rancho Cucamonga will increase demand for library services. According to the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.9.9), the projected increase in library space under the General Plan will not meet the projected demand. The General Plan FEIR identified the cumulative impact on library services as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a statement of overriding conditions was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the EIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. Since the adoption of the General Plan, the City has planned a new library within the Victoria Gardens regional shopping center of approximately 22,000 square feet, which is in excess of the projected need of 15,500 square feet at build-out of the City. 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and ( ) ( ) ( ) ('~') regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ( ) ( ) ( ) require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest existing park, Milliken Park, is located adjacent to the north boundary of the project site. Additional existing parks are located within 1 mile of the site. This project is not proposing any new housing or large employment generator that would cause a significant increase in the use of public parks or other recreational facilities, and the site will include on-site recreational amenities in accordance with the Development Code requirements. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay park development fees. No impacts are anticipated. b) See a) response above. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUBTT16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 24 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Signi§cant Mitigation Signiticant No 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, tho volume to capacity ratio on reads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ( ) ( ) ('") service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including ( ) ('") either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ( ) ( ) ('/) feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ( ) ( ) ("/) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ( ) ( ) ('/) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ( ) ( ) ('/') supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: a) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.5), continued development will contribute to the traffic load in the Rancho Cucamonga area. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with street improvements existing or included in project design. The project may cause an increase in the number of vehicle trips, traffic volume or congestion in the immediate vicinity since the site is currently undeveloped. However, Engineering Division conditions of approval will require improvements to Milliken Avenue and Church Street; the contribution of funds as a fair share contribution to future improvements to the intersection Terra Vista Parkway and Mountain View Drive ($6,751.58); and payment of the standard citywide Transportation Development Fees. As a result of these improvements and impact fees the impacts will be less than significant. b) The project will generate less than 250 two-way peak hour trips for non-retail land uses; therefore, is below the threshold of the San Bernardino Congestion Management Plan (CMP) criteria for requiring a traffic impact analysis. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with all street improvements existing. The project will not negatively impact tho level of service standards on adjacent arterials. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. No impacts are anticipated. c) Located approximately 5 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not change air traffic patterns. No impacts are anticipated. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUBTT16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 25 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: .~,~c~ Mltigafio~ Signi§cant No d) The project is in an area that is mostly developed. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. The project design does not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections or farming uses. The project will, therefore, not create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature. No impacts are anticipated. e) The project will be designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles and will therefore not create an inadequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated. f) The project design has adequate parking in compliance with standards of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code and will therefore not create an inadequate' parking capacity. No impacts are anticipated. g) The project design includes, or the project will be conditioned to provide, features supporting transportation and vehicle trip reduction (e.g., bus bays, bicycle racks, carpool parking, etc.). 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ( ) ( ) ( ) applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ( ) ) (v') project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ( ) ) ('/') treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the previder's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ( ) ) (v') capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and ( ) ( ) regulations related to solid waste? Comments: a) The proposed project is served by the Cucamonga County Water District sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUBTT16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 26 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Signi§cant MitJga~on $ignificalt No b) The proposed project is served by the Cucamonga County Water District sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which are at capacity. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. c) All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A grading and drainage plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The impact is not.considered significant. d) The project is served by the Cucamonga County Water District water system. There is currently a sufficient water supply available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to serve this project. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project is served by the Cucamonga County Water District sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which are at capacity. No impacts are anticipated. f) Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler who disposes the refuse at a permitted landfill with sufficient capacity to handle the City's solid waste disposal needs. g) This project complies with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. The City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to implement waste reduction procedures consistent with AB 939. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 17, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) 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 Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ( ) ( ) (v') 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which ( ) will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUB'1-1'16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 27 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentiallyw'~tll man Comments: a) The site is not located in an area of sensitive biological resoumes as identified on the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Exhibit IV-3. Additionally, the area surrounding the site is developed. Based on previous development and street improvements, it is unlikely that any endangered or rare species would inhabit the site. b) If the proposed project were approved, then the applicant would be required to develop the site in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The 2001 General Plan was adopted along with the certification of a Program FEIR, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations 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 aggregate resoumes, prime farmland, air quality, the acoustical environment, library services, and aesthetics and visual resoumes. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of these resoumes; however, they would not reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As such, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations 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 the Statement of Overriding Considerations, no further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is required. c) Development of the site under the proposed land uss change would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identifies construction-related emissions of criteria pollutants as having a potentially significant impact. Proposed mitigation measures would further reduce emission levels. Additionally, impacts resulting from air quality would be short-term and would cease once construction activities were completed. The Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts associated with the exposure of people to increased noise levels. Mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study will ensure impacts are at less than significant levels. 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 Negati~,e 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): (v') General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001 ) (¢') Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (*,") Terra Vista Planned Community EIR Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Purchase and Sale Agreement; SUB'I-1'16512; and DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 00396 Page 28 (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) Acoustical Analysis Tract 16512 prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates dated June 5, 2003. Initial Study for City of Rsncho Cucamo~ga Pumha~e and $~!~ Agreeme~, SUB'I'F16512; ~r~l DRC2003-00394, 00395 & 0039~ Page 29 APPUCANT CERTIFICATION I certify ~at I am th~ epplicarff for the prOjeCt described in this I~ltial Study. I acknowledg~ that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. FuAher, I have revised the project pler'~ or proposals and/or hereby &gree to the proposed mitigation meaeures to avoid the ~ or mitigate fie effecte to e point where olearly no significant envlmr~mental elfects would oee. ur. Signature: ~'~'~ D'~te:. _~..~-- t"q~, ~.c~:~'-~ print Name ,n~ Title: _ (-."~:~3 ',~~'r/ EXHIBIT 1 SITE LOCATION MAP 5 8 T H E C I T Y 0 F RANCIIO CIJ CAMONGA DATE: July 16, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE IN THE INDEPENDENCE AT TERRA VISTA GATED COMMUNITY AS AUTHORIZED BY' CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21107.7 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department to enforce the California Vehicle Code (C.V.C.) on the roads in the Independence at Terra Vista Gated Community. Back.qround C.V.C. Section 21107.7 authorizes city councils to pass resolutions allowing local police departments to enforce the Vehicle Code on private roads in proximity to or connected to public highways. The owners of the roads or a majority of the board of directors of the common interest development must petition the City Council and the City Council must hold a public hearing, the notice for which must have been provided to all of the owners ten days prior to the hearing. The City has received the request from the board of directors of the Independence at Terrs Vista Homeowners Association. Notices of this hearing have been mailed to all of the owners in Independence as required. It should be noted that authorizing enforcement of the C.V.C. does not also mean there will be additional enforcement. No new personnel are required by the passage of this resolution. Should the resolution be approved, staff will work with the Independence at Terra Vista Homeowners Association to insure that the proper signs are posted in their Page 2 July 16, 2003 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE IN THE INDEPENDENCE AT TERRA VISTA GATED COMMUNITY AS AUTHORIZED BY CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21107.7 community. The costs for these signs will be born by the home owners association and not the City. As this item will be revenue neutral and will enhance public safety it is the recommendation of the staff that this resolution be approved. ~submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 03- 2 ~ 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE IN THE INDEPENDENCE AT TERRA VISTA GATED COMMUNITY (GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF CHURCH STREET, WEST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE, SOUTH OF BASE LINE ROAD AND EAST OF MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK) AS AUTHORIZED BY CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21107.7 WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 21107.7 allows the City to authorize that provisions of the California Vehicle Code be enforced on privately owned and maintained roads near to or connected to public highways; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a petition from the board of directors of the independence at Terra Vista Homeowners Association requesting that the provisions of California Vehicle Code 21107.7 be applied to the roads in their community; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the matter has been conducted and notice of such hearing was sent to all of the owners in Independence at Terra Vista in conformance with California Vehicle Code Section 21107.7. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does herby resolve as follows: 1. That the conditions of California Vehicle Code Section 21107.7 have been met. 2. That public safety would be served by making the roads in the Independence at Terra Vista Gated Community subject to the California Vehicle Code. 3. That prior to the start of enforcement of the California Vehicle Code, the Independence at Terra Vista Homeowners Association will post a sign or signs at the entrances to their property of the size, shape, and color as to be readily legible during daylight hours from a distance of 100 feet, to the effect that the roads within the community are subject to the provisions of the California Vehicle Code. 4. That prior to the start of enforcement of the California Vehicle Code, the Independence at Terra Vista Homeowners Association will file with the City Traffic Engineer a plan showing that the location and type of traffic signs, markings or devices are in conformance with the uniform standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Department of Transportation. THE CITY OF I~ANC Ii O CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAI2TMENT/ENGINEERI NG DIVISION/ INTEGRATED WASTE/NPDE& SECTION STAFF REPORT DATE: July 16, 2003 ~ TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator J. Michael Huls, REA, Solid Waste Consultant SURIF_L~: APPROVAL OF PROGRAM CHANGES TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that City Council approve the program changes and adopt the ordinance to establish a Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling and Deposit Program. The City Attorney has reviewed the ordinance necessary to implement the program. BACKGROUND: Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling - On July 2, 2003 a public hearing and first reading of a Construction and Demolition Ordinance was presented to the City Council at that time staff was asked to take the ordinance back and return with revisions to section 18.290 Deposit Required and specifically the "$5,000 minimum deposit" requirement. Construction and Demolition (C&D) is one of the largest and most distinctive waste streams generated in a growing commurdty. C&D waste is normally dry material, and composed largely of wood, drywall, construction papers, metals, and inert materials such as concrete and asphalt; although other refuse is often mixed in. Generally, C&D waste is carted away from construction sites in large roll off containers. In fact, C&D waste is one of the largest single waste streams statewide and of sufficient concern that the state legislature recently enacted a law dictating that the Waste Board craft a model ordinance requiring 75% diversion of C&D wastes for local government to emulate. C&D waste is similarly a problem for the City; about 24,000 tons of C&D waste is disposed annually according to landfill and hauler reports, and the research of our consultant. The City is proposing to add a section to Chapter 8.19 of the Municipal Code to establish a construction and demolition diversion deposit program. The attached ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney's -'-:" .2ql CITY coUNCIL STAFF REPORT PROGRAM CHANGES TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING SYSTEM July 16, 2003 Page 2 office. We have modeled it from various successful models employed in other communities to fit our needs. The ordinance, as currently drafted, will establish a pre-construction refundable deposit, an inspection fee, and provide for monitoring and data collection. The deposit will be based on the projected mount of waste potentially disposed from a project. It will require a minimum 50% diversion by developers and contractors on all projects within the City in order to qualify for a full refund of the deposit. The intent of the program is to make it a self-reliant effort that minimizes the actions required of the City. The deposit, with a minimum of $5,000.00, is a monetary incentive for businesses to incorporate recycling and diversion activities into their operations so that they can qualify for a refund of the deposit. All that is required is a good faith effort, and while businesses will need to provide data documenting diversion to the maximum extent practicable, the City will work with applicants to achieve the goals of the program on a case-by-case basis depending on market and availability of recycling sites. Staff has reviewed single-family residential projects and found that they account for a small portion of the C&D waste stream and should be exempted from the diversion deposit and reporting. Considering this we have reviewed the minimum deposit and feel that the $5,000 should remain for major construction and demohtion projects and have added that the following exemptions: All single-family residential homes up to 4 units. All construction projects of less then $100,000 in value Roofing projects that do not include tear-off of existing roof Work for which only a plumbing permits, only an electrical or mechanical permit is required. A sliding scale for deposits for non-exempted projects on a square footage basis: Square Footage Total Deposit Valuation 1,000 - 9,999 $ 5,000 >$100,000 10,000- 19,999 $10,000 >$100,000 >20,000 $15,000 >$100,000 Job site separation, proper housekeeping practices, and recycling are all Best Management Practices (BMPs) and help qualify the firms for conformance with City and Federal mandates for prevention of non point source pollution. Respectfully submitted, William J. O~Neil City Engineer 24/2 Ordinance No. 7// AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADDING A NEW SECTION 18.290 TO CHAPTER 18.19 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO RECYCLING AND DIVERSION OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does hereby ordain as follows: WHEREAS, waste generated in construction and demolition projects accounts for a significant portion of the materials deposited in landfills; and WI-IEREAS, a large percentage of such waste is composed of recyclable materials; and WHEREAS, the City desires to implement a program to encourage the diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfill disposal; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds and determines that the City is committed to protecting the public health, safety, welfare and environment; that in order to meet these goals it is necessary that the City promote the reduction of solid waste and reduce the stream of solid waste going to land fills; that under California law as embodied in the California Waste Management Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 40000 et seq.), Rancho Cucamonga is required to prepare, adopt and implement source reduction and recycling elements to reach reduction goals, and is required to make substantial reductions in the volume of waste materials going to landfill, under the threat of penalties of $10,000 per day; that Waste from demolition and construction of buildings represents a large portion of the volume presently coming from Rancho Cucamonga, and that much of that waste is particularly suitable for recycling; that Rancho Cucamonga' s commitment to the reduction of waste and to compliance with state law requires the establishment of programs for recycling and salvaging construction and demolition materials; the City Council recognizes that requiring demolition and construction Waste to be recycled and reused may in some respects add modestly to the cost of demolition and in other respects may make possible some cost recovery and cost reduction; and that it is necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare that the' following regulations be adopted. Section 2. Section 18.290 of Chapter 18.19 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby revised to read as follows: 18.19.290 Construction and Demolition Waste A. For purposes of this Section, the following definitions apply: 1. "Contractor" means any person or entity holding, or required to hold, a contractor's license of any type under the laws of the State of Caiifomia, or who performs (whether as contractor, subcontractor or owner-builder) any construction, demolition, remodeling, or landscaping service relating to buildings or accessory structures in Rancho Cucamonga. 2. "Construction" means ail building, landscaping, remodeling, addition, removai or destruction involving the use or disposal of Designated Recyclable and Reusable Materials as defined in paragraph D below. 3. "Demolition and Construction Waste" means: a. Discarded materiais generally considered to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature, including but not limited to steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum, wailboard, and lumber from the construction or destruction of a structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the renovation of a structure and/or landscaping, and including rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter that normaily results from land clearing, landscaping and development operations for a construction project. b. Clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood, and metal scraps from any construction and/or landscape project. c. De-minimis amounts of other non hazardous wastes that are generated at construction or demolition projects, provided such amounts are consistent with best management practices of the industry. 4. "Designated Recyclable and Reusable Materials" means: a. Masonry building materials including ail products generally used in 'construction including, but not limited to asphait, concrete, rock, stone and brick. b. Wood materials including any and all dimensional lumber, fencing or construction wood that is not chemicaily treated, creosoted, CCA pressure treated, contaminated or painted. c. Vegetative materiais including trees, tree parts, shrubs, stumps, logs, brush or any other type of plants that are cleared from a site for construction or other use. d. Metals including all metai scrap such as, but not limited to, pipes, siding, window frames, doorframes and fences. e. Roofing Materiais including wood shingles as well as asphalt, stone and slate based roofing material. f. Salvageable Materials includes ail salvageable materials and structures including, but not limited to wallboard, doors, windows, fixtures, toilets, sinks, bath tubs and appliances. B. Every structure planned for demolition shall be made available for deconstruction, salvage and recovery prior to demolition. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, the generai contractor and all subcontractors to recover the maximum feasible amount of saivageable designated recyclable and reusable materiais prior to demolition. Recovered and salvaged designated recyclable and reusable materiais from the deconstmction phase shail quaiify to be counted in meeting the diversion requirements of this chapter. Recovered or salvaged materiais may be given or sold on the premises, or may be removed to reuse warehouse facilities for storage or sale. C. At least the following specified percentages of the waste tonnage of demolition and construction Waste generated from every demolition, remodeling and construction project shall be diverted from going to land fill by using recycling, reuse and diversion programs: Demolition: Fifty - Seventy-five percent (50%-75%) of waste tonnage including concrete and asphalt, and fifteen percent (15%) of waste tonnage excluding concrete and asphalt. Reroofing of homes with shingles or shakes as a separate project: Fifty - Seventy-five percent (50%-75%) of waste tonnage. Construction and Remodeling: Fifty - Seventy-five percent (50%-75%) of waste tonnage. Separate calculations and repo~s will be required for the demolition and for the construction portion of projects involving both demolition and construction. D. Every applicant shall submit a properly completed "Recycling and Waste Reduction Form" from the C&D Guidelines Handbook, on a form as prescribed by the City Engineering Division, to the Building Department, as a portion of the building or demolition permit process. The form shall contain an accurate estimate of the tonnage or other specified units of construction and/or demolition Waste to be generated from construction and demolition on the site. Approval of the form as complete and accurate shall be a condition precedent to issuance of any building or demolition permit. E. As a condition precedent to issuance of any permit for a building or a demolition permit that involves the production of solid waste that may be delivered to a landfill, the applicant shall post a cash deposit in in accordance with the scale section 3, but not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). All residential single family homes up to 4 units are exempt. The deposit or cash bond shall be returned, without interest, in total or in propo~on, upon proof to the satisfaction of the building official, that no less than the required percentages or proven proportion of those percentages of the tons of Waste generated by the demolition and/or construction project have been diverted from landfills and have been recycled or reused. If a lesser percentage of tons or cubic yards than required is diverted, a proportionate share of the deposit will be returned. The deposit shall be forfeited entirely or to the extent that there is a failure to comply with the requirements of this chapter. F. As a condition precedent to issuance of any permit for a building or a demolition permit that involves the production of solid waste that may be delivered to a landfill, the applicant shall pay to the City a cash fee sufficient to compensate the City for all expenses incurred in administering the permit. The amount of this fee shall be determined in accordance with the current resolution of the City Council determining the same. G. Within sixty (60) days following the completion of the demolition project, and again within sixty (60) days following the completion of the construction project, the contractor shall, as a condition precedent to final inspection and to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, submit documentation to the Building Department, which proves compliance with the requirements of Section 18.19.040. The documentation shall consist a final completed "Recycling and Waste Reduction Form" showing actual data of tonnage of materials recycled and diverted, supported by originals or certified photocopies of receipts and weight tags or other records of measurement from recycling companies, deconstruction contractors and/or landfill and disposal companies. Receipts and weight tags will be used to verify whether materials generated from the site have been or are to be recycled, reused, salvaged or otherwise disposed of. If a project involves both demolition and construction, the report and documentation for the demolition project must be submitted and approved by the Building Department before issuance of a building permit for the construction project. In the alternative, the permitee may submit a letter stating that no waste or recyclable materials were generated from project, in which case this statement shall be subject to verification by the Building Department. Any deposit posted pursuant to Section E shall be forfeited if the permitee does not meet the timely reporting requirements of this section. H. Each violation of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a public nuisance and be subject to abatement as such, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 8.20 of this Code. The costs of abatement of any such nuisance shall be a lien upon the property involved. Section 3 A. Except as otherwise specified in this Part, on July 1, 2002, each person who applies for a building permit pursuant to Chapter 17.010 of this Code shall apply for a construction and demolition waste clearance document to be issued by the Building Official. On or after July 1, 2002, no building permit shall be issued unless the applicant submits the clearance document issued by the Building Official. B. Except as otherwise specified in this Part, on or after July 1, 2002, each person who applies for a building permit pursuant to Chapter 17.010 of this Code shall remit a diversion deposit in the amount set forth by resolution of the City Council. The diversion deposit shall be remitted at the same time the permit application is files. C. Neither a construction and demolition waste clearance document nor a diversion deposit shall be required for the following: All residential single-family homes up to 4 units. []All construction projects of less than $100,00 in value. []Roofing projects that do not include tear-off of existing roof. []Work for which only a plumbing permit, only an electrical or mechanical permit is required. D. Deposits as prescribed on a square footage basis: Square Footage Total Deposit Valuation 1,000 - 9,999 $ 5,000 >$100,000 10,000- 19,999 $10,000 >$100,000 >20,000 $15,000 >$100,000 Section 4 A. The Building Official may authorize the refund of any diversion deposit, which was erroneously paid or collected. B. The Building Official may authorize the refund of any diversion deposit when the building permit application is withdrawn or cancelled before any work has begun. C. The Building Official may authorize the refund of a diversion deposit when at least fifty percent (50%) of the waste generated by the project was diverted from landfill disposal. D. The Building Official may authorize a partial refund of a diversion deposit when less than fifty percent (50%) by weight of the waste generated by the project was diverted from landfill disposal. The partial refund shall not exceed that portion of the diversion waste bears to fifty percent (50%) by weight of the total waste generated. E. The Building Official shall not authorize the refund of any diversion deposit, or any portion thereof, unless the original building permit applicant files a written request for refund and provides documentation satisfactory to the Building Official in support of the request. Section 5 A. For the purpose of this Part, "diverted" or'"diversion" means a reduction of the amount of waste being disposed in landfills by any of the following methods: B. Use of new construction method, as described in regulations promulgate by the Building Official,that reduce the amount of waste generated. C. On-site re-use of waste. D. Delivery of the waste from the site to a certified Recycling Facility described in Section 6. E. Other methods as approved in regulations promulgated by the Building Official. F. All of the waste diversion, methods which may qualify for a refund of a diversion deposit are subject to restrictions and documentation requirements set forth in regulations promulgated by the Building Official. Section 6 A. For the purpose of this Part, a Certified Recycling Facility means a recycling, composting, materials recovery or re-use facility for which the State of California has issued a certification pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Building Official. B. The Building Official shall issue a certification only if the owner or operator of the facility submits documentation satisfactory to the Building Official: 1. That the facility has obtained all applicable Federal, State, and local permits, and is in full compliance with all applicable regulations; and 2. The percentage of incoming waste form construction, demolition, and alteration activities that is diverted from landfill disposal meets the required minimum pementage set forth in regulations promulgated by the Building Official. C. The City shall make available to each building permit applicant paying a diversion deposit a current list of Certified Recycling Facility. Section 7. Moneys received by the City as diversion deposits shall be used only for: A. Payment of diversion deposit refunds; B. Costs of administration of the program established by this Part; C. Cost of programs whose purpose is to divert from landfill disposal the waste from construction, demolition and alteration projects; and D. Costs of programs whose purpose is to develop or improve the infrastructure needed to divert from landfill disposal the waste from construction, demolition and alteration projects. Section 8. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof nor other applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. Section 9. This Ordinance shall be posted in at least three public places within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and shall be effective from and after thirty (30) days following its adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on ,2003, and was adopted by said City Council at a regular meeting held on ,2003, by the following roll call vote: R A N C H O C u.c a M 0 N G a COMM~Ni?¥ DATE: July 16, 2003 TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager · FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director' Joe O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III Karen McGuire-Emery, Senior Park Planner SUBJECT: PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE BACKGROUND In accordance with the City Councirs request to become more informed of park and recreation facility issues, programs, projects and events, this report is provided to highlight pertinent issues, projects and programs occurring in both the Community Services Department and the Park Design/Development and Maintenance Sections of Engineering. A. PARKS AND FACILITIES UPDATE Ralph M. Lewia park: · Disk golf tee markers and signage to be installed by City crews. Central Park: · Received Council 'authorization to advertise for bids on July 2r~. pre-Qualification questionnaires were due from all interested bidders today, July 16~. Pre-bid meeting scheduled for Monday, August 4m at 10:00 a.m. at the park site.· Day Creek Park (Previously Rancho Etiwanda Park): · Monument sign installed. Tennis Court windscreen installed. Hydro-seeding done week of June 30m. Developer anticipates completion of the park byAuguet 2003. B. COMMUNITY sERVICES UPDATE Senior Services: · Old Fashion Summertime Ice Cream Social and The Amazin.q Maestro Machine, .July' 17~, 1:30 p.m. Cool off from the summer heat at our annual Ice Cream Social. This City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 16, 2003 event will feature a free all-you-can-eat ice cream delight followed by the amazing Dana and the even more amazing Maestro Machine. Many pdzes will be available. · Antique Road Show, Saturday, August 9th, 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. We will have our own version of the popular television show. Bdng that old painting vase, or childhood toy that's collecting dust and get it appraised by an antique dealer/expert. Refreshments will be provided. · Hawaiian Luau, Thursday, August 21st, 10:00 a.m. Please join us for our "vacation" to the sandy beaches of Hawaii. The event includes refreshments, entertainment and door pdzes. We will set the mood through decorations and music - you can complete it by weadng your favodte beach attire! This event is co-sponsored by the VIP Club. · Hospitality Barbeque Dinner, Wednesday, September 17th, at 5:00 p.m. This popular activity retums in September to acquaint new seniors to the Center. If you are new to the Center, join us on this occasion for free hamburgers and hot dogs with all of the fixings and learn all about the programs and services provided at the Senior Center and make new friends. · Senior Advisory Committee will not meet in the summer months of July and August. Their next regular scheduled meeting will be held on Monday, September 22nd, at 9:00 a.m. Dudng the past month the Committee has worked tirelessly on projects relating to fund raising for various aspects of the new Senior Center. Human Services: · In late June, our Human Services staff conducted a highly successful Senior Employment Fair at the Senior Center. Almost 200 seniors attended this half-day event, which featured 18 local, regional and national employers. In addition to multiple private employers, the Department of Aging and Adult Services, AARP, RSVP, and Home Instead Senior Care were represented. These agencies assist in job search and placement with hundreds of employers. Our Senior Employment Fair, which is the only one conducted in the West Valley, also featured workshops on resume writing and interview skills and techniques. Seniors, employers and agencies were extremely pleased with the entire event. · Homeowners and Renters Assistance Proqram - AARP tax preparers will be available at the Senior Center on Mondays from 1:00 - 4:00 p.m. and on Thursdays from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. beginning July 5, to assist qualified homeowners and renters in filing out tax credit claims. This service is free and will continue through August 26th. · Health Screenin.qs - Free health assessments are provided by the San Bemardino County Public Health Department on the second Tuesday of the month, from 9:00 a.m. to noon. The next screening will be on July 10th. Screenings include pulse, blood pressure, blood sugar and hemoglobin. Walk-ins are welcome. · Manicures & Pedicures - Rejuvenate with a manicure, pedicure or both. Treat yourSelf to the best in hand and foot care. Performed by licensed and trained staff using only the highest quality hand and foot care products, these services are now available by appointment only at the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center. July 11th and 28t~ and City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 16, 2003 August 18th and 29th from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. Cost: $10.00 for a pedicure and $8.00 for a manicure. Trips and Tours: · Paqeant of the Masters, August 1, 2003. Come and enjoy 90 minutes of living pictures. Real life actors posed to duplicate their 2-dimensional counterparts. Paintings come to life with intricate sets, live professional orchestre, odginal score and live narration. We'll get there eady and your ticket gets you into the Laguna Arts Festival. Cost: $59.00 per person. · Catalina, August 16, 2003. Come to Southern California's Island Paradiset After a short cruise to the island you have an opportunity to stroll areund the island at your leisure. Enjoy shopping, dining, snorkeling and a vadety of tours. Cost: $62.00 per person. · Danish Days in Solvanq, September 20, 2003. Celebreted annually since 1936, it's the town folks' celebration of all things Danish. Learn how to bake Danish pastries, enjoy folk dancers and singers, shop in the many boutiques that line the streets and dine at one of the many Scandinavian restaurants. Cost: $26.00 per person. · "The Producers", September 27, 2003. Based on the Academy Award winning film of the same name, "The Producers" is a story of down-on-his-luck Max Bialistock and Leo Bloom, a mousy accountant. Together, they hatch the ultimate scam: Raise more money than you need for a sure-tire Broadway fiasco...and pocket the difference. Their Broadway brainchild is none other than "Springtime for Hitler". "The Producers" has become a Broadway phenomenon, earning more Tony Awards than any other show in history. Cost: $128.00 per person. · Julian, October 4, 2003. Julian is a premier mountain getaway, just an hour east of San Diego, in the beautiful Cuyamaca Mountains. Take a step back in time to the days of Julian's beginning, rooted in the 1870s gold rush. Get away from the hectic rush of city life.., discover the charms of Julian. Enjoy small streets lined with charming handicraft shops, boutiques, country inns and the Julian Pioneer Museum. Shop and have lunch (on you own). Cost: $24.00 per person. · Edwards Air Force Base: Open House and Air Show, October 26, 2003. The year 2003 marks the 100th year of powered flight! Edwards Air Force Base will celebrate the Centennial of Flight (1903 ~ 2003) by paying tdbute to all those who developed, acquired and sustained the air and space power needed to defend the United States. Featuring the U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds. For more than 50 years, Edwards Air Force Base - home of the Air Fome Flight Test Center - has been the home of more milestones in flight than any other place on earth. Edwards Air Force Base is also the back-up site of NASA's space shuttle. The visitors center features objects from histodc space missions. Cost: $26.00 per person. Volunteer Services: · Severel volunteers assisted staff at the City's 4th of July Fireworks Soectacular at Chaffey College. 25/ City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 16, 2003 The table on the next page summarizes Community Services Department's volunteer usaae for the month of May 2003 and year-to-date: Month: May 2003 YEAR TO DATE ~of ~of Volunteers ~f of Hours ; Value* ~olunteers # of Hours i Value* ~,dmin 5 15 210 24 130 1,820 Sports 142 903 12,642 574 3,485 48,790 Sr & Human 25 102 1,428 222 1,190 16,660 ~ervices Special 66 384 5,367 87 426 5,600 Events Youth 131 368 5,152 351 878 7,495 Programs *Based on $14 per hour Teens: · The table below summarizes teen proqram participation for the month of June 2003: Program Attendance/Participation - June 2003 Teen Center 948 Homework Room 143 TRAC - Babysitting 17 TRAC members, babysat 69 youngsters TRAC - Monthly activities 198 TRAC - Snack Bars 66 teens worked at our 2 pool snack bars TRAC - Mobile Recreation 2 teens helped our with Mobile Recreation TRAC - Special Event 30 teens participated in our summer luau Spruce Skate Park 818 · The Teen Center hosted an End of the School Year Dance for 6th - 9~h graders on June 7th at the RC Family Sports Center. The dance was a summer kick-off and was a huge success with over 400 teens attending the event. · The Spruce Park Skate Facility - Staff is making regular weekly visits to the skate park to promote safe skat!ng by handing out donated chips and beverages free to the youth wearing their proper gear. It is anticipated that use of the skate facilities will increase dudng the summer months due to youngsters being on vacation from their school schedules. · Skate Board Safety Clinics were presented to two elementary schools dudng the month of June. One session was offered at Carnelian Elementary School with 90 students participating and another clinic was held at Grapeland Elementary School and had 117 students attending. Students at both schools were provided with a power point presentation developed by staff on how to skate safely and how to keep safe from injury when skating or skate boarding. A semi-pre skate boarder also spoke on the proper way to fall and how to keep from putting yourself in harms way. The clinics were well received by the students, City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 16, 2003 teachers and parents who participated. Staff is in the process of planning for future presentations to other elementary schools starting in October. · The RCSK8 Crew Skate Club - for 10 - 16 years olds. This group meets the first Thursday of each month at the Spruce Park Skate facility and provides an avenue for teens to share their needs with staff about the skate park and allows staff to answer any questions the skaters might have about safety gear. Eight to fifteen youth a month attend this meeting. Youth Activities: · Our summer camp activities include: Camp Cucamonga, a full day camp for 6-12 year olds; Kid Explorers a twice weekly, half-day program for youngsters 5-10; and PlayCamp, an hour/hour and fifty minutes program for tiny tots ages 1-6 year. Each activity offers special age appropriate activities that are guaranteed to make a youngster's summer full of fun. The table illustrates enrollment to date for our programs: Camp Number of Participants Camper Ages Enrolled to Date Camp Cucamonga 667 6-12 Kid Explorers 277 5-10 Play Camp 433 1-6 · The Mobile Recreation Program "Fun on the Run" is becoming a fun neighborhood event. The Fun on the Run unit has been down for most of the month of June to complete scheduled annual maintenance of the vehicle and trailer unit. The two weeks that Mobile Recreation was up during the end of June it served 100 children at 5 park sites. There was one rental for the month of June with 40 youngsters participating. During the summer months of July through mid-August the program operates Monday through Friday from 11:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. at the following park sites: Weekday Park Location ~_~,~I~,3~_.~U~ Monday E I lena Park Tuesday Old Town Park Wednesday Heritage Park ~"--""-*-~""'" Thursday Mountain View Park Friday Windrows Park Grants: · The Teen Connection - This grant funded by the State Department of Parks ~. and Recreation expired on June 30, 2003. Staff is in the process of evaluating how to provide services to the local high schools beginning in the fall. · Youth Enrichment Services (YES) ProRram - The table below and on the next page illustrates attendance/participation figures for programs/services provided through the YES Grant for the month of June 2003. · Program June Attendance Mulberry Early Learning FACTS Center 485 Lions East FACTS Center 918 City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 16, 2003 Program June Attendance Parent Education Classes 8 classes; 115 in attendance KNOW Van 4 visits Car Seat Checks 63 Recreation Classes: · Contract Classes - Currently we have over 2,741participants registered into our 243 contract classes for the summer session. Youth Sports: · The next Sports Advisory Committee meeting will take place on October 8~. · The table below summarizes youth sports activities for the reporting pedod: Activity # of Age/Gender # Teams Participants Pee Wee Soccer 450 3-5/boys & girls 45 Youth Basketball 875 6-13/boys & girls 97 Youth Flag Football 220 6-13/boys & girls 20 Youth Soccer Camp 40 6-12 boys & girls N/A Summer Sports Camp 15 6-12/boys & gids N/A Northtown Collaborative 152 6-13/boys & gills 8 RC Family Sports Center: · The table below provides drop-in/open play participation at the Center for the reporting period: Activit~ # of Participants Adult Basketball 655 Youth Basketball 899 Adult Racquetball 450 Youth Racquetball 45 Adult Volleyball 19 Youth Volleyball 63 Jazzercise 1,272 · The' table below summarizes organized adult activity at the Sports Center during the reporting period: I Activity # of Participants Age/Gender # Teams Racquetball 31 Adult/Males N/A Basketball (full court) 100 Adult/Males 10 Basketball (3-on-3) 60 Adult/Males 12 City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 16, 2003 Adult Sports: · Five (5) adult softball toumaments will take place at the Epicenter and Adu It Sports Complex during the month of July 2003. · Twenty-six (26) adults are participating in our tennis leaaues this summer. · The table below summarizes adult sports activities at the Epicenter for the reporting period: Activity # of Participants #Teams Gender Softball 2,640 165 Males/Females Soccer 800 50 Males/Females F ag Football 80 8 Males Non-Profit Sports Organizations: · Bi-annually, the Community Services Department, through the Sports Advisory Committee allocates sport fields for non-profit or.qanized youth sport leaques. For the reporting pedod, 10 non-profit sport groups utilized 18 City parks and had 71,624 participants and 118,583 spectatom enjoying our parks during both practices and game times. Community Wide Special Events: · Fourth of July - The City hosted nearly 8,000 community members at our 4th of July Celebration at the Chaffey College Football Stadium on July 4th. The event included an afternoon of fun and games for youngsters and an evening fireworks show. · Concerts in the Park - Join us for an evening under the stars with our Concerts in the Park series beginning on July 10th and running through August 28th on Thursday evenings at 7:00 p.m. at the Red Hill Community Park Amphitheatre. This summer's lineup for bands include: July 10th -Amedcan Made (Country), July 17~ - The Ghosts of Radio (Oldies), July 24th - Steve Copeland & Raging Sun (Jazz/Blues), July 31~t - 80'sAIIstars (80's Rock), August 7th - The BASIX (Top 40), August 14th , Cold Duck (Classic Rock), August 21~t - Upstream (Reggae/Calyspo) and August 28th - The Answer (Classic Rock). Food vendors will also be available for everything from dinner fare to desserts. · Movies in the Park - This summer's lineup for movies include: Lilo & Stitch (July 7~h, ~h and 11~), Spy Kids 2 (July 14th, 16~ and 18th), Stuart Little 2 (July 21st, 23~d and 25~), Scooby Doo (July 28~, 30~h and August 1st), Return to Never Land (August 4th, 6~ and 8~), and The Rookie (August 11~, 13~ and 15~). Movies are held at dusk at Milliken Park on Monday evenings, Windrows Park on Wednesday evenings and Red Hill Park on Friday evenings th th beginning July 7 through August 15 . We are expecting about 300-600 people per showing for these free evenings. Snack will be available for purchase, courtesy of our TRAC program. · Our staff are currently creating and programming other upcominq events for 2003, which include: Founder's Day Parade, the Founders Night Gala and our Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony. City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 16, 2003 Performing and Cultural Arts: · Summer Proqrams Off To A Great Start - Our summer Performing Arts Programs began on June 21st with strong enrollment. Youth Theatre Workshop & Performance exceeding its maximum with a total of 22 students (between the ages of 6 - 11) enrolled in the 8-week program. The program concludes with a small theatrical production for family and friends. Vocal Expression & Performance program offered for youth age 7-13 also exceeded the maximum with 19 youngsters enrolled in the 5-week workshop to teach and develop singing technique skills. The Vocal Expressions program is also offered to teens and adults, both that have a steady base of ongoing students. The Talent Connection, offered for youth interested in commemial or film work also begun its summer session with 10 eager students. · "Bye, Bye Birdie" opening soon! - In th.e final weeks of rehearsal the 50's style musical is gearing up for the big opening night. The show features a cast of 56 local performers of all ages between 8 and 70! Performances are set for July 25, 26, 27, August 1,2, & 3 at Alta Loma High School Theatre. Tickets are now on sale at Lions East and the Community Services Dept at the Civic Center. Tickets are $8 for General Admission and $6 for Children and Seniors. "Bye, Bye Birdie" marks the City's 5t~ community theatre production since its inception in summer of 2001. This production is featured in the Inland Empire Ma.qazine as one of the top ten events for July 2003! · The RC Performance Troupe held their final performance on Saturday, June 21st with their Starlight Showcase that generated an audience of over 100. An evening of musical numbers performed by the Troupe and some of the individual members was complimented with a dessert bar and tasty beverages. The event was held at Lions West Community Center. Tickets were $8 per person which covered expenses for theatrical show lighting and sound system brought in for the Cabaret-style performance. The 2002-2003 Troupe was comprised of 19 youth between the ages of 8 and 14. Next year's troupe will grow in size and age allowing up to 30 members between the ages of 10 and 17. Auditions for next year's troupe will be held on September 2~. · Our Creative Camp 4 Creative Kids is getting the college treatment - A new arts day-camp program will be offered this summer providing out-of-school youth a place for artistic expression and lots of fun. As a collaborative program with Chaffey College - Wignall Museum/Gallery and the City's Cultural Arts Program, the day long camp (operating from §:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.) will offer visual arts activities and instruction in the morning hours and theatre arts programming in the afternoon. The program will be held at the Wignall Museum/Gallery on the college campus. The College and City are sharing the planning, staffing and proceeds. Creative Camp 4 Creative Kids is a weeklong program offered for four weeks during the summer from July 14~h through August 1st. Parks and Facilities: · The table on the next page provides information on park/special use facility reservations for the month of June 2003: City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 16, 2003 Location/Facility Attendance Number of Number Hours of Use Applications Processed of Rentals Red Hill 4,071 46 67 335 Community Park Picnic Shelters Heritage Community 1,918 29 35 148 Park Picnic Shelters Hermosa Park Picnic 505 18 20 86 Shelter Mi ken Park Picnic 1,065 27 30 111 Shelter Coyote Canyon Park 438 10 15 56 Picnic Shelter Civic Center Courtyard* 0 0 0 0 Amphitheater 1,240 5 5 29 Equestrian Center 180 6 6 19 Total 9,417 141 178 784 * Not available due te CMC Center construction project. Heritage Park Equestrian Center: ,, Equestrian Center usa.qe for the months of July 2003 is shown in the table below: Group. Date Event/Time Frame Alta Loma Riding Club July 3r~ Board Meeting/7:30p.m.-9:00p.m. Rising Stars of July 13t~ Dressage Show/7:00a.m.-5:00p.m. Equestrian Therapy Alta Loma Riding Club July 15t~ General Meeting/7:30p.m.-9:00p.m. Alta Loma Riding Club July 19m Show/4:00p.m.-10:00p.m. Facilities: · The table on the next page illustrates hours of service, number of bookings and number of participants for Lions East and West Community Center for the month of June. Facility Hours of Number of I Number of Participants Service Bookings r Lions East Community Center 6,239 136 250 Lions West Community Center 6,881 207 3,736 · Staff is meeting quarterly with users of the equestrian center to address maintenance needs and programming. Our local groups are very cooperative and supportive of the City's efforts. · Park monitors keep daily reports of activities in our parks, often helping out residents in need of assistance. Park and Recreation Commission: · The Park and Recreation Commission will not meet dudng July due to known lack of quorum. The next meeting of the Commission will be held on August 21st. City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 16, 2003 Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation: · The following items were discussed at the Community Foundation's July 8, 2003 meetinq: · Consideration of sponsorship of volunteers for the inland Empire Open to be held September 22-28, 2003. · Foundation Members update on solicitation efforts for the PAL Campaign for the Cultural Center Project. · Update regarding plans for the 2003 Founder's Gala to be held November 1, 2003. · Update on the Cultural Center Project. Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter: · The following events took place at the Epicenter dudng the reporting pedod: · Rancho Cucamonga Quakes - Fan Fest and All Star Game, June 24, 2003 - Epicenter Softball Fields (Fan Fest) and Epicenter Stadium (All Star Game). · Big Ticket Pictures - The Jamie Kennedy Experiment - Commemial Filming - July 3, 2003 - Epicenter Stadium. · Staff is in the process of working with the following applicants for future activities at the Epicenter: · Quakes - Concert- August 23, 2003 - Epicenter Stadium. · Amedcan Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) - Picture Day - September 6, 2003- Epicenter Soccer Fields. · Vons/Safeway - Celebrity/CEO Softball Tournament - September 27, 2003 - Epicenter Stadium. · Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce - Carnival and Grape Harvest Festival - October 2-5, 2003 - Epicenter Special Event Area. Kevin Mc~Ardle O'Neil Community Services Director Engineer I:iCOMMSERV1Council&BoardstCityCouncilIStaffReportst2OO3~update7.16.03. doc CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 16, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Debra Adams, CMC, City Clerk/Records Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL LIBRARY SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO REAPPOINT RAVENEL WIMBERLY TO THF LIBRARY BOARD RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the reappointment of Ravenel Wimberly to the Library Board of Trustees to serve a three-year term. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The term of office for Library Board Member Ravenel Wimberly has expired. Mr. Wimberly has indicated his desire to continue serving on the Board and has submitted a letter requesting his reappointment. The City Council Library Subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Alexander and Councilmember Howdyshell, met on July 2, 2003, to consider this request and are recommending reappointment of Ravenel Wimberly. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk/Records Manager CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 16, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Debra Adams, CMC, City Clerk/Records Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL LIBRARY SUBCOMMITTEE',~ RECOMMENDATION TO REAPPOINT REBECCA DAVIES~ GINO FILIPPI ANI~ ANNE VlRICEL TO THE LIBRARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the reappointment of Rebecca Davies, Gino Filippi and Anne Viricel to the Library Foundation to each serve a four-year term. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The terms of office for Library Foundation Members Rebecca Davies, Gino Filippi and Anne Viricel have expired. They have all indicated their desire to continue serving on the Foundation and have submitted letters requesting their reappointment. The City Council Library Subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Alexander and Councilmember Howdyshell, met on July 2, 2003, to consider this request and are recommending reappointment of Rebecca Davies, Gino Filippi and Anne Viricel. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk/Records Manager T H E C I T Y O F ~A N CiI 0 Cu CAI~I 0 NGA DATE: July 16, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: ANNEXATION PROPOSAL FROM WEST VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council issue a letter of support to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the West Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (the "District") to submit an annexation proposal. This letter will allow the District to proceed with their efforts to have a property owner vote for the annexation into the District through an assessment process to fund enhanced vector control services in the City. BACKGROUND/CURRENT SERVICES The District was formed in 1983 with the specific purpose of protecting the public health and welfare through proactive and regular control of disease carrying insects and rodents. The District's boundaries include the cities of Chino and Chino Hills and the southern portions of the cities of Montclair and Ontario. The District also provides services under contract to Ontario for the portion of that city not within District boundaries. In 1986, the City entered into a nominal contract with the District because of the District's ability to provide, at that time, needed help on fly eradication in areas near chicken ranches. It is not unusual that a city would begin vector control services through a contract prior to joining a special district. Since that time the nature of the service has changed as conditions in the City have changed. Gone are the chicken ranches and flies are no longer the number one problem. The largest numbers of vector control service calls received in the City are bees and rodents. Furthermore, new emerging vector-borne diseases like West Nile Page 2 July 16, 2003 PROPOSAL FROM WEST VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT virus and Hantavirus have created a greater public health risk that needs to be addressed. The District has provided excellent service to the City. The District's staff are responsive and have a good working relationship with our Code Enforcement Division. The City's budgeted contract amount for last fiscal year was approximately $63,000. During 2002 the District responded to 923 calls for service. Of these calls, the largest proportion was due to bees. Since the migration of Africanized Honey Bees into California, concerns over bee swarms have increased leading to a corresponding increase in bee related calls for service. Service requests and needs to address emerging vectors and vector-borne diseases will outstrip the ability of our City to have the District respond without the City formally joining the District like other communities. Analysis of Service Requests in Rancho Cucamonga (1987- 2002) Because of the changing nature of the service requests, the tremendous increase in the number of calls and the emergence of new pests and diseases, the District cannot provide the level of service needed to address the growing needs of the area with the available resources. Fifteen years ago it was sufficient to have a program that responded to complaints and service requests. That model is no longer adequate to address the public health needs of the more mature and developed community that we have become. Now, more proactive measures are needed to i address not only the traditional vectors and pests but also a variety of new, exotic Page 3 July 16, 2003 PROPOSAL FROM WEST VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT and deadly vectors. In response, the District has developed a proposal to annex our City and other areas in order to provide the necessary resources to do the job of addressing our vector control needs that are so important to public health. DISTRICT'S PROPOSAL The District is proposing to annex the City into its boundaries. This would allow the District to directly assess properties in the City, providing a higher revenue base to provide a higher level of service. The biggest enhancement to the service would be a change from a reactive service responding to requests to a proactive and regular vector control service. This would include routine testing and monitoring for diseases carried and transmitted by mosquitoes and rodents. Enhanced testing for new diseases or disease carrying insects entering the country from Ontario International Airport. Also, enhanced detection and control for new vectors such as the Asian tiger mosquito, which has recently been detected in Chino. The District is also very interested in increasing its ability to respond to the emergence of the West Nile virus. This virus is spreading throughout the country. California experienced its first confirmed case in a human last year when one person was found to be infected in Los Angeles County. The Centers for Disease Control has been surprised with how quickly this disease has spread and anticipates that there will be even more cases in 2003. In addition the district is also interested in increasing its ability to detect and prevent the spread of a wide range of mosquito borne arboviruses that can affect human and equine health and are a primary cause of viral encephalitis in the United States. ANNEXATION PROCESS The District proposes that the City Council send a letter of support to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). If this letter were provided, the District would make the formal request to LAFCO to start the process of annexation. LAFCO will review the request and make a recommendation. If LAFCO approves the proposal, they would then schedule a public hearing on the matter. The hearing would be advertised in newspapers of general circulation. At the public hearing, residents and property owners would be able to protest the annexation. If fewer than 25% of the property owners protest the annexation then the annexation process will move forward to an election. The election is held among property owners and ballots are mailed. Property owners have 45 days to return their ballots. During the balloting period, LAFCO will hold another public hearing to allow property owners to ask questions or to voice their opinions on the matter. After the public hearing the votes will be tabulated. The votes are weighted based on the proposed amount of the assessment for each property. If the vote is greater than 50% in favor then the measure passes and the annexation and assessment will be implemented. Page 4 July 16, 2003 PROPOSAL FROM WEST VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT The proposed rate for the assessment is $8 -$10/year for a single-family residence; approximately $51/year for each multi-family complex with less than 15 units and approximately $61/year for complexes with more than 15 units; and approximately $17/year for commercial/industrial property. The final amount would be determined by an assessment engineer's report that would be conducted prior to the election period. If this assessment were levied in the City it would generate approximately $375,000 annually for the District. ANALYSIS There are several issues that have to be considered in evaluating this proposal. Are there valid reasons for increasing vector control service? What are the costs for those services? Are there any alternatives to this proposal? Why Change Service Level There are compelling reasons to increase vector control service. The first reason is simply to keep pace with the increases in population and to address new pest concerns of our residents. An example is the increase of bee related calls since the Africanized Honey Bees reached California with the accompanying media attention. People are concerned about this new threat and as a result more calls are received regarding bee swarms. The District is concerned that the same type of thing may occur with calls for mosquitoes once the West Nile virus establishes itself in California. As people learn that mosquitoes carry the disease and as the number of cases increase over the next few years, people will be more sensitive to mosquitoes as a pest to be eradicated. Another reason for increasing service is to protect public health. New vectors and new vector-borne diseases are being introduced into California. The best defense against the spread of these vectors and diseases is proactive surveillance and control measures. Without these measures the potential public health risks are increased. What is the Cost Obviously, an increase in vector control service as outlined in the District's proposal will cost more than is currently paid through the City's contract. The approximately $375,000 collected through the District's assessment will be sufficient to provide the enhanced and expanded service. Should the City or residents decide not to become a part of the District and should we decide to keep service at its current level, the needs for service will still increase. It should be noted that due to the specialized nature of vector control, any one City is not able to support the costs for the service. The specialized staff and lab testing required is not economical for any single city. Page 5 July 16, 2003 PROPOSAL FROM WEST VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT. Currently, only nominal vector control service is paid for out of the City's General Fund. Should the City be annexed into the District, the General Fund would have a savings of almost $63,000 based on the fiscal 2002/03 budget. Should this occur then vector control would be fully funded and operated by the District. Options Assuming that the City wants at the very least to maintain service at current levels, there ara several options available and two possible service providers. The District and the San Bernardino County Vector Control Program are both able to provide the desired services. Special districts or counties normally provide vector control services to spread the costs over a larger population base and to address the reality that pests and diseases don't respect political boundaries and city limits. The first option is to keep the current nominal contract. The second option is to contract with San Bernardino County Vector Control. The third option is to increase the level of service through an amended and more expensive contract with either the District or the County. These three options will impact the General Fund at a time when we are contemplating cuts and fiscal restraint. Paying for specialized services from the General Fund is not practical. The fourth option is to be annexed by either the County or the District and receive a higher level of service through the District's or the County's property assessment. The City requested proposals from both the District and the County outlining the enhanced services they would provide, the costs for those services and the process necessary to implement services and related assessments. After reviewing the information provided by both agencies, the services provided would be comparable. The assessed rates charged by San Bernardino County Vector Control were less than the rates proposed by the District. The County rate per residential property is $5.62/year and the rate for commercial properties is Sg. Sg/year. However, the County indicated in its information that the current assessment is not sufficient to maintain their services and an increase is anticipated in the near future. With that in mind, there is not a large difference in the proposed assessment costs. While both agencies require a property owner election to implement their proposed assessments, they differ in their approach. The District would take the lead in their process and take responsibility for educating property owners and conducting the election with LAFCO. The County would provide supporting information but it would be the City's responsibility to run the process and hold the property owner election. As the District is capable of providing the necessary services for a comparable price to the County, and as the District has a history of excellent service in the City and is taking responsibility to educate the public and to hold an election, staff recommends Page 6 July 16, 2003 PROPOSAL FROM WEST VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT the District be given the opportunity to offer its enhanced vector control services to the City. CONCLUSION It is clear that the need for vector control service will continue to increase over time with an increasing population and new forms of vectors and vector-borne disease. As the need increases, the cost for providing the service will also increase. The City has a good history with the District that has provided trouble free service and excellent response to the City's needs. The proposal by the District provides a solution to the need for more service and enhanced public health and safety. Though it would mean a property assessment increase for property owners, the District will give the people a chance to have a direct say in the matter. Staff suggests that we should allow the District to proceed to state its case for enhanced vector control services to our property owners through public hearings and an election. Staff feels that there is a need for enhanced vector control services to protect our residents from vector-borne disease and to respond to the increasing calls for service that come with a growing city. Staff recommends that the City Council approve a letter of support for the District to process an annexation proposal before LAFCO. Respectfully submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager Attachments: Vector Control Services Information Request Vector Control Services Information (prepared by the West Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District) VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES INFORMATION REQUEST 1. General Information a. Governance and Policy i. How is your agency governed and managed (e.g. elected board of directors, appointed board of directors, County Board of Supervisors)? ii. What role will the City have in deciding the level of service or service priorities for the community? b. Please list a contact name for a community currently served by your agency that receives a level of service similar to that listed in the Request for Proposal. 2. Proposed Services a. Service Response i. How many staff will be assigned to Rancho Cucamonga and what will be their responsibility? How many total staff does the agency currently have and how many will be added to serve Rancho Cucamonga. Please break out how many field staff, technical support staff and administrative support staff the agency has, please include job titles or classifications. ii. What is your agency's response time to a call for service? What is the response time for an emergency call for service (i.e. Africanized Honey Bee incident)? iii. How will after hours calls be handled? iv. Will your agency respond to calls involving the following: flies, mosquitoes, rats, mice, Africanized Honey Bee (AHB), Yellow Jackets, roaches, opossums, skunks, squirrels, mites, ticks and fleas. Are there any other types of vectors or pests to which your agency responds? b. Surveillance i. Will your agency provide regularly scheduled surveillance for the following diseases: St. Louis Encephalitis, Western Equine Encephalitis, California Encephalitis Virus, West Nile Virus, Plague, Hantavirus, Arenavirus, and Lyme disease. Will your agency conduct regularly scheduled surveillance for any other diseases? ii. What type of surveillance methods will be used? If traps are proposed, specify the number and type of each trap recommended for use in Rancho Cucamonga. Will a Vector Control RFP Revised 5/21/2003 Page 1 of 3 sentinel flock be recommended for Rancho Cucamonga and if so where would it be located? iii. How often would traps and sentinel flocks be checked and tested? iv. What resources are available for testing specimens and how long do test results take? c. Control and Prevention i. What methods will be used to identify vector sources and how frequently will those methods be employed? ii. Describe the frequency and method used to monitor and treat identified vector sources? iii. Will your agency inspect the following types of vector sources: sewers, storm drains, catch basins, drainage basins, drainage channels, nurseries, residential sources, and green pools. What other vector sources will your agency routinely inspect? iv. What methods are used by your agency to inspect the sources identified above? v. Will your agency use pesticides to control vectors? If so, what types will be used and in what manner will the pesticides be broadcast? vi. Will your agency use biological vector controls? If so, what types will be used and in what manner will they be utilized? vii. How does your agency propose to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for use of pesticides? d. Public Education i. What approach will your agency use to inform and educate the general public about vectors, vector borne disease, control and prevention? How often throughout the year and how widely will you distribute educational material? ii. Describe what programs your agency intends to use to help educate students on vectors, vector borne disease, control and education? iii. How do you propose utilizing existing City resources like quarterly newsletters and cable television to inform the public? 3. Cost of Program a. What is the estimated annual direct cost to the City to provide the services outlined in your agency's proposal? b. Do you propose that the services provided be paid from a benefit assessment? If so, what benefit assessment rates are proposed Vector Control RFP Revised 5/21/2003 Page 2 of 3 single-family residential, multi-family residential, vacant, commercial and industrial parcel classifications? c. Does the your agency's benefit assessment have an annual inflator and if so what is the amount? d. Please describe in detail the process necessary to enable your agency to levy and collect the benefit assessment in Rancho Cucamonga. Please be sure to note any actions required of the City Council and whether an election or mailed ballot is required. Vector Control RFP Revised 5/21/2003 Page 3 of 3 VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES INFORMATION Presented by West Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District 13355 Elliot Avenue, Chino, CA 91710 Tel: 909-627-0931 Fax: 909-627-0553 Emaih wvmvcd~wvmvcd.or.q Website: www. wvmosquito.org Contact person: Min-Lee Cheng, Ph.D. District Manager Prepared on June 19, 2003 .ri 1. General Information a. Governance and Policy i. The governing power of the District is vested in a five-member board of trustees. One member each is appointed by the City Councils of Chino, Chino Hills, Montclair and Ontario with the remaining board member being appointed by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. After completion of annexation, a sixth trustee will be appointed to the District Board by the City of Ranch Cucamonga. This new Board member will be influential in deciding the level of service and service priorities for the City. The budget, benefit assessment rates, level of service and long term plan of the District are reviewed and approved by the Board before execution. The budget and proposed services will also be reviewed with the public in an annual public meeting. Moreover, it should be noted that if future mosquito and vector control services in the City are funded by a benefit assessment, a legal requirement of such funding is that all funds raised in the City must be expended on services for the City. As a result, there will be several layers of accountability and oversight to ensure that services are provided to the City in the most cost effective and responsive manner. b. The current trustees serving on the Board of the District and their job functions are as follows: Mr. Timothy Foster, President - City of Chino Hills, 909-861-6418. Mr. Glenn Duncan, Vice President - City of Chino, 909-590-3423. Ms. Isabel Briones, Secretary - City of Montclair, 909-628-6559. Ms. Barbara Gaddie, Trustee - City of Ontario, 909-947-0206. Mr. William Sitton, Trustee - County at Large, 909-628-0126. 2. Proposed Services a. Service Response i. Currently, the District is staffed by two and a half administrative personnel (including the District ManagedEntomologist, an Office Administrator and a part-time Office Assistant), an Assistant Vector Ecologist/Information Specialist, a Field Supervisor and nine Vector Control Technicians/Assistants. In general, the field staff provides the mosquito surveillance and vector control services, the Assistant Vector Ecologist / Information Specialist provides assistance with disease and vector surveillance and public information outreach, the administrative staff responds to citizen phone calls, provide vector and disease control information, data entry and handle other district administrative and financial duties. During the peak vector season, additional seasonal assistants are also hired on as needed basis. Under the current contract established with the City of Ranch~ Cucamonga in 1989, the District assigns 85% of a Senior Vector Control Technician to serve the residents in Rancho Cucamonga, including responding to service requests, inspection of vector breeding sites and coordination of vector abatement activities with the City Code Enforcement Department. (Recent coordination between the City and the District enabled for the resolution of several "green pools" and structural bee hive removals by Rancho Cucamonga property owners.) In addition to the Senior Vector Control Technician assigned to the City, services are provided by additional district staff to allow the District to fulfill its 24-hour turn-around time pledge. This rapid response time is particularly important for emergency calls, such as for bee control. Public outreach activities are also provided by a full-time Assistant Vector Ecologist/Information Specialist and the District Manager on an as needed basis. As the City has grown in physical size and residential population, and development has expanded into foothills and former agricultural land, the demand for vector control service has steadily increased. This is evident by the increase in vector control service requests over the past ten years outlined in the table below. Zones 1 through 4 are Chino, Chino Hills, S. Ontario, S. Montclair and unincorporated County properties that are within the District boundaries. FY03 FY02 FY01 FY00 FY99 FY98 FY97 FY96 FY95 FY94 Zone I 125 106 101 83 59 98 67 129 102 41 Zone 2 1,153 894 793 533 458 370 422 373 403 289 Zone 3 59 58 52 79 58 85 139 146 127 53 Zone 4 376 219 185 227 215 235 286 238 320 225 RC 720 895 928 719 572 434 368 364 386 358 N. Ont. 313 485 434 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2,746 2,657 2,493 1,641 1,362 1,222 1,282 1,250 1,338 966 If the City approves the annexation, the District plans to assign two full time Vector Control Technicians, a 20% Vector/Disease Control Information Specialist, a 15% Vector Ecologist and 20% of administrative personnel support to serve the needs of Rancho Cucamonga residents. The two Vector Control Technicians would be charged with responding to all residents' service requests, inspecting potential vector breeding sites, assisting Vector Ecologist in vector population and disease surveillance programs, and coordinating with the City on vector abatement issues. The Vector/Disease Control Information Specialist would be tasked with increasing public outrea,~/'.,I and vector/disease awareness within the City. (Additional technical and field staff will be hired to fulfill these obligations.) ii. As stated previously, the District maintains a response time of 24 hours or less for service. Bee calls are not always urgent. However, true urgent bee calls (Africanized or not) are always handled with the highest priority. The District maintains effective communication with the field personnel via Nextel phone/radio/internet services. Urgent service requests (e.g. bee calls from schools, swarms or hives found in public parks) are forwarded to the Nextel phones of the field personnel for immediate response. It should be noted that the proposed level of services for the City will result in improved response times and an enhanced ability of the District to proactively address vector issues and problems before they result in calls from residents. iii. Currently the District provides some after hours service on an as needed basis. iv. We will respond to service requests for flies, mosquitoes, rats, mice, AHB, yellow jackets, roaches, opossums, skunks, raccoons, mites, ticks, fleas as well as snakes. We also provide telephone consultation and on site visitation and advice on controlling ground squirrels, pigeons and other pests. We also provide pest specimen · identification service to' residents in our District laboratory. b. Surveillance i. We conduct regularly scheduled surveillance for St. Louis encephalitis, Western Equine encephalomyelitis, West Nile virus, Hantavirus, Arenavirus, Lyme disease and plague. California encephalitis occurs in very Iow incidence and is not routinely monitored by any of the Californian Mosquito and Vector Control Districts. In response to the impending arrival of West Nile virus, we proactively expanded our arbovirus / vector population surveillance program to north Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga in 2003. The proposed annexation and enhanced services for the City will allow the District to further proactively enhance disease surveillance services and other disease prevention services. This enhanced level of surveillance will enable the District to better respond to new and emerging public health threats. ii. We will employ carbon dioxide baited traps to monitor adult mosquitoes. We will also use gravid traps for collecting gravid female mosquitoes. The adult mosquito surveillance has dual function - population density and arbovirus isolation. Sentinel chicken flocks are © used to monitor the presence arboviruses in this area. Ethanol traps are used to monitor adult fly populations in the community. We constantly look out for other disease agents that are potentially -~/~ dangerous to our area, such as malaria, dengue fever, Japanese encephalitis, etc. and exotic vectors such as the Asian tiger mosquito and others. We will incorporate other diseases in our surveillance program when they pose a threat to the health and safety of the local residents and visitors. If the annexation is approved, we plan to deploy 6 carbon dioxide baited traps in Rancho Cucamonga. We have already installed a sentinel chicken flock on the southern city limits between Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario near the Ontario International Airport. If the annexation is approved, we plan to install additional sentinel chicken flocks in Rancho Cucamonga along with gravid traps in the following two locations: Banyan and Sapphire near the Demens Creek Channel, and Hillside Road near the Deer Creek where mosquitoes are likely to be found. In order for this surveillance program to be most effective, the traps must be regularly monitored and the trapped insects must be tested for diseases. With the proposed annexation and enhanced services, the District will have sufficient staffing levels and funding dedicated to the City to provide ongoing, enhanced disease surveillance, monitoring and control. iii. Adult mosquito traps (both the carbon dioxide baited and gravid) will be operated year-round to monitor their seasonal abundance and nearest breeding sources. Certain adult mosquito species, e.g. Culex quinquefasciatus and Culex tarsalis will be pooled and tested as needed for arboviruses during the peak mosquito season between the months of April and November. The sentinel chickens will be bled on schedule for disease detection throughout the year. iv. The mosquito pools will be tested by the TaqMan RT-PCR method at the University of California, Davis for arboviruses (SLE, WEE and WNV). The turnaround time is about two weeks. The sentinel chicken blood samples will be tested by ELISA serological method at the California State Health Service .Department Viral and Rickettsial Disease Laboratory in Richmond, CA. The turnaround time also is two weeks. An alternative laboratory for testing sentinel chicken blood samples is at the Orange County Vector Control District with which our District has maintained a close collaborative working relationship. There is also a commercially available dipstick test for te~ arbovirus infected mosquito samples. The District plans to eval~'~ this test as a screening tool to shorten turnaround time. Further. the"~"A District also plans to collaborate with other neighboring Dist;icts~'~. academic scientists and the clinical chemistry industry to develop in- house dipstick-like tests for mosquito and sentinel chicken blood samples. New tests offer the possibility of greater accuracy and rapid result.s. The District Manager has had thirteen years of professional experience in both clinical chemistry test research and development and management in the clinical chemistry industry. This background provides the District with an excellent footing for effectively leveraging the latest advancements in vector surveillance and abatement technology. The District maintains close working and professional ties with the University of California at Riverside, the University of California at Davis, California State Department of Health Services, other mosquito and vector control districts and programs throughout the state. The District also communicates and collaborates with out-of-state experts in vector biology and vector-borne diseases for information exchange and technical support. c. Control and Prevention i. Vector source identification · Visual inspection and sampling are the primary means of identifying vector sources. This would be done weekly or biweekly for known vector breeding sites, such as dairy waste lagoons, flood control channels, street drains, catch basins, etc. · Helicopter aerial surveillance is an effective means employed by the District to detect "green" swimming pools/spas. A neglected swimming pool or spa can breed thousands of mosquitoes if unabated. After each flight the District incorporates the aerial photographs on computer for analysis and identification. This surveillance technique is performed seasonally as needed. With the annexation of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, helicopter aerial surveillance could become a routine surveillance tool in the City, helping to minimize one of the worst urban mosquito breeding sources. · Appropriate traps (e.g. carbon dioxide baited adult mosquito traps, rodent traps, ethanol baited fly traps) also are useful in locating vector sources. These traps are checked on a regular basis. eComplaints from concerned citizens lead District technicians to find unexpected vector breeding sources. · District technicians also work closely with city code enforcement personnel, whose referrals are important sources of information of vector problems. Referrals also come from other vector c(~ districts, fire departments, peace officers and city employees. ii. Source elimination is the primary objective of our Distr ct Sources are"'?~ identified and mapped using a variety of techniques including sta~ surveillance, investigations that result from service calls, and other approaches including periodic helicopter flights to look for other hard- to-find sources such as green pools. If sources cannot be eliminated, their routine inspection schedules will be built into our vector control operations. Treatment is done on as needed basis. iii. Our District technicians will routinely inspect sewers, storm drains, catch basins, drainage basins, drainage channels, nurseries, residential sources and green pools. In addition, we will also inspect dairy corrals, waste lagoons, and settling ponds, Water District reservoir, parks, wetlands, and cemeteries for vector breeding sources. iv. See i and ii above. v. Very few effective pesticides are still available for vector control professionals for controlling vectors and they are used only as the last resort if source elimination or modification fails. Golden Bear mosquito oil is used where it is appropriate to control emerging mosquito pupae and late stage larvae. Our preference is to use bacteria-based materials or insect growth regulator-based materials or mosquitofish to control immature mosquitoes. These products are more environmentally friendly, but their costs are 6 to 10 times that of mosquito oil. The bacterial based control products derived from soil are specifically targeted at mosquito larvae. If annexation were approved, additional funding would be available, allowing for greater reliance on the more environmentally friendly (and costly) control products such as bacteria based materials. Our District is among the first to use a mixture of two bacteria-based control products to control mosquito larvae in highly organic water. The rational is based on the latest reports by the experts at the University of California at Riverside. They reported that the mixture offers an excellent synergistic effect in controlling mosquito larvae and retards development of resistance in mosquito larvae to the bacterial control products. Occasional use of adulticides, such as SUSPEND, may be necessary in a localized conditions to control adult mosquitoes resting in underground drainage pipes. oBvroadcast of pesticides to control mosquito larvae is only app~r~)e.~ M~ I~ige areas, such as Prado Basin. ~__~_~. vi. i m m qa t ~tr~fir~ho s~rueit c~eSse dw ~eSr;vebr iOa ~ii~lb i~O~ntc~Olrnapgaec~ to fnO rot ~ rn~ ~i o rro~ aquatic system) and sustainable. Backyard decorative ponds, abandoned swimming pools or spas and certain catch basins are ideal places for planting mosquitofish to control mosquito breeding. The District maintains and breeds mosquitofish at its headquarters in Chino. Mosquitofish are available to residents upon request free of charge. vii. The District is in compliant with all applicable laws and statues governing the use of hazardous products. In addition, the District uses such products only as a last resort when other soume reduction and abatement techniques have been unsuccessful. Currently, the District is working in concert with other Southern California Mosquito and Vector Control Districts, the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California and American Mosquito Control Association in approaching the NPDES issues. Our position is that public health pesticides are regulated under FIFRA and are not pollutants if used according to the labels. The District will continue to monitor the development of this issue closely and act accordingly per the District Board's direction and the Association majority decision. The flood control channels running through the West Valley of the County are the responsibility of the San Bernardino Flood Control District. In turn, it has a contractual agreement with the San Bernardino Environmental Health Department Vector Control Program to control mosquito and other aquatic vector breeding. Because of their proximity to the residences the District serves, the District Vector Control Technicians diligently monitor breeding of mosquitoes and other vectors along these channels and notify the County Vector Control Program if control measures become necessary. d. Public Education i. The District currently uses a va[iety of vehicles to spread information on vectors, vector-borne diseases, control and prevention to the public. If the annexation is approved, 20% of an additional Vector/Disease Control Information Specialist will be assigned to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to increase public awareness on these important issues and to better educate the public on how to protect their families and pets from diseases carried by insects and rodents. Following is a list of the current outreach approaches used by the District that would be carried out in the City: · Public access television (District animated vector and (~)~ borne disease slides have been played on Local Public Channels regularly in the past few months. About 30% of residents who call the District have referenced the District~s/r~/..., commercial slides as their source for information) · Radio station (A recent interview on West Nile Virus and public service announcements) · City newsletters · District Website (www.wvmosquito.or,q) · City utility bill inserts · Newspapers (More than a dozen articles regarding vectors and vector-borne diseases have been published in the Chino Champion, the Daily Bulletin, the Press Enterprise and the LA Times/Inland Voice in the last fifteen months as a result of interviews with the District) · Television (interviews with major local channels regarding Hantavirus) · Local fair events (Cucamonga Water District Fair, Big 5 Health Fair, Fire District Fair, etc.) · Presentations at schools, civic groups, government agencies, home owner associations, etc. · Hosted meeting with the City Code Enforcement Department personnel from each city to discuss mutual assistance in vector abatement related issues · Vector and vector-borne disease brochures · News / press releases · One-on-one personal contact · Opened summer seasonal job opportunities to local college students · Offer training on vectors to public agencies (We trained the entire Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department on Africanized Honey Bee Control and Safety and West Nile Virus in 2002, and annual snake training for Chino Hills Public Works and Parks and Recreation Department personnel.) We continue to enhance our public education program, having added half a technical staff person to assist in the outreach effort. We also plan to offer evening classes/seminars on vector biology and vector- borne diseases to the public in the near future. ii. This year, we have mailed letters to 25 local schools to inform them of the availability of various vector related presentations to students at different grade levels. We made one presentation at Jasper Elementary School on "Living with Honey Bees" recently. In addition, we are in the process of developing a more comprehensive program for school students. The VectodDisease Control Information Specialist proposed for the City would help to create and other educational approaches for students. We also opened seasonal job positions to college level students and~/~ hired two students to work with us during this summer to learn abo~ff vector and vector-borne disease control and prevention techniques. With additional funding, we plan to expand this program to offer internships to students from both two-year and four-year colleges and universities in Southern California who show an interest in this field. iii. We have already started using city newsletters, cable television and utility bill inserts to distribute vector and vector-borne disease control and prevention information. We plan to continue to provide relevant vector and vector-borne disease information to the city newsletter editors in a timely fashion to be considered for publication. 3. Cost of Program a. The City has been contracting the District' to provide essential vector control services since 1987. Although, the service provided by the District has been largely reactive in nature, a high degree of satisfaction has been realized by City residents. The budgeted annual cost of the contractual service is about $ 83,000 in FY 02/03, but is expected to reach around $90,000 by the end of June 2003. Based on a recent cost analysis using actual time expended by staff on services for the City, the actual cost for the District to provide the current level of vector control service is estimated at $150,000. In other words, the District has been Subsidizing the contract expenses with funding from the District's general reserve. With our dwindling general reserve, the District will be unable to continue to subsidize services. Cost of Vector Control Service In fiscal years, 00/01, 01/02 and 02/03 (first three quarters) as shown in the table below, the District devoted 11- 12% of its field person-hours to serve Rancho Cucamonga residents. The re-imbursements received by the District were substantially lower than the actual costs of the District to provide such vector control service. Total District District Total RC District Hourly Cost to Field Service District Field Rate(2~ Provide Person- Contract Reimburse. Annual Person- (budget I Vector Hours Budget from RC Budget Hours field hr) Service FY02/03(~) 1,782 $62,569 $51,730(~) $1,260,735 19,760 $64 FY01/02 2,325 $57,290 $49,981 $1,224,015 19,760 $62 $144,150 FY00/01 2,114 $54,766 $53,756 $1,196,977 19,760 $61 $128,954 family home) would be proposed for property owners. All property owners in the City would receive a ballot and will have the opportunity to vote on whether they support the proposed annexation and assessment. The annexation and commencement of the services would be contingent upon support from property owners in their ballot proceeding. If approved, the assessment would be levied on each parcel to support an enhanced, proactive vector control service program similar to that in place in other cities within the District's limits. With such a funding mechanism in place, the City would no longer need to fund the vector control service contract. A recent scientific poll conducted by Shilts Consultants, Inc. found that a super-majority (68%) of Rancho Cucamonga property owners is in support of an annual assessment of up to $22 per year for enhanced vector control services. This poll has a margin of error of less than 4%. Therefore, we conclude that property owners in the City are very supportive of the proposed enhanced services and assessment. When presented with alternatives, they would rather pay more for full vector control services than pay less for somewhat reduced services. b. To provide vector control service comparable to other cities within the boundaries of the District in FY 03/04, we anticipate that the budget will be in the neighborhood of $375,000. We are proposing that the services be paid from a benefit assessment levied on each parcel within the City and its sphere. We suggest a benefit assessment rate of $8-10 for a single family residence, with rates for commercial/industrial properties determined by their acreage and rates for multi-family property determined by their number of units. Specific rates for these non-single family home properties will closely match the $8-10 rate, however they will not be defined until an Engineer's Report is developed that analyzes the property base and benefit spread (Engineer's Reports are required to run a proposition 218 benefit assessment measure. It should also be noted that the recent survey included business and apartment owners and presented these owners with their actual estimated assessments. Even the largest property owners with the corresponding higher annual assessments were in support of this proposal.) c. An annual inflator tied to CPI may be built into the assessment to allow adjustment for inflation and the cost of providing the services. This adjust.,ment will be tied to the annual CPI change and will be cappecl(-~a ~t~o.,,, more ~nan a 3% increase per year. The first step is to secure support from the City Council for the District' ~ d. sphere expansion and annexation in the form of a resolution or a letter to LAFCO. A protest hearing will be hosted by LAFCO after the District has filed the necessary application forms and documents, and public noticing by publication in representative local newspapers. If less than 25% of the property owners protest the sphere expansion, the annexation process will begin. Assessment ballots with information describing the annexation, the services to be provided and the proposed assessment for their property will be mailed to all property owners within the annexation area. Ballots will be mailed back over a 45 day balloting period. A Public Hearing and public meeting will be held by the District to allow residents to voice additional opinions and ask questions about the measure. After the Hearing is closed, ballots will be tabulated by an independent firm and results will be presented to the District. If a weighted majority of ballots returned are in support of the measure, the assessments can be approved by the District board and can be' levied on the coming year's property tax bill. (The weighting of ballots means that each ballot is "weighted" by the proposed amount of assessment for the property. This weighting approach, which was created by the Jarvis Taxpayers Association, gives business and apartment owners a real say in the outcome. In other words, everyone who is being asked to pay for the services has a vote and every vote is weighted by the amount that the property owner will pay.) If the measure is not supported by a majority of ballots returned, the assessments will not be levied and LAFCo will not validate the annexation.